The Cultural Bell Curve: Why Unlimited Tolerance Ends In Communism

What does it mean to live in a society where everything is accepted-or nothing is? Both extremes-rigid tribalism and blank-slate utopianism-fail to account for the diversity of individuals and the universal truths that foster human flourishing. Whether it’s family structure, health, or political ideology, the proper balance lies along the “cultural bell curve,” where some behaviors are celebrated, others are tolerated or criticized, and a few are rightfully condemned. Pretending we can live without any norms in the name of “inclusivity” leads to chaos-and ultimately, tyranny. To rebuild a thriving society, we must stop chasing delusions and confront what actually works.
Subscribe and ring the notification bell so you don’t miss a single video!
Follow Dad Saves America on Substack: dadsavesameric...
Subscribe to the podcast: www.dadsavesam...
Make a tax-deductible donation to Dad Saves America: secure.anedot....
_____________________________________
Our Website: www.dadsavesam...
_____________________________________
Dad Saves America explores the philosophies and practical steps we need to raise capable, curious, independent adults ready to thrive in a virtuous free society... and want to keep it that way.
We’ve had many experts in the studio, including Jonathan Haidt, Dr. Drew Pinsky, Troy Kotsur, John Mackey, Ben Askren, and Adam Carolla.
#socialnorms #tolerance #diversityandinclusion

[@DadSavesAmerica]

If you like what you see and want to stay up to date with Dad Saves America, please subscribe here on KZbin or over on Substack, where you can find weekly articles and the audio version of the podcast, with more to come in the near future! www.dadsavesamerica.com

[@InternetDarkLord]

The biggest flaw in this video is that communist countries were actually in some ways socially conservative. In the Soviet Union, a man could marry one woman, even commies couldn't change that.

[@abcxyz2927]

The odd thing is the word “tolerance” Have you ever been told by a friend that they only “tolerate” you? Not exactly a glowing compliment is it? Yet that’s the word chosen ..by the left ..to talk about how people should view each other..

[@ispelthisrong]

Gross over simplification of the issues just 10 seconds into the video, I know plenty of communist pacifist, and I know plenty of violent right wingers with guns. The issue is not their political opinion friend, it's the hateful ideologies in their heads, left or right someone could be a "bad" person, why does their political opinion matter in the context of what they do? Preemptively to that you may say something like "well they do it the name of their political opinion" and so same issues still I said a second ago, people kill in the name of god, their religion and political opinions are not really the issues here, in the way you are saying where you generalize every single person who is a communist, how and why should I take that statement seriously and not say back to it, every priest and holy man is a chomo? Your rhetoric is bad and you should feel bad, I will be dismantling and scrutinizing every word you say, I found you from a youtuber advertisement, so this is clearly about money to you, my question are rhetorical, I know you have no real answers.

[@teonactalpizza]

@@ispelthisrongit's nearly a half hour long and your judging it within 10 seconds before he can express the full range of ideas? For shame.

[@HannibalOrMaybeJustRex]

I recommend checking out Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian philosopher Aleksander Dugin. He sort of goes through what he believes to be the evolution of liberalism. I found it interesting.

[@jacklawsen6390]

- Men and women are different - The family is a good thing - The State should not control everything

[@CalmBeforeTheStorm76]

The frustration for myself and many others is that the left has taken a giant crap on our culture, then set it on fire, and now, we're hearing people discuss common sense like it's a bold new idea. The last 4-5 years have been a total cultural wasteland. Just forgotten years where everything has degraded because morons were told "only white people can be racist" then these same idiots started living their lives according to these retarded principles, ruining so many lives in the process. It's going to be years before I forgive them. They have caused so much goddamn harm against peoples' lives, not to mention dragging our names through the mud for pointing out the obvious--- that, no, America isn't going to be like San Francisco.

[@JoinTheTemple]

If I may, perhaps a slight improvement would be: The State should hardly control anything

[@shawnpatton3795]

Like women’s ability to have an abortion?

[@trevorjames3082]

How dare you say something so controversial.

[@allencoward5282]

You’re obviously a fascist with such bizarre ideas.

[@marcusmoonstein242]

"The only thing we won't tolerate is intolerance" is effectively the same as "The only thing we won't tolerate is anybody who disagrees with us". Tolerance becomes the ultimate intolerance.

[@SQron188]

Herbert Marcuse's idea right there.

[@andrewpeacock6538]

Crazy how you say no one tolerates your intolerance. We see your intolerance mega-phoned literally everywhere lol MAGA is the loudest group and are constantly allowed to be bigoted in public. Not sure where this persecution complex came from..... oh wait, it the flood of right wing disinformation and fear mongering you people fall for. You people are just the worst 😂

[@achantus1]

@@SQron188 Yes, "repressive tolerance".

[@phattjohnson]

That's not real tolerance then, just virtue-signaling under the guise of tolerance.

[@betrayedcitizen5135]

I’ve become intolerant of the woke crazies and I will never back down. They are ruining life.

[@INeedJesus55]

"Tolerance is a virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton

[@teonactalpizza]

Correct.

[@aspensulphate]

Isn't that meaningless, unless one defines what is, and is not, tolerable? I will tolerate someone walking around in weird clothes. I won't tolerate someone urging my children to question their gender.

[@MarioLeCarre]

@@aspensulphate I think you will "'accept' someone walking around in weird clothes." It wouldn't really be a tolerance thing, unless it was truly aggravating you and you had to hold back from confronting them, then you would be tolerating the weird clothes. "I won't tolerate someone urging my children to question their gender," is exactly what the Chesterton's quote means. The worst happens in the world when good, virtuous people don't stop what is atrociously wrong. Weird clothes is not a hill to die on, it's something I can accept. Gender studies and forcing its ideology on my children is something I can't accept and won't tolerate; it's a hill worth dying on.

[@daniellogan-scott5968]

Around 700 BC, Hesiod described social collapse being a loss of shame and consequences. If we define mercy as someone not getting what is deserved, the natural consequences of actions, then we run into a problem when we see mercy as a moral good. Rather than mercy being a case-by-case rarity it becomes the moral standard and thus undermines consequence. When people do not suffer the consequences of their behaviours, then there is no impetuous to self-regulate or improve and there is no true justice.

[@RachelNichols-writer]

The State is not an instrument of mercy but justice. Let the State dispense justice and let individuals show mercy. For without justice there can be no mercy. The State upholds the law. The happy individual lives by love.

[@falconeer99]

People often forget that tolerance, by definition, must have limits.

[@jorden9821]

Intolerance is how we maintain morality

[@Guy-d2e]

This is the problem. Once you say that you will tolerate gay marriage, this far but no further. You have no principled argument against Drag Queen Story Hour etc.

[@publiconions6313]

Im really happy to see you correctly set anarchism at the opposite side from communism, rather than what lefty professors usually put on that side

[@tomwinterfishing9065]

Absolutely.

[@selwynr]

Anarchism is socialism, duh!

[@caracoidwren944]

What lefty professors do is to put socialism in the center with communism to the left but still well within the realm of socially acceptable--and even commendable, if a bit utopian--and then put center right as far right. What's funny is their extreme far right would be what any informed person would label as back to socialism again. Note: center right is represented by a void.

[@jacobscholtissek2410]

i say that all the time anarchism is right extremism should be logical but instead we have to left wing ideologiess on the extreme facism and communism.

[@andrewpeacock6538]

​@@jacobscholtissek2410wouldn't be because you are engaging in some mental gymnastics to distance yourself from the fact that you hold fascist beliefs lol lying to yourself is delusional. If you support 5he mass deportation and interment of your neighbors, you might be a fascist 😂

[@michaelsilveradventure5712]

Several things have brought us to the point of current failure; 1) Lack of self control. 2) No personal responsibility. 3) Moral Cowardice. 4) Relativism. 5) Confusing race and culture. 6) Magical Thinking. (Reality conforms to my wishes.) The good news is that it’s only a small number of people causing trouble…the majority don’t ascribe to these ideas. The bad news is that everyone has been affected to some degree or another…which is why pushback is so difficult. The solution? Those less infected need to push back and say “no,” even when it means a social cost.

[@stacy-annmorgan6685]

Right it’s time we bring back common sense. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Men can’t be women. Men can’t get pregnant and no matter how much they try to make me tolerate it never.

[@henrytep8884]

You do realize Thomas sowell is a moral relativist right? If your principle belief is one of trade off(that’s Thomas Sowell) then that makes you a relativist.

[@teonactalpizza]

@@henrytep8884incorrect. What Thomas sowell is saying as that there are no "solutions" to the problems described throughout history on a scale so large, therefore there are only tradeoffs. You make the best most moral decisions you can based off these trade offs. The peoples he is arguing against here, the fringe far left which has fooled everyone into thinking they are the majority, are utopian idealists who resist and refuse reality and therefore foundational all of their ideas are doomed to failure. History recent and old bears this out, which is how he came up with this he didn't just make some shit up like Karl Marx .

[@anthonybrett]

Don't forget ease. Oil and the electron have robbed us of our toil. Nowadays, we yearn for problems, rather than trying to survive them. "There was a time before our time, It will not come again, When the best ships still were wooden ships But the men were iron men…" Clipper Ships and Captains

[@shadowednight1600]

The really bad news is the small number of people buying into that? They're in the media and the government, getting backing from Blackrock. It's going to suck, but we have to win at any cost

[@thecontentengineer-xyz]

I like how Thomas Sowell describes our reality as a series of 'trade-offs.' However, I would add that our species, collectively, will always strive for some version or perversion of utopia. It is in this quest for a better life that freedom of speech becomes essential, for within the complexities of our conversations, we grapple responsibly with reality.

[@katedunning9467]

My theory is that social media drove us crazy because there is no signal for “side eye”. It’s either 👍 or rage responses. It’s impossible to read the room on social media.

[@DadSavesAmerica]

That is a really good observation! I think you’re on to something.

[@lisaroper421]

Oh, I like your observation! Rings true to me.

[@daniellem1838]

I said something similar on Facebook at least 10 years ago. Everything is now black/white with no shades of gray. The worst thing FB did, in my opinion, was introduce Trending News. FB went from family and friends interacting to tabloid news outrage. Everyone, at the time, kept raging about the Kardashians which fed the algorithm … that kept the rage going. Great comment.

[@socialmoth4974]

It also gave voice to all the weirdos so they could find eachother and reinforce their behaviors. Before social media, they couldn't discuss their perversions out in the open. Now, they have online communities.

[@ferb1131]

As soon as Twitter appeared, when it was limited to something like 130 characters, I remember thinking immediately that that seems like the worst of all possible worlds - an internet forum that prevents the well thought-out, well reasoned arguments from being made while promoting emotional outbursts. I think that kind of thing sped up these problems in society.

[@mamandapanda185]

I dissolved my contract with a talent agency that boasts all of 'the' social virtues and sent out a mass email without a signature on it to their talent about how they will boot you from their roster if they find you aligning with anything or anyone that is offensive. A person with a signature replied to my email "it wasn't directed at you specifically; are you sure you want to end it?" I said, "yes, it seems that you are not wanting to include diversity in thought with who you represent and you've made it clear that if someone sways outside of yours, then they are not equal and don't belong." I don't even really get vocal about controversial things online, but that's just a bunch of hypocritical bovine dung.

[@tomwinterfishing9065]

Good on you. More people should stand up to this nonsense. I wouldn’t work for any organisation with DEI or any woke wank. I cannot condone such things.

[@theredsir869]

Good on you. Most would be too afraid to rock the boat.

[@mamandapanda185]

@@theredsir869 You should see the mental gymnastics around calls for voice auditions. It's "as long as your voice print aligns with the client's needs" on the back end, which is in direct conflict with the whole "if you identify as then you are" virtue signaling that saturates their outward branding and marketing.

[@LongSeanSilver]

Or maybe they don’t want a PR disaster, that is directly represented by their company and employees? Because it affects their bottom line, and requires more man hours to deal with, especially with a surplus of available talent?

[@mamandapanda185]

@@LongSeanSilver We aren't employees. Plus, it's subjective and not like they give us a LIST of things that 'offend' them, so we don't do them. If I want to keep my propane stove, is that hate speech? I didn't but what if I voted for Trump? Am I a myso bla bla bla, bla bla bla, bla bla bla? I'm not walking on eggshells. People have taken this way too far, for the sake of virtue signaling, attention, funding, and some attempted twisted form of dominance over an outgroup they're being programmed to hate. Dad nailed it here. You have to be 100% with these types of people or you ARE the enemy.

[@memoryhero]

Weaponized Empathy is what all of you need to learn to reject in real time... all while not completely switching off your empathy. This is the trick.

[@DAWN001]

Agreed 👍 People without a real argument so often say things like “you don’t care about starving children” to end a discussion.

[@vonnie0_0]

“Empathy without boundaries is self destruction.”

[@phattjohnson]

@@DAWN001 Or use the word 'genocide' incorrectly.

[@TheReturn26]

I only care for solutions. Empathy has its place but can't let it hinder you from solving a problem.

[@romanbrandle319]

Switching off empathy is called sociopathy; selective empathy is not empathy as it is just mimicking empathy.

[@david8905]

Tolerance means the capacity to endure exposure to a stressor for a period of time without an adverse reaction. At some point however a limit is reached. Tolerance does not go on forever.

[@teonactalpizza]

You are right, unfortunately the left does know this, tolerance is used to incrementally normalize the bad stuff because eventually if there isn't backlash, demoralization and normalization sets in. Remember gay marriage 15 or so years ago? I said sure why not what do I care doesn't effect me. I thought the tighty whitey conservatives saying next it will be legalize PDFFILES were being facetious and disingenuous. Well they turned out to be 100% correct they didn't even need to exaggerate it. If you read the leftists dogmas they themselves state these goals 100+ years ago.

[@kenneth9874]

Tolerance is a nice name for cowards to hide behind, sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand.

[@theprismaticoracle]

I experienced shame a couple of months ago after friends came to visit me and my apt wasn’t clean. After feeling the shame I decided I would become a clean person. Shame worked wonders for me. I love transformative-shame and a clean apt 😂

[@caracoidwren944]

Somehow, that didn't work for me.

[@andrezdaz5696]

@@caracoidwren944 Didn't work for me either.

[@Featherfinder]

@@andrezdaz5696 Hasn’t worked for me either yet. Still, I get her point. Shame has its place.

[@Therealmathilda]

That used to be called hazing. At certain times and in certain amounts it works.

[@andrezdaz5696]

@@Featherfinder The issue with shame is that it doesn't stop the one it intended to stop the most in the first place. It's like gun control laws.

[@Luneytoon]

What I got from this is that we need to look at human nature and which system best compliments our human nature. Communism contradicts our need for agency in choice and individualism while anarchism contradicts our need for structure and community.

[@TheReturn26]

Answers always somewhere in the middle

[@trancemutator5393]

The Poppers Paradox of being intolerant of the intolerant, always leads to a highly intolerant society.

[@amazingmazur6752]

You can't have pride without shame, as they are the two sides to the same coin. Hence, "gay pride" is an oxymoron.

[@andrewpeacock6538]

Does that explain white pride 😂

[@DAWN001]

I think it’s working out to cause “boring normal people” to feel shamed if they don’t do or say something to embrace this pride.

[@Menstral]

You're trying to be clever. The opposite of pride is not shame, it is guilt. Both pride and guilt are internal feelings based upon something you did or did not accomplish. Shame is different, it is imposed on you by other people. Pride is for something that you do, not for something that you are. George Carlin has a famous comedy bit about this. You can be proud about your degree or running a marathon, but you shouldn't be proud for being Mongolian or gay, because you didn't do anything to create this state, it is just some state of reality based on mere existence. This is where so called 'gay pride' went astray from the start. Gay has been hijacked or repurposed and gay pride has been created from whole cloth. Gay pride really means 'I don't feel guilty about something I can't control' Shame means you have been judged by others, while guilt is a feeling of disappointment because you did not behave properly according to your inner code. There is some confusion about these two dichotomies, because the word 'ashamed', is ambiguous or used sloppily. However shame and guilt are words that are not ambiguous at all.

[@AmbyAntidevolution]

Pride always comes before the fall.

[@amazingmazur6752]

@@Menstral I'm "trying to be clever" says the poster who is playing a game of semantics. Gay much?

[@michaelobrien8661]

The thing that woke culture seems to say is "what was once considered normal (i.e. men and women being attracted to one another) should be considered unacceptable and shameful."

[@madorsey077]

exactly! Communism means that anything that has power outside of the government must have its power taken away; religion, family, guns, individual success, etc.

[@lesliehunt4078]

Interesting perspective! I'm a classic liberal/progressive. I used to be very progressive but the past few years I started to feel that much the newer progressive ideology doesn't make logical sense anymore. I will never like the idea of shaming people for being outside of the 'norm', but I also don't like how modern progressivism celebrates ideologies that are counter-productive (e.g., obesity) or stemming from mental illness (e.g., some of the gender ideology concepts). I REALLY don't like that my government (in Canada) has essentially turned to authoritarianism to force the population to accept modern progressive ideology

[@TheReturn26]

Best of luck on the next election cycle, Pierre seems like a good dude.

[@martinliehs2513]

I have been a member of the PPC (People's Party of Canada) for 6 years, trying to "conserve" classical "liberal" values in Canada .

[@ronfroehlich4697]

In my lifetime the only thing that people who identify as liberal have ever been truly liberal about is taking other people's money by force and spending it

[@SEKreiver]

I liked the "no discomfort" part. I was a serious longhair for over a decade. I basically NEVER cried about what difficulties that brought on. I totally KNEW going in that those things would be a problem. I dealt with it. These wimps want to be "outlaws" with NO inconvenience, no STRUGGLE. If you believe SO much in what you "believe", in what you "ARE"...then suck it up and pay your dues.

[@DadSavesAmerica]

They want to be rebels… but also be celebrated and cherished by everyone for it.

[@wd4402]

Thank you for your practical presentation. Culturally speaking, we're continuously being asked to abandon discernment. If we want to understand the meaning of this push we need to consider the outcome...pure chaos.

[@jerseygrl5]

It seemed like we were heading in that direction as a nation. The last election was an announcement by the electorate to "put on the brakes".

[@yinsound]

From a practical standpoint, I think there is one simple question to ask: who votes? In all cases in which all people vote (including the extremely unintelligent, envious, and impulsive) the eventual outcome is communism. The Greeks learned this 2500 years ago. The founding fathers were well aware of this. The early American republic had property requirements for voters. As long as that limit held, the US was the wealthiest nation in the world. See Venezuela for what happens when many ignorant/envious people vote. What we have rejected, at our great peril, is that there must be some property and/or intelligence standard for voting rights. This is the ultimate hard truth of political science. As long as that obvious fact is ignored (because it is so impolite to the academic class), we are guaranteed to move unavoidably into communism. I mention this knowing that, at least for my lifetime, only a few people will ever have the courage to state what should be an obvious fact: ignorant people vote for tyrants.

[@apokatastasian2831]

19th

[@sanniepstein4835]

Just prevent ppl from voting for their own paychecks. Receiving subsidies, bailouts, welfare, contracts, or full time employment from any tax supported entity should cancel the right to vote in that entity's elections.

[@ThatGastrodon]

This is my proposal: only those who contribute, get the vote. So from the moment you turn 18, you have a tab where every dollar you receive from the state goes against you, and every dollar you contribute in tax goes towards you. If you're in the black, you get to vote. If you start off on government assistance, then you get the vote once you've paid in more than you've taken out in your lifetime. If you paid in a lot but are on social assistance in old age, you still get the vote as long as you've paid in more than you've taken out over your lifetime. If you're a business owner and get a big government contract, the value you get out of the contract is held against you as well. If multiple people are in the room, everyone involved in that decision is held to account proportionally. This is the only fair way to set up a voting system, imo. It directly incentivises people to be contributing members of society, while still allowing the unfortunate to receive help.

[@bungalowlogic7676]

​@@ThatGastrodontoo complex. The spirit of your argument has merit, but ask yourself: what entity is tracking such a tally and weighing it to hand out ballots every couple years? Create a govt. bureaucracy large enough to do this for 330 million, then how to insulate that from corruption. Also, I don't care for anything tracking my every dollar exchange as closely as that might require. We already have an Internal Revenue Service, and we know how that goes

[@marcusmoonstein242]

It's true that ignorant, envious or short-sighted voters will favor policies that will destroy their society in the long run (as you say, Venezuela voted for the leaders that destroyed them). However, the purpose of having a strong Constitution and an independent Supreme Court is specifically to avoid this problem. They're not perfect, but they exist specifically to protect the voters from themselves by making it difficult (but unfortunately not impossible) to pass laws that violate fundamental rights and which will lead to disaster.

[@FirstLast-zw8ip]

I really appreciate your use of drawings to illustrate your points. It helps me stay focused on your words so i can understand what you are saying. Keep doing that :)

[@thebluelunarmonkey]

And I say, no fair with the diagrams. I prefer to scroll thru comments while listening. haha

[@villeveikko1]

In the left side of politics that unlimited tolerance is just a big front or Orwellian newspeak because there are zero tolerance in different views, ideas, opinions, cultural aspects, religions etc. The whole left side and communism both are based on socialism wich is a totalitarian cause by its nature and will allways need an autoritarian regime or it doesnt work. Opposite of liberalism isnt concervatism, its socialism. Thats why theres no freedom anywhere, no freedom of speech, no freedom of choosing your own believes and religions, no freedom of having your own opinion nor freedom to expressed it, no liberal values, no democracy etc. etc. and people are couverted to believe there is lefty liberals out there when there arent 😂😂

[@paulbergen6574]

Your analysis makes sense to me, but I think you missed an important point... I wouldn't say no as you repeatedly do but inevitable decrease. The key point being in worker production. For me this is ironic and complicated because my family goes back five hundred years trying socialism in Mennonite colonies. They idealized the early church as depicted in the book Acts of the Apostles. My great grandfather - David Klausen ran the largest congregation of colonies in the Ukraine. It was inspected by Stalin and obviously influenced his implementation of Russian Collectivization. In short religious devotion to a strong work ethic proved superior to totalitarian control over workers and peasants. Unfortunately it had plenty of problems of its own.

[@MS-od7je]

You’re on a path to cancel culture… the book “ The Bell Curve” was cancelled for precisely what you’re saying.

[@DadSavesAmerica]

Bring it on.

[@MS-od7je]

@ when “ they” cancel the curve they necessarily cancel themselves. The straightest distance between two points may be a straight line but a straight line is not the least time( brachistochrone). Thanks for your time( least at last; the first will be last and the last first / you’re ahead of the curve!).

[@Mark70609]

@@DadSavesAmerica that has a Brave New World vibe about it.

[@kingkhrysesxiii5942]

Can't and shouldn't are two different things. You shouldn't tell people what to do or how to think, but that didn't stop you from doing it anyways. 😂

[@kickasyberg7344]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. A couple of months back I commented on an article about how to get people to not throw their cigarette buds on the ground. I'm a smoker and I would never ever do that, so I commented "bring back shame". I kid you not, there were people commenting stuff like "smoking should be outlawed", "they should be put in jail" and even some who wanted to kill smokers, but none of those comments got as much pushback as mine. I was told I had "stone age" beliefs and that I was a terrible person. FOR WANTING TO SIDE-EYE LITTERING. So yes, we difinitely need to bring back shame. People have gone so far off the rails, that they actually think shaming someone is worse than killing them

[@DadSavesAmerica]

Great example. Totally true.

[@sigsauer7929]

To me, it's not complicated. People can do, say, and think whatever they want, as long it doesn't interfere with others freedoms. The democrats crossed that thresh hold long ago, and they went on my intolerance sht list when they went after our children. Their done, as far as I'm concerned.

[@sportysbusiness]

I wish it was that simple. If a man asks you to call him 'she' would you? The 'tolerant' thing to do is comply, but that compliance, 'because it doesn't interfere with others freedoms' is how we have go to the point where policemen pretending to be women are legally allowed to intimately search real women. In other words, they can legally commit assault. And this is way deeper than American politics, this is the World Wide Web, not America. I'm in New Zealand, tolerance here allowed our government to lock up law abiding citizens and inject poison into over half the population.

[@TheReturn26]

Yup. Do whatever you want, leave the kids alone and don't shove it down our throats.

[@BigHomieSteveTheMetalHead]

There are still problems with that, as mentioned in the video. Over-permissiveness and lack of shame leads to a deteriorating society, there needs to be more rigid limits on acceptable behavior than what we currently have.

[@daviru02]

The problem is with people who know they should've said something to stop it, but didn't know how to explain "why" they thought that way. Or maybe they knew, but didn't want to say it out loud.

[@independent900]

The problem is that cancel culture is effective and real.

[@patricktaylor6761]

Just when you thought that Anheuser Busch had made the worst business decision in corporate history by hiring Dylan Mulvaney as a spokes(cross-dressing)man ...... Jaguar: ..... “Hold my Bud Light.”

[@jimmytucker8365]

All by design, create division and plant the seeds for a reason to take total control. W...E...F

[@TheReturn26]

Reality and truth over EVERYTHING.

[@steffanshade3969]

I think something hypothesis misses, but that you touched on at about the midpoint of the video, is that in your bell curve model, as norms move towards the middle they necessarily displace other norms. This is they we always end up with a curve. You can’t have a pyramid with every block being the capstone. And the reason why the wildly out there violations make people so angry, in so far as this model is concerned, is that bringing those vile acts to the top means we have to displace a lot of norms to even approach making it work. It simply can’t be done and no one wants it to work. But for lesser norms and values, it’s always a trade off. We cannot have every value be a capstone value. It just doesn’t work.

[@JoinTheTemple]

There certainly used to be a massive level of societal shame to having children out of wedlock and being a single mother. Whilst I wouldn’t want us to go all the way back to that, I do there should be more “side-eye” to it than there currently is.

[@Pavewy]

Except old guard Communism doesn't concern itself with shame, or indeed, morality, because shame and morality are in the realm of religion, and Communism doesn't align with God - as a all knowing entity at least. Communism holds that once man throws off the shackles of capitalist society and fully embraces socialism, MAN BECOMES GOD, and therefore has no shame, for he will be a perfect being. This is the Utopia. One caveat to all of that is Maoism, which DOES utilize shame in the form of struggle sessions: being forced to admit that you were wrong and have wrong thoughts. Until you realize that and denounce your former self, the beatings and imprisonment will continue.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Actually, only one man usually becomes "God", e.f. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc etc. Everyone else becomes dirt under His shoe.

[@JulieHiltbrunner]

In communism God is replaced by supreme leader. You can’t speak up against him for fear of the worst possible things. But if you speak up against God, well you get death then torture forever. So they’re both two side sides of the same coin.

[@mtarlo215]

“The Party can never be mistaken,” said Rubashov. “You and I can make a mistake. Not the Party. The Party, comrade, is more than you and I and a thousand others like you and I. The Party is the embodiment of the revolutionary idea in history. History knows no scruples and no hesitation. Inert and unerring, she flows towards her goal. At every bend in her course she leaves the mud which she carries and the corpses of the drowned.” - Darkness at Noon That about sums it up

[@GeoFry3]

Bring back: "don't ask, don't tell". Modify it slightly to: "didn't ask, shut up about it already, don't care".

[@Evil_Spotify_Metal-and-Rock]

Jaguar is owned by the Chinese company, Chery. Wake up people!

[@RedFeather36]

I think it's owned by an Indian company Tata motors.

[@sdrc92126]

It's owned by JLR, "a subsidiary of Tata Motors since they founded it as a holding company for the acquisition of Jaguar Cars and Land Rover from Ford in 2008." (jaguar land rover)

[@Evil_Spotify_Metal-and-Rock]

@@RedFeather36 Co-owened. The money comes from the CCP. Look it up. And please, wake up 🙏

[@Evil_Spotify_Metal-and-Rock]

​@@RedFeather36Co-owned by Tata. The money is coming from the CCP. Google it! Please wake up! 🙏. They destroyed my country of Canada. Don't be a victim as well!

[@deanamodeo4072]

If you're owned by a Chinese company though that's not communism. In communism all economics are controlled by the state. There are no private businesses. That's a contradiction there. That's why after being given all our factories etc and robbing all the technologies China has been prosperous. Do you want power above all else. They believe in nothing nothing

[@ivormectin515]

Bell curve idea exactly comports with my concept, based on manufacturing engineering, where an individual product’s acceptance to proceed to the next process is determined by whether it falls within tolerance or not. Effectively we should be applying a ‘six sigma’ approach to social tolerance. If a person/practice falls within +-3 standard deviations of ‘target’ then we tolerate it otherwise it gets quarantined

[@donpenning7172]

Don't let the media elite define us.

[@SystemsMedicine]

Ivormetcin515, I am amused by your industrial engineering take on how society behaves. Thanks.

[@thebluelunarmonkey]

@@SystemsMedicine black belts, unite!

[@independent900]

I wasn't expecting to learn much from this video, but it helped create a concise framework for the world we're all trying to better understand. I'd add that the Left has succeeded in moving trans from the outer region of acceptance, far enough to the right, that it is now in the acceptable region (as long as it doesn't involve kids). Almost everyone including top Republicans now say "You can do anything you want in your own bedroom, no one cares, just leave kids out of it." It seems that tolerance has inched us closer to the next step...indoctrinating kids. But how do you grapple with freedom to be trans vs. the danger of it becoming mainstream. I'd love to hear Peter Bogosian's take on your presentation and ideas.

[@paulbergen6574]

I didn't care about gay rights until they started hitting on my son. Then family values became practical as I'd invested a lot in him with a hope that he not squander his amazing reproductive resource and leave me w/o grandchildren like happened to the rest of my family.

[@rv6541]

That was probably one of the most frank and sincere and honest and pragmatic and realistic thing I've heard in so long.. thank you so much for going through the time involved to do this! Kind of like a modern day version of a vintage car or vintage house or vintage culture... Good on ya mate!!

[@DadSavesAmerica]

I appreciate that!

[@stephen6228]

I really enjoyed that. I think it falls apart with determining what is right and wrong, though. I think your position assumes that we collectively understand where that peak in the distribution should be. But, I don't think we do separate from divine information.

[@j.t.3872]

Interesting and well presented hypothesis.

[@DadSavesAmerica]

Glad you think so!

[@QuestionS0cietyTod4Y]

I can't find any holes..... now was I looking ??? Not really. Gosh Iove his understanding and how he presents his ideas.

[@DadSavesAmerica]

Wow, that’s really nice to say my friend. Thank you!!

[@HolyRainbowism]

I grew up in Ceausescu’s communist Romania, tolerance was not a word in our vocabulary. The only thing tolerated was the communist dogma, anything else was scrutinised, suppressed and punished. In other words, intolerance and censorship ruled.

[@Solus147]

I enjoyed the video very much and I find it crazy that we even have to talk about these things, wasting time with people that have decided to live a life entirely different of what humanity has ever lived.

[@jerseygrl5]

And expecting the rest of us not just to tolerate but celebrate it.

[@intrepidus3378]

I think your observation that the law has the flatter curve vs the way we live and engage with each other having the bell shape is a pretty important distinction. I think that's where a lot of people get off base. They understand instinctively that the law should be blind. But that doesn't mean that we have to also be blind. We can and should make judgements according to norms. We can debate what the norms should be, but we have to have them, or we don't have a functioning society.

[@DadSavesAmerica]

100%. In a sense, what I’m coming to appreciate more and more is that REAL justice is blind and can only be so if we make peace with the need for most of the regulatory power in society to be cultural. “Social Justice” which is a tragic poisoning of the very concept of justice demands the opposite.

[@pherwhite]

Love it!!! would add that anarchism only works when the majority of individuals in the society mature sufficently beyond their selfishnes and the norms are sold enough to keep the sociopaths, sadist, narcissists, and machievellians in check. And guilt and shame are egoic level constraints on behavior (beter than nothing) but the mature moral compass is more like regret for actions and remorse for pain caused which is more psychologically healthy, more sustainable, wiser, and remains open in healthy relationship with others even as one course corrects. This is a development, but one worth pursuing. Love your work sir!

[@nnglnd]

The paradox of tolerance , I've only been talking about this for years.

[@laurajaneluvsbeauty9596]

By the very fact that you have to “tolerate” something it means it’s NOT GOOD FOR YOU. To tolerate literally means “to suffer thru”. Tolerance is NOT a Christian virtue or a virtue at all

[@benjaminmichael5719]

Loved the video. I often think in terms of distribution graphs, and I think that plotting social acceptance along two dimensions was a powerful illustration. To give a response to the last question you posed in the video, I think there's a lot to chew on, but I'll try to give a high level "forest" view of what I think are some of the major factors that got us into this mess. Premise 1: Humans group themselves in tribes/groups (This is essentially the same premise your video is based off of) Premise 2: Tribes become less cohesive with scale. (Groups tend to splinter after reaching a certain size) Premise 3: Proximity amplifies a person's feeling towards another person. (proximity of distance, proximity of frequency, proximity of traits... these things amplify whether people like each other or annoy each other). Premise 4: Technology decreases distances, both temporally and geographically. I don't have the mental clarity right now to make a rigid Aristotle argument to tie these things together, but I think the pieces paint a picture of how our once high-trust society eroded into a low-trust one. Here's my take on how they fit together. Before railroads, communities were small and interactions were infrequent, which allowed people to focus on local issues without being affected by distant political divides. With the advent of railroads and telegraphs, geographic distances shrank, increasing interaction but still maintaining physical proximity. The digital age changed everything. Geography no longer matters in communication, and social media creates echo chambers by connecting like-minded people. Digital tools have reduced the need for face-to-face interactions with those nearby. We now engage with virtual communities, but these connections are less grounded in real-life, physical spaces. This disconnect leads to stress and division when people from different "tribes" meet in person. Technological change has been rapid, making it easy to find virtual communities but harder to connect with people nearby. The lack of physical communities is a key issue. Online communities often lack real-world consequences, unlike interactions in physical spaces, where differing norms and priorities are more apparent. Restoring societal norms is going to be a huge challenge. The internet is powerful, but it’s hard to recreate the trust and cohesion of physical communities. It's also hard to give up conveniences once you become acclimated to it. I can't imagine a future without the internet, but I also can't imagine the type of social cohesion we enjoyed before it.

[@Jayjayjoe]

You're killing it with all these videos. Keep it up!

[@HazeAnderson]

Altruism ... we are very selfish by nature and we have to learn to want to help each other. We *have* to be rewarded for our labor, so we need to find a way to change our expectation of such a reward.

[@BoomstickFTW]

Altruism is by definition a bad practice if you want happiness. Sacrificing yourself for everyone else is not a path you should take.

[@ilnikogo7034]

Good behaviors are rewarded because they keep society going, they are rewarded because they don’t cause social costs. What’s good for society keeps society going.

[@TheJeffcurran]

Your videos keep getting better. This is spot on.

[@carminecoppola8209]

You're talking about "COMMON Sense", common sense helped us as a species survive and thrive, but now, in an age of comfort, we've lost or given up the common sense, fantastic explanation, thank you

[@Brent-z2s]

Napolean said chaos is the stepping stool to dictators.

[@AmbyAntidevolution]

Our rebellion is bringing things back to order.

[@viktor_vaughn]

You got it all right. This is exactly the society we should all strive to. It should be so easy to explain this things to people, we just have to spread the message.

[@michaelhoudecki3657]

Just one thing, shame comes from within. You can't shame someone, you can only tell them the truth. Whether they feel shame or not, it's up to them

[@alejandromolina5645]

Excellent explanation of what is going on in our society. I couldn't have said it better myself. 💯💯

[@debbylou5729]

Jaguar would like to thank you for the free advertising. I don’t remember any jaguar ads until this. KZbinrs are really gettin Jags brand out there

[@wakey1974]

shame really does need to be brought back into society

[@andrezdaz5696]

Throwing rocks at glass houses much?

[@guy12327]

there is a lot of shameingright now, radical left wing culture just shames the wrong stuff.

[@Anderslam2]

​@@andrezdaz5696 shame! Those panels were expensive!

[@Brent-z2s]

We still have shame for some people and ideas. It's just mostly misdirected now.

[@baltasarnoreno5973]

I'm afraid it does.

[@TheLostAnchovy]

This is a good video and explains a lot of current world situations. Just subbed and keep up the good videos. Let's bring back sanity!

[@HeatherChilders-z7x]

Appreciate the detailed breakdown! Just a quick off-topic question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?

[@steventao7020]

The first two graphs hurt my head because there were nonlinear in a population of 300 Million people. Of course the cultural bell curve was visually appealing and I can come up with several good reasons why it is likely true. One reason is that people will always compromise on some things because it is advantageous to be in a group to increase the probability of survival such as the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I am an Atheist and a Libertarian that voted for Trump and my wife is Chinese so only the Chinese don't hate me. When I lived in China, I was fascinated by the Chinese culture of shaming when a child was caught stealing. I have no objection to the death penalty so the curve can go to zero as far as I am concerned.

[@dasfahrer8187]

The basic premise seems to be on-point. It doesn't seem to address how to deal with the two things that are constantly trying to keep the bell curve either flat or a skyscraper though - money and power. No matter how hard a society tries, there will always be those who will 'sell their soul' for either or both. How does a the ideal society deal with those that seek to undermine it w/o becoming the thing they're trying to prevent? Where is the line separating too much freedom and too much authoritarianism, and who is moving that line? What happens when those who are in power to move it also become corrupt? How does the ideal society handle that w/o devolving into a bloody catastrophe? The tolerance of things is always shifting as people seeking something other than the curve call society variations of -ists, -isms and -phobics. Where does that kind of behavior land on the bell curve of tolerance? I think this is more of a cyclical wave than a static curve as those who feel like they're being shunned won't accept society's rules and will always fight to either the "flatten the curve" (see what I did there 😆) or replace the skyscraper that's harming them with their own version of the skyscraper. So the tolerance of intolerant things ultimately slides up the curve and others that are disaffected see this and cry 'what about me'?? So, they too get moved up too. All of a sudden we're either now at a very flat curve again or the entire system is at risk of being replaced with an entirely new structure (e.g., freedom => communism). At that point, something is going to give as the ideologies are mutually exclusive. This basically just happened w/the election of Trump. Society said that this is getting ridiculous and is bouncing the obvious things back out to the edges again. Which is why seeing that Jaguar ad is so funny now rather than offensive. They've been completely bounced out to the fringe again and don't even realize it. Their timing couldn't be any worse. However, those ideologies will be back and will start the cycle over again. I think this is where education - proper education - plays a crucial role. This seems to have systemic corruption now too though, so that must be fixed and I think the skyscraper model might actually be the appropriate one in order to get those people out of the educational system entirely. It's one thing to objectively educate about the ills of Marxism/communism and a whole other to brainwash kids into thinking that it should replace a free society. If the curve is to be strong and resilient it must have good structures to support it. One of them is education. Another, which you mentioned, is an equal application of the law. I'm sure there are more.

[@jorje0068]

I truly believe if mushrooms were legal, people would be more likely to be humble and kind. Not all, but exponentially more than now.

[@goatrancher9kinder]

They are legal. I bought a box of mushrooms at my grocery store just this week.

[@ceciliacrocker390]

​@@goatrancher9kinderl guess that idea won't work, 😉

[@jorje0068]

@goatrancher9kinder come on, man

[@shawnpatton3795]

Why don’t we have the same values? My personal and political views are, in order of precedence is; 1. Human life/safety 2. Freedom 3. Economic security 4. Education 5. Pursuit of Happiness

[@georgewchilds]

A lotta people owe Rick Santorum an apology.

[@dogsandyoga1743]

Nah, f that guy still 😂

[@toniharbour4859]

Please tell me more.

[@Jeremus717]

One of the most interesting facets of this whole discussion is the relationship with traditional Christian values. What we consider culturally normal is almost all grown out of Christianity in The West. From marriage and parenting, to the basic dignity of human beings, to the idea that we are all created equally in the image of God. I think that's the reason you are also seeing so many people return to religion as a source of comfort and Truth during the current cultural backlash against the nonsensical relativism of the left across the last two decades.

[@jamescurtis9267]

The rule of law fairly executed by the government helps maintain the boundry between each other's personal freedoms. I am allowed to do what I do as long as I do not infringe on another's rights. Government then steps in to decide between those involved.

[@GReesor]

"This argument also self-destructs when it is realized that an obligation to be tolerant is itself a moral principle or value and not something else, say a turnip." How to Improve Your Mind, James R Flynn, page 38

[@mtarlo215]

Thank you. That opening explanation is all that was needed.

[@sdrc92126]

Noah's Ark (anything goes) vs Tower of Babel (total control) biblical narratives

[@CharlesMacri]

Good discussion about norms!! Like the Overton Window? Shift the frame?

[@southerncross4956]

Excellent, thank you. 😊By the way the level of excitement and throwing stuff across the room you have caused is nearly as high as posting you love Jesus and are going to heaven. That drives them nuts too.

[@helixxharpell]

We gotta get you on Gutfeld!! Make it happen John! 😃👍🏻

[@williamwenrich3288]

They leave no room for people who want individual rights and oppose totalitarianism.

[@advantreese]

Good stuff. I’ve personally started using the word ideal in place of normal. For what my opinion is worth it is better to have a fixed point at the top of the bell curve. Ideal allows for that.

[@dianebartl8621]

I really enjoyed this breakdown. I think it makes perfect sense.

[@Oldtimerider]

The whole thing is distorted due to the fact that those at the edges have the loudest voices.

[@Menstral]

18:06 you drew a normal distribution, but on many issues like obesity this is something more like a uniform distribution, or even an exponential distribution, which is why there is so much problem

[@KRAMITDFROG]

I'm liking this before watching it just on the premise. It's something like what I've been saying for the last couple of years. That tolerance of all of these things has gotten us what? More demands, not requests, for tolerance and even attempting to criminalize it when you fail to do that. A line needs to be drawn and I think we may have reached it.

[@kurtkiesel9335]

I like it! Two thoughts came to my mind. 1] as Dad alluded to, there could be a line along the Y axis (I believe) for "legislation" or "government". The point where government steps in - which is to say "force" - in addition to shaming. The culture has written down behaviors they believe unacceptable, and government (representing the people) steps in to punish (to various degrees). 2] I once read* that self-organizing organisms need rules, ways to punish rule-breakers, and those willing to break rules regardless. The example of this was a bacteria colony. The rule was to stick together and go where there is food. Rule-breakers would be isolated from the colony. Rule-breakers, however, could find new food and save the colony from stagnating and dying from starvation (and to help the colony to evolve). The author compared this to human societies, if I recall correctly. The interesting thing is that we need rule-breakers so we can grow and adapt (perhaps moving toward a "better" culture), but we also need to punish rule-breakers. I think the bell-curve reflects this -- there are certain behaviors we cannot accept, while other behaviors have various levels of acceptance and various levels of "punishment", some of which are acceptable by rule-breakers. * I am ashamed I can't remember the book title or the author.

[@kurtkiesel9335]

May I reply to myself? I may have missed the difference between 'shame', 'shaming', and 'punishment'. Shame, is something one does to themselves having been educated on norms. This could be seen as a punishment from the society, but I believe it may be different than other forms of punishment, right? For example, the housecleaning example provided in comments here...

[@shawnpatton3795]

Narcissism excludes personal discomfort, is my understanding.

[@CaptainPhilosophical]

Yes. There's a bell curve everywhere because our minds are dualistic. "Human flourishing, health, sexuality, etc" all pertain to us because we have a form that has needs. This imposes a hierarchy naturally. Unnaturally imposing a flat line will infringe on other's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[@georgewchilds]

It’s not just societal; it’s directly tied into our central nervous systems per JBP.

[@Sean-dl8ym]

I disagree. You can tolerate the intolerant, as long as the intolerant don't attempt to physically coerce the people they judge poorly. If they do, we're doing the same to them, because they chose to live in a world where people get physically coerced. It's still their choice. It's still just. I'm totally a cultural communist by your definition btw. I don't judge anything as bad or abnormal, and I live my own life as a hedonist. Contrary to what you all might believe, I'm quite happy.

[@Roger-r7s]

For what its worth after grappling and wrestling with these complicated confusing identity issues, I have come to the conclusion that we need social norms and those social norms need to be majoritarian and convergent. However there will be in any population group a distribution pattern where some people will either naturally or artificially diverge from the majoritarian center of the distribution curves. There can be cases where you have a more complex situation where peoples subjective experience of their identity is to a certain extant in conflict and tension with their biological genotype. While the majoritarian norm which is convergent is that most people will not experience that kind of tension and conflict of their subjective experience of their self image or identity constuct and their biolgical genetic type. So the "normal" people dont understand the people for which that norm doesnt work for them like it works for most people. However we need to understand very clearly that not every kind of divergence or deviance from the majoritarian convergent social norm can be accepted, in a spirit of live and let live tolerance for difference and diversity. In fact both the norms themselves as well as the deviations can often be social or individual pathologies. So we have some confusing complexity in avoiding an overly restrictive and oppressively conformist range of culturally acceptable behaviour patterns and the overly expansive tolerance for the harmful, pathology, destructive behaviour patterns, and for evil and corrupt depraved conduct. Some types of nonconformity and difference is healthy and in their own way normal, but not every kind of difference and diversity can or should be normalized.

[@dudleymq]

Jordan Peterson said something similar: that having core norms (like heterosexual marriage) makes room and allowances for exceptions at the edges ( homosexuality and gay marriage). But when a society rejects all norms whatsoever, then this negatively affects the freedoms of both straight and gay people.

[@aaronengland5622]

The problem is ego. it breaks everything nice. ego separates things to differentiate one from another and in that moment it decides its value. when you separate one thing from another one always has to be more important, valuable, or morally correct. our tolerance is so intolerant because you can't promote equality while deep down believing that you, your views, and your beliefs are somehow more important or morally correct than those of others. that's not to say that right and wrong doesn't exist but that human egos are really bad about labeling things that aren't actually right or wrong as being right or wrong.

[@pharohphox7829]

This would be another great opportunity to get Whatifalthist for another collaboration because he did a historical deep dive into these issues and how they played out.

[@Chalskimusic]

Awesome video and something much needed to be said.

[@elgringoec]

We have lost the effectiveness of calling people sinvergüenza.

[@rg5445]

“There are two things I hate more than anything …number one, people intolerant of other people’s customs and number two, the Dutch”…

[@Eukatae]

It's not all against all. “I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and all of us against the stranger”

[@TheCh1212]

The saying is true: all modern talking points are just footnotes somewhere in a Plato book. In the Republic, he literally addresses this very topic. One of the ultimate criticisms of Democracies: the excess pursuit of liberty. Plato (through Socrates) notes, "...an excessive desire for liberty at the cost of everything else is what undermines democracy and leads to the demand for tyranny.” He goes on, "the people in a democracy will go on to abuse anyone who obey or approves of higher authorities…in private life as well as public life… and because of this… rulers will now behave like subjects and subjects will now behave like rulers. In such a society the principle of liberty is bound to go to extremes, is it not?” Continuing, “A democracy will eventually bring it about that a father should change places with his son…that the father will now stand in worship of his son…and the son will in turn neither respect or fear his parents… in order to assert what he calls his “independence”…and there will be no distinction between citizen and a foreigner.” "…and there are other more trivial things. In a democratic society… eventually teachers will fear and pander to their students, who in turn will actually despise their teachers …and the young… as a whole… will argue with their elders and will begin to go against their elders…while the elders will cowardly try to avoid the reputation of being disagreeable or strict and will try to become “friends” with the youth.” " …and you would never believe - unless you had seen it for yourself - how much more liberty domestic animals have in a democracy. The dog comes to resemble its master…and the same is true of the horses and donkeys [and cats] as well…" "“…but the extreme of popular liberty is reached in this kind of society… when there is the complete equality and liberty in the relations between men and women…” Plato goes on to the culmination of the problem: the desperation to have no law or tradition above the masses. He writes, "…what it all adds up to is finally this…you find that the minds of the citizens have become so sensitive… that the least vestige or trace of self-government is resented as intolerable, until finally, as you know, in their determination to have no master… they disregard all laws, written or unwritten.” "Well, my friend…this is the root from which tyranny springs…a lively and forceful… beginning." (Plato's Republic, On Tyranny). The self-fulfilling prophecy of democracies. No shame. No restrictions.

[@jemfrankel4099]

There’s a great quote - “all models are wrong….it’s just that some are quite useful”! I’m afraid your model is just “wrong” not least cos it combines different categories of measurement. The norm btw is just the average - not a system of governance. All graphs measuring behaviours are going to be bell curves whatever the particular ideologies underpinning the behaviours. So all you’re actually saying is “I disagree with poor behaviours as assessed by how far from the average that behaviour lies”. The issue you’ve missed is how the outer edges of behaviours have managed to somehow become normalised. For that you need other models (eg Overton Window etc).

[@timnordin6230]

The judgemental statement, "we shouldn't be judging anyone" says it all.

[@gabeo9474]

We actually have had anarchy - and for longer than any other system - in the time before the existence of civilization.

[@TyKay-vd9fo]

I would like to move closer towards anarchy.

[@travisbrown6001]

I LOVE your shape up.

[@meikezimmermann9988]

Interesting. I do have some open questions about your practical examples though and would love to share my perspective: 1. Shame seems to be a strong regulator in your examples as - it almost seems as if shame was necessary in order to keep things the way they are. I'm thinking about the linear graph, where many things are accepted. ("When there's no shame and everything is accepted we end up in communism"). I find that interesting and I'm not sure if I agree. It might work in some occasions and others not: Shame works as a regulator to maintain the norm if it's a behavior the person can change (e.g. being rude or coming late to work). But it is completely contraproductive with behaviors the person isn't capable of changing on their own - or doesn't even want/need to! (E.g. homosexuality or obesity). 2. This brings me to another topic. I'm German so for me your video seems very influenced by US American culture. For example I don't agree that in your graph about political systems you placed the US classical liberalism at the top. I understand that you say the linear graph without curve is bad because it's too accepting of behaviors? But from my perspective the US culture is way too accepting! You want to homeschool your kids because you don't believe in evolution? Go ahead, brainwash them! You don't want to pay healthcare? You don't have to, who cares about being insured! You want to own guns? Sure, that's not a danger to others! 3. Communism is presented as hell on earth (even the video color changes to red when you say the word which is very dramatic). I agree, all examples where extreme (!) communists govern countries were and are horrible! But for me, the core idea behind communism/socialism is more. The idea is to live in a society where no one can exploit others in order to accumulate riches. Where no one is super rich and no one is super poor. Capitalism creates gaps, it creates winners and losers. The winners of capitalism will always hate communism. But have you asked the losers? Those who are exploited so that others get super rich, those you have to work in factories or mines day and night? I know that in the American dream everyone can become rich if they only work hard enough. But that happening is one in a million. And for me, holding on to and spreading that dream is only convenient for the US government: If people think they are miserable because they only haven't worked hard enough, the government doesn't have to take actions in order to create equal chances for everyone in the society (e.g. better labor laws or free access to university education). Now what I have wrote might seem extremely communist to you. But believe me, in my country I'm not even considered leftwing! I'm not saying that I want a communist government. I'm just saying it's not a bad thing to hold on to ideas that might be unaccepted but can make our societies more just. As you said, where things are placed on the curve can change over time. But it doesn't change on its own! That's why we NEED liberal thinkers, people who say and do unaccepted things. (Of course unacceptable behavior that directly harms others like rape/murder/pedophiles is NOT meant here!) (And when I say free thinkers I'm NOT talking about people like Elon Musk - who definitely are "out of the box thinkers" but only so to pursue their own interests: power and money).