"The Disney of Empathy." Wow. While I'm a big fan of listening to each other, there also has to be an understanding that there still is an objectively right and wrong and the answer to one group wanting to wipe another one out is not, "Listen to both sides." You can't really compromise between "I deserve human rights" and "You don't deserve to exist." Great perspective as always, Alice! 🙂
I would say it is worth it to explore both (or more) perspectives on pretty much every issue, but only with people who take the discussion and the science of it seriously. If they are interested in their truth more than scientific facts, critical thinking and logic overall, they aren't worth talking to. Such debates won't give any senseful and benefitial results, but unfortunately most of todays discussions are framed this way, since its more entertaining and profitable.
@pendragon2012 I see you have arrived at what some call level 7 of hierarchical thinking. Basically it's various levels of conscientiousness with level 6 being the "all ideas and cultures are valid" where level 7 weighs the pros and cons of various ideologies or perspectives and decides some are more valuable than others. A good example is a Christian deciding that the Bible versus on burning the infidel/non-believer to not be a good tenant of faith in the present day.
I think that might have been true once but so much of these topics are getting to be one whether groups of humans deserve to live and there can't be any compromise on that. But for purely policy opinions a good discussion is hard to beat. 🙂
@@Daniel-rb9feLikewise, one should not debate anything with someone who cannot grasp that being "scientifically right" does not make you right - often times those who appeal the most to science are also those who seem to twist it the most for the ideological agendas.
@ville__ Well, actually, did you know that HITLER WAS A PERSON, and so is Alice. They both DRANK WATER, TOO! AND SO DID POL POT! Dude let's cancel all water drinkers
this really reminds me of that quote where the unjust person asks you to meet them in the middle but they keep going backwards, so you end up going backwards to meet them in the middle haha
Exactly The right have been pulling the "centre" further and further right until we've ended up with now I thought when I was in my early twenties that the world would get kinder and kinder during my lifetime Im now a really disappointed 44 year old
Clearly if one group wants to take all of your rights away and you want to keep all your rights, the only fair compromise is to just take some of your rights, yes?
@@toi_techno Donald Trump's takes the position of a moderate Democrat from the 90's and the left now considers him a nazi. Maybe you're the one moving?
As an immigrant the limits of empathy are obvious in the "model immigrant" trope. So many times have people warmed up to me and then elevated me as an exception. Like the amount of times I have to remind people that no it's not that I am industrious and the others are lazy it's that we are all working to survive and they simply get to see my work while the others are invisible. I have to keep reminding people who like me that the way they talk about other foreigners is the way other natives talk about me. Empathy has clear limits when it comes to building perspective
I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this but I felt like I related to what you said, and wanted to share my experience. My experience might have some problematic thoughts so I'm open to having conversations about them, but basically that I feel like I've avoided being racially profiled or discriminated because I fit into the "model immigrant" ideal. I was compared to my peers and I bought into it, excluding myself from people in my grade who I thought were troublemakers (but really it was also me racially profiling). It's terrible the way teachers feed stereotypes right in the classroom, and that I didn't question it earlier because I benefitted from it. I'm trying to be more cognizant now though and uplift other POC instead of bringing people down
@@miau6451 you have to do what you need to to get by tbh, you don't get around trying to appeal to the sensibilities of natives so that you don't have to deal with needless extra shit. I had a similar experience to you and also used to perpetuate it myself when I was younger and dumber. I definitely stopped letting people get away with it now.
I experience a similar thing with my queer identity because a lot of people don't see my kind outside of mainstream media representations of my kind and thus they have never seen a working class queer just trying to breathe air and drink clean water. Same thing, they think they can get away with talking down other queers because of the refuse they are fed by media. There is no "model queer" though, not in the same sense. My empathy exists for suffering beings, it is a neurological phenomenon that has nothing to do with liberal morals or ethics. It is my mirror neurons firing because I recognize suffering in others. In this case I recognize a pattern of situation I experience myself, thus the neurons fire, albeit on a more abstract level. Peace and clean water to you, fellow!
Had this conversation this morning with my co workers who have no understanding of immigration or actual levels in historical context. One who was a white immigrant upset at the Indians because it's different now from when he came here...yeah we had a recession at that time so why did we high levels of white immigrants when "native" born people where struggling. Look at facts not rhetoric of the right who where in power during other times of high immigration. "But this effects my kids", just as it did to other before you that welcomed you anyways.
I listened to a lecture by a Palestinian architect Sandi Hilal, and she expressed her frustration with how other people always want to include her. She said she doesn't want to be included, she wants to include others.
yeah, typical white saviour woke idpol victimization narratives that put marginalized groups into boxes, it's just a neverending loop of virtue signaling and FAUX-leftism/anarchism..
May be, she should be saying something that people want to hear or discuss, instead of just being someone people want to include as a token Muslim/Arab/Palestinian/Woman.
Agreed. I had a Nigerian friend who was living in USA in the height of the black lives matter movement. He actually told me he felt more marginalised since then because white liberals stopped seeing him as a real person. They kept apologising and fake including him to social circles as their token black friend and he just wants others to see him as he is -- who is a very smart engineer, a person of great sense of humor, and a caring father and partner, And liberals often fail to see that being brainwashed by the identity politics.
This reminds me a lot of the way media frames science discussions: let's have a panel with an expert and a denier. It's not an actual discussion to help people understand the topic, it is attention seeking drama. And it also makes it seem as though there is some sort of "reasonable middle" between two positions, which is not just false balance, but neglects any other views to frame a discussion in very narrow terms.
That reminds me to a debate in the spanish podcast "the wild project" where conspirationist discussed with a doctor on physics, It was more of a show than a debate. And the worst of all is that the physics doctor said that for the fact of accepting the debate, there were lot of people who criticized him and didn't let the liberty of different point perspectives.
@@konyvnyelv. sorry, I'm not understanding which point you are making. Are you saying this deliberate narrowing of debate will continue whether we want it to or not?
*for me, its the nonsense aesthetic of "we disgree but we can get along anyway! lets hug!" thing... like, no... you can't just disagree and move-on because some people disagree on certain things to the point where they will not just move-on and leave people alone.* they will get political power to force their opinion on you. Agreeing to disagree is fine for food or art or music, but peoples right to exist or the validity of their lovelife or their bodily integrity is NOT up for debate and no, *you don't get to disagree and move-on... you're a threat to me and people like me, if you do.*
"You're a threat to me and people like me" is the same crap white supremacists say about people of color to justify their hatred. And there are a lot of people who would argue that being forced to pay more taxes to cover increases in welfare (most of which goes to the rich anyways) and regulation (most of which is selectively enforced against the poorest targets possible, if not just designed to target the poor) is having the opinions of others forced onto them, too. This isn't a left-right issue, this is an issue with violent government enforcement being the primary means to make things happen in general: the ideologies which prosper under that set of incentives will naturally be violent and authority-favored, either way. People have the right to be "wrong," and vote "wrong." That's democracy.
I think it's important not to be extreme while still uphold our moral compass. If a person disagree with someone, instead of treating them like the enemy of the state, it is crucial to understand where they are coming from and why they adopted that worldview. Esp our everyday lives are bombarded daily with propaganda by the state, corporations and billionaires. Take for example some swifties who would defend and excuse their pop idol Taylor swift for her part in huge carbon emissions and silence over the genocide in Gaza. We should speak out louder and put pressure to Taylor and her hardcore fan group, but we should also be mindful not to see them as good vs evil, which could easily lead to dehumanisation of the other. It should be viewed more like, propaganda vs truth, and we as individual play the role as an activist and educator.
In my experience, people will more often seek political power to stop others from inflicting their will or opinion on society. As they amass more power from politics, they begin to inflict their will on others. At its best politics is defensive, at its worst, offensive.
I agree that class should be talked about in these conversations. It’s the elephant in the room for sure. We’re so focused on sex, sexuality, race, that it often feels like we divide further and further meanwhile the rich are rarely brought up. I am a queer femme brown indigenous person, so lots of different avenues of identity there. But I have been in rooms with other queers and gays who were very wealthy and just because we share one commonality didn’t mean we shared the same life experiences. Even with other people of color. Class is everything
It’s an important lesson to aways be wary of the person who tries to avoid class politics. No matter what they might say they’ll always be most loyal to the money and whatever lets it keep moving.
@@007kingifrit it's not the only relevant thing, though, but it presents a huge obstacle to making progress in other fields. It's not the only obstacle, and it's not the surmountable one at this time.
@@caffetiel i'll let you in on a little secret boy, there is no such thing as progress. history is a wheel and people are naturally born unequal. there is nothing to fix, the "wage gap" for example is because women choose lower paying jobs
Empathy, like desires for peace, are strategies used by Liberals to cope with their cognitive dissonance. Liberals often have a self-righteous belief in their moral superiority achieved through comparing themselves to their more conservative or regressive peers (while excluding their more progressive peers). Liberals at their center seek to maintain the core foundational elements of society. They seek to maintain the status quo and are, by definition, largely conservative. They experience a lot of anxiety when pressed to address structural root causes that lead to injustices and inequities. It is why identity politics plays such a pivotal role in Liberal strategies. By focusing on identity politics, Liberals can achieve a feeling of moral superiority and ‘progressive’ accomplishment without having to disrupt most of the status quo - much of which they rely on for their own status. The cosmetic and performative nature of Liberals is hardly a new critique. The refusal to support material changes to existing structures to alleviate injustice and inequities was raised by civil rights leaders including MLK and Malcolm X. Liberals fear tension (hence all the performative hugging in the Jubilee videos) and are run from any meaningful disruption to the status quo. Liberals paint themselves as champions of equality and justice but in the end merely trade in performative power politics, often advocating for their tribe to be the rulers, not for a material systemic transformation that leads to more egalitarian, equitable, fair, justice outcomes for all.
I'm self aware this is incredibly reductive: Are you suggesting is is non-beneficial to hold liberal beliefs? All liberal beliefs? Or some liberal beliefs? Smiles. Did I use reductive properly?... Anyway I found what you said interesting.
Dang... You just dropped some science, son! I couldn't agree more. I don't even really have anything to add to that. Because that was comprehensive. And the whole 'empathy' phenomenon is pretty much at a fever pitch. I don't think you can listen to NPR for more than fifteen minutes without hearing the term dropped at least five times. Or if they're on a roll you might hear it fifty times. Liberals are fairly drug-addicted to empathy by this point. And it appears as if, if this video is any indication, that perhaps the resonant power of this totally hollow and self-serving, and by now rather hackneyed bit of liberal verbiage is starting to wear thin. And the empathy wave will have broken. Soon to be replaced by some new neologism liberals can hide behind....
@@lizlorde3190 I was referring to Liberals, not liberal ideals (e.g., pluralism, toleration, autonomy and equality) - and the fact that while there is some overlap, Liberals are essentially performative actors that in reality aren't living up to the ideals. Instead the ideals are selectively applied for certain identities as part of an identity politic strategy while also doing nothing to disrupt the status quo structures that allowed for these ideals to be undermined.
Studying ethics, political theory, and sociology right now. I'm so tired. I applaud your continued efforts to shed light on these issues. Personally, I would like to forget about my moral and ethical obligations and go full hermit.
@@andrewbaumann2661 I think you're being very uncharitable here in your interpretation of OC's comment. OC is likely trying to communicate about compassion-fatigue and the general sense of overwhelm and hopelessness when it feels like you're one of the too few people involved in both the fight and awareness of injustice and inequality. Trying your best to do your civic duty to protect whatever current freedoms/rights/consensus you have plus the ones you know society needs to embrace to ensure that the existence of marginalised & lower economic classes also get their fair share out of life and existence. It's necessary work that needs to happen but it's... a lot. So much. And given most countries' political climate right now, where insular, ethno-nationalist or outright fascist right-wing populism is in the ascendancy, it's ... Jesus. It feels like you'll never get anywhere. It's not that OC is failing at a superfluous dream here like you seem to believe (?). Like they're just failing to put their talents to use and not realising their potential like being a movie director or something. I'm not even sure where you got dreams from? OC also *didn't* say that while they feel like they want to be a hermit and shut out their moral and social obligations - they didn't say that's what they were *definitively doing*. They were just expressing a deep frustration and fear. One in my opinion is understandable given the circumstances. And also those "obligations you think they impose on you" ... again that's kinda wild to me? I don't know whether there's been some miscommunication, maybe a bit of language and cultural context barrier but uh ... what? Are you referring to the general sense of responsibility and care that all humans owe to one another just by virtue of living in a society? Is that truly an unreasonable ask? Genuinely asking because your comment came off as unnecessarily dismissive for just the most bizarre of reasons.
@@akinyiomer4589 Yeah, essentially. It wasn't meant to be a deep philosophical reflection. I was just trying to show support for Alice and her channel. Gotta feed that algorithm. That said, yes. The hermit comment was not meant to be taken literally. Writing a long essay comparing Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau's take on the state of nature and when I go to take a break I get into argument where somebody was supporting Trump's appointment of Betsy Devos as head of the department of education. They said, and I'm not kidding, public money should be used to fund private and public schools equally. That way parents get to choose where they send their children to school. My head almost exploded so I just had to walk away. So yes, sometimes I feel like I just want to shut out the world and take a nap. My motivation for working toward a more equitable world is internal, not external. I do not feel pressured by other people into this. I believe deeply that it is the right thing to do, probably mostly just because it *feels* really, really bad to be a firsthand witness of how poorly many people are treated. It can be hard to remain hopeful in the conditions which you very eloquently described, though. And, of course, I'm literally tired. Midterms suck.
Awesome conversation here. You also owe some of that effort to yourself, you won't help anyone if you're beat up! Terrible things are happening but I believe sometimes we need to take time for good things, just to understand why we are doing anything in the first place. Hope you can rest a little bit.
Wow, you’ve spoken to something I’ve experienced when taking politics with my liberal family, for the record I’m liberal as well but anytime I get animated or emotional about a topic they shut my arguments down because I was too “emotional” it always felt wrong and weird to act like politics aren’t inherently emotional
@@M_k-zi3tn isn’t politics inherently emotional though? Being logical and dispassionate does help when your doing things like science but politics isn’t like that
Narcissists always want those kinds of relationships to go one way. I've never gotten real respect from my own family, even in subjects in which I have genuine expertise.
I find that jubilee is increasingly having contestants that are already activists for their cause and have a large online platform already, so their whole career is based on promoting their beliefs. they obviously won't change their minds and want to look good for their fans too. I'd love to see more 'regular' citizens and not activists. Also, I agree about them being made to stand in their in-group on opposite sides of the room - optically, it reinforces division.
yeah the problem is when you bring in regular citizens it’s harder to make sure they’re all equally capable of articulating their beliefs. but if you bring in ‘professionals’ they may be more focused on convincing the audience rather than listening to each other
Interesting thing about "both extremisms theory": it was used by the commission investigating the military junta that staged the coup of 1976 in Argentina. It was called the "theory of the two demons", and you can still find people citing it as the reason for that horrific time in my country.
Babe stop this meme is starting to annoy me 😅 Though i guess it helps with the algorithm. I'm not religous, but i'm willing to sacrifice to our real overlords :D
There are many problems with the concept of empathy, but the main is the selective empathy (which we see now). Focussing on empathy is not the way to go, unless people are taught to have empathy towards everyone. But in our society, we are not. Therefore, empathy is usally only displayed towards certain groups, groups that we think are "relatable" to us, that we are told are relatable or close to our society. When Russia attacked ukraine, people were saying we need to help ukrainians, because their culture is close to ours and because they look like us. And it meant a gigantic outpoor of empathy which resulted in hundreds of people helping, taking ukrainian refugees without discussion, and many people and organisations helping with integration. (All things I highly support, only it should have been like this with refugees from whichever country). When the women in Iran were protesting we had empathy because they wanted to live like "us", with their hair uncovered. So far, no problem, right? It becomes problematic when the group in questions is not "relatable" to us and therefore "we" dont have empathy with them. Look at Gaza, liberal feminists left and right fail to speak up about it and mainstream media doesn't even pretend to try to create the same amount of empathy we had as for example with Iranian women or ukrainian refugees. For years "we", western societies, made muslim men and women "the other". Now we see the results: an utter, total lack of empathy towards an entire people. This is why I gave up on empathy, gave up on trying to evoke empathy among liberals. If not taught right, as something to have towards everyone, it is just covered in-group bias.
empathy-within-compassion (empathy held for the general situation, and extended selectively based on a wider compassionate stance that's based more on sober awareness as to how to support the greatest many without enabling more harm to the parties most vulnerable and entrenched/trapped). i learned this term "empathy-within-compassion" from feminist psychologist, and it insists that empathy-without-compassion (selective, short-range empathy without regard for the overall ethics of a situation) saps away at one's capacity to critically support ppl & critically implicate yourself in the ethical dilemma going on.
I think humans are naturally selective for our own protection. The problems arise when different cultures have certain fundamental characteristics at odds with each other, for instance how/why people trust each other. If I trusted my parents unquestioningly and you trusted science, and we had a child who got sick and the doctors' opinions differed from my parents opinion, it would most likely end in a catastrophic outcome to our bond. That's at a micro level. Cultures deal with this at a macro level and it takes generations to accommodate those different approaches.
Those two examples are remarkable because they are both extrenaly and internally selective. We invoked empathy for ukrainian refugees especially because they were european women and children, but we also haven't yet shown any outraged for the forced conscription and death of million of young ukrainian men because, well, men. Same with the "women" protests in Iran, which had 70% male participants and 100% male dissidents executed, because again, we wanted to frame this in the context of our fashionable causes, rather than actually care about the people involved just for the reason of our shared humanity.
This is…highly simplistic to say the least. It’s funny you say Westerners have no empathy for Palestinians when the polls show that the majority of Americans at least, are pro-Palestine and want a ceasefire. The media has just tricked you into believing Palestine supporters are in the minority, because that way you will feel more doubtful, more scared about voicing your opinion on Palestine. People have empathy for everyone built into them, it’s the State that tries to snuff it out at all costs, through manufactured consent and fear-mongering.
"Disney for empathy" fantastically sums up Jubilee. I'm a grown man who enjoys a good Disney movie once in a while. I'm not above saying that. A good Disney movie can be emotional, but also generally doesn't take things too seriously, and takes me back to being a kid again. Even if it is unrealistic. And Jubilee has a very unserious, immature, and unrealistic approach to empathy. So "Disney for empathy." That is indeed Jubilee. Good job, Jubilee! I couldn't have worded it better myself, Jubilee. The biggest difference off the top of my head is that I don't really enjoy Jubilee anymore. Now let's all hug, Jubilee!
diseny movies are fine becuase they are works of fiction about fiction stories with fictional characters, jubilee is harmful because it promotes people with beliefs that hurt real people
I find alot of stuff on Jubilee downright insulting in how it trivializes some serious subjects, as if its just a matter of perspective and not privilege.
I remember specifically this moment where I realized what jubilee is. this Palestinian man was talking about his dead 10 yo sister and his struggles after at a young age and the IDF soldier laughed at him and called it a poster story and brought out a LIST of his dead soldier friends. then they all ended up eating hummus together. It was an eye opening moment for me. I think that episode was their best yet to me it showed the horrifying realities of Israel society.
Thought providing, as always, Alice. Discussions can help us understand the motives of the opposing side and notice gaps in our own arguments. However, the truth is not always in the middle, we shouldn't forget that.
Yeah but Buddha sat under a tree for long time for a uneducated working class boy like me to figure dat out for moi.. Nez pas.. then eye found out Buddha was a privileged prince.. Jesus Christ! Even Jesus Christ was the son of god who's earthly father was a wealthy temple builder who had the money to educate jebus in Greek philosophy and language.. you can't get more bourgeoisie Dan dat.. why should a peasant like me listen to anyone who doesn't want to grow their own potatoes?
You have many good points. Too many to a single video, in my oppinion! There is so much information and ideas that one gets lost in a sea of references, concepts, notions and propposals.
Despite all of the problems with the study of difference and conflict within social psychology, it's pretty clear what works to bring disparate groups together- understanding a shared story and/or working towards a common goal. The culture wars are basically just good theater for either (liberal/conservative) side.
I agree that it's good theatre, and that's also why we're talking about Jubilee right now. I'm sure there are other youtube channels that feature panel discussions from diverse groups without taking on a "____ vs ____" format, but none of us are watching or talking about those channels, including the creator of this video. It's always good to criticize the system, but we also shouldn't forget that we're complicit in it
This seems to be what I am learning lately. If it's my goal to wholly dislike or wholly discredit a person or group of people... I mean, I'm for sure -- that's what's going to happen, no? This is all very confusing for me though. And I think somewhere along the lines of thinking is the paradox of tolerance? I am reading Introduction to Adler. Very interesting things.
I'm a leftist and I strongly believe in empathy and talking to people with different perspectives. I agree that I don't like the liberal framing of it as "finding the middle ground," because empathy by no means implies that I should move my opinion closer to yours. People's perspectives don't exist on a sliding scale of left to right; they're complex and the result of many factors in our lives. If we can better understand the factors that lead to others having the perspectives that they have, then we can better understand the world we live in. My biggest problem with capitalizing on empathy the way Jubilee does is a) they're capitalizing on it, which kind of makes it hard to see as a genuine act of goodwill, and b) they never go further. It's just "the important thing is that we are talking about it," and doesn't try to use the newfound mutual understanding to arrive at some sort of common political goal. I don't know how they expect empathy to somehow fix the world without like, doing anything with it. idk comment your political empathy suggestions below
yep, empathy means "I don't want to do something bad to someone, or something bad to happened to them, because I'm involuntary putting myself in the place of this person. Also when I feel like I've done something bad - I feel bad and this may even change my habits". Empathy is a part of having a conscience - be responsible for your words and actions before people (thus being respectful), but it's not about supporting only a certain group of people while abusing others, often those who are in front of you (abstract you). I don't think we can ask for empathy, but just hope that we have one. And if we really respect empathy, then we should not support haughty dishonest people who like the idea of forcing others to be good, reject to openly condemn bad things etc. just my ideas. I also believe in empathy
Yes, I agree completely. "Us vs. them" and "Left vs. right" is the kind of binary and dualistic thinking that the status quo actually benefits from, in the end. It limits our moral and political imaginations.
Its funny how consevatives will read this title and have completely different idea of the content in relation to a marxist like me. The word "liberalism" for conservatives will trigger "pseudo-left anti-capitalist identitarian", as for marxists they will interpret it as it should: "a pro-capitalist ideology"
@@johneeeemarry34 "Conservatives dont get triggered" bro where have you been??! Obviously they only call it being triggered when its a leftist. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
In Confucianism (or using a more appropriate term, Ruism), an ideal person (the sage) is someone who lives 'an authentic moral life' (the way the sage eats, sleeps, and walks all embody moral excellence) and is sensitive to the suffering of others.** In this sense, the sage is a person of empathy. However, when the sage witnesses what is not right (an unrighteous ruler, social injustice, oppression, and the suffering of the people, etc.), this feeling authentically and automatically evokes moral anger in the sage. Zhu Xi, a Confucian scholar in the Song dynasty, wrote, "Anger, after all, is affiliated with righteousness” (怒畢竟屬義), and "The sage is angry because, according to the nature of things before him, he should be angry” (聖人之怒，以物之當怒). Thus, from the perspective of Ruism, empathy without moral anger is superficial. Liberalism promotes this 'superficial empathy,' which does not lead to anything but overlooks the problems before their eyes. Although 'goodness' can be reached by rationalization, emotions like 'moral anger' or 'shame' are actually the things that drive one to be 'good'. For example, 'bad people' (corrupt officials, criminals) know what is right and wrong but they decide to do bad things because they do not develop enough sensitivity to prevent themselves from doing what is not right. ** Confucius did not consider himself a sage. He said '...That I strive to become such without satiety and teach others without weariness - this much can be said of me...'
Isn't righteous anger also expressed through demonstrations and strikes? Sure, sometimes they don't work, but sometimes they do, and I don't think that demonstrations are forbidden in liberalism. Strikes sometimes.
@@ThomasMullaly-do9lz There were many sages praised by Confucius. One of them and the most highly praised was 'Shun'. Shun was an immigrant farmer from what Chinese back then considered to be a barbaric region. Then, there was Da Yu who was simply a construction worker. So there were sages who are not far away from growing potatoes by themselves and there were those who have someone 'growing potatoes' for them since everyone cannot be a potato farmer.
@@chaiyasitdhi yes some are forced into growing potatoes for book readers.. Confucianism is just state control to justify who does what labor.. Just a state religion like Christian church to control lower class workers to do the dirty work.. glorified inclusion that's all... Thanks for edgemecated splaining dat four moi.. yes yes everyone wants to save the world but nobody wants to help dare mudder to do the dishes..
Alice, nice video. A few observations: 1. American urban liberalism is rooted in the classism required to keep threats out because there's a ton of class anxiety, a fear of losing, and a fear of outside threats that are the result of being kept out of the secure class. 2. The what about isms of liberalism are really tools to derail the discussion. When we talk about homelessness, and people suggest they live in government tent camps until housing can be secured, it's what about security, what about safety, what about showers, what about the cost, what about the density, etc. Same goes for pretty much every issue: We even can't build apartments on single lots here because the fire department what abouted evacuation issues when they're shown to be safe. 3. The culture wars are really part of people's brands that then give them meaning instead of being a part of action that gives the community meaning. It's one thing to sit around a coffee shop and go on and on about solving poverty, but it's another to act on it, especially when solutions would put the house owning classes position on shaky ground. Also: 1. The internet chases edge cases because that's what sells. Those debates serve to increase that in an agreeable manner. 2. The internet forces a binary because that's how the underlying structure of it works. Those ones and zeros will never be able to understand the level of nuance required to be human, and programmers understand this and force us to behave the way machines want us to, to make money.
right! i call this kind of whataboutism "At What Cost?"ism (for reference, i use regular whataboutism to refer to passing the buck "well what about [so and so] and the bad things they've done!") you're so right & i hadn't made the connection between "whataboutism" & atwhatcost?-ism until i read your comment
I would disagree with your second statement. The entire paragraph highlights the deeper problem: a refusal to critique and question the underlying structures and systems that delivered such a poor outcomes in the first place (i.e. homelessness). The temporary or even long term housing issue only seeks to marginally alleviate a symptom of a structures/system and fails to address it. Tent camps are a good example of a Liberal "solution". If they were part of a larger transformative approach, then that is all well and good. But generally, these 'solutions' are more meant to alleviate the emotional discomfort people are having than actually addressing the needs of people.
I was on board until the last line... no? because code is made of 1s and 0s doesn't mean programmers' worldview is that everything must be made into a machine that has 2 states, and that's not even how machines work? and if this isn't what you meant, i'm sorry but that point just sounds wildly conspiratorial.
@@greinerphil I disagree simply because it's more cruel to leave people on the streets to fend for themselves, but I also think that tent camps are the last resort in a system that has failed everyone time and time again.
@@atoucangirlThe point is that computers have limitations that UX designers and programmers work around by changing our behavior, and those changes to our behavior often live in a binary. This is just the start of a working theory that I have little evidence for though, so it's more of a stab at something that I think we all should critique.
The comments section under the new Star Wars trailer would enlighten you to what’s going on in today’s society with more accuracy and humour compared to the continuing spreading of University AIDS that’s going on in this comments section… Your choice was predictable, smug and boring…
I really think liberalism is the flip side of fascism. They're both ideologies which tell you to ignore oppressive hierarchies in favour of expressing your feelings. Liberalism is for expressing positive feelings, fascism the negative ones. The thing is all our feelings are useful politically, love is powerful and so too is rage. But they have to be tied to change. You can't just curate feelings and not to target them. Great video again Alice!
@mori1bund Fascism views oppressive hierarchies as good in so far as they can be used to obscure class politics. Basically, as long as you’re focused on racial/family/cultural hierarchy you won’t be thinking about how bad your boss is screwing you. Fascism’s main application is to maintain class hierarchy.
I just finished your book and am on a reading journey through the books and papers you've referenced, it was a really fun read that I went over thoroughly, I really hope you write another!
Hi Alice, you probably won’t see this, but, if you do, I would like to communicate my appreciation of the fact that you included a Black philosopher (not to say that you should include Black philosophers in your videos for the sake of Tokenism). I am a Black (multiracial) person myself who is very interested in philosophy, and this has surprised some people. I struggle a lot with feeling like being Black is incompatible with being interested in philosophy due to the lack of proportional representation of Black people in philosophy. I have been struggling with the question of how big of a part of my identity my race should be due to the effects of stereotype threat and how pursuing my interest in philosophy feels easier and more natural when I identify more with being Black. But then reading the works prominent Black intellectuals (Ta-Nehisi Coates helped me in high school) makes identifying less with my race feel less necessary to pursue my interest in philosophy.
I agree with your description on Jubilee. I didn't think of it as liberal "respectability" before, I just thought they were gross people who enjoyed playing with topics haphazardly for profit, but I can definitely see how its not just a reality tv side show, its more that its a political goal of being centrists pushing respectability and "hearing the other side" which is why so much space is given to conservative talkingheads, because liberalism always leaves room for the right.
Good point. The Liberals of course are oblivious to the fact that "both sides" is hardly fair when the conservative voices effectively have already been platformed and are the established opinion with alot of inertia and institutional and cultural power behind them. Which means that the pretense of objectivity is just a farce.
Thank you for talking about the harmful equating of peaceful climate activists with right wing extremists. Property damage is not the same as attempted assassination and the media continuing to push the narrative that activists are being extreme, dangerous, and unreasonable is a ploy to prevent needed progress - and that story is unfortunately often believed by the general public. But why wouldn't people be angry about our futures and lives being exploited and gambled with for the profits of a few and for the propping up of the current power structure? Anger is not only a reasonable emotion here, it can be a useful and powerful motivating one. Keep up the good work because we need more people in the world being critical of where these narratives come from and working on dismantling them.
advocating for points 3-6 are evident in modern politics. ex 3. police protect our cities thus must be good: a social presumption. 4. black lives matter as a reaction to significant racial incrimination and the antithetical blue lives matter stance. and most paradoxically the George Floyd spotlight effect, where it took one man's life to focus emphatic attention despite similar events occurring without such regard since Emmet Till.
Excellent demonstration of how liberalism lays claim to a moral high ground within idealism which is deliberately ineffectual, so we must focus on materialist goals, also it's delightful to hear "Trogdor the Burninator" in a French accent.
My favourite kind of people are “I’m attacked by the extreme left and the extreme right.” like who’s the extreme left? A bunch of college students? Someone who believes in human rights? 12:26 Love the term.
I think reading Domenico Losurdo's "Liberalism: A Counter-History" is essential. Basically, it's an ideology deviced by the bourgeoisie to protect private property, including sl*ves, exclude working people, women, justifying gen*cide and colonialism, and restrict as much as possible the right for political participation so to make it rich people's domain
Alice, if I can make a request, I'd love a video about exit strategies and exit fantasies. This includes fantasies (or realities, as the case may be) about having passive income from investments/real-estate, but also things like the global expat scene, where hordes of well-to-do people overrun many big cities of the world in hopes of living the bohemian life on a dime which leads to massive rent increases for the local population. It also includes e.g. the privileged upper middle-class notion of permanent home office. I'm sure there are many more examples of exit strategies. Imho all these exit strategies resp. exit fantasies are contributing to the existing problems with neoliberal capitalism. These people who can afford to do so, subtract themselves from any form of class struggle or even mild political reform in their own countries and instead seek to live the sweet life at the expense of the working population everywhere in the world. The more I think about it, the more it reminds me of Robert Heinlein's world. Heinlein was an ultra-capitalist bordering on fascism, but he understood that at some point, the capitalist game has to end or at least be put on halt. The global threat we're facing are obviously not bugs from outer space but rather capitalism, but Heinlein's worldbuilding applies to our current global situation almost perfectly. In his novel Starship Troopers, rich people can sidestep fighting the war against the space bugs, while poor people have little choice if they are to have any hope of climbing the social ladder. I'd be thrilled to hear what you could make of this topic!
I've always found people to respond best to just being treated like any other person, no disadvantage or privilege. Getting your weird "white-guilt" complex involved and making them feel awkward about it and putting all that pressure on them to assuage YOUR issue is just dumb and lacks any kind of self insight. Great video!
One amazing video. It carries much truth in it Alice. :) I reference Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò's Elite Capture quite a bit on the daily, and you covering the deference politics is the treat. In the U.S., they're are liberal writers who use his writing without mentioning some of his key politics. Especially the constructivism, the building between ideas that should demand. Connecting you ideas to Andrewism's video. A synthesis (without brandishing modes of fascism) 16:36 I'm bit of a militant in my part of the world with these thoughts ha.
The elephant in the room (this is almost always overlooked) is the social engineering that sets the parameters and defines the terms that characterize cultural clashes of any kind. These social engineers hover over the powerful institutions that transmit the templates that eager citizens buy into-'-media, academia, government agencies. The social engineers "seed" the terms of the debate and micromanage every detail. That is why labels seem artifical and disingenuous applied. That is why no progress is ever made: the oligarchy who convey their wishes to the social engineers (such as the Tavistock Institute) preserve their position of control precisely by maintaining an atmosphere of division and confusion. An unfortunate side effect of this constant psychological warfare is that persons of high IQ waste their time and energy expounding on social theories that tend to be extraordinary complex while dancing around the real causes, which are oligarchism and imperialism. Most intellectuals are too proud to admit that we still live essentially under a feudal system. And they don't wish to lose their status by deviating from the prescribed discourse which omits to mention the real culprits.
I think it's important not to be extreme while still uphold our moral compass. If a person disagree with someone, instead of treating them like the enemy of the state, it is crucial to understand where they are coming from and why they adopted that worldview. Esp our everyday lives are bombarded daily with propaganda by the state, corporations and billionaires. Take for example some swifties who would defend and excuse their pop idol Taylor swift for her part in huge carbon emissions and silence over the genocide in Gaza. We should speak out louder and put pressure to Taylor and her hardcore fan group, but we should also be mindful not to see them as good vs evil, which could easily lead to dehumanisation of the other. It should be viewed more like, propaganda vs truth, and we as individual play the role as an activist and educator.
I often find members of the far left expressing things in the most extreme terms possible, and it can become grating after a while. Even if I agree with the logic of their overall point, I find their rhetoric irritating and unhelpful The question is though, is this a unique feature of the far left, or is this just what the internet has done to argumentation?
@@justanotheryoutubecommente2 problem with today's leftists is they don't know how to make allies with others who are in the same social class as them, instead they are walking exactly into the trap created by those in power and widening the already big gap between the left and the right. Meanwhile many of those in the left blindly make allies with those in the upper class/billionaires. Eg, they would rather demonise trump supporters who are also of the same social class and victims of the same unequal power dynamic as them. Instead they would rather associate themselves with 'friendly and nice' billionaires and politicians like Biden, Bill Gates and George Soros, even though they dgaf about equality or empowering the working class people.
Excellent video. You put into words my issue with identity politics far better than even I could articulate, and I generally tend to pride myself on rhetorical ability. As a socialist, it has always seemed to be that most liberals are well intentioned but ultimately either too naive or too invested in the current system and unwilling to think beyond it.
Dialogue is a tactic, but not an end in itself. Its what dialogue can enable---united action towards material change---that is useful. Focusing toouch on dialogue will lead you to a situation in which every disagreement can be solved through talking, and that it indeed must be solved before anything else can happen. Its losing the forest for the trees. You dont need to be best friends with everyone, and you wont be.
There is a video of Israeli women listening to Palestinian women from years ago like the 80s or 90s maybe….we can see how helpful that was at this point…. This was such a good video and you put in words feelings I’ve had recently,
Thank you for adressing the subjects in such a delicate manner. I identify the points of your argumentention and I understand that this perception have being created So thank you for the opporrunity of adressing it with aditional points of view. About my moves and strategy, it is not that simple. First, nothing is oportunist, and also all that you vslue, I value too. But I play a protect role against a lever of agression that you dont know that could reach you. For example, always that I discuss racism, fight eith contudence and cause, or post paiting of black girls or boys, the, litterally, kill black prople. Its tense, very tense. So Im constructing conditions to expose more vulnerable causes, which iphold the same principles, which is equality, but, yes, with its own and unique particular emotions and history
the examples of the Jubilee video where empathy and hugging it out was spoke about reminded me that yknow for their video of Israelis and Palestinians i watched years ago the entire thing was tense as hell and i'm almost positive there was no such hugging and celebration,, but i just wanted to mention thatt
It's worth searching out a blog Adam Curtis did about the performative 'TV hug' over a decade ago which did pick up on this aspect of liberal 'hypocrisy'
You can’t control your emotions when it comes to question marks… The frustration of people not bowing down to your moral and intellectual superiority results in an emotion call anger….you display that emotion by aggressively using questions marks… Why don’t you try emojis for emotional expression (???????) check these motherfuckers out !🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🛼🤙🏿🤞🏿👜👩🏿🦽👩🏿🦽💉🇪🇭🇪🇭🏳️🌈💩🛼🦄🐩🇪🇭🤌🏿🤞🏿🤞🏿🤰🏿🤙🏿👩🏿🦽👡🪄💉💉🇪🇭🧴🏳️🌈💩🤣🤣🤣💩🛼🦄🧴🇪🇭🐩🦄🏳️🌈🤣💩💪🏾💪🏾🪄🤰🏿🤙🏿🚽🚽🤞🏿🤌🏿🇪🇭🧴🇪🇭🇪🇭🛼💩🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🦄🦄🦄🛼
With concepts like "The white man's burden" or savior complexes. There are plenty of people who want to help "lesser" people and get quite angry when those "lesser" people don't agree with the "superior" person's solutions.
I believe that the essence of life and human nature is better found when returning to the natural habitat which humans were SUPPOSED to live. The countryside, nature and farms. What is or isn’t morally wrong is completely subjective. What isn’t subjective is human nature and that is why we must incorporate more of it in our conception of what makes a morally good society.
I'm glad people are finally talking about this. Now, to be fair, I've always thought that this sort of issue gets worse due to american politics being exported everywhere else as they are the cultural (and not just militar) hegemon. Different countries have different cultural issues that dont line up with the culture wars we're currently experiencing and thus creates further divide between the elites pushing it and the common citizen who just wants their basic needs covered. It is also basic ego: "we the really good people are finally allowing the poor minorities to stand up and talk!". Nah. They're just using them as fodder. At the end of the day there are particular groups with a lot of privilege who are using the well founded critiques of the many to claim they themselves are oppressed to then create an in-group that will keep the truly oppressed out while the in-group benefits. Basically conservatism but for liberal moms.
thx for this video/ merci pour la vidéo. You're making very good points on Jubilee. I felt the same way but couldn't really tell what was bothering me. On another topic (but you're talking about it) could we agree on being more accurate with the term "democracy", a word distorted from its meaning on purpose for centuries. A democracy is when the people write and vote the laws themselves. The representative regime, isn't a democracy, even the architects of said regime (Madison in the US, and Seyies in France) have been quite vocal on it not being a democracy (pour Seyies tu peux trouver le texte, c'est celui du jeu de paume, y a pas plus explicite : "si les citoyens décidaient... la france serait une démocratie..la france ne doit pas devenir une démocratie." en gros. Giving our decisional power to a few technocrates isn't a democracy. Not only that. There is no democracy anywhere around us, not even in the workplace... unless its a cooperative. And that.. is the root of the problem. We the people have no power (or very little). And the "representatives" do as they want, or as the capital wants. One of the very few ways to get some democracy in today's system, in France at least, is to operate a form of "municipalism entrism" with a participative liste where people will then create a real democracy once "elected", like in Saillans. Examples of modern real democracies are the ukrainan revolution of 1917-21, The commune of Shinmin (Korea) 1929-31, the spanish revolution of 1936-39, the Chiapas Zapatista since 1994 and Rojava since 2012.
Merci Alice pour cette vidéo ! Disney est le parfait exemple de ce problème. Ça fausse inclusion lui permet de toucher des niches et créer un engagement supérieur chez elles. Le nouveau film "la petite sirène" par exemple est pour moi très mauvais mais la qualité intrinsèque de celui ci au yeux du grand public, est éclipsé par les choix de casting. Les conservateurs s'offusquent de ces choix faisant malgré eux de la pub au film et les progressistes vont le voir par souci morale. Le seul gagnant a la fin c'est bien Disney, qui aura fait de l'argent avec un produit médiocre...
I feel a sense of polarization in my own mind where I feel like any thought I have in the context of the US specifically and working in an outdoor field a lot of younger people were constantly code switching while the older people were a lot more clear on who they are and how they want to be perceived. Thinking about leading anti-maskers on a trail cleanup event where they showed up with stolen park equipment and then my own liberal supervisor being in fights with other staff and never having anything nice to say about their help that they had to send in an application for just to keep throwing 'competitors' under the bus meant to be who she was mentoring. Idk but I'm glad I played Runescape when I was little and got scammed a lot by a lot of buttholes and saw hyper inflated rare Neopet paintbrushes when I was 8
That video hit me on a note wasn't expeting but, this was pretty good. I remember at the raise of facebook here in brazil that dischord YOU SHOULD HAVE EMPATHY, IF YOU HAVE EMPATHY EVERYTHING WOULD BE PERFECT AND YADDA YADDA start gaining traction Out of me say empathy is bad, actually I really find it important as a way to try to comprehend diferent perspectives about life ... But somewhat ... That discourse never seemed enought ... It was not like people demanding that WE SHOULD HAVE EMPATHY were helping anything ... At time I actually find that behaviour greatly ... I don't know how to say ... Annoying? Now watching the video it became more clear to me that all this DEMANDING was actually a demanding of white feminism and liberal agenda for the privilege people feel more OK now they pass the ball for someone else be the person to blame. All this dificulties of bias, people engaging on empathy for "great looking people" and "people more lakely to Them" is the 101 of the thing. I guess we need to have a better understandment of this topic because that discourse can have traction fast because, for a lot of people, is ok to "just say and stay away". With no real stakes in game and hugely defensive atitude towards anything else.
I have been following Naomi Klein for years. Doppelganger presents a world in which the media warps our ability to think clearly and wisely. We are overloaded. Not everything is important but it becomes important by being blown into a form of entertainment. In life, people often contradict themselves. This is normal human behaviour. But once its documented in some form of media, it becomes truth. Influencers prey on insecurities, which are again normal. Insecurities are part of human. (When we encounter people with no insecurities more than likely they are sociopaths/ or psychopaths. Here is another problem, we have to label everyone. We become our labels.) One of the reasons we like to watch movies that are based in the 80s or 90s is bc the tech isn't overwhelming. But when we look at our lives, everything is tech. Lastly, Doppelganger terrified me.
pretty much, Its a matter of knowing WHEN to empathize and criticize with effective usage. I think genuine Empathy is a very personal feeling, you're more likely to feel it if you understand what someone is going through by having gone through it yourself; otherwise you can respectively listen and give them a safe place to be vulnerable. Being put in a position were you are expected to empathize isn't practical Criticism is often done wrong by attacking someones identity or labeling them rather than recognizing detrimental behavior and expressing reasoning appropriately Debates on culture/gender oppression vs privilege falls apart when generalizing (because people have unique experiences) ; Until debates are oriented for solutions I think people need to focus more on the discussion on personal experiences instead or at least start from there. On class: Nothing goods comes from resentment and finding enemies. "A peoples tragedy" the Russian revolution by Orlando Figes has a good take on the destabilization of Russian economy after the monarchy (Tarz) was overthrown, how politically unprepared people of Russia were and its consequences. I agree do not settle for capitalism (and though this video isn't being hostile in any way) it needs to be understood that a SUDDEN violent revolution needs to be avoided at all cost. Be mindful that people of class filled a vacant seat built for them by social structures, they are not self made. Our best bet is strengthening local communities reducing dependency of large co. End of video has a good take in the direction it needs to go, inventing a new culture maybe a good start, there is a need to build competency before any real change can happen.
I will never forgive Jubilee for Isr@el/Palestine middle ground episode where the Palestinians seemed clearly in trauma & discomfort and they made them break bread at the end of the episode.😒 Great video 💜
I'm pro Palestine myself however don't agree to go on a show about defending your perspective if you're too traumatized to do so. It's harmful to you and what you advocate for.
I saw that "liberal trans people vs conservative trans people" video in my recommended and I couldn't help but think about how just about every trans person I know is some flavor of anti-capitalist.
Unfortunately I met too many trans people discriminating other trans people and thinking there is only one way to be trans. Once even a trans woman that said to be a "proud fascist".
Do consider that liberal capitalism affords you a certain level of independence from others through the abstraction of money. In many other economic and cultural models, you'd be far more at the mercy of your local community.
@@johneeeemarry34 it’s a fact that trans people tend to lean a lot more left wing. This is mainly a symptom of trans people being inherently disadvantaged in things like finding a job, getting a loan, or even just finding a roof to sleep under. So no it’s not just a reflection of them, but shows how groups that are disadvantaged usually start hating the system that is pushing them down. The only trans people that support conservative parties are ones that are bigoted towards another minority (or even just a different kind of trans person) and deluded themselves into thinking they aren’t a target themselves anyway
the other issue with the social contract of most modern day democracies is that the repercussions for breaking said contract are only actually enforced upon the people, not officials or institutions
I'm from Genova, Italy, so clearly my view "radicalized" and had a strong turning point after the 2001's G8. I was 10 back then but that event led me to study those years very well growing up. At the same time I grew up in this new society forming with very strong polarized opinions and very fragmented social fights. Well, that G8 in Genova in 2001 was the last violent answer of capitalism to a very strong, unpolarized social movement wich was clearly and globally pointing the finger at it. After suppresing the No Global movement with violence and fear all around the west with the same approach in every city, capitalism was able through a false flag tactic to polarize and divide the public opinion untill there was no more. Shortly after 9/11 happend and all the public opinion in the west was, understandably, focus on that. Then C. slowly narcotized us as individuals with comfort and futile distractions and let those fews who still have the strenght to fight only to care about their personal and very defined circle's rights. The blindness while feeling at peace with our conscience that comes from fighting divided when we all have the same enemy is beyond me.
I'm a great believer that a more equal society economically would substantially reduce cultural and social conflicts. Maybe that's too simplistic. This would need to be at a global level, ultimately.
Extremism of any kind, left or right creates chaos. Chaos can be a catalyst for societal change. Spiritual people that walk among us know this and are preparing for a change in society for the better. Stop the finger pointing and the blame games and be the change that you want to see in the world.
If you're solution is to expose ingroups to outgroups to foster understanding how does defining your outgroup as ignorant, morally defective and beneath consideration achieve that precisely?
moral psychology is fascinating indeed. I share your concern about the problematic separation of Jubilee. Also, I feel that you've earned something, but I doubt you have watched Kim Brown. Here it is: 🔥🔥🔥 You're burning it down! 😍
Hello. Tend to like and agree with positions and actions you advocate here and in the media content you have produced. I agree that anger can be constructive, and catharsis can diffuse the intensities required to create material and cultural changes required to form ethical societ-y/ies. As you suggest in different words: reason, logic, emotionality, intuition and a whole spectrum of human thought and feelings are all involved in ways of construing what is ethical... sy/e-mpathy can be unethical if it is deployed, even in an existential idea of "good faith", if it perpetuates a status quo where people are suffering beyond anything that could be formulated as ethical. While you do touch on the subject here, it is possible to determine that there are conceivable situations where violence in a vast variety of forms could be ethical: self defence is a very standard and well-recognized example. While I am not interested in empathy and compromise at all costs, I am extremely hesitant to incorporate literal violence as a direct political activity, as it seems (and please correct me if I am misguided) to perpetuate a form of social entropy that tends to gain momentum (many violent acts of revolution and colonialism seem to me to support this, due to the initiation and perpetuation of revenge cycles, though not all). Wouldn't a more central approach be the most ethical on a sentimental and intuitive basis even if compromise is extremely unreasonable and unethical? Wouldn't education (though perhaps never enough in-itself) be the reasonable and logical alternative to compromise? Isn't that, in its way, what your media content is (i.e. education) and what it is attempting to achieve (i.e. non-violent revolution)? You are not, in the end, a Liberal, liberal, or neo-liberal (thankfully), but I do admire that you seem to recognize education as an ethical means of winning hearts and minds to a broad-based ethical future (even if that is something of distorted Liberal idea... though those ideas do seem to be best when distorted to include everyone). Best of luck and skill to you
I'm a bit surprised that you cite Ezra Klien's book as an example here. By my lights, the thesis of that book is that (at least in the United States) polarization is a natural and even necessary component of the political system, and that the period of lower polarization in the US in the post-WW2 period was an aberration caused by the Cold War and the inclusion of conservative southern democrats in FDR's New Deal coalition. It does not advocate for a return to this depolarized period, which systematically excluded lots of people from the political process and kept the overtom window very narrow. Instead, Klien supports the sort of institutional reforms that can allow polarized political decision-making to play out *within* functional political institutions, rather than trying to depolarize
This reminds me o the Verfremdungseffekt that playwright Bertolt Brecht tried to use to counteract sympathy and instead create more cerebral confrontation with the social disparities.
Which neuroscientific study suggests rationality requires emotion ? I can concede emotion can be rational but rationality requiring emotion makes no sense, unless they are defining rationality differently or it is mentioned in a specific context. Weird how she glossed over this without expanding on it or providing a source.
I feel like you might know it or might have even spoken about it before but if not then Tajfels Social Identity Theory is great for demonstrating how malleable people can be
Jubilee makes me think of the french RUclips Channel "Le Crayon". Which at the beginning was making debates with 2 people with very different views and try to have a "constructive debate". But ultimately it became a channel of far-right moral panics where the far-right guest's arguments seem legitimized only by the choice of subject, often revolving around Islam, Immigration, trans rights (so there is always a far-right TERF that is invited, thus validating her ideology) etc etc ...
Empathy is vital for us as individuals, but has absolutely no place in politics or governance. Institutions are incapable of empathy. We all understand that an institution can’t be happy or sad, but for some reason we pretend they are capable of compassion. As part of this pretense, we ask our institutions to make hollow gestures that tend to have negative consequences. For example, the fashion of giving addicts free needles sounds empathetic because people can spread diseases by sharing needles. Imagine this form of “empathy” in any other context, like giving free shot glasses at AA meetings, and you’ll see why this “empathy” has likely made many people’s lives worse. This fake empathy is also why we see systemic failure in every society that has adopted it. The only role for government is promoting and protecting ‘the commons’: shared spaces, infrastructure and resources that benefit the broadest number of people.
I would agree with you some 90 percent if the concepts such as "institutions" or "government" actually existed independently of humans who run them. Even if AI took over the governance and humans had nothing else to do with it, this AI would still be trained on inherently human bias. The truism that "institutions are incapable of empathy" which I completely agree with BTW, brutally illustrates the mechanism by which the humans who animate said institutions (I.E. people who are "just doing their job" in the government) are compartmentalizing the entire emotional baggage and responsibility that comes with perpetuating a system of managerial oppression. Hannah Arendt named this mechanism "Banality of Evil". The other 10 percent I don't agree with are related to the example you took. People needing clean needles isn't 1-1 comparable to people sharing shot glasses. And providing addicts with clean needles isn't helping them overcome said addiction, it is just assuring they live longer so that they have a chance to maybe at some point decide to start the actual rehabilitation. It's more akin to offering your wasted friend to drive him home instead of letting him get behind the wheel. I'm not even going to go on a tangent about commons, it's a topic for another conversation...
I've always wondered if anyone behavior was supposed to change or was I just supposed to gain understanding and be nicer. Cause if empathy won't lead to changed behavior in some capacity, what's the point?
The essential human paradox is that we are inherently prosocial creatures that are hardwired to care about each other, but evolved in a cruel unfair world where you had to be fucking ruthless sometimes in order to survive. You had to hunt and kill animals, fight for resources, protect yourself and the people closest, and overall coexist with A LOT of other peoples suffering without having a fucking breakdown. So obviously, your brain has a lot of mechanisms to inhibit and moderate empathy . Hence why we care more about the people in close proximity to us. You empathetic brain isn't designed to properly process the horrific suffering of someone on the other side of the world. I disagree with Prinz because I think empathy IS the the basis of morality. Its the thing that makes us care about other people. You're gonna really struggle being being a moral person if you lack even the basic ability to be emotionally invested in the happiness of others. All human emotions are essentially brain shortcuts meant to help you survive. Fear makes you run. Empathy makes you enjoy other people being happy and dislike causing pain, therefore making you a functional group member. What we have to remember about human morality and moral emotions like empathy (and anger, shame, guilt etc) is that they evolved in a different world where you only had to care about 50-100 people. Basic human empathy is just that, basic, and its not gonna get you much further than not being a psychopath. Basic human empathy means Susan can trust you not to steal all her shit and murder her in her sleep for the lolz. Empathy is the bare minimum and its gonna take a lot more than that, especially in the modern world TLDR: Overall empathy is an incredibly important but incredibly flawed system evolved to help group cohesion, not a magic solution to current political issues You should always to be trying to develop and apply it, but basing your politics on the vague idea of empathy without any further critical thought is a fucking terrible idea
It appears to me that radical methods such as violence are worthwhile only until sufficient democracy in a given domain is achieved to obviate them, thereby avoiding the greater costs those methods incur - which often include not only loss of life and what’s been built with much labor, but also the process getting hijacked to serve actually opposed interests. In a context of not overheated discourse, propositions that were once ‘radical’ can become a new consensus. Empathy and respect are naturally more powerful tools for achieving that environment, but not always exclusively sufficient. Individuals must firstly be alive to participate, and saving lives from violence sometimes requires defensive violence against aggressors. There’s a difference, however, between recognizing corner cases and making violence the default behavior. Identifying common interests and working together to achieve those is simply better than remaining divided and so defeated. Meanwhile, the co-operation may also bring the dividend of extending the shared hierarchy of values, a new perspective that makes some previous hostilities obsolete. That skilled use of empathy requires critical thinking - including self-examination - seems to me self-evident, but I know that doesn’t mean it seems so to everyone. To understand “how liberalism exploits the culture wars,” people need to understand the semantics in which liberalism denotes an ideology that is - like most conservatism nowadays - defined by devotion to capitalism. (Very revanchist conservatives may like the prospect of going back to something more resembling feudalism, but the dynamics of capitalism itself pave that road.) So, liberalism is in that respect less opposed to modern conservatism than allied with the latter against leftism (in the long-current sense of pursuit of socialism). One rhetorical trick I’ve noticed is using the term ‘populism’ as if it’s synonymous with malicious and dishonest demagoguery. Liberals thereby tar with the same brush Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, as if the differences between the two should be irrelevant. Likewise (as in the example in this video), any opposition to the status quo gets painted as ‘extremism’ and therefore a priori bad. There’s good reason why even those of us whose congenital temperament is not the more conservative share a wariness of sudden extremes, of risky massive implementation of untested policies. However, when words are so divorced from proper denotations, the Newspeak can “push our buttons” in harmful ways.
Being uninformed - or, worse, lied to - about matters of fact can make bad effects more profound. The flip side is that providing factual information is often a key asset in changing people’s minds. How actually effective that is depends of course on how much their capacity for cognitive dissonance has been reinforced.
"The Disney of Empathy." Wow. While I'm a big fan of listening to each other, there also has to be an understanding that there still is an objectively right and wrong and the answer to one group wanting to wipe another one out is not, "Listen to both sides." You can't really compromise between "I deserve human rights" and "You don't deserve to exist." Great perspective as always, Alice! 🙂
I would say it is worth it to explore both (or more) perspectives on pretty much every issue, but only with people who take the discussion and the science of it seriously. If they are interested in their truth more than scientific facts, critical thinking and logic overall, they aren't worth talking to. Such debates won't give any senseful and benefitial results, but unfortunately most of todays discussions are framed this way, since its more entertaining and profitable.
@pendragon2012 I see you have arrived at what some call level 7 of hierarchical thinking. Basically it's various levels of conscientiousness with level 6 being the "all ideas and cultures are valid" where level 7 weighs the pros and cons of various ideologies or perspectives and decides some are more valuable than others. A good example is a Christian deciding that the Bible versus on burning the infidel/non-believer to not be a good tenant of faith in the present day.
I think that might have been true once but so much of these topics are getting to be one whether groups of humans deserve to live and there can't be any compromise on that. But for purely policy opinions a good discussion is hard to beat. 🙂
@@Daniel-rb9feLikewise, one should not debate anything with someone who cannot grasp that being "scientifically right" does not make you right - often times those who appeal the most to science are also those who seem to twist it the most for the ideological agendas.
@ville__ Well, actually, did you know that HITLER WAS A PERSON, and so is Alice. They both DRANK WATER, TOO! AND SO DID POL POT! Dude let's cancel all water drinkers
this really reminds me of that quote where the unjust person asks you to meet them in the middle but they keep going backwards, so you end up going backwards to meet them in the middle haha
Exactly
The right have been pulling the "centre" further and further right until we've ended up with now
I thought when I was in my early twenties that the world would get kinder and kinder during my lifetime
Im now a really disappointed 44 year old
but there is a more popular opinion on the Internet that the left was delaying the center
Clearly if one group wants to take all of your rights away and you want to keep all your rights, the only fair compromise is to just take some of your rights, yes?
“Meet me in the middle.” says the unjust man.
You take a step forward, he takes a step back.
“Meet me in the middle.” says the unjust man…
@@toi_techno Donald Trump's takes the position of a moderate Democrat from the 90's and the left now considers him a nazi. Maybe you're the one moving?
As an immigrant the limits of empathy are obvious in the "model immigrant" trope. So many times have people warmed up to me and then elevated me as an exception. Like the amount of times I have to remind people that no it's not that I am industrious and the others are lazy it's that we are all working to survive and they simply get to see my work while the others are invisible. I have to keep reminding people who like me that the way they talk about other foreigners is the way other natives talk about me. Empathy has clear limits when it comes to building perspective
I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this but I felt like I related to what you said, and wanted to share my experience. My experience might have some problematic thoughts so I'm open to having conversations about them, but basically that I feel like I've avoided being racially profiled or discriminated because I fit into the "model immigrant" ideal. I was compared to my peers and I bought into it, excluding myself from people in my grade who I thought were troublemakers (but really it was also me racially profiling). It's terrible the way teachers feed stereotypes right in the classroom, and that I didn't question it earlier because I benefitted from it. I'm trying to be more cognizant now though and uplift other POC instead of bringing people down
@@miau6451 you have to do what you need to to get by tbh, you don't get around trying to appeal to the sensibilities of natives so that you don't have to deal with needless extra shit. I had a similar experience to you and also used to perpetuate it myself when I was younger and dumber. I definitely stopped letting people get away with it now.
I experience a similar thing with my queer identity because a lot of people don't see my kind outside of mainstream media representations of my kind and thus they have never seen a working class queer just trying to breathe air and drink clean water. Same thing, they think they can get away with talking down other queers because of the refuse they are fed by media. There is no "model queer" though, not in the same sense. My empathy exists for suffering beings, it is a neurological phenomenon that has nothing to do with liberal morals or ethics. It is my mirror neurons firing because I recognize suffering in others. In this case I recognize a pattern of situation I experience myself, thus the neurons fire, albeit on a more abstract level.
Peace and clean water to you, fellow!
Had this conversation this morning with my co workers who have no understanding of immigration or actual levels in historical context. One who was a white immigrant upset at the Indians because it's different now from when he came here...yeah we had a recession at that time so why did we high levels of white immigrants when "native" born people where struggling. Look at facts not rhetoric of the right who where in power during other times of high immigration. "But this effects my kids", just as it did to other before you that welcomed you anyways.
I listened to a lecture by a Palestinian architect Sandi Hilal, and she expressed her frustration with how other people always want to include her. She said she doesn't want to be included, she wants to include others.
yeah, typical white saviour woke idpol victimization narratives that put marginalized groups into boxes, it's just a neverending loop of virtue signaling and FAUX-leftism/anarchism..
May be, she should be saying something that people want to hear or discuss, instead of just being someone people want to include as a token Muslim/Arab/Palestinian/Woman.
Agreed. I had a Nigerian friend who was living in USA in the height of the black lives matter movement. He actually told me he felt more marginalised since then because white liberals stopped seeing him as a real person. They kept apologising and fake including him to social circles as their token black friend and he just wants others to see him as he is -- who is a very smart engineer, a person of great sense of humor, and a caring father and partner, And liberals often fail to see that being brainwashed by the identity politics.
Include others in what? i dont get it?
@@shambhvilokre I guess she wants to be the one doing the including, instead of being the one having the including being done on her.
This reminds me a lot of the way media frames science discussions: let's have a panel with an expert and a denier. It's not an actual discussion to help people understand the topic, it is attention seeking drama. And it also makes it seem as though there is some sort of "reasonable middle" between two positions, which is not just false balance, but neglects any other views to frame a discussion in very narrow terms.
perfect case of the middle ground logical fallacy
That reminds me to a debate in the spanish podcast "the wild project" where conspirationist discussed with a doctor on physics, It was more of a show than a debate. And the worst of all is that the physics doctor said that for the fact of accepting the debate, there were lot of people who criticized him and didn't let the liberty of different point perspectives.
We will keep endorsing this kind of debates whether you like it or not. Different opinions exist. Cry
@@konyvnyelv. sorry, I'm not understanding which point you are making. Are you saying this deliberate narrowing of debate will continue whether we want it to or not?
@@tim290280 I'm saying that extremely inappropriate and odd opinions have the right to exist and be spread
*for me, its the nonsense aesthetic of "we disgree but we can get along anyway! lets hug!" thing... like, no... you can't just disagree and move-on because some people disagree on certain things to the point where they will not just move-on and leave people alone.* they will get political power to force their opinion on you. Agreeing to disagree is fine for food or art or music, but peoples right to exist or the validity of their lovelife or their bodily integrity is NOT up for debate and no, *you don't get to disagree and move-on... you're a threat to me and people like me, if you do.*
You mean like cultural marxists in most of twestern countries?
"You're a threat to me and people like me" is the same crap white supremacists say about people of color to justify their hatred. And there are a lot of people who would argue that being forced to pay more taxes to cover increases in welfare (most of which goes to the rich anyways) and regulation (most of which is selectively enforced against the poorest targets possible, if not just designed to target the poor) is having the opinions of others forced onto them, too. This isn't a left-right issue, this is an issue with violent government enforcement being the primary means to make things happen in general: the ideologies which prosper under that set of incentives will naturally be violent and authority-favored, either way.
People have the right to be "wrong," and vote "wrong." That's democracy.
This is really simple, but well said.
I think it's important not to be extreme while still uphold our moral compass. If a person disagree with someone, instead of treating them like the enemy of the state, it is crucial to understand where they are coming from and why they adopted that worldview. Esp our everyday lives are bombarded daily with propaganda by the state, corporations and billionaires. Take for example some swifties who would defend and excuse their pop idol Taylor swift for her part in huge carbon emissions and silence over the genocide in Gaza. We should speak out louder and put pressure to Taylor and her hardcore fan group, but we should also be mindful not to see them as good vs evil, which could easily lead to dehumanisation of the other. It should be viewed more like, propaganda vs truth, and we as individual play the role as an activist and educator.
In my experience, people will more often seek political power to stop others from inflicting their will or opinion on society. As they amass more power from politics, they begin to inflict their will on others. At its best politics is defensive, at its worst, offensive.
I agree that class should be talked about in these conversations. It’s the elephant in the room for sure. We’re so focused on sex, sexuality, race, that it often feels like we divide further and further meanwhile the rich are rarely brought up. I am a queer femme brown indigenous person, so lots of different avenues of identity there. But I have been in rooms with other queers and gays who were very wealthy and just because we share one commonality didn’t mean we shared the same life experiences. Even with other people of color. Class is everything
It’s an important lesson to aways be wary of the person who tries to avoid class politics. No matter what they might say they’ll always be most loyal to the money and whatever lets it keep moving.
perhaps the ONLY thing that should be talked about is wealth.....seems like that's the only relevant thing
@@007kingifrit it's not the only relevant thing, though, but it presents a huge obstacle to making progress in other fields. It's not the only obstacle, and it's not the surmountable one at this time.
@@caffetiel i'll let you in on a little secret boy, there is no such thing as progress. history is a wheel and people are naturally born unequal.
there is nothing to fix, the "wage gap" for example is because women choose lower paying jobs
@@007kingifrit Careful there friend, that the internet doesn't give you tunnel vision
Empathy, like desires for peace, are strategies used by Liberals to cope with their cognitive dissonance. Liberals often have a self-righteous belief in their moral superiority achieved through comparing themselves to their more conservative or regressive peers (while excluding their more progressive peers). Liberals at their center seek to maintain the core foundational elements of society. They seek to maintain the status quo and are, by definition, largely conservative. They experience a lot of anxiety when pressed to address structural root causes that lead to injustices and inequities. It is why identity politics plays such a pivotal role in Liberal strategies. By focusing on identity politics, Liberals can achieve a feeling of moral superiority and ‘progressive’ accomplishment without having to disrupt most of the status quo - much of which they rely on for their own status. The cosmetic and performative nature of Liberals is hardly a new critique. The refusal to support material changes to existing structures to alleviate injustice and inequities was raised by civil rights leaders including MLK and Malcolm X. Liberals fear tension (hence all the performative hugging in the Jubilee videos) and are run from any meaningful disruption to the status quo. Liberals paint themselves as champions of equality and justice but in the end merely trade in performative power politics, often advocating for their tribe to be the rulers, not for a material systemic transformation that leads to more egalitarian, equitable, fair, justice outcomes for all.
Very interesting point. It gives me something to think about
I'm self aware this is incredibly reductive: Are you suggesting is is non-beneficial to hold liberal beliefs? All liberal beliefs? Or some liberal beliefs?
Smiles. Did I use reductive properly?... Anyway I found what you said interesting.
Dang... You just dropped some science, son! I couldn't agree more. I don't even really have anything to add to that. Because that was comprehensive. And the whole 'empathy' phenomenon is pretty much at a fever pitch. I don't think you can listen to NPR for more than fifteen minutes without hearing the term dropped at least five times. Or if they're on a roll you might hear it fifty times. Liberals are fairly drug-addicted to empathy by this point. And it appears as if, if this video is any indication, that perhaps the resonant power of this totally hollow and self-serving, and by now rather hackneyed bit of liberal verbiage is starting to wear thin. And the empathy wave will have broken. Soon to be replaced by some new neologism liberals can hide behind....
@@lizlorde3190 I was referring to Liberals, not liberal ideals (e.g., pluralism, toleration, autonomy and equality) - and the fact that while there is some overlap, Liberals are essentially performative actors that in reality aren't living up to the ideals. Instead the ideals are selectively applied for certain identities as part of an identity politic strategy while also doing nothing to disrupt the status quo structures that allowed for these ideals to be undermined.
YES!!! SOMEBODY SAID IT! THANK YOU!
Studying ethics, political theory, and sociology right now. I'm so tired. I applaud your continued efforts to shed light on these issues. Personally, I would like to forget about my moral and ethical obligations and go full hermit.
If you want to be a hermit then just do it. Don't use others and the obligations you think they impose on you as an excuse to not pursue your dream.
@@andrewbaumann2661 I think you're being very uncharitable here in your interpretation of OC's comment. OC is likely trying to communicate about compassion-fatigue and the general sense of overwhelm and hopelessness when it feels like you're one of the too few people involved in both the fight and awareness of injustice and inequality. Trying your best to do your civic duty to protect whatever current freedoms/rights/consensus you have plus the ones you know society needs to embrace to ensure that the existence of marginalised & lower economic classes also get their fair share out of life and existence. It's necessary work that needs to happen but it's... a lot. So much. And given most countries' political climate right now, where insular, ethno-nationalist or outright fascist right-wing populism is in the ascendancy, it's ... Jesus. It feels like you'll never get anywhere.
It's not that OC is failing at a superfluous dream here like you seem to believe (?). Like they're just failing to put their talents to use and not realising their potential like being a movie director or something. I'm not even sure where you got dreams from?
OC also *didn't* say that while they feel like they want to be a hermit and shut out their moral and social obligations - they didn't say that's what they were *definitively doing*. They were just expressing a deep frustration and fear. One in my opinion is understandable given the circumstances.
And also those "obligations you think they impose on you" ... again that's kinda wild to me? I don't know whether there's been some miscommunication, maybe a bit of language and cultural context barrier but uh ... what?
Are you referring to the general sense of responsibility and care that all humans owe to one another just by virtue of living in a society? Is that truly an unreasonable ask? Genuinely asking because your comment came off as unnecessarily dismissive for just the most bizarre of reasons.
@@akinyiomer4589 Yeah, essentially. It wasn't meant to be a deep philosophical reflection. I was just trying to show support for Alice and her channel. Gotta feed that algorithm.
That said, yes. The hermit comment was not meant to be taken literally. Writing a long essay comparing Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau's take on the state of nature and when I go to take a break I get into argument where somebody was supporting Trump's appointment of Betsy Devos as head of the department of education. They said, and I'm not kidding, public money should be used to fund private and public schools equally. That way parents get to choose where they send their children to school. My head almost exploded so I just had to walk away.
So yes, sometimes I feel like I just want to shut out the world and take a nap. My motivation for working toward a more equitable world is internal, not external. I do not feel pressured by other people into this. I believe deeply that it is the right thing to do, probably mostly just because it *feels* really, really bad to be a firsthand witness of how poorly many people are treated. It can be hard to remain hopeful in the conditions which you very eloquently described, though.
And, of course, I'm literally tired. Midterms suck.
Awesome conversation here. You also owe some of that effort to yourself, you won't help anyone if you're beat up! Terrible things are happening but I believe sometimes we need to take time for good things, just to understand why we are doing anything in the first place. Hope you can rest a little bit.
Study math then. It can make you a hermit and you don't even have to be good at it if you do it as a hobby instead of a job.
Wow, you’ve spoken to something I’ve experienced when taking politics with my liberal family, for the record I’m liberal as well but anytime I get animated or emotional about a topic they shut my arguments down because I was too “emotional” it always felt wrong and weird to act like politics aren’t inherently emotional
I like your family..
honestly I also can't stand people who get too in their feels about politics, whether you're a liberal or a conservative
@@M_k-zi3tn isn’t politics inherently emotional though? Being logical and dispassionate does help when your doing things like science but politics isn’t like that
Narcissists always want those kinds of relationships to go one way. I've never gotten real respect from my own family, even in subjects in which I have genuine expertise.
I find that jubilee is increasingly having contestants that are already activists for their cause and have a large online platform already, so their whole career is based on promoting their beliefs. they obviously won't change their minds and want to look good for their fans too. I'd love to see more 'regular' citizens and not activists. Also, I agree about them being made to stand in their in-group on opposite sides of the room - optically, it reinforces division.
yeah the problem is when you bring in regular citizens it’s harder to make sure they’re all equally capable of articulating their beliefs. but if you bring in ‘professionals’ they may be more focused on convincing the audience rather than listening to each other
Interesting thing about "both extremisms theory": it was used by the commission investigating the military junta that staged the coup of 1976 in Argentina. It was called the "theory of the two demons", and you can still find people citing it as the reason for that horrific time in my country.
Doppelganger by Naomi Klein may interest you. It goes hard on the concept of doubles.
babe wake up a new alice cappelle video just dropped
Babe stop this meme is starting to annoy me 😅
Though i guess it helps with the algorithm.
I'm not religous, but i'm willing to sacrifice to our real overlords :D
There are many problems with the concept of empathy, but the main is the selective empathy (which we see now).
Focussing on empathy is not the way to go, unless people are taught to have empathy towards everyone.
But in our society, we are not. Therefore, empathy is usally only displayed towards certain groups, groups that we think are "relatable" to us, that we are told are relatable or close to our society.
When Russia attacked ukraine, people were saying we need to help ukrainians, because their culture is close to ours and because they look like us. And it meant a gigantic outpoor of empathy which resulted in hundreds of people helping, taking ukrainian refugees without discussion, and many people and organisations helping with integration. (All things I highly support, only it should have been like this with refugees from whichever country). When the women in Iran were protesting we had empathy because they wanted to live like "us", with their hair uncovered.
So far, no problem, right?
It becomes problematic when the group in questions is not "relatable" to us and therefore "we" dont have empathy with them. Look at Gaza, liberal feminists left and right fail to speak up about it and mainstream media doesn't even pretend to try to create the same amount of empathy we had as for example with Iranian women or ukrainian refugees. For years "we", western societies, made muslim men and women "the other". Now we see the results: an utter, total lack of empathy towards an entire people.
This is why I gave up on empathy, gave up on trying to evoke empathy among liberals. If not taught right, as something to have towards everyone, it is just covered in-group bias.
empathy-within-compassion (empathy held for the general situation, and extended selectively based on a wider compassionate stance that's based more on sober awareness as to how to support the greatest many without enabling more harm to the parties most vulnerable and entrenched/trapped).
i learned this term "empathy-within-compassion" from feminist psychologist, and it insists that empathy-without-compassion (selective, short-range empathy without regard for the overall ethics of a situation) saps away at one's capacity to critically support ppl & critically implicate yourself in the ethical dilemma going on.
I think humans are naturally selective for our own protection. The problems arise when different cultures have certain fundamental characteristics at odds with each other, for instance how/why people trust each other. If I trusted my parents unquestioningly and you trusted science, and we had a child who got sick and the doctors' opinions differed from my parents opinion, it would most likely end in a catastrophic outcome to our bond. That's at a micro level. Cultures deal with this at a macro level and it takes generations to accommodate those different approaches.
Those two examples are remarkable because they are both extrenaly and internally selective.
We invoked empathy for ukrainian refugees especially because they were european women and children, but we also haven't yet shown any outraged for the forced conscription and death of million of young ukrainian men because, well, men.
Same with the "women" protests in Iran, which had 70% male participants and 100% male dissidents executed, because again, we wanted to frame this in the context of our fashionable causes, rather than actually care about the people involved just for the reason of our shared humanity.
So let's give up and give the right even more of a free reign than they already have
This is…highly simplistic to say the least. It’s funny you say Westerners have no empathy for Palestinians when the polls show that the majority of Americans at least, are pro-Palestine and want a ceasefire. The media has just tricked you into believing Palestine supporters are in the minority, because that way you will feel more doubtful, more scared about voicing your opinion on Palestine.
People have empathy for everyone built into them, it’s the State that tries to snuff it out at all costs, through manufactured consent and fear-mongering.
"Disney for empathy" fantastically sums up Jubilee.
I'm a grown man who enjoys a good Disney movie once in a while. I'm not above saying that. A good Disney movie can be emotional, but also generally doesn't take things too seriously, and takes me back to being a kid again. Even if it is unrealistic.
And Jubilee has a very unserious, immature, and unrealistic approach to empathy. So "Disney for empathy." That is indeed Jubilee. Good job, Jubilee! I couldn't have worded it better myself, Jubilee. The biggest difference off the top of my head is that I don't really enjoy Jubilee anymore. Now let's all hug, Jubilee!
True.
diseny movies are fine becuase they are works of fiction about fiction stories with fictional characters, jubilee is harmful because it promotes people with beliefs that hurt real people
I find alot of stuff on Jubilee downright insulting in how it trivializes some serious subjects, as if its just a matter of perspective and not privilege.
I remember specifically this moment where I realized what jubilee is. this Palestinian man was talking about his dead 10 yo sister and his struggles after at a young age and the IDF soldier laughed at him and called it a poster story and brought out a LIST of his dead soldier friends. then they all ended up eating hummus together. It was an eye opening moment for me. I think that episode was their best yet to me it showed the horrifying realities of Israel society.
Jubilee is rage bait and nobody can convince me otherwise
Jubilee has any right to do this. If you don't like it, cope hard
Thought providing, as always, Alice.
Discussions can help us understand the motives of the opposing side and notice gaps in our own arguments. However, the truth is not always in the middle, we shouldn't forget that.
Yeah but Buddha sat under a tree for long time for a uneducated working class boy like me to figure dat out for moi.. Nez pas.. then eye found out Buddha was a privileged prince.. Jesus Christ! Even Jesus Christ was the son of god who's earthly father was a wealthy temple builder who had the money to educate jebus in Greek philosophy and language.. you can't get more bourgeoisie Dan dat.. why should a peasant like me listen to anyone who doesn't want to grow their own potatoes?
But opposite views exist. So cope
You have many good points. Too many to a single video, in my oppinion! There is so much information and ideas that one gets lost in a sea of references, concepts, notions and propposals.
Despite all of the problems with the study of difference and conflict within social psychology, it's pretty clear what works to bring disparate groups together- understanding a shared story and/or working towards a common goal. The culture wars are basically just good theater for either (liberal/conservative) side.
I agree that it's good theatre, and that's also why we're talking about Jubilee right now. I'm sure there are other youtube channels that feature panel discussions from diverse groups without taking on a "____ vs ____" format, but none of us are watching or talking about those channels, including the creator of this video. It's always good to criticize the system, but we also shouldn't forget that we're complicit in it
This seems to be what I am learning lately. If it's my goal to wholly dislike or wholly discredit a person or group of people... I mean, I'm for sure -- that's what's going to happen, no?
This is all very confusing for me though. And I think somewhere along the lines of thinking is the paradox of tolerance?
I am reading Introduction to Adler. Very interesting things.
Brilliant video as always. Verbalised a lot of thoughts I’ve been having when seeing Jubilee kind of content.
I'm a leftist and I strongly believe in empathy and talking to people with different perspectives. I agree that I don't like the liberal framing of it as "finding the middle ground," because empathy by no means implies that I should move my opinion closer to yours. People's perspectives don't exist on a sliding scale of left to right; they're complex and the result of many factors in our lives. If we can better understand the factors that lead to others having the perspectives that they have, then we can better understand the world we live in. My biggest problem with capitalizing on empathy the way Jubilee does is a) they're capitalizing on it, which kind of makes it hard to see as a genuine act of goodwill, and b) they never go further. It's just "the important thing is that we are talking about it," and doesn't try to use the newfound mutual understanding to arrive at some sort of common political goal. I don't know how they expect empathy to somehow fix the world without like, doing anything with it. idk comment your political empathy suggestions below
yep, empathy means "I don't want to do something bad to someone, or something bad to happened to them, because I'm involuntary putting myself in the place of this person. Also when I feel like I've done something bad - I feel bad and this may even change my habits". Empathy is a part of having a conscience - be responsible for your words and actions before people (thus being respectful), but it's not about supporting only a certain group of people while abusing others, often those who are in front of you (abstract you).
I don't think we can ask for empathy, but just hope that we have one. And if we really respect empathy, then we should not support haughty dishonest people who like the idea of forcing others to be good, reject to openly condemn bad things etc.
just my ideas. I also believe in empathy
Yes, I agree completely. "Us vs. them" and "Left vs. right" is the kind of binary and dualistic thinking that the status quo actually benefits from, in the end. It limits our moral and political imaginations.
Its funny how consevatives will read this title and have completely different idea of the content in relation to a marxist like me. The word "liberalism" for conservatives will trigger "pseudo-left anti-capitalist identitarian", as for marxists they will interpret it as it should: "a pro-capitalist ideology"
@@johneeeemarry34 "Conservatives dont get triggered" bro where have you been??! Obviously they only call it being triggered when its a leftist. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Communists have historically been very pro-capitalism in practice too
In Confucianism (or using a more appropriate term, Ruism), an ideal person (the sage) is someone who lives 'an authentic moral life' (the way the sage eats, sleeps, and walks all embody moral excellence) and is sensitive to the suffering of others.**
In this sense, the sage is a person of empathy. However, when the sage witnesses what is not right (an unrighteous ruler, social injustice, oppression, and the suffering of the people, etc.), this feeling authentically and automatically evokes moral anger in the sage. Zhu Xi, a Confucian scholar in the Song dynasty, wrote, "Anger, after all, is affiliated with righteousness” (怒畢竟屬義), and "The sage is angry because, according to the nature of things before him, he should be angry” (聖人之怒，以物之當怒).
Thus, from the perspective of Ruism, empathy without moral anger is superficial. Liberalism promotes this 'superficial empathy,' which does not lead to anything but overlooks the problems before their eyes.
Although 'goodness' can be reached by rationalization, emotions like 'moral anger' or 'shame' are actually the things that drive one to be 'good'. For example, 'bad people' (corrupt officials, criminals) know what is right and wrong but they decide to do bad things because they do not develop enough sensitivity to prevent themselves from doing what is not right.
** Confucius did not consider himself a sage. He said '...That I strive to become such without satiety and teach others without weariness - this much can be said of me...'
Isn't righteous anger also expressed through demonstrations and strikes? Sure, sometimes they don't work, but sometimes they do, and I don't think that demonstrations are forbidden in liberalism. Strikes sometimes.
How can you be a sage if you get some else to grow your potatoes for you ?
@@ThomasMullaly-do9lz There were many sages praised by Confucius. One of them and the most highly praised was 'Shun'. Shun was an immigrant farmer from what Chinese back then considered to be a barbaric region. Then, there was Da Yu who was simply a construction worker.
So there were sages who are not far away from growing potatoes by themselves and there were those who have someone 'growing potatoes' for them since everyone cannot be a potato farmer.
@@chaiyasitdhi yes some are forced into growing potatoes for book readers.. Confucianism is just state control to justify who does what labor.. Just a state religion like Christian church to control lower class workers to do the dirty work.. glorified inclusion that's all... Thanks for edgemecated splaining dat four moi.. yes yes everyone wants to save the world but nobody wants to help dare mudder to do the dishes..
Evangelicals would consider all the BS they vote for to be an expression of "righteous anger," too.
Alice, nice video. A few observations:
1. American urban liberalism is rooted in the classism required to keep threats out because there's a ton of class anxiety, a fear of losing, and a fear of outside threats that are the result of being kept out of the secure class.
2. The what about isms of liberalism are really tools to derail the discussion. When we talk about homelessness, and people suggest they live in government tent camps until housing can be secured, it's what about security, what about safety, what about showers, what about the cost, what about the density, etc. Same goes for pretty much every issue: We even can't build apartments on single lots here because the fire department what abouted evacuation issues when they're shown to be safe.
3. The culture wars are really part of people's brands that then give them meaning instead of being a part of action that gives the community meaning. It's one thing to sit around a coffee shop and go on and on about solving poverty, but it's another to act on it, especially when solutions would put the house owning classes position on shaky ground.
Also:
1. The internet chases edge cases because that's what sells. Those debates serve to increase that in an agreeable manner.
2. The internet forces a binary because that's how the underlying structure of it works. Those ones and zeros will never be able to understand the level of nuance required to be human, and programmers understand this and force us to behave the way machines want us to, to make money.
right! i call this kind of whataboutism "At What Cost?"ism
(for reference, i use regular whataboutism to refer to passing the buck "well what about [so and so] and the bad things they've done!")
you're so right & i hadn't made the connection between "whataboutism" & atwhatcost?-ism until i read your comment
I would disagree with your second statement. The entire paragraph highlights the deeper problem: a refusal to critique and question the underlying structures and systems that delivered such a poor outcomes in the first place (i.e. homelessness). The temporary or even long term housing issue only seeks to marginally alleviate a symptom of a structures/system and fails to address it. Tent camps are a good example of a Liberal "solution". If they were part of a larger transformative approach, then that is all well and good. But generally, these 'solutions' are more meant to alleviate the emotional discomfort people are having than actually addressing the needs of people.
I was on board until the last line... no? because code is made of 1s and 0s doesn't mean programmers' worldview is that everything must be made into a machine that has 2 states, and that's not even how machines work? and if this isn't what you meant, i'm sorry but that point just sounds wildly conspiratorial.
@@greinerphil I disagree simply because it's more cruel to leave people on the streets to fend for themselves, but I also think that tent camps are the last resort in a system that has failed everyone time and time again.
@@atoucangirlThe point is that computers have limitations that UX designers and programmers work around by changing our behavior, and those changes to our behavior often live in a binary. This is just the start of a working theory that I have little evidence for though, so it's more of a stab at something that I think we all should critique.
I had the choice in my feed between this or the new Disney Star Wars trailer. I chose this.
The comments section under the new Star Wars trailer would enlighten you to what’s going on in today’s society with more accuracy and humour compared to the continuing spreading of University AIDS that’s going on in this comments section… Your choice was predictable, smug and boring…
I really think liberalism is the flip side of fascism. They're both ideologies which tell you to ignore oppressive hierarchies in favour of expressing your feelings. Liberalism is for expressing positive feelings, fascism the negative ones. The thing is all our feelings are useful politically, love is powerful and so too is rage. But they have to be tied to change. You can't just curate feelings and not to target them. Great video again Alice!
Yea, fascism is just liberalism but angry and social democracy is liberalism with a human face.
Since when does fascism tell you to ignore oppressive hierarchies? An oppressive hierarchie is one of fascisms "features".
@mori1bund Fascism views oppressive hierarchies as good in so far as they can be used to obscure class politics. Basically, as long as you’re focused on racial/family/cultural hierarchy you won’t be thinking about how bad your boss is screwing you. Fascism’s main application is to maintain class hierarchy.
@@KickinRadTopHat well said!
@@mori1bund OK, I mean class hierarchies specifically. It tells you to ignore them as in that they are not the source of your problems.
I just finished your book and am on a reading journey through the books and papers you've referenced, it was a really fun read that I went over thoroughly, I really hope you write another!
what?? ahaha
@ville__whats your point? Regardless of any of her friends, what's your point? Trying to gotcha? Goddamn. Grow up
@ville__you've written the exact same comment 72 times so I think I can speak for everyone when I say that no one really cares lmao
Hi Alice, you probably won’t see this, but, if you do, I would like to communicate my appreciation of the fact that you included a Black philosopher (not to say that you should include Black philosophers in your videos for the sake of Tokenism). I am a Black (multiracial) person myself who is very interested in philosophy, and this has surprised some people. I struggle a lot with feeling like being Black is incompatible with being interested in philosophy due to the lack of proportional representation of Black people in philosophy. I have been struggling with the question of how big of a part of my identity my race should be due to the effects of stereotype threat and how pursuing my interest in philosophy feels easier and more natural when I identify more with being Black. But then reading the works prominent Black intellectuals (Ta-Nehisi Coates helped me in high school) makes identifying less with my race feel less necessary to pursue my interest in philosophy.
I agree with your description on Jubilee. I didn't think of it as liberal "respectability" before, I just thought they were gross people who enjoyed playing with topics haphazardly for profit, but I can definitely see how its not just a reality tv side show, its more that its a political goal of being centrists pushing respectability and "hearing the other side" which is why so much space is given to conservative talkingheads, because liberalism always leaves room for the right.
Good point. The Liberals of course are oblivious to the fact that "both sides" is hardly fair when the conservative voices effectively have already been platformed and are the established opinion with alot of inertia and institutional and cultural power behind them. Which means that the pretense of objectivity is just a farce.
It's like you read my thoughts and made a video out of it. Great stuff!
Wow! I just read Doppelganger and I was shocked to see you bringing it out like that. I was absolutely entranced by Klein's book. Lot to think about.
Thank you for talking about the harmful equating of peaceful climate activists with right wing extremists. Property damage is not the same as attempted assassination and the media continuing to push the narrative that activists are being extreme, dangerous, and unreasonable is a ploy to prevent needed progress - and that story is unfortunately often believed by the general public. But why wouldn't people be angry about our futures and lives being exploited and gambled with for the profits of a few and for the propping up of the current power structure? Anger is not only a reasonable emotion here, it can be a useful and powerful motivating one. Keep up the good work because we need more people in the world being critical of where these narratives come from and working on dismantling them.
Childish, predictable, generic first year university comment..
You just want to ban your political opponents
Disney for Empathy. that textbook oxymoron is appalling
advocating for points 3-6 are evident in modern politics. ex 3. police protect our cities thus must be good: a social presumption. 4. black lives matter as a reaction to significant racial incrimination and the antithetical blue lives matter stance. and most paradoxically the George Floyd spotlight effect, where it took one man's life to focus emphatic attention despite similar events occurring without such regard since Emmet Till.
I just discovered this channel last week and it's already one of my favs.
Excellent demonstration of how liberalism lays claim to a moral high ground within idealism which is deliberately ineffectual, so we must focus on materialist goals, also it's delightful to hear "Trogdor the Burninator" in a French accent.
My favourite kind of people are “I’m attacked by the extreme left and the extreme right.” like who’s the extreme left? A bunch of college students? Someone who believes in human rights?
12:26 Love the term.
“Being attacked by the left” means some college students posted articles at the person and patiently corrected them after they said some dumb shit
Antifa terrorists who go around punching people with different views
Your worth is determined by your ability to impose your will with underlying conviction.
I think reading Domenico Losurdo's "Liberalism: A Counter-History" is essential. Basically, it's an ideology deviced by the bourgeoisie to protect private property, including sl*ves, exclude working people, women, justifying gen*cide and colonialism, and restrict as much as possible the right for political participation so to make it rich people's domain
How about reading real historical liberalist texts?? Before commenting ridiculous and erroneous statements under an equally erroneous video?
@@kyarden7971 those texts you’re referring to are constantly quoted in the book, so I’m assuming you haven’t read it
the naomi klein quote is fire! thank you very much for bringing that forward
Alice, if I can make a request, I'd love a video about exit strategies and exit fantasies. This includes fantasies (or realities, as the case may be) about having passive income from investments/real-estate, but also things like the global expat scene, where hordes of well-to-do people overrun many big cities of the world in hopes of living the bohemian life on a dime which leads to massive rent increases for the local population. It also includes e.g. the privileged upper middle-class notion of permanent home office. I'm sure there are many more examples of exit strategies.
Imho all these exit strategies resp. exit fantasies are contributing to the existing problems with neoliberal capitalism. These people who can afford to do so, subtract themselves from any form of class struggle or even mild political reform in their own countries and instead seek to live the sweet life at the expense of the working population everywhere in the world.
The more I think about it, the more it reminds me of Robert Heinlein's world. Heinlein was an ultra-capitalist bordering on fascism, but he understood that at some point, the capitalist game has to end or at least be put on halt. The global threat we're facing are obviously not bugs from outer space but rather capitalism, but Heinlein's worldbuilding applies to our current global situation almost perfectly. In his novel Starship Troopers, rich people can sidestep fighting the war against the space bugs, while poor people have little choice if they are to have any hope of climbing the social ladder.
I'd be thrilled to hear what you could make of this topic!
I've always found people to respond best to just being treated like any other person, no disadvantage or privilege. Getting your weird "white-guilt" complex involved and making them feel awkward about it and putting all that pressure on them to assuage YOUR issue is just dumb and lacks any kind of self insight.
Great video!
Huge. This has been something I've been exploring in my own life so this was super fascinating to me. Great video!
One amazing video. It carries much truth in it Alice. :)
I reference Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò's Elite Capture quite a bit on the daily, and you covering the deference politics is the treat. In the U.S., they're are liberal writers who use his writing without mentioning some of his key politics. Especially the constructivism, the building between ideas that should demand. Connecting you ideas to Andrewism's video. A synthesis (without brandishing modes of fascism)
16:36 I'm bit of a militant in my part of the world with these thoughts ha.
9:08 My favorite one has to be the Kids vs Senior Citizens because it felt like a genuine, unfiltered conversation.
I see you everywhere. Do we watch the same kind of videos? 😆
The elephant in the room (this is almost always overlooked) is the social engineering that sets the parameters and defines the terms that characterize cultural clashes of any kind. These social engineers hover over the powerful institutions that transmit the templates that eager citizens buy into-'-media, academia, government agencies. The social engineers "seed" the terms of the debate and micromanage every detail. That is why labels seem artifical and disingenuous applied. That is why no progress is ever made: the oligarchy who convey their wishes to the social engineers (such as the Tavistock Institute) preserve their position of control precisely by maintaining an atmosphere of division and confusion. An unfortunate side effect of this constant psychological warfare is that persons of high IQ waste their time and energy expounding on social theories that tend to be extraordinary complex while dancing around the real causes, which are oligarchism and imperialism. Most intellectuals are too proud to admit that we still live essentially under a feudal system. And they don't wish to lose their status by deviating from the prescribed discourse which omits to mention the real culprits.
I think it's important not to be extreme while still uphold our moral compass. If a person disagree with someone, instead of treating them like the enemy of the state, it is crucial to understand where they are coming from and why they adopted that worldview. Esp our everyday lives are bombarded daily with propaganda by the state, corporations and billionaires. Take for example some swifties who would defend and excuse their pop idol Taylor swift for her part in huge carbon emissions and silence over the genocide in Gaza. We should speak out louder and put pressure to Taylor and her hardcore fan group, but we should also be mindful not to see them as good vs evil, which could easily lead to dehumanisation of the other. It should be viewed more like, propaganda vs truth, and we as individual play the role as an activist and educator.
I often find members of the far left expressing things in the most extreme terms possible, and it can become grating after a while. Even if I agree with the logic of their overall point, I find their rhetoric irritating and unhelpful
The question is though, is this a unique feature of the far left, or is this just what the internet has done to argumentation?
@@justanotheryoutubecommente2 problem with today's leftists is they don't know how to make allies with others who are in the same social class as them, instead they are walking exactly into the trap created by those in power and widening the already big gap between the left and the right. Meanwhile many of those in the left blindly make allies with those in the upper class/billionaires. Eg, they would rather demonise trump supporters who are also of the same social class and victims of the same unequal power dynamic as them. Instead they would rather associate themselves with 'friendly and nice' billionaires and politicians like Biden, Bill Gates and George Soros, even though they dgaf about equality or empowering the working class people.
Excellent video. You put into words my issue with identity politics far better than even I could articulate, and I generally tend to pride myself on rhetorical ability.
As a socialist, it has always seemed to be that most liberals are well intentioned but ultimately either too naive or too invested in the current system and unwilling to think beyond it.
Dialogue is a tactic, but not an end in itself. Its what dialogue can enable---united action towards material change---that is useful. Focusing toouch on dialogue will lead you to a situation in which every disagreement can be solved through talking, and that it indeed must be solved before anything else can happen. Its losing the forest for the trees. You dont need to be best friends with everyone, and you wont be.
There is a video of Israeli women listening to Palestinian women from years ago like the 80s or 90s
maybe….we can see how helpful that was at this point…. This was such a good video and you put in words feelings I’ve had recently,
I'd love a follow-up video on theories on tackling the issues of changing infrastructures, structures and super-structures.
Thank you for adressing the subjects in such a delicate manner. I identify the points of your argumentention and I understand that this perception have being created
So thank you for the opporrunity of adressing it with aditional points of view. About my moves and strategy, it is not that simple. First, nothing is oportunist, and also all that you vslue, I value too. But I play a protect role against a lever of agression that you dont know that could reach you. For example, always that I discuss racism, fight eith contudence and cause, or post paiting of black girls or boys, the, litterally, kill black prople. Its tense, very tense. So Im constructing conditions to expose more vulnerable causes, which iphold the same principles, which is equality, but, yes, with its own and unique particular emotions and history
thank you, Alice! this was very well articulated and researched
Great video again Alice!!! the "if it's not already done..." comments work btw! It's what got me to subscribe on the first video of yours that I saw
marketing 101, threaten the consumer
@@AliceCappelle Even your trademark catch-phrase has a secret anti-capitalist agenda 🤓
@@AliceCappelle ❤
saji sharma recently put out a really good video specifically about jubilee and how it's overall a harmful institution!
the examples of the Jubilee video where empathy and hugging it out was spoke about reminded me that yknow for their video of Israelis and Palestinians i watched years ago the entire thing was tense as hell and i'm almost positive there was no such hugging and celebration,, but i just wanted to mention thatt
Enfin quelqu'un qui peut ajouter des facts de la france sur des vidéos en anglais ! 💜
Another great episode. Glad to hear that Trogdor the burninator is supporting your channel.
It's worth searching out a blog Adam Curtis did about the performative 'TV hug' over a decade ago which did pick up on this aspect of liberal 'hypocrisy'
When does empathy become patronizing?
When it's come from the status quo (????), when the basis is only "emotional" and ignores the structural facts which give the real change (???)
You can’t control your emotions when it comes to question marks… The frustration of people not bowing down to your moral and intellectual superiority results in an emotion call anger….you display that emotion by aggressively using questions marks… Why don’t you try emojis for emotional expression (???????) check these motherfuckers out !🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🛼🤙🏿🤞🏿👜👩🏿🦽👩🏿🦽💉🇪🇭🇪🇭🏳️🌈💩🛼🦄🐩🇪🇭🤌🏿🤞🏿🤞🏿🤰🏿🤙🏿👩🏿🦽👡🪄💉💉🇪🇭🧴🏳️🌈💩🤣🤣🤣💩🛼🦄🧴🇪🇭🐩🦄🏳️🌈🤣💩💪🏾💪🏾🪄🤰🏿🤙🏿🚽🚽🤞🏿🤌🏿🇪🇭🧴🇪🇭🇪🇭🛼💩🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🦄🦄🦄🛼
With concepts like "The white man's burden" or savior complexes. There are plenty of people who want to help "lesser" people and get quite angry when those "lesser" people don't agree with the "superior" person's solutions.
I believe that the essence of life and human nature is better found when returning to the natural habitat which humans were SUPPOSED to live. The countryside, nature and farms.
What is or isn’t morally wrong is completely subjective. What isn’t subjective is human nature and that is why we must incorporate more of it in our conception of what makes a morally good society.
I'm glad people are finally talking about this.
Now, to be fair, I've always thought that this sort of issue gets worse due to american politics being exported everywhere else as they are the cultural (and not just militar) hegemon. Different countries have different cultural issues that dont line up with the culture wars we're currently experiencing and thus creates further divide between the elites pushing it and the common citizen who just wants their basic needs covered.
It is also basic ego: "we the really good people are finally allowing the poor minorities to stand up and talk!". Nah. They're just using them as fodder. At the end of the day there are particular groups with a lot of privilege who are using the well founded critiques of the many to claim they themselves are oppressed to then create an in-group that will keep the truly oppressed out while the in-group benefits. Basically conservatism but for liberal moms.
What a fantastic and on point analysis of today’s political landscape. Keep up the great work!
thx for this video/ merci pour la vidéo. You're making very good points on Jubilee. I felt the same way but couldn't really tell what was bothering me.
On another topic (but you're talking about it) could we agree on being more accurate with the term "democracy", a word distorted from its meaning on purpose for centuries.
A democracy is when the people write and vote the laws themselves.
The representative regime, isn't a democracy, even the architects of said regime (Madison in the US, and Seyies in France) have been quite vocal on it not being a democracy (pour Seyies tu peux trouver le texte, c'est celui du jeu de paume, y a pas plus explicite : "si les citoyens décidaient... la france serait une démocratie..la france ne doit pas devenir une démocratie." en gros.
Giving our decisional power to a few technocrates isn't a democracy. Not only that. There is no democracy anywhere around us, not even in the workplace... unless its a cooperative.
And that.. is the root of the problem. We the people have no power (or very little). And the "representatives" do as they want, or as the capital wants. One of the very few ways to get some democracy in today's system, in France at least, is to operate a form of "municipalism entrism" with a participative liste where people will then create a real democracy once "elected", like in Saillans.
Examples of modern real democracies are the ukrainan revolution of 1917-21, The commune of Shinmin (Korea) 1929-31, the spanish revolution of 1936-39, the Chiapas Zapatista since 1994 and Rojava since 2012.
Merci Alice pour cette vidéo !
Disney est le parfait exemple de ce problème. Ça fausse inclusion lui permet de toucher des niches et créer un engagement supérieur chez elles. Le nouveau film "la petite sirène" par exemple est pour moi très mauvais mais la qualité intrinsèque de celui ci au yeux du grand public, est éclipsé par les choix de casting. Les conservateurs s'offusquent de ces choix faisant malgré eux de la pub au film et les progressistes vont le voir par souci morale. Le seul gagnant a la fin c'est bien Disney, qui aura fait de l'argent avec un produit médiocre...
I feel a sense of polarization in my own mind where I feel like any thought I have in the context of the US specifically and working in an outdoor field a lot of younger people were constantly code switching while the older people were a lot more clear on who they are and how they want to be perceived.
Thinking about leading anti-maskers on a trail cleanup event where they showed up with stolen park equipment and then my own liberal supervisor being in fights with other staff and never having anything nice to say about their help that they had to send in an application for just to keep throwing 'competitors' under the bus meant to be who she was mentoring.
Idk but I'm glad I played Runescape when I was little and got scammed a lot by a lot of buttholes and saw hyper inflated rare Neopet paintbrushes when I was 8
Good video, thank you! Production note. Much of the text in the video is really low contrast making it difficult to read.
The issue is deeper i have many videos on the topic and i have had many experiences with the handlers taking controll
That video hit me on a note wasn't expeting but, this was pretty good.
I remember at the raise of facebook here in brazil that dischord YOU SHOULD HAVE EMPATHY, IF YOU HAVE EMPATHY EVERYTHING WOULD BE PERFECT AND YADDA YADDA start gaining traction
Out of me say empathy is bad, actually I really find it important as a way to try to comprehend diferent perspectives about life ... But somewhat ... That discourse never seemed enought ... It was not like people demanding that WE SHOULD HAVE EMPATHY were helping anything ... At time I actually find that behaviour greatly ... I don't know how to say ... Annoying?
Now watching the video it became more clear to me that all this DEMANDING was actually a demanding of white feminism and liberal agenda for the privilege people feel more OK now they pass the ball for someone else be the person to blame.
All this dificulties of bias, people engaging on empathy for "great looking people" and "people more lakely to Them" is the 101 of the thing.
I guess we need to have a better understandment of this topic because that discourse can have traction fast because, for a lot of people, is ok to "just say and stay away". With no real stakes in game and hugely defensive atitude towards anything else.
I have been following Naomi Klein for years. Doppelganger presents a world in which the media warps our ability to think clearly and wisely. We are overloaded. Not everything is important but it becomes important by being blown into a form of entertainment. In life, people often contradict themselves. This is normal human behaviour. But once its documented in some form of media, it becomes truth. Influencers prey on insecurities, which are again normal. Insecurities are part of human. (When we encounter people with no insecurities more than likely they are sociopaths/ or psychopaths. Here is another problem, we have to label everyone. We become our labels.) One of the reasons we like to watch movies that are based in the 80s or 90s is bc the tech isn't overwhelming. But when we look at our lives, everything is tech. Lastly, Doppelganger terrified me.
pretty much, Its a matter of knowing WHEN to empathize and criticize with effective usage.
I think genuine Empathy is a very personal feeling, you're more likely to feel it if you understand what someone is going through by having gone through it yourself; otherwise you can respectively listen and give them a safe place to be vulnerable. Being put in a position were you are expected to empathize isn't practical
Criticism is often done wrong by attacking someones identity or labeling them rather than recognizing detrimental behavior and expressing reasoning appropriately
Debates on culture/gender oppression vs privilege falls apart when generalizing (because people have unique experiences) ; Until debates are oriented for solutions I think people need to focus more on the discussion on personal experiences instead or at least start from there.
On class:
Nothing goods comes from resentment and finding enemies. "A peoples tragedy" the Russian revolution by Orlando Figes has a good take on the destabilization of Russian economy after the monarchy (Tarz) was overthrown, how politically unprepared people of Russia were and its consequences. I agree do not settle for capitalism (and though this video isn't being hostile in any way) it needs to be understood that a SUDDEN violent revolution needs to be avoided at all cost. Be mindful that people of class filled a vacant seat built for them by social structures, they are not self made. Our best bet is strengthening local communities reducing dependency of large co.
End of video has a good take in the direction it needs to go, inventing a new culture maybe a good start, there is a need to build competency before any real change can happen.
I find youre videos really good and build up with facts. Thank you for educating :)
I will never forgive Jubilee for Isr@el/Palestine middle ground episode where the Palestinians seemed clearly in trauma & discomfort and they made them break bread at the end of the episode.😒
Great video 💜
I'm pro Palestine myself however don't agree to go on a show about defending your perspective if you're too traumatized to do so. It's harmful to you and what you advocate for.
I saw that "liberal trans people vs conservative trans people" video in my recommended and I couldn't help but think about how just about every trans person I know is some flavor of anti-capitalist.
cis liberals do not understand us at all no matter how much they pretend to advocate for us
Unfortunately I met too many trans people discriminating other trans people and thinking there is only one way to be trans.
Once even a trans woman that said to be a "proud fascist".
And yet they're all the product of capitalism.
Do consider that liberal capitalism affords you a certain level of independence from others through the abstraction of money. In many other economic and cultural models, you'd be far more at the mercy of your local community.
@@johneeeemarry34 it’s a fact that trans people tend to lean a lot more left wing. This is mainly a symptom of trans people being inherently disadvantaged in things like finding a job, getting a loan, or even just finding a roof to sleep under.
So no it’s not just a reflection of them, but shows how groups that are disadvantaged usually start hating the system that is pushing them down.
The only trans people that support conservative parties are ones that are bigoted towards another minority (or even just a different kind of trans person) and deluded themselves into thinking they aren’t a target themselves anyway
the other issue with the social contract of most modern day democracies is that the repercussions for breaking said contract are only actually enforced upon the people, not officials or institutions
Nobody is going to give it to us, we have to take it. Solidarity forever ✊
I'm from Genova, Italy, so clearly my view "radicalized" and had a strong turning point after the 2001's G8. I was 10 back then but that event led me to study those years very well growing up. At the same time I grew up in this new society forming with very strong polarized opinions and very fragmented social fights. Well, that G8 in Genova in 2001 was the last violent answer of capitalism to a very strong, unpolarized social movement wich was clearly and globally pointing the finger at it. After suppresing the No Global movement with violence and fear all around the west with the same approach in every city, capitalism was able through a false flag tactic to polarize and divide the public opinion untill there was no more. Shortly after 9/11 happend and all the public opinion in the west was, understandably, focus on that. Then C. slowly narcotized us as individuals with comfort and futile distractions and let those fews who still have the strenght to fight only to care about their personal and very defined circle's rights. The blindness while feeling at peace with our conscience that comes from fighting divided when we all have the same enemy is beyond me.
I'm a great believer that a more equal society economically would substantially reduce cultural and social conflicts. Maybe that's too simplistic. This would need to be at a global level, ultimately.
Extremism of any kind, left or right creates chaos. Chaos can be a catalyst for societal change. Spiritual people that walk among us know this and are preparing for a change in society for the better. Stop the finger pointing and the blame games and be the change that you want to see in the world.
If you're solution is to expose ingroups to outgroups to foster understanding how does defining your outgroup as ignorant, morally defective and beneath consideration achieve that precisely?
moral psychology is fascinating indeed.
I share your concern about the problematic separation of Jubilee.
Also, I feel that you've earned something, but I doubt you have watched Kim Brown.
Here it is: 🔥🔥🔥 You're burning it down! 😍
Hello. Tend to like and agree with positions and actions you advocate here and in the media content you have produced. I agree that anger can be constructive, and catharsis can diffuse the intensities required to create material and cultural changes required to form ethical societ-y/ies. As you suggest in different words: reason, logic, emotionality, intuition and a whole spectrum of human thought and feelings are all involved in ways of construing what is ethical... sy/e-mpathy can be unethical if it is deployed, even in an existential idea of "good faith", if it perpetuates a status quo where people are suffering beyond anything that could be formulated as ethical. While you do touch on the subject here, it is possible to determine that there are conceivable situations where violence in a vast variety of forms could be ethical: self defence is a very standard and well-recognized example. While I am not interested in empathy and compromise at all costs, I am extremely hesitant to incorporate literal violence as a direct political activity, as it seems (and please correct me if I am misguided) to perpetuate a form of social entropy that tends to gain momentum (many violent acts of revolution and colonialism seem to me to support this, due to the initiation and perpetuation of revenge cycles, though not all). Wouldn't a more central approach be the most ethical on a sentimental and intuitive basis even if compromise is extremely unreasonable and unethical? Wouldn't education (though perhaps never enough in-itself) be the reasonable and logical alternative to compromise? Isn't that, in its way, what your media content is (i.e. education) and what it is attempting to achieve (i.e. non-violent revolution)? You are not, in the end, a Liberal, liberal, or neo-liberal (thankfully), but I do admire that you seem to recognize education as an ethical means of winning hearts and minds to a broad-based ethical future (even if that is something of distorted Liberal idea... though those ideas do seem to be best when distorted to include everyone). Best of luck and skill to you
this is powerful
Oh wow, I am almost done reading Doppelgänger, insane coincidence!
I'm a bit surprised that you cite Ezra Klien's book as an example here. By my lights, the thesis of that book is that (at least in the United States) polarization is a natural and even necessary component of the political system, and that the period of lower polarization in the US in the post-WW2 period was an aberration caused by the Cold War and the inclusion of conservative southern democrats in FDR's New Deal coalition. It does not advocate for a return to this depolarized period, which systematically excluded lots of people from the political process and kept the overtom window very narrow. Instead, Klien supports the sort of institutional reforms that can allow polarized political decision-making to play out *within* functional political institutions, rather than trying to depolarize
Always an actual fucking pleasure to listen to you. Will absolutely buy the book of O’Táíwò today. Thank you 🙏
This reminds me o the Verfremdungseffekt that playwright Bertolt Brecht tried to use to counteract sympathy and instead create more cerebral confrontation with the social disparities.
Alice! I loved this video. I think this is my favorite of yours so far!
Keep up the good work!!! And hi from Colombia! 🌄
Which neuroscientific study suggests rationality requires emotion ? I can concede emotion can be rational but rationality requiring emotion makes no sense, unless they are defining rationality differently or it is mentioned in a specific context. Weird how she glossed over this without expanding on it or providing a source.
You're claiming rationality is separate from emotions without linking any sources. Interesting
@mooo_cow. cmon now. you know that they were making no such claim. provide the source or hush
It's not a study, but I remember a case of someone who sustained a brain injury and could only think logically. I don't have a source unfortunately
Expecting any kind of scientific literacy from a 20 something RUclips activist studying humanities?
Love and respect from Nevada, U.S.A.
13:57 Such a powerful quote.
Great video as always.
I feel like you might know it or might have even spoken about it before but if not then Tajfels Social Identity Theory is great for demonstrating how malleable people can be
1:00 … Hobbs came up with the social contract…
Jubilee makes me think of the french RUclips Channel "Le Crayon". Which at the beginning was making debates with 2 people with very different views and try to have a "constructive debate". But ultimately it became a channel of far-right moral panics where the far-right guest's arguments seem legitimized only by the choice of subject, often revolving around Islam, Immigration, trans rights (so there is always a far-right TERF that is invited, thus validating her ideology) etc etc ...
Empathy is vital for us as individuals, but has absolutely no place in politics or governance. Institutions are incapable of empathy. We all understand that an institution can’t be happy or sad, but for some reason we pretend they are capable of compassion. As part of this pretense, we ask our institutions to make hollow gestures that tend to have negative consequences. For example, the fashion of giving addicts free needles sounds empathetic because people can spread diseases by sharing needles. Imagine this form of “empathy” in any other context, like giving free shot glasses at AA meetings, and you’ll see why this “empathy” has likely made many people’s lives worse. This fake empathy is also why we see systemic failure in every society that has adopted it. The only role for government is promoting and protecting ‘the commons’: shared spaces, infrastructure and resources that benefit the broadest number of people.
I would agree with you some 90 percent if the concepts such as "institutions" or "government" actually existed independently of humans who run them. Even if AI took over the governance and humans had nothing else to do with it, this AI would still be trained on inherently human bias. The truism that "institutions are incapable of empathy" which I completely agree with BTW, brutally illustrates the mechanism by which the humans who animate said institutions (I.E. people who are "just doing their job" in the government) are compartmentalizing the entire emotional baggage and responsibility that comes with perpetuating a system of managerial oppression. Hannah Arendt named this mechanism "Banality of Evil".
The other 10 percent I don't agree with are related to the example you took. People needing clean needles isn't 1-1 comparable to people sharing shot glasses. And providing addicts with clean needles isn't helping them overcome said addiction, it is just assuring they live longer so that they have a chance to maybe at some point decide to start the actual rehabilitation. It's more akin to offering your wasted friend to drive him home instead of letting him get behind the wheel. I'm not even going to go on a tangent about commons, it's a topic for another conversation...
I've always wondered if anyone behavior was supposed to change or was I just supposed to gain understanding and be nicer. Cause if empathy won't lead to changed behavior in some capacity, what's the point?
The essential human paradox is that we are inherently prosocial creatures that are hardwired to care about each other, but evolved in a cruel unfair world where you had to be fucking ruthless sometimes in order to survive. You had to hunt and kill animals, fight for resources, protect yourself and the people closest, and overall coexist with A LOT of other peoples suffering without having a fucking breakdown. So obviously, your brain has a lot of mechanisms to inhibit and moderate empathy . Hence why we care more about the people in close proximity to us. You empathetic brain isn't designed to properly process the horrific suffering of someone on the other side of the world.
I disagree with Prinz because I think empathy IS the the basis of morality. Its the thing that makes us care about other people. You're gonna really struggle being being a moral person if you lack even the basic ability to be emotionally invested in the happiness of others. All human emotions are essentially brain shortcuts meant to help you survive. Fear makes you run. Empathy makes you enjoy other people being happy and dislike causing pain, therefore making you a functional group member. What we have to remember about human morality and moral emotions like empathy (and anger, shame, guilt etc) is that they evolved in a different world where you only had to care about 50-100 people.
Basic human empathy is just that, basic, and its not gonna get you much further than not being a psychopath. Basic human empathy means Susan can trust you not to steal all her shit and murder her in her sleep for the lolz. Empathy is the bare minimum and its gonna take a lot more than that, especially in the modern world
TLDR: Overall empathy is an incredibly important but incredibly flawed system evolved to help group cohesion, not a magic solution to current political issues You should always to be trying to develop and apply it, but basing your politics on the vague idea of empathy without any further critical thought is a fucking terrible idea
Great video as per usual, thanks Alice!
Great analysis! Thank you!!
It appears to me that radical methods such as violence are worthwhile only until sufficient democracy in a given domain is achieved to obviate them, thereby avoiding the greater costs those methods incur - which often include not only loss of life and what’s been built with much labor, but also the process getting hijacked to serve actually opposed interests.
In a context of not overheated discourse, propositions that were once ‘radical’ can become a new consensus. Empathy and respect are naturally more powerful tools for achieving that environment, but not always exclusively sufficient.
Individuals must firstly be alive to participate, and saving lives from violence sometimes requires defensive violence against aggressors. There’s a difference, however, between recognizing corner cases and making violence the default behavior.
Identifying common interests and working together to achieve those is simply better than remaining divided and so defeated. Meanwhile, the co-operation may also bring the dividend of extending the shared hierarchy of values, a new perspective that makes some previous hostilities obsolete.
That skilled use of empathy requires critical thinking - including self-examination - seems to me self-evident, but I know that doesn’t mean it seems so to everyone.
To understand “how liberalism exploits the culture wars,” people need to understand the semantics in which liberalism denotes an ideology that is - like most conservatism nowadays - defined by devotion to capitalism.
(Very revanchist conservatives may like the prospect of going back to something more resembling feudalism, but the dynamics of capitalism itself pave that road.)
So, liberalism is in that respect less opposed to modern conservatism than allied with the latter against leftism (in the long-current sense of pursuit of socialism).
One rhetorical trick I’ve noticed is using the term ‘populism’ as if it’s synonymous with malicious and dishonest demagoguery. Liberals thereby tar with the same brush Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, as if the differences between the two should be irrelevant.
Likewise (as in the example in this video), any opposition to the status quo gets painted as ‘extremism’ and therefore a priori bad.
There’s good reason why even those of us whose congenital temperament is not the more conservative share a wariness of sudden extremes, of risky massive implementation of untested policies.
However, when words are so divorced from proper denotations, the Newspeak can “push our buttons” in harmful ways.
Being uninformed - or, worse, lied to - about matters of fact can make bad effects more profound.
The flip side is that providing factual information is often a key asset in changing people’s minds. How actually effective that is depends of course on how much their capacity for cognitive dissonance has been reinforced.