You know the whole snitches get stitches culture especially in the black community? It’s because we don’t get many witness protections from the perpetrator, so we could get jumped

When I experienced an abusive relationship I lost many friends because I did not seek to punish my abuser. So many people found it confusing including myself. This video sums up really well what I learned through that experience.

Grouping people together because they look the same has been a thing for humans for our entire history. Speaking about it as if it is some adopted foreign concept is disingenuous.

Bro the infantilization of “East Asianess” is literally just pedophillia masquerading as smt else

*americans* New sexuality unlocked: Asiasexual

hey! Thanks so much for the video. Its the deepest I've found so far on how love functions, and I really appreciate the references to literature!

hola, eres mi crush

Also the term "icks", commonly applied to men whenever they do something that is considered "cringy" or unattractive or silly, but when you love someone, you don't see any icks, they don't really exist in the first place

The only option I see is to refuse to care about etiquette inflation in most cases. For the classroom instance, the second person may have made a tiny mistake, while the third person made a large one. Instead of "that's offensive," which is a personal attack and offensive in and of itself IMO, they should have done something against the actual argument being made and said something like "you can't put homosexuality and bestiality on the same moral plane because..." Attacking people because they accidentally or slightly missed a social cue is crazy. Imagine if you forgot to hold the door for someone behind you because you were distracted and didn't realize they were there. Then the person behind you yelled at you for not holding the door. I think that's basically what happened with persons 2&3 in the example.

1:31 still? Immediately clicked off when you bought the 1984 red scare propaganda. Continue reading.

"presto card" are u ontarian goat?

In my country everyone has to pay 16bucks for public media. No advertisement allowed and the news is independent ( as much as that's possible). Seeing American TV made me shocked bc there's so much emotion and opinion already inflicted.

man i have never in my life relate to anyone so bad

a very interesting video, however, the authors of both papers just make up the requirements to a right to life, that's circular logic, i can make up my own requirements to justify my position (pro-life), and just as the case of protected species, it is obvious that the law doesn't have to match the philosophical arguments of morality, because there will always be disagreeing philosophers pushing their agendas, even if there are no logical fallacies in their arguments, we shouldn't change laws based on some philosophical papers, we should also look at practical outcomes, for example, i do believe it is very immoral to terminate a deformed child, but i think it should be legal, it is just too fucked up (im not gonna say immoral, just fucked up) to force the parents to take such a responsibility that they obviously didn't plan for also on the note of the right to life, it is a pretty relative thing, i don't think it's inherent to humans, it is something a society('s legal system) decides to give to individuals, for example every state that goes to war decides to take away the right to life of the enemy soldiers, some states decide to take that right away from rapists i think it's detrimental to focus on the philosophical arguments of morality in such cases, because they can lead us so far away from the obvious and logical outcomes of actions or inactions

I feel like general morality is perfectly valid, but with the caveat of needing a point of reference. When we say something is "good" or "evil", it's always important to ask "for whom?". An individual doesn't need morality for their personal needs and wishes, as they are already apparent to them. Therefore the only being, to which a general morality system is applicable, is society. Morality should be synonymous with the interests of a given society. In the terrorist problem, the only reason for the society to not torture the individual, is they might provide unreliable information as a result. Truth serums and lie detectors aren't mutually exclusive with torture and they might help with the "unreliable information" part. The action is only evil in regards to the individual, yet they in that instance exist in opposition to the society, within which the decision of his fate is made. As such, the society does not need to care for him. The only concern should be "is it effective".

I don't think the giraffe example is really valid. People might have not spotted the answer, because the problem is very abstract. Giraffes don't drink coffee, because coffee isn't something they are generally able to come across. To answer "why don't they like coffee" is in itself implying that they've tried the drink and didn't like it. The joke itself might not be true. I don't know how warm is the interior of a giraffe's neck. The joke doesn't work, because it's true for every liquid. Asking about coffee specifically makes the audience think about what makes coffee distinct from other drinks and how does that relate to giraffes not liking it. The joke doesn't work, because enjoyment of food generally comes from texture, taste and all the stuff that happens inside the mouth, not the stomach. If for any reason all the food became cold upon entering my stomach, I'd enjoy it just the same. There's also the thing about the individual's sense of humour. The joke presented isn't funny to me, for example, so, when asked to complete the sentence, I wouldn't think of that conclusion, because the context is that it's supposed to be a joke, which makes me skip over the answers that I find unfunny. The example makes no sense, so does the joke.

i feel like inclusive language is only scraping away the problem on the surface while the actual problems go much deeper. By using gender inclusive terms, youll never be able to make everyone happy so maybe a few trans ppl are happier if you say "person with an uterus" but for women like myself it just feels objectifying and irrational. The problem isnt that we are called women the problem is that trans ppl are not entirely respected and language wont change that for the better.

It should be illegal with exception for rape or incest. Abortion is taking the LIFE of a INNOCENT INFANT therefore it is MURDER. Anybody who disagrees ignores scientific studies. If you don’t want to give birth keep your legs closed, simple.

Acting in a way that benefits you first so that you can help others is ethically ok, but people are mentally lazy and only see the first part (fuck the others) and come to the wrong conclusion: it´s ethical to put myself in first place.

I think the video ignores an important aspect of this discussion: the political one. I believe there is a clear thread between language policing (done by others to others rather than self-imposed for others) ultimately caused our current political situation. In short, this got Trump elected. The consequences for this were staggering. We have traded taboo language (which actually hasn't gone anywhere and has become stronger) for the loss of women's reproductive rights. While I agree with the points generally, I dont like the trade that the left has made. I would much rather have people like that conservative donor spouting hateful bile (which we have not stopped people from doing) than have women be put in danger. In short, I dont think that this trade worked at all.

Any man who can't simply change the water filter when being asked, needs to be dumped. Seriously, the level of entitlement. 🙄

i so wish i could steal your vocabulary for my english entrance

a 4 min ad on a 14 min vid is crazy

It was nice to realize that, first, I've never really seem your face or paid attention to what you look like; whenever I see one of your videos i think "oh look at that, it´s thinking time" second i realized that i don't really pay attention to famous names and that might be the reason why i don´t do a lot of drama stuff; I´m sure it could be the other way around but i´d be curious nonetheless still, i think I´ve become more aware of what i listen to because when i listened to you saying "give a like and comment" most of the time my mind registers that as "oh the video is done" and this time i actually thought i'd be a good idea to comment. i think this is the first time i comment in one of your videos, might do it more latter because as i said before they make me think and i like that. what i got from this chapter was : - truth and informative metaphors - Knowledge and the actions that might arise from it; would be nice to think if all knowledge becomes a thought and then an action like the model of Automatic thoughts from cognitive behavioral therapy or it works different - in the infinite possibilities of an infinite universe, everything might be true somewhere, i mean, if the laws of physics might behave differently why not the relationship tendencies of one or two humans - the sun might not shine depending on the language - names and labels, how and why do they work? emotion or significance (this one is hard to write since my language of birth is spanish also i´m very happy to have paid attention to your face because you´re very cute, lots of love

You videos are excellent. It's crazy that I'm learning philosophy ideas from a college student and I'm a 45 year old guy living in Mexico from the USA. If you ever see comment , you give me hope the future might look more like Star Trek and not Mad Max. Ojala! Keep up the excellent through provoking videos! Love From Mexico

see i dont and wouldnt know anything about this shit bcz im unlovable atleast i sorta know how it works i guess but still unlovable

And sadly, there’s a war between Blacks and Asians in the comment section. Like there is literal war between the Black Man and The Asian Man in real life already. smh. 🤦

Its one thing to choose being a housewife as your personal decision, but going on the internet and advertising a lifestyle is a political agenda. Youre free to do so as long as you also draw attention to the risks involved. Do not mislead young girls into thinking that this is a legitimate career path because falling in love and falling in love with the right person is a HUGE gamble in this situation . Dont depend on a gamble to live ur life.

And here comes people in comment section talking about “whataboutism” like guys STOP!!! Anyone could be racist. You all are just proving her point.

Thank you young lady. Anyone could be racist. Yes even black people. (I’m a black man btw)

I have made it a habit to write notes on video essays to remember it better. Here are todays notes: the LOSS of architectural BEAUTY: america's ugly housing developments Architectural beauty does not need to be visually pleasing like one would think and instead is simply meant to show you the communities shared identity and ✨PERSONALITY✨ Modern architecture has changed America's structures. Its goal is function and due to this it often falls into the minimalist aesthetic. It is meant to be “The best way” and often suppresses and villianifies personality. Pretty dystopian and capitalistic am I right? A country’s speed of industrialization and the adoption of modern architecture are directly connected. After World War 1 Britain, US, and Spain all experienced intense fast industrialization; these countries saw a revival in gothic architecture versus slower countries (Germany, Russia, Italy, ect.) who adopted modernism. So why do European countries possess prettier architecture in modern times? It is due to the fact the discovery of modern architecture happened naturally and so their builders found ways to make it beautiful. America on the other hand viewed it as a tool to be used (Great another layer of capitalism and how it consumes our whole lives making them bland) After World War 2 housing was scarce due to the mass influx of citizens and babies. This resulted in unhygienic living conditions that modern architecture could fix. Modern architects believed they could make a perfect neighborhood and then copy and paste it everywhere. A real 1 size fits all solution. This did not stop other architectural types from emerging and it created a clear divide in the community. Beauty is subjective and can be imperfect and wrong at first glance. Many of the greatest artists broke rules yet did it correctly. Real ahead of their time people. Anyway, back to the topic, communities' architectural beauty should reflect their identity. Rich folk would often use gold and marble meanwhile wood shows warmth and nature. It is based on context. “The “Mcdonaldization” of society” pls i am dying 😭 Our society (man i am using this word often) has shifted to value predictability, efficiency, calculability, and control. Architectural beauty is harmed by these values. Modernism architecture ostracizes non modern architecture and highlights itself as the best thing (This ring any bells? Get it bells? Cause we are talking about houses. Please laugh) So why is modern architecture harmful other than just feeling kind of iffy. It often harms the mental state of those living in it due to differences in values. It has increased depression, dissatisfaction and boredom. Modern architecture doesn’t take into account that if something visual turns people off enough nobody will want to live there. Humans are affected by our environment and pretending like we are robots is stupid. The minimum existence housing unit was the smallest possible apartment a family could live in. The creators measured success only by how many houses they could fit. AI is taking over modern architism as well soooo… that says what that says about it. However They are not wrong that it did improve the quality of life at the time. Would you rather have ugly houses/ apartments or no housing at all? When faced with this question the answer is clear. Does this mean we can not be upset about how depressing our neighborhoods can be? No. While it is the lesser of both evils at this point in time there are multiple ways architects could protect architectural beauty and they are being both lazy and cheap by not changing this. They could require architects to take classes on the effects of our living environment or ask locals what they want in their community. Why should the government care? The basic needs theory states that the government is justified when distributing basic necessities (Food, shelter, water) so it is not their job to help. This is a messed up way of thinking in my humble opinion. Discretionary goods are goods that are not NEEDED but still valued deeply. The democracy theory states that by deciding what goods are valuable is them taking sides and so it has to be decided by majority if they are to contribute. The flaw in this is that some goods are more important no matter what the majority think, like you know Education. Solidarism theory states the government should make highly valuable discretionary goods accessible to the public. Our society is very interdependent. Things are produced socially not privately. Even though we still are in a housing crisis, taking time to consider beauty is no longer something that will strongly affect the public like it would have after the second world war. We have the opportunity to make things both beautiful and efficient. This is just my take on the video so please do not insult

I think the movie was ok but i also think the fact that the metaphor is so weak that like... yeah the movie ends and you do have to explain that many of the points are flat out wrong at multiple points. Its like kinda nihalistic at points where it shouldnt be and almost too positive where it should be nihilistic.

i agree with most of the things that you say in the video, but i do not understand the part about white people wearing chinese clothing. beautiful clothes are beautiful clothes and i dont inderstand why you necisarilly have to want to know about the cultures history that it descends from. maybe its because to me, for example the dresses you mention in the video, do not have any racist connotations. maybe im ignorant or not seeing the bigger picture idk but i rlly dont understand and im curious to learn. love ur videos!

love is feeling safe with someone, safe enough to be vulnerable with them, and accept their own vulnerabilities. love is being vulnerable

as a physically disabled person, body neutrality in the way its presented doesnt work for me at all, its negative to me because like viewing my body at its bare functions makes it more obvious to me that mine doesnt function as it should

I like living in a high trust society. You notice how people who don't live in such societies seem very vengeful and ugly in their attitudes towards their common man. They also tend to use their government as a scapegoat when stronger non privatized public institutions are probably exactly what theyre society needs more of. High trust is not naivete. It's a sign that you live in a good society. And low trust perpetuates itself into more antisocial behaviours and attitudes. Everyone should ideally live in a high trust society.

I have long agreed with Tooley on most points. I do not believe in the inalienable right to life beyond what we collectively assign. All of my views on morality are inherently selfish, as I believe to be universal. The only reasons we tolerate other individuals or groups competing for our own resources are pragmatic ones. Cooperation, laws, and compromises, politics and currency, all of it is about trying to construct the most agreeable system to work out which individuals get access to the most resources. From this, all else stems. The way I see it, the abortion question is all about the underlying question of "who cares if this thing lives?" We, at least in the USA, place 100% of the responsibility for the infant on the parents. In this way, they are no different than a fetus. Societally, any newborn is as useful as any other. The only persons assigning any specific...let's call it "potentiality", to any individual newborn are its caregiver(s). To that end, I only care about it insofar as much as I respect that *they* care about it. If the caregiver(s) do not want it and it cannot be expected to survive on its own, I see no reason why they should not be allowed the option to cease its existence. It is, at that point, as much a conceptual member of society as an embryo, a fetus, or patient in a vegetative state. If we as a society decide that we wish to take a vested interest in a newborn's continued existence, then society at large must accept some responsibilty for it. We haven't, or at least we have dedicated very few resources to it which is basically the same thing, so stop complaining so much about other people's choices that don't affect you. You don't care about that baby. That said...we have to draw a line somewhere. An hour after birth? A day? A year? Age 16? There comes a point at which society at large is willing to assign some value to an independent member of it. But I have come to accept the fact that that point is, largely, arbitrary. I suppose if I had to pick, it's when the child can answer the question "do you want to live?" for itself in the affirmative. Before that point it has no agency, and thus no choice in the matter. The same is true for suicidal people, comatose patients, or those in a vegetative state. Either we, as a society, decide to devote the resources towards keeping that person alive in the hope that they will contribute in future, or we leave it up to the ones that care about them to do something about it. Obviously it gets complicated when you try to judge the value of a fully formed, self-actualizing individual, but the conversation starts in the same way.

Slavoj Zizek talks about love as being something that can truly help us break from the consumerist cycle of late stage capitalism. According to him it should ruin and disrupt your life. And that's a good thing. It shouldn't be commodified.

We live in a takers world not a givers world. The world is bad

"Before we do any thinkythink" must be one of my favorite sentences

These comments passed the vibe check 😂

this the most self hating video i have ever seen

Feelings are important, everything is important!

Deeply disappointed in your character after watching this video. How can you possibly compare natural normal consensual relationships to animal abuse, for one? I am sickened and repulsed that you would even give a shred of credibility to these bigots by putting the onus of avoiding offence on the *victim* instead of the willful bigot. The pathetic sycophants licking your boots in these comment sections are keeping you in an echo chamber. Surrounding yourself with enablers is grotesque. I won't be making the mistake of watching your channel again.

How can you argue with the statistical fact that Asians are the most successful group in the United States? White Americans on Avg. would need to be the top performing group in the United States and that alone dispels the notion of structural white supremacy! In terms of hierarchy they’re NOT at the top performing group. Cultures value different things and ALL racial demographics white, asian, black, etc. can be subdivided… those cultural values show where success lies.

One and two are having a discussion. 3 is being useless and distracting.

중국의 영상과 홍보는 한국에 비해 존나 촌스럽고 뒤떨어진다. 은근슬쩍 항류에 올라타려는 중국의 또 베끼기가 시작 되는 듯. 이러니 중국은 발전 이 없는 듯

Recently the cbc radio played a news segment that very much upset me. After foreign aid workers were airstruck by the idf in covering the death of canadian aid worker they said she had "died in palestine". Something about the dehumanization of the death of not even just foreign victims but a canadian victim themselves on canadian news for political purpose felt completely disgusting. I feel like the inability to use words like suicide/murder/death on many platforms is a tool of oppresion wherein we as the oppressed cannot use the language necessary to describe our conditions accurately.