Islamophobia, Racism, & Feminism (Race Part 2) | Philosophy Tube

[@dylanpennington1378]

Your videos have really opened me up to feminism. I used to lean towards the Anti SJW Neckbeard community because they didn't call out groups of power that I fall into on their wrongs. But now I'm realizing more and more that there are major problems in our society that need to be faced and solved.

[@Vox_Cert]

It's all about growth and an expansion of understanding. Thanks for being forthcoming about your background and journey.

[@malachykinney1598]

I too was like that. Your comment definitely reminded me of myself. I never fully committed, but it was a faze that lasted a while. I was such a mean little fellow. I would say things about philosophical topics that were just completely unbalanced. I don’t have any strong connections to any movements now, but this channel (& ContraPoints) has really opened my eyes. I love the KZbin renaissance of ideas that allows people to find their path. Good luck and have a nice day.

[@bradeast8021]

This is super cute and I applaud you but just for a second can we imagine this part of the comments thread in some sort of vacuum of safety where ideas aren't dangerous (at least to our egos) for a second? Because I need to point something out about research if we're giving commendation... Something in the idea that contrapoints and Philosophy Tube, two individuals who, for all their incredible and invaluable hard work, have made their responsibility to educating through youtube, not researching in the academies (I actually couldn't confirm about olly but Natalie has acknowledged she dropped out of her PhD). I say this because we are talking about historical issues of othering, generation after generation after generation after civilization after civilization made to suffer at the hands of a dominant power, Olly clearly outlines it and its probably a large part of the epiphany you guys are having... But in that outline its explicitly made clear that these peoples' lives are made demonstrably more difficult than someone like Olly's or mine for that matter.. In queer theory we learn like 'the given' and 'the other', they stand well for moments where I need to generalize people for a point, so I'll use it here, its self explanatory... there is the 'given' population, the norm, and the 'other'. It feels to me like we are now at a point where you guys are commending Olly and Natalie on all the incredible work they've done in changing peoples minds... On giving 'new knowledge'... Thats amazing and true in every-way, and every situation, appropriate, except for one: when the knowledge is about the removal from history, the misrepresentation, and the violence done to those who have been othered, and the person in receipt of the commendation is very much in the 'given' population. Olly and Natalie are many things, but most importantly (unless they want to dispute me and I welcome it) they are information gatherers, they are responsible for gathering and disseminating information about these issues... There is a major difference between research and information gathering, information gathering dips into the pool of knowledge to retrieve what is required, research can be seen as information gathering with the purposes of using that knowledge and ones own faculties (experiment, experience, measurement) to create new knowledge, and the credit for the new knowledge that Olly and Natalie have blessed us all with goes to (with no word of disrespect) much more deserving people, those who suffered that oppression first-hand, and lived to write and theorize about it, or, didn't but managed to have their stories told. People like Sheth and Razak, James Baldwin and Richard Bell, these are the people for whom if you really want to change the world, you should not just thank but follow, by all means olly deserves the epiphany... But please if not anything else read the two essays he linked, go to the source and learn for yourself... I say this with all the love and let me assure you its brilliant you've come to here, but to truly say you're here is to acknowledge here is nothing if it doesn't move on and up

[@eug3nius]

Is Islam right about women?

[@johnmullins8204]

Dylan Pennington like what? I’m curious

[@heinz091]

It's been really helpful re-visiting these old videos. As a result, this morning I'm pondering: - Do we treat "homeless" as a race? - Is "homelessness" a form of camp? Would be interested to hear if anyone has any thoughts there.

[@TectonicBadger]

I think by this definition of race absolutely. We take a set of readily apparent characteristics (asking for money, sleeping rough, etc.) and apply a judgement to them as a group. This is why I would say that while this is incredibly insightful as a concept, I think we need to move away from using the word 'racism' to describe it, since clearly calling people racist for judging homeless people would be confusing and ineffective. I would also argue that the same applies to Islam, since while what Ollie said here about how islamophobia fits the given definition of racism, calling people racists for criticising Islam can very easily end up derailing a conversation about it.

[@petrify4814]

@@TectonicBadger I think the main reason that Islamaphobia qualifies as racism, at least in the part of America I live in, is that white Islamophobes assume all "middle eastern" people are Muslim so while it's the religion they are attacking, they're attacking a race of people rather than actual practitioners of said religion. The last couple months had really shown just how much people in this country hate homeless people and it's genuinely depressing. I don't understand how any human being can believe that anyone, regardless of how they ended up there, deserves to be living on the streets (just not their street, of course).

[@ullllllllllllllable]

@@TectonicBadger One potential argument against this is that "homelessness" might be the apparent characteristic here, encompassing sleeping rough/asking for money (rather than those being the characteristics defining the homelessness "camp.") A comparison might be how sanctioned antiziganism / anti-roma sentiment uses "rootlessness" and traveler camps as characteristics to racialize roma / sinti / etc. groups.

[@davidmurray2964]

homelessness isn't a fixed term so i don't think you could use race. Because then any form of negative stereotyping of groups could be considered racist

[@marinashutup]

YES. I'm late to the game, but I love this two part video. I'm currently studying women in the Middle East through my Women's Studies program and this is what a lot of our discussions are centered around.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+marinashutup yaaay! Oh man that module sounds awesome!

[@JohnSmith-ft4gc]

+Deutschland402 "I'm currently studying women in the Middle East through my Women's Studies program and this is what a lot of our discussions are centered around." But of course, you totally ignored that. Fucking moron.

[@JohnSmith-ft4gc]

+Deutschland402 Insults & vague assertions. So mature. You are as bad as your typical apologist for Islam.

[@JohnSmith-ft4gc]

+Deutschand402 I know a bunch of feminists in both meatspace & online. The bulk are nothing like that. Furthermore, I have directly encountered & witnessed oppression of women, in the west, over & over again. Are you denying that "Slut Shaming" exists? Whatever Fash, I don't need you to dig a bigger hole for yourself. I have seen enough.

[@JohnSmith-ft4gc]

+Deutschalnd402 Pretends oppression of women doesn't exist. Thinks we should not "..let (women) sleep around..".

[@ChrisNicol777]

I play some games with a few guys, and often they can be express some islamophobic views and I hope that they could unlearn that so I try to counter but I'm just not articulate, educated, or even confident enough to really go the lengths to inform them. I think the next time it comes up, I might link them to these videos and hope it makes a difference.

[@fatimatuzzahra4036]

American muslims are overwhelmingly generous and educated! meet the muslims

Hey Olly! I have seen all your videos and in my opinion, these 2 videos are your best ones. It's so enlightening that I think I experienced an Epiphany watching them. So congratulations to you for this brilliant videos, they are really good. And to additional the thing that you said about teaching philosophy in the end of the video, we all know the Kant's phrase "You do not teach philosophy, you teach to philosophize." See you next video, bye.

[@TheRelleshVillager]

This is a really thought-provoking video. Thanks.

[@ghostlyamy]

I had never even thought about race in this way but it makes so much sense and I think it is such a good theory! Thank you so much for making these videos, they've really helped me to look into things I take as a given critically! Thank you!

[@PhilosophyTube]

No worries, glad you liked them! Now you can share them if you think other people might find them useful too!

[@tylerjourneaux4352]

+PhilosophyTube, I am commenting here simply in an attempt to ensure that my (relatively lengthy) recent comments on this video do not go entirely unnoticed. I can see that this video is far from recent, and that it continues to receive comments on a regular basis, but I did make the effort of engaging with your ideas seriously (and hopefully responsibly). So, if ever you see this, please do peruse my comments and see what you think.

[@paulaustinmurphy]

"Thank you so much for making these videos, they've really helped me to look into things I take as a given critically!" - amy Do you mean in a Marxist way? There is more than one way to take things critically. Indeed the wholesale adoption of Leftist views on race is the exact opposite of thinking critically!

[@nostalgian4113]

2+ years late but hey, exmuslim woman here living in a muslim country, this one about islamophobia in specific is a touchy subject for me. hearing a different clever view on the matter is really refreshing. in this first part I had sexism and misogyny in mind and in this one I could finally resolve the conflict I had in me regarding atheism and islam, I've been through a lot and depression had its way for years of my life. I just would like to say that your videos helped me a lot, I only recently found your channel (about a month ago or maybe less) and I'm learning and exploring new things everyday and your channel is one of the positive supportive things I have in my life now, so thank you very much Olly, all love and support to you from this darkish place, I would become a patron if I had money, maybe soon I'll land my first job I hope. I hope you get this comment, it would mean a lot if you responded, thanks again

[@bmanagement4657]

Great work!! It is incredibly hard to have this conversation these days. Thank you for making it a little easier.

[@sgnMark]

"With great power comes great responsibility" -uncle Ben

[@Poopdahoop]

I'm so glad I'm subscribed to this channel, because just these two videos have helped me put some things straight in my head that have been bothering me for quite a while now, cuz' I just couldn't wrap my head around them. Thanks Olly! Ur a swell duuude.

[@LeftyConspirator]

Every time I watch one of these videos, I end up with one more book in my Amazon wish list. I love it. Makes me wish I had studied philosophy back in the day.

[@TSBoncompte]

What's been described here and in the first part of the video series is neither racialization nor racism: in fact it has nothing to do with race: the same dynamics of state power using some taxonomy as a platform to engage in policies that treat some "othered" group as second class citizens can be used against any group that enough people imagine as such: this is a description of bigotry in general, not of racism in particular: the dynamics of legal discrimination described here we can observe in history, applied against homosexuals, atheists, jews, blacks, japanese, untouchables in india, communists in the us and latin america during the cold war. hell, this exact dynamics of state power engaging in a policy of persecution and discrimination against a percieved "dangerous other" happened in my country during the US-sponsored dictatorship... this doesn't mean that you can be "racist against muslims" or "racist against communists": all it means is that legal racism is a subclass of a general mechanics of something we might as well call "policies against the dangerous Other". But to say that all dangerous other narratives are racism, and that all dangerous other inspired policies of persecution and discrimination are "racism" is just stretching the concept way too far: it's like saying you can be hungry for knowledge: it works as a metaphor, but not as theory.

[@karandex]

First my background. I am from india born in Hindu family but considering myself atheist. I always thought that racism is too narrow term, i would prefer some term like ethnism. Its not just skin of color or some biological markers used for discrimination. Redefining term race by sheth can be confusing for people.

[@brettm7162]

yeah it can

[@Carltoncurtis1]

+Karan Chaphekar We should NOT be refining race because the very concept of race is not real. Besides, "Ethnism" removes the "biological otherness" that IS the point of racism in the first place or worse, takes that "Biological Otherness" and applies it to every other group that isn't yours. Racism is the kind of ideology that is used to justify atrocity. It has served no other purpose. Europeans penned racists narratives against other Europeans, English against the Irish, French against the Germans and Europe against the Eastern European Jew. Yes, I am aware that anti-semitism exists but the difference between anti-semitism and Racism is say that there is something _wrong_ with the very existence of that human. EG. If you were a Jew and you wanted to dodge anti-semitism in Europe from 300Ad to the 1800's all you needed to do was convert to Christianity because the problem was _just_ your ideology, not your actual DNA. Once European anti-semitism became _racialised_ in the late 1800's us to WW2 there was no escape, hiding or appealing from your "disgusting Jew Blood" the gas chamber was the only solution; _the final soluion._ You DNA was corrupt and your life was forfeit. THAT is what racism is really for; to find a _scientific_ way to make human life completely void.

[@djoetma]

+HotSkull he's not saying the term should be replaced

[@Carltoncurtis1]

***** I know. That's what _I_ was saying. He's arguing the opposite.

[@djoetma]

HotSkull No, he isn't. Is arguing for an extra word that could be used correctly when talking about this matter. When you're talking about something were 'racism' is still the correct term, you can still use it.

[@cactusdeus6019]

This video is really challenging! Wow! I see why my Islamophobia is wrong and it really hard to get rid of it because of all the media and social influences ( not an excuse though). Thanks a lot!

[@the1exnay]

+Cactus Deus i wish i could have seen the video as you did. i couldnt help just focusing on the parts where he pushed propaganda. like did you notice how he casually mentioned that there is global patriarchy and that toxic masculinity is a thing and the educational system keeps muslims down and all people in nations which were part of colonialism now define themselves by their oppression of others. well that was basically all i could seem to notice but i am very much glad that this video could help you rid yourself of your islamophobia, the less islamophobia the better in my opinion. maybe eventually we can get rid of all of it and then people will stop telling us we define ourselves by our oppression of others.

[@cactusdeus6019]

Firaro I am not sure that self-identification based on nationality or race is a write thing to do, it might be source of pride but it creates soooo much problems! And I don't know about patriarchy and toxic masculinity world-wide but in my country it is very much true!

[@the1exnay]

+Cactus Deus what country are you from and could you please explain to me how it is patriarchal and how toxic masculinity is a thing there. i am very much curious

[@tenchimuyo69]

They have a bit of a quranic problem. Moderation actually requires the deliberate rejection of your scripture in terms of ethical demands it makes. This is the case in all of the Abrahamic religions and denominations and I can't help but question that if moderation requires re-interpretation and ignoring your scripture to achieve, you should ask yourself what you really believe in.

[@aaronsmith1023]

Well dude, just try to think of them as people like you and I. People with families, that have holidays and laugh with their in laws, that tuck their children into beds at night, that get up and go to jobs they hate like the rest of us. Just imagine them as people like you and I that do normal things that we would typically do.

[@bangboom123]

That ending was excellent. Neatly tied up the importance of the discussion.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Rockerchavnerdemo I'm glad you say that, I refilmed it from an original ending at more or less the last minute to change the tone. Glad I made the change.

[@bangboom123]

+Philosophy Tube Yeah, this is some of your best work. Oh btw, Mill next please, since you've gotten the ball rolling on discussions of liberalism in Part 1 :D

[@robertwofford2170]

I did find your videos useful, and I appreciate all the work that I can clearly see you have put into them. Thank you! Philosophy is something that is very crucial, yet tragically undervalued.

[@lunali7209]

as a muslim, thank you for this!! islamophobia is racialized. the fact that non-muslim brown people (arabs, indians and more) are victims of islamophobic hate crimes is one example to prove that.

[@Al_Afrah]

I am an ex muslim and I agree.

[@CalvBore]

Really thought provoking two-parter you have here. Definitely gave my brain a few ideas to chew on for a while. Thanks for putting all the effort into your videos!

[@kaabakson1974]

As a non-Muslim person who is living in a Muslim country (Turkey), I find those approaches, both liberal and conservative, are doomed to be incomplete . Because the elaborations of this issue are always focusing on western attitude to other cultures. It means you are still talking about yourselves. not Islam. Because Islam is not a homogeneous thing, that means you can't extract history from a religion. Imagine that someone talks about Christianity but only considers medieval catholic church, not even Orthodox church. For example in today's Turkey Sunni pressure is so dense that Alawis and atheists are resisting together in lots of cases. I claim that you can never understand a religion without understanding its different sects and interpretations. If you look at middle-east history, you can't find any spontaneous attempt to develop humanist ideas. Few leaders such as Mustafa Kemal and maybe Muhammed Rıza Pehlevi made that attempt, but still those humanist ideas had been imported from Europe. That's why those countries had resisted and became so hostile to western values. This hostility appeared as revolution in Iran. Turkey got over 2 coup d'etat and, well, we all know what Erdoğan's regime is doing to Turkey nowadays. He can make anti-humanist policies so easily with enormous support. I am trying to say that, ok colonialism is not the solution in 21st century and old colonialists have to change their view upon others, especially towards Islam. But there is still something unacceptable in Islam which needs to be reformed by Muslims themselves. In my opinion, the only thing that west's can do about middle east's sake is to support the non Islamic or reformed Islamic minorities such as Kurds, Assyrian Christians, Alawi Turkmens, Yazidis etc. And also they have to do it with economical enforcements.

[@VladaPechenaya]

This is the most useful comment which extends Olly's argument and makes it into a two-sided, balanced view on the issue. Bravo. I liked this: " I am trying to say that, ok colonialism is not the solution in 21st century and old colonialists have to change their view upon others, especially towards Islam. But there is still something unacceptable in Islam which needs to be reformed by Muslims themselves."

[@fatimatuzzahra4036]

:D Muslim's treatment of people in their empires has been historically much more humane than any other group- Sorry, but Quran already says to us that * whoever killed one human being has killed all humanity* - the systems like social security and welfare have been existing in islamic precepts hundreds of years before they appeared in west- humanist is not something you invented- neither is humanist something that is owned by people who do not believe in God. All religions of world call for humanism and welfare- Even what you have tried to demonize here, sunni islam is replete with ideas of charity, love and brother hood- Look up people like Abdus sattar eidhi ! And people like Dr. Adeen rizvi to understand what humanism actually means! it is not a nickname for being a nice atheist! millions of muslims are *active* humanists

[@nike5142]

@@fatimatuzzahra4036 My dear friend, what are you talking about? The Islamic world may have been more humane than medieval Europe, but they have not evolved at all. You have just cherrypicked passages to fit your political ideology, when the Quran says * whoever killed one human being has killed all humanity* , it is referring to other Muslims or "worthy people", the Quran and hadith clearly encourage the stoning and killing of homosexuals and apostates, as evident by hadith passages: “If one man says another: 'O effeminate one!' give him twenty lashes. And if one man says to another: 'O homosexual!' give him twenty twenty lashes.”, Ibn 'Abbas (RAA) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Whoever you find doing as the people of Lot did (i.e. homosexuality), kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done, and if you find anyone having sexual intercourse with animal, kill him and kill the animal." Related by Ahmad and the four Imams with a trustworthy chain of narrators. Ibn 'Abbas (RAA) narrated that The Messenger of Allah said, “He who changes his religion (i.e. apostates) kill him.” Related by Al-Bukhari. The majority of Muslims are extremely illiberal, 51% of BRITISH Muslims believe that homosexuality should be punishable by death. When you see liberal Muslims(and Christians) are Muslims who put politics and human rights above their religion, the way it should be, but they are a minority, the majority are not. But with that said I think we should still judge each Muslim on an individual level.

[@adeelsk4]

@@nike5142 so... I am a barbarian until proven otherwise with your "individual bases" scrutiny? Okay... Where do I submit myself

[@brendandepaormoore1726]

I'm enjoying catching up on these old episodes.

[@tylerjourneaux4352]

First of all, I want to thank you for wading into these waters; it takes a considerable amount of diplomatic tact and personal bravery to broach this kind of topic as professionally as you have here done. I do have extremely strong (and emotionally charged) disagreements with some of what you say, but as an aspiring philosopher myself I think that engaging those ideas with which one most strongly disagrees while keeping the temperature as low as possible is one of the most useful exercises in the practice of philosophy. So, I am deeply appreciative of this video, despite what criticisms I want to raise. You’ll have to excuse me for depositing these thoughts in a relatively scattered form, but I have not the time to finesse them the way I would were this an academic engagement. While the idea of 'race' is, as all words (and concepts) are, a kind of technology, I think it is too ideologically circular to argue that it is primarily a resource of the powerful (circular, that is, insofar as it presumes the thesis it is used to argue for). Instead, I think that insofar as we are all pattern-seeking creatures evolved to negotiate our environments with the use of idealized categories based on patterns of experience we all have access to, and a very natural inclination towards, the technology of the idea of race. The technology of race is no doubt (and/or has been) used by those in possession of practically sovereign power. However, the technology of racial profiling, stereotyping, and other natural human tendencies to notice patterns of behavior and characteristics is used implicitly by everyone with the cognitive capability to use that technology. It has been abused, but not created whole cloth, by those in positions traditionally (and contemporaneously) associated with power. Now, I’m not a liberal (I situate myself, instead, somewhere in the natural law tradition), but some of the criticisms of liberalism (e.g., the notion that the primary function of the state is not to safeguard human rights or facilitate the implementation of a rational and just social contract, but merely to preserve itself qua sovereign power) appear dubious at best. I will refrain from saying much about this point, however, in the interest of pursuing what I think to be more promising lines of criticism. The definition you provide in your video which you recommend to us for our consideration is, I believe, as follows: “Racialization is the process by which a population is divided and one group is pushed further and further away from that promise of liberalism, both in the law and in the minds of the people.” I see problems with this definition (though I should note that I am unfamiliar with Sheth’s work, so I’ll do my best to engage fairly and critically with the ideas as responsibly as I can given your presentation of them). On this definition it would seem that holocaust deniers are a group against whom our allegedly liberal societies are racist. Indeed, the exceptions made for those who fall under this category are made to seem, in your words, ‘totally legitimate and natural.’ The people in this category clearly have distinguishing features to the same extent as Muslims (for instance) have. They are also vulnerable compared to the generalized population (indeed, they are easily at least vulnerable enough for the rest of us to effectively racialize them and push them out). If this is all there is to the process of racialization, then there are plenty of entirely unwholesome groups whom we racialize including NAMBLA, the KKK, et cetera. However (and here is the problem), nobody thinks of these groups as being races - that simply isn’t how the technology of ‘race’ works. So, I think there must be a problem at the level of conceptual analysis here. I will grant that there are plenty of concepts without necessary and sufficient conditions (such as the concept of a ‘game’), but even if meaning were just use, the obvious problem is that nobody uses the technology of ‘race’ in the way Sheth is proposing. I am happy to concede that the notion that the rules for deploying the concept of race come from power is owed some sympathy, all the while being reluctant to think that this is necessarily any more than an incidental, historically contingent fact about the way this technology has been abused. After all, the primary rules for deploying the concept of race have nothing to do with wealth, influence, or other accouterments of power; they have, instead, to do with (socially constructed) ethnic groupings based on phenotypical profiles shaped at the intersection of cultures and civilizations. Gene-expression profiles are more determinative of ‘race,’ as that technology is universally deployed, than are political power, prestige, wealth (et cetera). Indeed, the various negative stereotypes insinuated in racial distinctions are often not the result of practically sovereign power tending to its agenda of self-preservation; instead, they are often the result of historical contingencies which serve as the causal impetus for some underlying pattern which shapes the notion of that stereotype. Take, as a simple example, the way many Americans (including members of the African American population) regard the African American population as more dangerous than other sub-populations in America - this is likely at-least-partly grounded in the statistical overrepresentation of African Americans in violent crime, which is caused by a variety of circumstances (including historical oppression, as well as the more recent breakdown of the natural family structure in their communities which has been deteriorated deleteriously since at least the 1960’s). The Foucauldian reframing of ‘racism’ which is engineered to avoid instances of racism against white people being identified as genuine instances of ‘racism’ are deeply problematic, not only because they implicitly racialize the west as a whole but also because they fail to recognize that the category ‘white’ does not apply coextensively to those satisfying the category of ‘the powerful.’ Consider, by way of simple example, the power held by the Japanese over white people in Japan in the 1600’s (which Scorsese explores in his new film “Silence” - which looks promising). The ethic of domination, conquest and exploitation endemic to colonialism is one over which no pre-modern civilization has ever had a monopoly. Indeed, the process of racialization as we’re conceptualizing it can easily apply to white people by reason of identity-determinative features which have nothing to do with whiteness (such as when, for instance, a white homosexual is marginalized for being a homosexual). While talk of white-privilege in contemporary western societies today may be meaningful, acting as though there are not other even more pertinent forms of privilege (such as ‘beauty-privilege,’ ‘intelligence-privilege,’ ‘class-privilege,’ et cetera) seems confused, especially in an era where we have made a habit of fetishizing oppression to such as extent that we regularly observe the phenomenon of the ‘weaponization of victimhood,’ as though victimization were a form of social currency. [I'll have to finish this in a second part, since I appear to be over the word limit].

[@tylerjourneaux4352]

Now, turning to Razack’s thesis, there are fewer (independently) objectionable suggestions. I won’t spend time quibbling about ‘black skin’ as a camp given the recalcitrant data of black slaveholders in the Americas (which complicates the picture unnecessarily) or the idea that in a post 9-11 world camps are more normal (rather than, as I think to be the case, much more abnormal relative to the pre 9-11 world). Nor will I belabour the point that in other socio-historical contexts (including several contemporary ones) Christians have been made exceptions of for being suspected of the ideological terrorism of spreading their faith non-violently. These are all, at best, entirely peripheral. However, I will say that while I abhor the legal improprieties involved in failing to recognize a citizen’s right to due process (and where this is done it must be challenged), it is irrational either to suggest (or imply) that putting non-citizens through a process which does not carve out a space for the recognition of due process due to citizens is equally problematic, or to suggest that there are not, in actual fact, biographical facts (including facts about ideological commitments, cultural backgrounds, et cetera) relevant for determining the relative conditional probability of some person becoming a terrorist. We are, as I suggested, pattern-seeking creatures, and we are exceptionally good at picking out patterns (even when the patterns aren’t really there, as when we stare at the clouds and ‘perceive’ objects with which we are familiar through alternative experiences). We know, for instance, that a white male person with a shaved head is more likely, ceteris paribus, to be a white supremacist than a native American student activist with a full head of hair. If, therefore, we had reason to be especially careful to identify white supremacists we could, with legitimacy, scrupulously investigate a white male person with a shaved head, while expending fewer resources on investigating any native American student activist with a full head of hair. While it is clearly not the case that most (or even relatively many) white males with a shaved head are white supremacists, it is still true that white supremacists are overrepresented among white males with shaved heads. Similarly, while the vast (vast vast) majority of Muslims are at no risk of becoming terrorists, terrorists are significantly overrepresented (speaking globally and currently) among Muslims. What the causes for this are (and, in particular, whether Islam as an ideological framework classically interpreted makes any contribution to this current state of affairs) seem irrelevant to the present discussion. While one’s suspicions about whether a particular Muslim is likely to be a terrorist cannot (justly) remain impervious to incoming evidence, the standards of evidence which may exonerate any particular Muslim who has some ties to suspicious characters or groups can be rationally raised relative to other sub-populations (such as atheistic African Americans) in the interest of preventing terrorism (and, thus, protecting everyone, including Muslim citizens), and this could be done even if members of other sub-populations have similar ties (so long as they are appropriately tenuous). Now, turning to the ‘culture clash narrative,’ I think that this narrative is (admittedly) overly simplistic (even facile), but I also think that the reasoning by which it is categorically dismissed is dangerously facile. One must be intellectually honest enough both to recognize that such a clash is well within the realm of realistic possibility, as well as recognize that such a clash is very likely to be relatively insignificant to an entire civilization with its own powerful zeitgeist. Indeed, those tensions are hardly alien to western civilization as it currently finds itself (for there are plenty of groups within western civilization whose values clash with those typically identified with western civilization). I take exception to the suggestion that what I have just said represents an inherently/essentially colonial way of thinking. There is no need for the technology of ‘imperialism’ here - one can understand the concerns of those fearful of a ‘culture clash’ without, in turn, racializing those people, pushing them to the fringes of acceptable society and marginalizing them in various other ways. It seems to me imperative that we engage with those who hold this concern without dismissing their concern out of hand or undermining the legitimacy of their having concerns of the kind they have. Instead, it will be more productive (if nothing else) for us to engage with them by beginning with an acknowledgment of the prima-facie legitimacy of their concerns. To take an example you raise; while I agree that true liberation would be for Muslim women to freely choose whether to wear the veil or not, it must be understood that insofar as the veil signals a commitment to an ideology, one can take issue with it in principle. We are all, presumably, well aware of the stockholm syndrome which characterizes many abusive relationships where women being abused by their (male or female) spouse(s) causes them to defend and even affectionately endear themselves to their abuser(s). This gives us license to imagine extreme (even if presently unrealistic) situations in which we would regard one’s free choice as problematic. Imagine, for instance, that a black South African woman were to have been so acclimatized to systems of racialized oppression that she were to freely become an advocate of colonialism (perhaps even sporting a ‘Rhodes must stand’ T-shirt). We would all (or most of us) probably regard her freedom as paramount, but her expression of freedom as problematic. To many people who are genuinely Islamophobic (that is, afraid of the combination of ideas they perceive to belong to Islam as a worldview - not to be confused with fear of Muslims), the veil is as violent and problematic a symbol as the Nazi swastika. Now, is it right or fair or reasonable to equate the veil to something like a swastika (a clear symbol of oppression)? No, clearly not - but for those who have already made the association and whose feelings are calibrated accordingly it will do us no good to vilify them for their perception. We would do better, in fact, to recognize that if they were right about their underlying assumptions then we would be much more sympathetic to them, but that we’d like to call those underlying assumptions into question. Finally, as somebody who is both Caucasian as well as somebody who seriously considered conversion to Islam earlier in life, I find it incredible that anyone could suggest that if I had become a Muslim and then been discriminated against on that basis I would have been experiencing racism. That just seems wrong to me - a complete misdiagnosis. I think, therefore, that Razack is wrong, but almost entirely because Sheth (and Foucault) is(/are) wrong. Well, those are just some off-the-cuff thoughts I felt compelled to share with you, and I'd appreciate any reaction to them. Cheers.

[@arturyeon]

Olly, it really struck me when you used the phrase "Keep the ghost of colonialism at bay". Have you seen the recent YouGov polls on how widespread the acceptance of colonialism is in the UK? I'm from Germany, so first I was shocked by how high those numbers where, but then I realise the process of racialisation is incredibly popular over here as well, our history is just more taboo in ways that make people less likely to associate with it. Think about the so called Montagsdemonstrationen (Pegida and the like), which are using racialising narratives all the time without citing their history in the same ways. This made me think: Why is it that these demonstrations are most popular in the East of Germany, which is relatively poor compared to the rest of the country? If racialisation is a means of repression by the ruling class and their systems, why are the poor so likely to actively work in the name of it. I think this is very similiar to the example Sherene gave, with Irish and black slaves. The poor in Germany, or any "Liberal" country for that matter, are elevated to a, though still terrible, better social position in our society compared to the other'ed races. And all governmental systems, particularly education, keep the native precarious from realising that their situation is in fact not caused by another race but by their common oppressors. I know none of this is groundbreaking, after all similiar arguments have probably been made since Marx, but I still wanted to share my observations.

[@Paradoxarn.]

There are two point I want to make. The first is that I think that the popular discourse concerning Islam, Muslims and terrorism and related topics focuses too much on Islam as a whole and too little on the specific sects of Islam. What is missing is the recognition that it is sects such as Wahhabism and Salafism that are a source of concern rather than Islam as a whole. Talking about Islam as a whole when discussing terrorism for example, only distracts from the real issue. This is not to say that there aren't problems with Islam more generally, including as it pertains to terrorism, but it is nonetheless an important distinction to have in mind. The second point concerns what was said in the section "racism dresses as feminism". I agree that real liberation is women choosing for themselves what to wear but just as undue distinctions are sometimes made between Muslim domestic violence (honor killings for example) and other domestic violence, I think that some feminists make an undue distinction between the liberation of Muslim women and the liberation of other women. They might for example say that as long as Muslim women choose to wear clothing which covers their face, then there is no problem but that when other women wear clothes which aligns with cultural norms or covers too much or too little of the body, then they are reinforcing "patriarchy" or are in some other way problematic. This seems to me to be a form of "benevolent colonialism" which while it does not have a place i the theory being pushed here, is also an important problem. Lastly I want to note that while as you say in the same section of the video that Razack says that honor killings, female genital mutilation and forced marriages are not as widespread or important as war waged by the west and unfair economic systems, this cannot be used to dismiss the former problems since that would be committing the fallacy of relative privation.

[@GraveyardVidya]

+Paradoxarn Excellent response. Further, the video mischaracterizes the rhetoric taken up by people like Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz as being used to push for the eradication of Islam, or for war against it, when these people bend over backwards to explain that their goal is to reform the specific barbaric doctrines and the oppressive culture built around them using the pluralism already existent in that religion -- pluralism that has already been exercised freely through reform efforts throughout the history of Islam. As you said, we just happen to be experiencing a period of very fundamentalist Islamic interpretation (or vacuous interpretation, as Maajid calls it) in the modern day due to the hijacking of religious authority by Islamists who have successfully installed ideas like Wahhabism and Salafism. This can be changed for the benefit of humanity without imposing Western culture on Muslim populations.

[@notbadsince97]

+Paradoxarn +Drizzt1180 Both are wonderful comments that actually add to the discussion in a meaningful way and are the saving grace of this comment section; the same cannot be said for other comments

[@nickfiggis6396]

I recently started watching your Chanel and I LOVE (you)r work. Bringing real depth and insight to the big questions of the day in a super digestible format. Thank you!!!

[@msemamsackyi1361]

Same criticism as last video. This is still not racialising because it is a belief system. At worst it is bigotry but I don't think this is true either because I don't think the suspicion/dislike is unfair. Islam is incompatible with current Western society because Islamic texts condone and even mandate atrocities towards gays, women and non-believers at worst but unequal treatment of these groups compared to Muslim men at best. I think you have read the Qu'ran so you should know this. This in no way condemns individuals for immutable traits (as racism would), it is harmoniously analogous to disliking fascists because of their beliefs or Kim Jung Un because of his. This dislike would not simply be a matter of taste it would be a rational fear of the kind of violence, barbarity and crushing of dissent that is inherent in these ideologies. Islam is the same way at it's core and thus I dislike Islam. I believe fundamentalist Muslims should be scrutinized more than others (along with any other extremist group that threatens the peace of Western civilization) because that fact alone seems to tie together 99%+ of the deaths caused by terrorism last year. This is a continuing trend.

[@elliottmcollins]

+Msema Msackyi It seems simplistic to describe religious belief as something easily changed.

[@msemamsackyi1361]

+Elliott Collins Not easy but still not immutable.

[@BCEONOJPAEMRIN]

Read the Christian bible and tell me that it also does not condone and/or mandate atrocities toward gays, women, non-believers, etc. Because it does condone and/or mandate those things, just like every other religion or even ideology. Liberalism is used to justify atrocities, Marxism is used to justify atrocities, hell even science is used to justify atrocities. It's not a Muslim problem.

[@zackcohn]

Thank you so much for Posting these videos Olly. I want to give you a hug for giving me such wonderful tools to share and resources to read. I'm working through Foucault myself right now. If I could support you I would, but I'm working on getting through college myself right now (as a Social Anthropology major). I spend my free time yelling at people online about gender politics and maybe just being nice to one another for a change. I hope you see this. Having a day and a little cry.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Zachary Cohn Thanks, you're sweet :) And I see all the comments, I read them all, at least all the ones KZbin shows me in my little backstage area.

[@zackcohn]

I've got to start making content one of these days. I've been working on a series of essays on various topics, so once I get enough of those done I'll either record them somehow and try to be a youtube thing or see if some website wants to publish them. Gotta make the leap to creation instead of just passivity. Hats off to Simone de Beauvoir for kicking my ass into gear. :) I hope the comments section doesn't get infuriating!

[@pamhanson-holtry4681]

Interesting and informative. I kept waiting for the presentation of the idea that racism, sexism, etc. all stem from fear. This idea may have been implied but was not overtly stated. Thanks for your efforts in producing this video!

[@stantoniification]

Excellent two-parter Olly. Thanks for the hard work you put into it.

[@Germs19]

I don't know if this makes sense, or if you will even read all of it because this is an older video, but I just need to say it: I absolutely adore you, Olly. I came to your channel through ContraPoints, and I'm overjoyed to find people like you two in the world challenging a lot of these status quo and toxic viewpoints put forth so carelessly and/or deliberately into the larger discourse on race, gender, power, etc. I came across a video earlier today in a twitter feed lamenting the acceptance of "those" immigrants into France because of the violence and illiberal attitudes these people purportedly bring with them. As soon as I realized what the news story was (a quick glance of the comments section confirmed my suspicions), I closed it in disgust, but I've been dismayed and perturbed all day by its existence, but even more so by its acceptance by the community at large, and those supposed intellectuals and self-proclaimed champions of liberalism. You know. The ones who think they are the good guys, who have tremendous influence over large groups of the population, and who like to focus their ire for religion exclusively on Islam and its alleged, incorrigible connection to violence and misogyny. Only these purveyors of truth and rationality can see through the censorship of the left to criticize the failings of Islam. Yet, all too often, these "criticisms" are just thinly veiled racism packaged nicely in the language of freedom and liberation, and their solutions seem to be like you said, "toe the line or get out." God forbid you point this out to them or their followers though... One of my best friends has this attitude, but he hides behind the facade of "I hate all religions. They're all bad and impede progress. But these guys [Islam] are just worse because they are violent. Just read the Q'uran!" I love him dearly, but I can't stand this nonsense. I've begun to avoid political conversations entirely with him, or hide behind a self-deprecating and sardonic joke about the current state of affairs in an effort to change the subject and reaffirm our relationship. I'm an atheist myself, but I will defend the right for religious freedom & for members of those groups to feel safe and accepted until the end. So, if your viewpoint invariably leads to the denigration and demonization of thousands of disparate people all over the world, perhaps it is you who should question your views on Islam, not its practitioners. It is so painfully obvious to me that this fomenting of hatred and distrust will erupt into further violence and disunity (Christchurch was just the latest & most publicized incident; the far more insidious violence takes place in the hearts and minds of those who believe the Bullshit fed to them about Islam or any other racialized Other). We will only continue to exacerbate this problem with our immigration polices (Yank here who lives on the Mexican border near Tornillo), our lack of policies on climate change (I wonder what we will do & think when the needs of refugees displaced by war, poverty, and lack of government assistance expands and includes even more Muslims or other people with the wrong phenotype forced into camps and ghettos), and our insatiable thirst for destabilizing wars and the proliferation of arms to perpetuate them (hi, Yemen). I nearly broke down in tears as I was explaining all of this pent up rage to my wife earlier today. The connections between an economic system that leaves most people around the world in the dirt, a dying planet that virtually no government seems to care to take serious action on behalf of, and a political and cultural schism so deep, I fear we will never escape that maw of malevolence and enmity for racialized others; and the enduring violence against the oppressed are so clear to me. Yet, so few people seem aware of the propaganda pushed on us to toe the line and not be "unruly." Most of us just call for a return to civility, so we can just go back to enjoying our privilege. We should be calling for an end to the marginalization and violence enacted against so many peoples in the world. We should be angry, not complacent. I can't say I'm hopeful for the future, but I felt you speaking directly to my frustrations in this video, and I found it comforting. I thank you for it. Keep fighting the good fight. Sincerely, A former philosophy student, who still believes in the transformative power of philosophy in the right hands (You).

[@darthlynx5792]

Well, I'm one of those kinds of people, who says Islam is bad, but only to the extent that Christianity. There are horrible things in the Bible but Christians don't believe them. They lie to themselves or whatever but regardless, Christianity doesn't condone any of the horrible stuff the bible condones. And I think this will be the case with Islam as well. They'll reject the bad and embrace the good, like Christians. (I don't like that as an atheist, because you're rejecting things in the Qur'an, but whatever). And I also don't believe that we need to teach it to these people on my terms. So, am i still wrong.

[@TaliaOutwrong]

Go off Olly, these two videos are so great and informative! Thanks for talking about the dictionary definition/begging the question aspect. So sick of coming up against people who dogmatically reference dictionary definitions.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Talia Enright (Talzir) You and me both! The begging the question bit has been like a 'wet paint' sign, lots of people can't help but touch!

[@333YPL333]

Wonderful job, with this series of videos, using this style that is both explaining and reflexive.

[@Owlpunk]

Is there such a thing as vitriolic agreement? Because I would like to express that :D Seriously, though: This is so fucking important. If only one person understands this issue because of your videos, they were more than worth it.

[@DjuanEastman]

This is an awesome tool for bridging serious gaps that, honestly, my generation can’t feel as easily. I’m Black, I hate talking to white people about race. I feel I have to at this time because I have to be able to live with myself when I die. The worst conversation to ever have to have when you’re in my age group is with a white friend whose gotten called out by someone much younger for doing racism. The moment they think about it they’ll have a list in their head of all the times they were doing racism and I get that it. I have been on the receiving end of it and in a lot of cases I didn’t even know how to put it in words. One of my warmest memories as a child would seem shockingly racist if I described today. I won’t, I knew what she meant from what she did. What you do tells anyone so much more than what you say and means so much more. If a person understood the video, you’ll know that the social dynamics gives a bit of an advantage to people that are experiencing being on the receiving end of those structures. The first time I ran into Poggee was in an ethics class, he’s possibly a bit of a hypocrite in real life, was when I was in a college ethics class. The teacher was a bit of a friend and the professor would get so annoyed that I’d undermine the argument as soon as she would give it. I’d make arguments that the professor knew were philosophical close but with easy to catch logical flaws. In the moment it would seem completely irrefutable however! Plenty of classes that the whole class would find themselves at a loss. I never got the chance to show the trick that they were acting in ways and presenting in ways that had already made the optics of presenting the argument just plan ridiculous in the class at the very moment the arguments were being presented. Especially the teacher and because of the obviousness of me being a black person they lost their vocabulary to say it. My presence dumbed them down or the society we live in dumbed them down, depending on how you took the video. We don’t pick the world we are born into, we just try and make it better. Playing devils advocate to never have any acknowledge your race and exclude you from the conversation mentally because you find seeing your friend ruin the material by contradicting it to be equivalent to scratching a chalkboard and want to maintain your gpa in a required class probably didn’t.

Slavery and racialisation are far from being a "white people" / western speciality. The white slavers weren't usually the ones capturing slaves in Africa. They bought them in markets established by African "nations" (can we use that word?) and tribes. Colonialism is a human problem, not a exclusive western problem. Check out how common were slaves in Asia, or how precious were "blond and blue eyed" slaves for the Turks. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa) As a funny note, Islamic tribes/nations have been always involved in slavery in some way or another.

[@nnaeru]

This is an incredible video! We need more of this type of communication and less of the same narrow-minded, vitriolic hate we are so used to, this not only provokes a long-needed discussion we all need to have about the nature of post-colonial discrimination, it also articulates the thoughts and ideas of people that are unable to do it themselves. I am going to share this with as many Muslim communities as i can! You sir, truly have given a voice to the voiceless!

[@EzioAuditoreDaFirenze99]

The culture of the Islamic world isn't a problem? If video game sexism is problematic then isn't the practice of Islamic sexual violence, and strictly reinforced gender roles also a problem? And how do you suppose we deal with that problem? With kind words and empathy? Or telling people that if they break the law they will suffer legal consequences, regardless of religion? By accepting and not questioning radical Islamic beliefs you are not treating them the same as everybody else. If everybody is equal then anybody has the right to criticise everybody. I have the right to say that radical Islam is dangerous and that western, secular values are a far superior to conservative, religious ones. I should not be labeled a bigot for saying that maybe we treat minorities the same and actually arrest them for crimes, not cover up the truth. The increased radicalised violence in Sweden isn't the fault of Islamists? The assaults of women in cologne? The rape of girls in Britain? All covered up, and the offenders rarely prosecuted. The media is too scared to even report it! Why? Because criticism of Islam is seen as bigoted. We wouldn't allow radical Christian violence would we? It's a barbaric ideology, its undemocratic and it's non - secular. Religion of peace? I put it to you that there's no such thing.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+jake ellis Did you watch all of the video because I literally talk about this in the video?

[@EzioAuditoreDaFirenze99]

Philosophy Tube​​ you said we could criticise Islamic beliefs, yes. You failed to mention how you plan on dealing with non - western, sexist, harmful beliefs, within our society. You only state that to call these beliefs barbaric is a strawman argument. However I argue that these beliefs do in fact harm our western society and infringe our western values. In a sense, you were implying that Islam cannot be blamed for the atrocities I mentioned. I ask; how is that possible when it is Islam that creates a culture that makes it acceptable to rape little girls. Muhammed apparently raped a 9 year old, marrying her when she was 4. Islam is to blame for this culture of rape. You talk about rape culture and here you have found one, but to blame the ideology that creates this rape culture is apparently 'racialisation' when it indesputable that it is the ideology that causes the assaults! Conservative, religious criminality has no place in our liberal, secular society. Accept that Islam is the root cause, because it is. Christianity had a reformation, largely isn't conservative, and conservative Christians are just as much of a problem anyway. Everyone is equal so its time to apply the same logic to every belief system. 

[@PhilosophyTube]

And the bits about Razack's proposed solutions?

[@EzioAuditoreDaFirenze99]

+Philosophy Tube "Razack says we need to deal with this in a way that does not reinforce racism and imperialism." My point is, that your definition of racism is just plain wrong. If I said that conservative Islamic beliefs directly lead to crime, sexism and a rape culture, then would I be apparently reinforcing institutionalised racism? You and these authors are saying we cannot blame Islamic culture. I think that it's not racist and completely logical to definitely blame Islamic culture. The culture of Islam causes these atrocities and I am saying that it's the culture of Islam that needs to be adressed. Now is that racist? Honestly, what do you think? Do we deal with the culture (the cause) or just deal with it on a case by case basis and pretend that it's just all happening spontaneously? Western values must be upheld in our society.

[@alvaroa.fuentes9064]

+Philosophy Tube well done once again. im a libertarian and my ethnicity is latino i think you did a GREAT job in this video in attempting to explain these terms i think you do a great service to alot of people in accurately describing this sort of post colonial narrative. i think the reason people have a difficult time swallowing this is because of the following reasons 1). the terms like oppression, colonialism, systemic, and all other sort of -isms are coined loosely and therefore can be excessively thrown to others for ranging ends 2). the sacrifices and subjugation of cultural rights needed to alter racialization/genderfication 3) the classification of all men being sexist as a replacement to some cultures or individuals being more patriarchal than others 4). the abandonment of meritocratic ideals 5). ultimately a post colonial society tends to idealize the overcoming of authentic oppression; (the millennial argument, i think does hold some validity) 6). confusing arabs(ethnicity), islam(religion), and islamism(ideology) 7). at what point is their an excess of crime. 8). does empathy and humanitarian (by the psychological sense NOT philosophical) surpass legality 9) FOR ME, i would say my issue is the call for censorship, i guess you can say i like the 8chan/reddit punk culture lol who doesn't like a good hitchens response after all i know i wasn;t too specific and you must excuse me for this ----------------------------------------------------------regardless keep it up man!!----------------------------------------------------------

[@mikaela3064]

also in the united states, girls are sometimes married of at 12. child marriage exists legally in western countries.

[@schonsmith50]

Thank you for another insightful video. I have a long flight to Germany soon and I'll be taking Sheth and Razack with me.

[@cshahbazi1220]

Holy shiteI don't think I've ever paused and re-winded one of your videos as much as this one before Olly, really high level stuff here.

[@serpentseed23]

I know, right? The amount of mental backflips you have to do to make race synonymous to religion is astounding.

[@elliottmcollins]

+The Choler of Chloë Race isn't synonmyous with religion, but religious groups can be racialized.

[@linguaphilly]

13:53 What I subscribed for

[@diogocesar9312]

Great video! Helped me understand better the issue I'm dealing with on my own research about comparative philosophy. It's really important to acknowledge that the very way we read and speak about philosophy perpetuates that same power which legitimates (rules) over what counts or not as philosophy. For instance, how unruly is Eastern philosophy, because it doesn't fit in the parameters of logic and racionality (just the say the most obvious point) and how animated by this parameter philosophy departments all over the world don't have any course on this kind of philosophy or they are named as "Eastern thought","Eastern wisdom" etc. All this in the name of the "neutrality" of reason, objectivity, logic etc. And we fail to realize that there isn't anything neutral in the way we "do" philosophy on theses terms, that philosophy entails power and (even more scary) a power that endorses the established system (to say it simple). I just wanted to say that I understand what you've said at the end of the video.Thanks for introducing the kind of philosophy that helps think beyond it!

[@quintenaerts6592]

you are probably the most realistic thinking youtuber in the hystory of mankind

[@andrew_nayes]

Important and interesting chapters. Though, I feel that Sheths conclusion of racial self-identification (from part 1) could be a little problematic when related to religious self-identity. (I have not read Sheth or Razack, just watched your videos, so it might be that my objections are already resolved in their writings.) You said that "the distinguishing feature required to begin racialization could, in the right historical context, be ... religion ... because race comes from power" and "race is a tool of division and oppression created by the powerful". In part 1 you said (through Sheth) that "racial self-identity follows AFTER a population has already been racialized", because "the racialized population learns from sovereign power to identify themselves as different from [the powerful]." I think that being muslim is not, primarily, a post-racialized/post-colonial identity, in the same sense that Sheth would probably qualify a self-identified black person as having a post-racialized identity. I think it would be safe to say that muslim self-identification is non-racialized in a state where muslims are not oppressed. If we wish to retain the premise that being muslim is part of the distinguishing features of a racialization that causes racial self-identity, then I guess we could point to a sort of re-assignment happening to the non-racialized identity "muslim" by the oppressive sovereign, thereby creating an altered secondary identity that IS racialized. The non-racial self-identification are re-assigned to a racialized self-identity in states where the sovereign power racialize muslims, by using islam as a component in a cluster of distinctive features to separate a group. If this is sound, then there would be muslim NON-RACIAL self-identification in one state (where muslims are not discriminated), distinct from muslim RACIAL self-identification in another state (where muslims are discriminated). It would seem that the identity "muslim" ends up having some sort of equivocation, an initial non-racial meaning that has been appropriated by an oppressive sovereign, and re-assigned for identification and self-identification as a secondary racialized identity. (I think these equivocal identifiers also give rise to some interesting questions regarding diasporic identities.)

[@jazzo8195]

Those are two great videos! Thank you so much, I feel like I can now properly put into words some of the thoughts I've been having. This is such a refreshing take on an issue which is normally argued about using simple binary terminology (biological vs social), which is such a pointless waste of time in my opinion! You're actually discussing why and how race became a thing and why it has such a huge impact on politics and individuals!! Yay! I'm so excited to have so many discussions about this with friends and family and I hope that the rest of the media and politics (maybe that's optimistic) soon adopt these concepts, even in it's simplest form and out of self interest because at the end of the day having discussions like these are the only way that hate crimes, terrorism, 'radicalisation' and the like can ever be successfully addressed.

[@the1exnay]

+Jasmine O you do realize in this video he supported a terrorist group, right? not muslim, but blacklivesmatter. just throwing that out there. i really hope media does not adobt these concepts, there were many good points he made but there were so many horrible things he said.

[@jazzo8195]

+Firaro How exactly is the black lives matter movement a terrorist group?

[@the1exnay]

+Jazz O i am sorry i looked it up and black lives matter has not been directly party in anything i consider terrorist activity. i has misattributed violence done by other black supremacists with black lives matter. still a lot of what they do encourages violence and racism. and there was that event where they attempted to assault some people supporting their cause because they were white and a gun had to be used in self-defense. but yeah my accusation of terrorism was unfounded and i am sorry.

[@jazzo8195]

+Firaro Thank you for your apology, but I still massively dispute what you are saying. The black lives matter movement was created in order to fight against the deeply ingrained and systematic racism in the American police force (and the US as a whole). I really don't see how speaking up and fighting against racism, so that the lives of black people (and other minorities) are seen as of equal value to those of white Americans is racist.

[@the1exnay]

+Jazz O but they arent fighting for them to be seen as of equal value. they publicize when a police officer kills a black person and ignore when a police officer kills a white person. and also it forces us to consider black deaths differently than we consider white deaths. it tries to convince officers to work harder to avoid shooting a black person than they do to avoid shooting a white person. i havent seen them fighting against racism, i have always seen them trying to force us to think about people as black and white as opposed to just people.

[@RealCoolCowboy]

Truly fine work Olly. I think I'll be coming back to these episodes for fun...which is a strange thing, but still. Ohh and if I have you're attention, what are your thoughts on the 'School of Life' if you're familiar with it.

[@arushigupta4235]

Oh my god I really do not understand why you are not popular. You are brilliant.

[@josephmiddleton3961]

I just found your channel today; it is now my life.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Joseph Middleton Welcome!

[@ahadicow]

browsing through the comments. One fallacy stands out: Islam is wrong, therefore any criticism of Islam is ok and not racist. No it doesn't follow. You can be racist/hypocrite/ignorant/bigot in your criticism of a wrong set of ideas. Especially relevant to the the theory in discussion here: criticizing Islam by using terms such as "medieval" or "barbaric" is subscribing to a cultural war narrative that attempt to justify treating Islam as a threat to "modern western culture". Islam is neither medieval (unchanged from a time that westerners classify as "middle ages") nor is it barbaric(not able to speak in civilized languages). More to the point, Islamism is UNexceptional in its justification of violence against non-believer, in its patriarchal view of the society, in its cultural authoritarianism.

[@alessandrovigano8149]

+ahadicow If I have issues with the content of the quran, the hadith and the sira, and if i find mohammed (a historical figure) a despicable man, would that majke me a racist? If I think the content of these books have the potential to make people act in a dangerous way, does that make me a racist? If I show data to back up the assertion that many muslims across the world hold views that are against the betterment of society, does that make me a racist? I don't deny that many people are indeed bigoted against muslims and I am fully opposed to that. But most people commenting here are against ideas, not people. Another point I'd like to make is that if the sovereign power is indeed racializing a group of "unruly" people who hold ideas that threatens its position, that doesn't mean that they couldn't also threaten society's well being. If the Neo-nazis had it their way, don't you agree that it isn't just the current sovereign power that would be worse off?

[@ahadicow]

***** First point, no disagreement there. Not everyone who oppose Islam is bigot or racist; some are. Whether Islam or Quran are true or good ideas for a society is not at the point here. Second, "society" and "sovereign power" are but fancy ways to say "a group of people". Morality works on the level of individual. A group may find other groups or individuals threatening to its coherency(aka "way of life"). but that does not give the group permission, morally speaking, to cause harm to any individuals. So if a society find "neo-nazis" off-putting, they can: 1.not join "neo-nazis" 2.persuade individuals in "neo-nazis" to defect. However, use of coercion is immoral on both sides no matter what is at core of this "neo-nazis" group.

[@alessandrovigano8149]

I'm totally in agreement

[@ahadicow]

Taxtro Is there a cultural war? no there isn't. there are cultures that people are free to join and leave. is Islam a threat? it depends on who you are. To an authoritarian, any ideology different from their own is a threat. To a liberal, Islam is but one of many possible ways to see the world. On what term to criticise Islam(or other religions)? one simple term: false.

[@ahadicow]

Taxtro okay, I guess I have no choice but to demonstrate how liberals fight against authoritarian in a cultural war: I respectively disagree. good day sir.

[@tirsotavarez9587]

Very informative and interesting... Great videos as always... Keep up the great work.

[@isaacmoore7446]

These are excellent videos. I'm already spamming them to as many people as I can think of (some of them teach ethics classes at universities).

[@markhale5023]

Thanks for doing these videos. I found both episodes very informative.

[@SpoopySquid]

hoo boy, this comment section is going to be fun

[@klisterklister2367]

these are such complicated topics, and you present them so well :)

[@elliottmcollins]

You occasionally point out that patriarchy should be opposed, and that the tenents of Islam shouldn't be immune to criticism. But the only mention of a responsible way for a non-Muslim to level such criticism is to defer to Muslims who are outwardly critical. Would you say that cultural criticism can or should only come from within that culture? Or do you think there's such a thing as a responsible secular critique of Muslim ethics?

[@SirJoshuaTree]

Hey! I love your videos and they always make me think a lot about the world and that's so fantastic. The one question that I always have, that I haven't yet seen you really address, is: How much of these issues with oppression (racism, sexism, etc) are due to past injustices that just need time to work themselves out, vs current active oppression? One example that I can think of is the lack of women or people of color in high paying positions or, a more recent issue, recognized in film. While there are obvious discrepancies, it was not that long ago that these individuals didn't even have a chance. So I always wonder if maybe culture and society are on the right path, we just need to give it time for the changes we've made in our thinking to show fully. Keep up the great work!

[@freazeezy]

Thanks for the great video Olly. i think it did everything you set out to accomplish. at least for me. i hope i don't sound too cheesy when i say that.

[@ProvAlex]

I remember listening to a Zizek Talk on yt a few days ago. He spoke specifically in how he is a little bit eurocentric in that there are certain elements of other cultures that we should insist shouldn't be happening. Such as the oppression of women in countries like Saudi Arabia. Or the suppression of homosexuality in Islam and Evangelical Christianity. His argument was that some take the "cultural respect" to far in that regard. All of that of side we of course should not be racializing people as unruly or refusing migrants as that can lead to a whole host of human rights abuses. Great two episode set though. I really enjoyed it and found it very useful and informative.

[@regresssion]

No idea how I'd been watching for so long without dropping some cash into the Patreon. Enjoy the couple of ££, you've really earned it x My question would be more related to the first videos model of race as a technology of power - a few thoughts: 1. Are there examples of non-'unruly' groups who are targeted by some kind of othering or racialisation? And if those groups exist, does that pose a problem for the model? My guess would be that racialisation can always be construed as a response to a perceived, not somehow an objectively real, threat, so the theory holds regardless. 2. What I think may be more likely is examples of othering and racialisation perpetrated and perpetuated by groups without sovereign power - does that imply that it does more that assert power, that the process might create a more coherent identity for the racialising group or earn it power? I ask these questions as it strikes me that this is a really solid and interesting model for discrimination in general, but that not all discrimination acts exactly as the model seems to suggest.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+regresssion Thanks! I'm not sure about your first question, it wouldn't be inconsistent with Sheth's model if that went on too but I'm not sure how it'd work. And remember for your second one that racialization can be perpetuated by people who don't mean to or realise if Sovereign Power teaches us to.

[@stiofanmacamhalghaidhau765]

Hi late to the game on this (was just scrolling the comments) but to answer your first question a little more decisively maybe than Abigail has, yes for sure. Given that the mechanics outlined across these videos, defined as racialisation, are part of a somewhat larger suite of mechanics that are used as tools of othering in a more general sense, we can see *effectively* if not overtly named as such, racialisation of small subsets of otherwise in-group society. It can be tricky to unravel and a lot is masked behind ideas like the alleged inherent incapability of disabled (esp. Neurodivergent) people who absolutely present no threat as such but are reframed in public consciousness (or, this is attempted at least) as a 'threat' financially to society, to 'your taxpayer dollars', to families, etc... or to the ability of businesses to bear the 'burden' of providing what get called 'reasonable accommodations' in the workplace. It can be argued that disability is in itself a very real threat to power because disabilities can and do turn up across all the social categories we choose to use...which means people 'just like us' in the eyes of a power-wielding elite find themselves obliged to accept that the model of acceptability/capability/skill/deservedness/etc etc they define for themselves in contrast to more easily defined 'other' groups (eg skin colour, ethnicity, religion, nationality) cannot account for divergences from their collective self-image as essentially perfect. The solutions tend to take one of two forms. First, the form of portraying a disabled person as victim of a disability that is imagined as separate from them, which gives us the 'confined to a wheelchair' or 'struggles with autism' or 'carries the burden of [take your pick of disabilities]' etc. This is 'one of us' fallen victim to an ephemeral 'other' - the disability. Second, is the actual othering of the disabled person, by defining them as the burden. This second option is pretty popular and is central to a lot of parent-focused disability organisations, particularly in the US but found absolutely everywhere. This relies on a lot of the same tools as we see referred to here in defining racialisation - the threat (loss of parental autonomy, the financial 'burden', broken relationships), the dehumanisation (incapable, dependent, disordered, dysfunctional, and a ton of ableist slurs that sadly remain in common usage), homogenisation ('the disabled', lots of 'those people' language, disregard of the person and focus on the disorder - a very common example here is seen in the promotion of 'autism awareness' rather than 'acceptance of autistics', with the ephemeral enemy being 'autism' which we 'struggle with' or 'battle' or 'treat' or 'overcome' or 'live with' rather than consider an autistic person as a human - their humanness doesn't really enter the discussion). We also see loss of basic rights - access to education, the right to healthcare or to life itself (note the DNR issued to many disabled people in the UK during covid), to public services, to public spaces, confinement into camps - the 'special school' or 'special ed. unit' or 'residential unit', the criminalisation - a huge proportion of people imprisoned in European prisons are reckoned to be ADHD or otherwise Neurodivergent, people being arrested or shot because they 'appared a threat' or detained by border guards...because they actually were just autistic or dyspraxic or ADHD or epileptic. Lost freedom of movement - try disclosing you are autistic and seek to move to Canada, NZ or Australia and see what happens, and there was also the issue of a blanket ban on autistic people driving in the UK (that rapidly get 'clarified' as not applying once a massive furore was created about it), the notion of certain disabled people being deemed 'a flight risk', the lie of the 'autistic school shooter', accessible public transport only being available at non-peak hour times, or only at peak hour times, and yes I could continue with this for another 100 examples. Another current example is voting rights and younger people. The idea of giving voting rights to people in England from age 16 absolutely would fall across gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, ability, religious boundaries - everyone gets to be 16 for a year of their life. Is that a threat to power? For sure. But are the actual individuals 'unruly' in the sense used here? Not at all, because it includes 16 year old offspring of white, affluent, tory-voting leafy suburb dwelling people as much as offspring of black caribbean emigrants, muslim middle class families, stereotypical old left northern English working class communities, or naturalised refugees from Syria or Sudan or Yemen or [country of your choice]. But the language used in the debate circles around the same notions of an indefinable threat, raised bars for admission, incapability/infantilisation, etc. Suddenly random teenagers get portrayed as easily manipulated or influenced, become 'they', present a risk to 'our values' etc. This a really interesting and awkward one, and you can hear it in how people struggle to both include and other... because really what is worrying is the idea that younger people tend to be more idealistic, less compliant, more nuanced in understanding of new concepts, more inclined to social justice ideas, less enamoured of establishment authority and so on. But they are also our children our grandchildren, our nephews and nieces and students and neighbours. They are definitely 'of us' but now need to be (hopefully temporarily) treated as a potential Other. The relationship between patriarchy and racism was touched on in the videos also, but we can absolutely see exactly the same mechanics in operation in how sexism operates (albeit more subversively in more recent years than in the past). We can do exactly the same thing with ageism. Are older people or children 'unruly'? What all this points to is what perhaps is the real issue in how people understand 'racism' and 'race' which is that those terms are deeply ingrained as linked to specific characteristics, and people can struggle to lift out of the 'racism is about black people and asians, right?' perspective. Personally, I suspect that using 'race' in this way is a stepping stone in the process of elaborating understanding of intersectionality, and where we will end up is with a matrix of mechanics of power maintenance (many of which are here used to describe racism) that are seen to coalesce into common patterns in how they get applied to different broad categories of Other. That, to me, would be a significant step forward - rather than following received categorisations and battling to reinterpret them as negative -isms, we then focus on the HOW of power maintenance as just that. Concepts like racism, sexism, transphobia, disability and ableism, etc are necessary because those who actually wield the power have already created the framework we are forced to operate within, direction gaze away from what they are doing and how they are doing it. Apologies for the essay. I was delivering training all day today and stuff like this was front and centre... my head's brimming with similar stuff right now.

[@arushigupta4235]

I agree with what you said about Islamophobia in the world. You also tied up what writers like Irshad Manji argue about over simplifying of terrorist motives. Keep up the good work and I look forward to more videos from you!

[@imaginareality]

Wow, I want to share this with so many people but I doubt that they'll want to hear it. I don't want to lose my friends because I keep forcing them to face their own racial biases and stuff, I'd end up being a very lonely person... Really great video! Made me think of the way we deal with what is often called the "refugee crisis"

[@the-crucibleof-condemnatio1835]

Thank you, you are someone who I have been trying to find for a long time. I say this because you give your points with nuetrality and non bias, as most people do. Your videos have connected dots I have seen before but never connected until now, again Thank You!

[@paigemurphy3437]

Thank you for making these two video even know I'm sure you got some nasty comment.

[@ExplodoPantsuit]

I'm a bit troubled by the phrase "race comes from power", not because I disagree with the concept that racialization and/or racism is deployed via power, but because I feel like it could easily be mistaken to mean that power chooses and decides what race is. The descriptions that are used to differentiate people of one group from another come from power, yes. But the differences between individuals or groups of individuals in the definition of race that you're choosing not to engage, are or become apparent before we react to them. People in power do decide how to use those differences to vilify those peoples, but they don't decide whether or not to vilify. That is determined by their own culture and personal what-have-yous. The difference becomes apparent, and then, based on its reaction, an authority vilifies or accepts. Typically, yes, vilifies. My point being that we should not assign agency to power in terms of deciding whether or not it is prejudiced, but rather in terms of how it behaves in response to its prejudices. The concept of unruliness, presumably, comes from the fear that what is different could adulterate what is known and comfortable in some way. You don't choose to fear. You fear, and then you choose how to respond to fear. Assigning the concept of unruliness is a fearful reaction to an unknown. I don't know what we might call an accepting assignation. Harmoniousness?

[@seanmeehan5955]

Sheth really interests me but I find myself somewhat reluctant to get on board with Razack. This will require a good deal of thought. Great presentation regardless! Thank you.

[@noticias6111]

I liked the mention about a state and self-preservation

[@dylanb265]

question on the notion that race comes from power: does that mean that powerful people are of a different race than non-powerful people? Are the Oil-Rich Sheiks of Saudi Arabia of the same race as Bill Gates or Pablo Escobar? I guess what I'm asking is, doesn't a power-based notion of race make it more about socioeconomic class and less about what's usually been used as a marker for race, namely skin color and ethnicity?

[@EzioAuditoreDaFirenze99]

When he uses the terms racism and racialisation I believe he is wrong. The correct term would be institutionalised oppression. Any discrimination based on any race by any race is racism. Discrimination based on social constructs by institutions controlled by a privaledged majority is institutionalised discrimination. For example; the American police force can't be racist because it's an institution not a person. Though it can be institutionally discrimatory. A cop on the other hand can be individually racist. When the two definitions are used interchangeably, it just leads to confusion.

[@washaslolos]

I want to thank you for these videos. There really help me a lot and gave me some new and fascinating reading list. Racism is something that sadly I can see everywhere. It comes from a tiny part of our society and history but in my experience is deeply rooted in the mind of people all around the world. I just want to say that in Part I when you did the "ghost of colonialism" it reminded me to a historical-fiction novel I once read "The White Mare" by Jules Watson. Those words you use to illustrate your point were very similar to the ones Romans used in the book to justify their attack on Celt Tribes in Scotland.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+washaslolos Perhaps not so tiny, as we'll be seeing if we do Mill next time. I'm glad you liked them :)

[@menotyou135]

I think there is a fundamental difference between saying that Islam is bad and saying that Muslims are bad. The three atheist thinkers you point out all attack all irrational religions and their doctrines as a whole, and claim, rightly so, that using those teachings as a pedestal of morality causes greater suffering to all peoples. My question to you is that if sharing an idea constitutes a "race," then is it racist to say that society should move away from an idea that causes harm when better alternatives are available? If so, then the position that atheism is better for society than religion is automatically racist as this is position automatically falls under the idea that classification, making everybody who thinks atheism is better a racist. If this is not the case then why? Here is a more extreme example. Imagine Religion X. Religion X has one commandment: Raping babies is okay. If Richard Dawkins called this religion atrocious because it's core tenants are terrible, then is he being racist to those who follow Religion X? They share a core of beliefs and it is possible to convert to this faith, just like Muslims. How is Islam different? Is disagreeing with this belief racist, or should we make an exception for religions that have a lot of followers. If so, what is the precise number of followers is the minimum for a religion for it to be one that makes it's critics into racists? If the Bible has comparatively immoral passages about genocide against Canaanites, human sacrifice, genital mutilation, slavery, raping women from the losing side of a war, ect... then is critiquing the bible for these things considered Racist? Is trying to change the minds of Christians racist? If the answer is that Christians are the majority and you cannot be racist against them, then what if we are living in Pakistan where Christians are a minority? If this changes things, then does it also change the other way around? Are you now not racist against Muslims if you are critiquing Islam in a country where it is the majority religion? Can we make a map of where I am allowed to be outspoken against belief systems that I find morally objectionable or is all belief free of criticism lest we become a racist? Are we only allowed to go after fundamentalism? If so, why is it okay to go after people who fully believe the base text supporting their beliefs instead of the people who aren't even committed to following their religious text, which is the core of their belief system in every major religion? Because Richard Dawkins does that all the time. Is he racist against Christians or just Muslims? Is disagreeing with an atheist racist? Is William Lane Craig being racist against Richard Dawkins when they debate christian apologetic? Which one is being racist if only one is being racist? Are they racist against each other? Considering that Christians are more plentiful in America than Atheists, the first video suggests that Craig is the racist, but that makes no sense because being an atheist is just a way of describing the null hypothesis of religion. That would be like being racist against people who don't believe in Santa. To do the classic internet argument and bring in Hitler, I think the Nazi's trying to exterminate all of the Jews is terrible and that people who hold this belief should not. Am I a racist now against Nazis? They are now a minority that has been shunned by the world for decades. They qualify as a race according to the previous video in this respect and ergo, negativity toward them is racist right? If not, what is the difference? I go back to my main point. Is trying to change people's minds from a less moral standpoint to a more moral standpoint through debate and literature racist? Because fundamentally, there is no way to do this without being racist according to the ideology of the first video unless the person who is having their mind changed is part of a minority in the sovereign nation. If this is false, then explain how. This whole diatribe begs the question. If this is the case, is it possible to not be racist? Do I have to give up a pragmatic understanding of epistemology to do so? Do I have to believe that every possible ideology is just as valid as one of empiricism and science in order to no be a racist? If I meet someone who thinks they are a unicorn who's goal it is to headbutt as many people as possible, am I being racist by thinking that person is delusional. Am I racist if I think that people with serious damaging mental disorders should get help? Because In this case, I am part of an authority group who is making a blanket declaration of a group. I feel like these theories have some holes, though I would love to hear what I misunderstood in your videos that caused me to think like this, or if I misunderstood nothing, then what the answers to my questions would be.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+menotyou135 I think you haven't quite got what Sheth says about power. A lot of these questions come from a place of not getting Sovereign Power, and not getting the project of postcolonial philosophy. So maybe watching the first one again, or reading Sheth's book would help.

[@david21686]

+menotyou135 You hit the nail on the head. This definition of racism is asinine, unless you're willing to accept racism against Neo-Nazis as a legitimate form of racism.

[@KaSousek58]

+david21686 i dont think many of you understand the way the word race is used in these two videos. Everybody is clinging to the definition of the term race while completely ignoring the broader theory

[@menotyou135]

+menotyou135 I understand the concept of sovereign power oppressing a group that threatens it's power, and that post colonialism makes us want to reign in people who are "lower" So with that in mind, back to the classic argument trope of bringing up Nazis. If Germany is a sovereign power that makes it illegal for these people to utilize their flag, then is the German government systematically racist against Nazis? I would call them anti nazi, but this video seems to imply the government is being racist even though literally a person of any ethnicity could potentially believe in Nazi ideas (though this would have to occur with some cognitive dissonance, but I don't think Nazis are new to that). Is there something I am missing here? This example hits every check that I can tell. Is there another criteria that needs met to exclude this example from "racism" or is anti-nazi ideology also racist ideology? The core problem here is that there is a distinct difference between a physical trait, and a worldview. Physical traits are what group people into races according to current definitions, and while we could change the definition as you said, wouldn't it be better to simply create a new term which allows us to better communicate various types of ideas, rather than erasing one idea for another? The only reason to use the word racist over a new one that I can think of is to transfer the stigma the word has as well. A worldview is not something that can be immediately judged unless the person is intentionally making that information public, while physical characteristics can be judged immediately. Making both things the same means getting rid of two different ideas and making communication inherently more restrictive. A new term would simply include current racism and also include worldview discrimination, which is an issue that is not commonly talked about. And while I think this idea would be noble, I also want to know how we reconcile this idea with the issue from my second paragraph about calling the German government racist toward Nazis. I think there is a fundamental idea you are trying to get at that I am not getting, and if not, then I recommend you should not follow this idea as I don't think that the German government is doing something that is as evil as what we call racism. My real issue though is that what is being said seems to be easily misconstrued to being "Criticism of ideas that minority groups have is racist, and therefore not okay" especially when your leading example is an atheist author who's primary goal is to challenge ideas that have been relatively unchallenged for centuries. While I know that you say at the end this is not the case, I don't see how this follows from the ideas you described, unless you think it is okay to be racist. Maybe if you could at least clarify why you don't think what you says is anti-Criticism. From what I understand, if you are not a minority criticizing the majority ideology of whatever nation you belong to, and you are criticizing an ideology, you are racist. Any other scrutiny of ideology is inherently racist if you are not part of that ideology. That I think is the core aspect I am not getting. It seems to be suggesting that speaking out against ideas that may (and in my opinion is with all religions) be atrocious and immoral, is the same as thinking black people are inferior to white people. I don't see these things as the same, and therefore, I don't think they should share the same term. PS. The only reason I used Nazi's in my example is because their ideals are mostly uncontroversial in how bad for society they are, so it saves time thinking about whether ideology X is actually bad for society which is an unrelated question that would just waste time.

[@menotyou135]

KaSousek58 This video seeks to redefine the word racism. How is it not relevant to talk about this aspect of the videos? Also, I have no problem with the ideology itself and the lessons that Philosophy Tube is trying to teach us. That is why I didn't talk about them. Not because I am "completely ignoring the broader theory," but because I accepted the broader theory, but disagreed that this theory should be called racism.

[@youdeserverealmoney1290]

Well done on doing this topic, interesting and you're brave for facing the internet on this, I can imagine you were nervous uploading this (So I should stop being nervous about any mistakes I might make). I think I understand it for the most part, have watched them multiple times (Understandably you might want to talk about a different case with race if you have another go at the topic in future =P). I think I get this definition or usage of race and agree it has explanatory power and is 'useful' for dealing with any problems with racism in our real world, sadly it seems it mostly comes down to powers acknowledging they racialize and changing action to pursue liberty and prosecute by breach of law than an association with a threatening group and forced into isolation. (Described as a technology is it something people use unwittingly or does Sheth actually give a date of origin? Just interested). My only real weakness in trying to understand all this is the 'ghosts of colonialism' as a brit there is alot the UK has done in the past, but at the same time I don't feel I've been taught that cultures can be superior to one another unless you can 'quantify' the difference, (a culture that endorses rape and oppression of women is at least bad as far as thats concerned for example) I would say my only real nitpick or matter I'm not sure about is how you discuss islam as a culture, ideology seems more appropiate, as 'anyone' can be a muslim around the world and it'll influence their culture sure, but their mother language and where they come from would be the main ways we describe the culture someone possesses (though yes racialization is partly about forcing a specific label to be used when applicable) and to my mind those have the most influence on your own culture outside the very culture your parents or friends possess. The strangest thing about racialization is in some sense its 'understandable' why a government might use it. It seems like a reactionary mechanism that a power group would use in response to being threatened or damage to minimise expense and damage to itself or groups it favours (amputating a limb to save the body from a disease to put it crudely, though admittedly the more vulnerable the group the smaller the limb in this analogy), the only true 'defence' I seem to understand by the videos is making sure its not 'politically neutral' to isolate a group at risk. In some sense it strangely means no group is safe, as once its safe its ok to have a go at it again, though I'd appreciate an increased understanding on what politically neutral means.

[@VEROTIKAA]

ok at first I wasn't too sure but you got me :-) ty

[@the1exnay]

+VEROTIKAA so because of this video you now believe that people in countries that were part of colonialism define themselves by their oppression of others. part of me just died when i saw your comment about how you abandoned critical thinking and just accepted what he said. unless you were saying that he convinced you to stop being islamophobic, in which case: yay!

[@VEROTIKAA]

+Firaro im sorry I didn't specify on what he got me what I was trying to say was I listened through the whole lecture when he started I thought it wasnt going to be interesting but it turns out it was because I hadnt heard the idea before by no means do I belive in this but I learned something new a different view than my own and to me that's interesting

[@007purpleroses]

Thanks for doing this two part series, Philosophy Tube. Good stuff; keep up the good work. :)

[@mileskeller5244]

I understand that now you are transgender. See how far you make it in Iraq and Afghanistan as transgender with Muslim ideology (religion not ethnicity). By stigmatizing the scrutiny of religous claims you are hindering progress.

[@dropyourself]

And Christianity is any different? The only difference is one is brown and one is white and I'm pretty sure I know which one you are

[@mileskeller5244]

@@dropyourself I am by no means promoting Christianity lol. That belief set is just as fallacious as the others.

[@dropyourself]

@@mileskeller5244 yes but you are acting like she would be accepted in the west and also you can't just say all people in Iraq and Afghanistan would just kill her because of their "Muslim ideology" that's racist when if she went to the US it's not much better for trans people because of their "Christian ideology" but that also doesn't mean all Americans hate trans people

[@mileskeller5244]

@@dropyourself while the Christian ideology may be discriminatory towards trans gender people, they are not throwing them off of roof tops. That is why it is important to questions the claims of any religion, beliefs organize behavior.

[@dropyourself]

@@mileskeller5244 first off islamists fundamentalist may have killed trans people but Christian fundamentalist have done way worse to people of color (ie slavery, drone striking third world countries, or overthrowing elected "communist" leaders) and they may not kill trans people directly but they foster an environment in which s***ide rates are much higher than the average population. But that also doesn't mean all Christians hate people of color that just means the super alt right parts of the faith hate anyone who's different which is no different from a lot of religions but you seem to only call islam out because they're brown and you don't know many of them

[@leyley_4220]

Amazing work! This piece reminded me a lot of Prof. Lila Abu-Lughod's writings. In particular, her anthropological novel, Do Muslim Women Need Saving? It was based on her experiences and studies on women in the Middle East.

[@michaelbagouty3369]

Can i suggest you live in the middle east and several countries with severe sharia and Muslim laws before you start making videos and making an absolute fool of yourself. Killing of atheists, gays, lesbians. Total obedience to your husband from a wife. Honor killings. Please do us a favor and spend some time in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Not in the tourist parts but with the real people. I bet you come back with a different point of view about Islam. I have spent time in those countries. Western values and culture is way superior so please, do not say that an ideology such as Islam is equivalent to democracy.

[@JaxTheCartographer]

a lot of Muslims are bad. The Muslims in the west are not supporting sharia law. they were either born there or moved away from countries like that so they can live in peace.like every religion parts are bad and parts are good. kkk was a Christain organization Hitler was a Christain . Isis is Muslim sharia laws are msulim. there are bad things from all religions including Christians and muslims

[@porknose]

fantastic clear explanation olly, look forward to sharing this with my students. thanks so much for these vids!

[@karandex]

Was that jab at school of life?

[@xXSellizeXx]

+TheBobBrom "You'll find 100 channels that will just summarize what Plato or Nietzsche said, and then as soon as you've finished watching the video, you'll forget what they ever said, but you'll feel clever. That's not what I'm about. I wanna get people in a position where they can actually do philosophy, and use it to engage with the world today[...]" ~ 13:44

[@alexc2265]

lol maybe. The School of Life does have some more practical videos, though.

[@syntheticsynapses6524]

+TheBobBrom yep, exactly the feeling I have. It started really good, but now it seems to have more in common with the local hippie gathering spot than an actual source of information.

[@dirty_diver]

+TheBobBrom agreed!

[@karandex]

School of life helped me a lot.

[@guardingdark2860]

I disagree that pointing to the dictionary definition of racism is begging the question. That word has an established meaning, and to use it to mean something far more broad (for which the word "discrimination" is a MUCH better descriptor, in my opinion), and then fail to clarify that that is how you are using that word, it is not them who are begging the question, it is you who has failed to set up your premises. Once this premise became clear to me, my whole perspective on the matter changed, because I fundamentally agree with literally everything you have said in these videos except for the use of that word. I realized that what was hampering my understanding was that I don't like being called a racist, because that word means something completely different (see: abhorrent) to me, and that seems to be a consistent trend among literally all the discussions that have brought up that "all white people are racist" point. I feel that the continued use of this word has done more to damage the discussion and relationships between those having it, for no discernible gain over using the word "discrimination" instead.

[@8301TheJMan]

bravo sir

[@ThomasRideout]

I'd love a video that used references in popular sci-fi to correlate the concepts you are explaining in these videos.

[@ShawnRavenfire]

Does the discrimination between political parties count as "racism?" Technically, two political parties share power, so neither can be said to be the ruling class above the other. Yet, being a member of a different political party can affect what positions you can hold in government, which committees you'll be able to serve on, and what you're chances are of being elected by any particular district. Outside the systemic issues, there's also the cultural aspects, such as whether a particular media outlet will speak favorably or unfavorably about you, and even how people perceive and stereotype each other. (I personally know quite a few Democrats who think they know everything about what Republicans are like, while blatantly refusing to even associate socially with "those kinds of people.") Can it still be racism if neither "camp" is the one obviously in the position of power?

[@themimsyborogov42]

+Shawn Ravenfire Perhaps an example of racism for political parties could be UKIP? People who say they would vote for ukip are often dismissed I've found.

[@ShawnRavenfire]

Also, there is serious discrimination in the U.S. against the smaller political parties: Reform Party, Libertarian Party and Green Party. People just assume that a vote for one of them is a wasted vote, and the media doesn't even bother to give them coverage.

[@alexc2265]

Good points. Political affiliation is a very divisive line. Intellectuals often quickly write off Republicans and now especially Trump supporters. Where does the line between racialisation and just strong ideological conflict go? Perhaps where there are no longer easily visible distinctions between people of a certain way of thinking and the people in power. Depending on the area, political affiliation can be like this.

[@HughDingwall]

+Shawn Ravenfire You might be able to describe the Jamaican political situation as akin to racism - political affiliation there has broken down into semi-tribal indentifiers in some places. Otherwise, the crucial thing you're missing is racialisation. You could be racist against a political affiliation (following Sheth's logic) if that identity became racialised, but not otherwise.

[@david21686]

"A little bit like how toxic masculinity calls for men to find manliness only by oppressing women". You're pretty much calling men unruly here, and separating men into a separate class of people. Hence, by your logic, you're "racializing" men. What gives you the license to do that to men, but not Muslims? Some further questions: 1. Why are Muslim women allowed to empower themselves by putting on a hijab, but when I put on something that covers my face, I'm told by the police to take the mask off? 2. If we're allowed to criticize the tenets of Islam, why can't we criticize people who follow those tenets of Islam? 3. Sheth uses terms like "racialization" and "camps" to describe her concepts. It feels like she's pulling the race card and invoking Godwin's Law in a context that's far outside their scope. Your response to that seems to be "If her concepts do apply, then she can invoke the concepts of racism and 'camps', and your criticism of her application is just 'begging the question'". Doesn't that feel a bit cheap? 4. "What all these examples feed into is what Rozack called the Culture Clash Narrative. The idea that Islam is fundamentally different from and incompatible with Western values." I agree with this statement. I think that if you look at the laws and governments that Middle Eastern democracies create, and if you look at what's happening in Germany thanks to their migrant program (www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35250903), then you'd come to the conclusion that this statement should be appraised on its own, rather than "recontextualized" to make it seem "wrong" to even ask the question.

[@davidharris8814]

I think the attempt, the use of the modifier "toxic" was specifically to differentiate regular masculinity from it's bastard offshoot. The idea isn't that masculinity is inherently bad, just a specific strain.

[@rolandxb3581]

Do you really believe forced marriages are because Muslims are being oppressed into their own group? That's such complete and utter nonsense that I'm starting to doubt your objectivity. Most Muslim fathers do not want their girls to marry 'infidels'. Open your eyes, ask around! Besides that, the Culture Clash Narrative is basically correct. Conservative Islamic culture is incompatible with freedom of speech, seperation of church and state, and most other basic liberties. Have you ever bothered to take a look at the Middle East? Not a single Islamic country is a free and open democratic society. Turkey was close, but is now descending into islamist authoritarianism as well. Are you willfully blind? Honour killings are described as islamic because they originate from religious culture and use religious justification, unlike white men killing their partners. And what can I say about toxic masculinity, men are being told they are only real men if they oppress women? That's incredible. No one is saying anything like that in our current culture, not even implicitly. But since for radical feminists, anything that conforms to traditional gender roles is oppression, even if it's the result of women's own free choices. And since there are many biological, hormonal and therefore psychological differences between men and women, as common sense tells us, the 'oppressive patriarchy' will never go away. It's nature, not just nurture. But if you stick to feminist dogma, you'll never see the truth. Btw, the percentage of people who identify as a feminist is in the USA dropped to 18%, and its plummeting in Britian as well. Do you know why? Because of all this crazy 'theory', the undeniable hatred of free speech, intolerance and man-hating, almost no one wants to share a label with these authoritarian academia. Good example of how horribly wrong feminism has went: www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/ MEN suffer TEN TIMES as often under the US prison system, yet this feminist only cares about women. Astonishing.

[@BrandonPilcher]

I see Islamophobia as rooted in racism simply because Islam in the eyes of Islamophobes functions essentially as a symbol of brown people from foreign "Oriental" cultures. Of course, the reality is that all the Abrahamic religions originated in the Middle East, but since we commonly associate Judaism and Christianity with white people or "Western civilization", it's Islam that gets singled out as exotic and alien, hence why its mere presence provokes racialist hostility.

[@ManyMonstersMedia]

it's just nice to hear a white guy talk sense about race!

[@incollectio]

I like the definition of race as a socio-political category - at least more than it being a social construct or a biological category - but I am very hesitant to accept that it would be necessary to be in a societal position of power in order to be "racializing". To think such a position of power is necessary, I think, is not only undescriptive, and perhaps relativistic, but it can be a very polarizing and unhelpful idea (especially considering the etymology of the word). I think her definition is pretty close to how we see the concept of “race” actually being used in the world, just minus the necessity of power. It would be more descriptive if we say any group can “racialize” any other group based on perceiving them as a threat (i.e. unruly) towards the ideal goals they have for themselves in a society, or for the society as a whole. Then we could, more comfortably, say, for example, that freethinkers and atheists are racialized in some contexts/places/websites/ideologies, while Muslims are racialized in others, and all kinds of groups are racialized in different contexts but not in others (and this is all mixed up on the global Internet, which emphasises why terminology that is not spatially confined should be encouraged). I.e. if we say power is necessary for “racialization” then an individual belonging to a certain “racialized” group might only be racialized in a country where that group is a minority but not in another country (with a different kind of power dynamic) - but I think the individual can face the same kind of discrimination no matter where they travel and what the power dynamics might be, especially in the age of the Internet. If we were to accept the necessity of power, we might also be too prone to say that, for example, the public attributions of labels like "extremist", "Islamophobe", and funnily enough "racist", towards liberal Muslims like Maajid Nawaz are not "actual racialization" as Nawaz is a liberal (a part of the class in power). We would thus fail to explain how a ruling class (or some part of it) can practice a smear campaign against one of its own (an exception), reminiscent of Sheth's "racialization" in every other way but the power aspect. At least this would leave the space between a ruling class and a racialized class as a sort of no man's land - where Nawaz (both a Muslim and a liberal) resides, being excluded and labelled (e.g. as a "racist") from three sides (from conservative Muslims, and what he calls regressive liberals, and certain far-rightists [the "traditional" sort of racists]). Nawaz might himself call this no man's land as (liberal) minorities-within-minorities. We could also imagine a lot of scenarios where many would probably say a minority class is "racializing", or being "racist", against a majority class in (sovereign) power. For example, in the form of a thought experiment, we might imagine a country where an ultra-peaceful and -pacifist form of Jainism would be in sovereign power, and there would be only a handful of, let's say pseudo-religious violent social nationalists planning a hostile takeover from "those friggin' 'jainos' ". I think we should be able to say in such a situation that those not in (political) power are racializing or being racist towards those in power. Also, if we accept the necessity of power, there would be a very arbitrary line of racialization that would be crossed when the social nationalists do take over the political system (i.e. at one moment they wouldn't be racializing the Jains, and at next they would be, only because they took over the parliament building and announced, accurately, that the pacifist " 'jainos can do squat about it"). This whole equation would be made even more descriptive of the problem if at every step of the way the Jains would be and would continue to label the social nationalists (at one moment they would be racializing them, at the next not). If one likes, one could also add, for an emphasis, that the Jains are all purple in skin colour and the social nationalists are all green. Seeing racialization as something any group might do when perceiving someone unruly towards their own ideas would approach a perfectly capable explanation of these sort of social phenomena. We might also want to note that no matter which one of these two definitions of racialization we adopt, we may also accuse the "regressive left" of racialization of Muslims as they are (exceptionally) labelling Nawaz for reasons of oversensitivity towards his honest discussion about ethical problems in widespread ways of interpreting the holy texts, and how he campaigns for a liberal and secular reform. In labelling Nawaz, they are at the very least indirectly racializing Muslims as a whole, as they are silencing critical discourse that is opposing to their idea of Muslims as a homogenized group, in need of some sort of protection from dissenting voices (even when they come from within the community itself!). They want the discussion to happen in their terms, if at all. More familiar, at the moment, seems to be the problems on the far-right that also homogenize Muslims, but to a negative direction (as the "regressive liberals" homogenize to the positive). As both the right and the left are racializing Muslims, or fighting over how to properly do that (i.e. trying to control the narrative), it leaves the reformers and freethinkers with their nuanced arguments - in the West, let alone in the theocratic countries - caught between a rock and a hard place. Nawaz is just one example. The list on the no man's land, who are very vulnerable and are being widely labelled in various ways, could go on for quite a while, but some other examples might include: Faisal Saeed Al-Mutar, Ali A. Rizvi, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ahmad Harqan, Maryam Namazie, Qasim Rashid, Hamed Abdel-Samad, Qaisar Abbas Fatimi, Raif Badawi, Shiraz Maher, Zineb El Rhazoui, and, I think, Sam Harris (who is not a Muslim nor an ex-Muslim but makes similar arguments to the other people on this list, placing him on the no man’s land in terms of how he is placed in the field of discourse)... After writing all of that, I must add that I do find "race" as too loaded a term for it to function as any kind of a useful tool. This may apply to all the derivatives as well. Overall, I find it more fitting and sensible to just think about this all in terms of groups and group ideologies and agendas, some of which include trying to undermine an ideologically opposing (or unruly) homogenized out-group by labelling them, or the members of that group, in various ways (and sometimes even being physically violent against them, if the socio-psychological atmosphere in a given time and context happens to be tragically fertile for such behaviour). Sometimes this may have - and has had and is having - lamentable cross-generational effects, also affecting power dynamics. But too often does this seem to equate into some sort of emotivism, instead of considered arguments and intellectual honesty. Too often does it seem that the public sphere is stuck with just throwing labels, instead of engaging and encouraging an actual dialogue regarding civil arguments. The most helpful thing in addressing these issues would be to get people to distinguish between people and ideas - and start having open discussions without any unnecessary labelling.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

holy fuck. the nonsense and drivel this moron spews is cringe worthy. change definitions to suit you and blame the west and call Muslims a race thus criticism of other cultures = racism and fuck white people cuz power. can't facepalm any more than I already have. you may have made fun of the term regressive left but it damn well applies to racist idiots like you.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Mario Pendic Did you watch the bit in part 1 where I explain how the more technical underlying theory works? And I don't appreciate the personal jabs, that's not what this channel's about.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

Philosophy Tube you define racism to mean "only racist against people I deem fit to be so" in order to justify racism against white people and the "evil west" and then claim Muslims are now a race within that and you ask me why I take a "jab" at ignorant people like you? Yes I've watched it and reject your nonsensical attempt at trying to establish some sort of marxist identity class system in order to justify bigotry. Being white or black or brown or yellow or purple or pink etc. Says nothing about a person or individual other than the pigmentation of their skin. having one predominant race tells you nothing about what people within that group think, want, act or feel or how oppressed they are or are not. This is basic sociology. Then you claim you can be racist against Muslims who literally share no commonality other than a belief system. There are black privileged Muslims and white Muslims and brown Muslims etc. And there are plenty of brown muslims who are hardened secularists and challenge their own culture and religion and are opposed to both.( maajid nawaz, Ayaan hirsi ali, Gaad Saad, etc.) According to your marxist class systems, these people are now racist against their own "groups". So in short, your claims make absolutely no sense and are only used to justify more bigotry instead of looking at people and ideas as separate and acknowledging not everyone shares a common experience and not pretending all cultures are the same and not making blanket statements about a complicated world and blaming the evil west on it when most of the problems have occurred long before the "west" even arose. So yes, nonsense. Unscientific, irrational, bigoted and completely meaningless and has no application other than to group people and generalize But I guess this is just me being secretly racist. Oh wait.... I'm brown, was raised Islamic, reject that culture and barbaric ideology, and am not oppressed by anyone. I win the victim narrative.

[@PhilosophyTube]

I think you've not quite gotten what the arguments were because a lot of these points aren't in there.

[@PhilosophyTube]

I did address those points? And yes, that would still be racist and I wouldn't thank you for saying it here. And people's experiences not being monolithic is consistent with modelling them as groups to help understand trends. It also doesn't recommend cultural relativism, in fact Razack specifically guards against that in the way I outlined in part 2.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

Philosophy Tube​ you did not. Thus proving my point that ANYONE can be racist in any culture or ethnicity or background regardless of artifical factors they cannot change. Again, NO it is NOT consistent with modeling anyone as "groups" over features they can't actually fucking change and then drawing bigoted conclusions from it. that is. EXACTLY what you do and then justify racism. " well most white people do X therefore white people are all this" instead of actually looking at different people and the damn individual involved and the experiences THEY face. People not being monolithic is consistent with drawing conclusions from each individual and NOT dividing them up into groups by artifical factors to then justify your own form of bigotry by. This is not hard to grasp. Very basic humanistic principles here which DONT justify your forced attempt at redefining a word with a perfectly useful and applicable meaning to suit your nonsensical dogma. 

[@ania0the0amazing]

Great video! Thanks of educating me!

[@Universe593]

This can hardly be called philosophy, filled with logical errors and patronization.

[@theMosen]

Yes, you're going to get a lot of hate on this one. I can see this video whizzing over a lot of people's heads.

[@3btoc]

Hope none of that came off as "vitriolic hatred"... you do seem well informed, and like you can hold your own in an argument, and it would be nice if the left wing looked a bit more like you.

[@lenichimer]

Thank you so much for these two videos! Great content, Olly! I am writing a paper right now on liberalism and communitarianism in the context of patriarchal violence against women and current so-called refugee crisis in Europe. The contents of your videos help a lot :-)

[@karandex]

Now people who are talking about islam or any religion being root of problem the point mentioned in video that colonialism or we can say forced globalization forced these group to go closer to there religion to make there identity more intense. So its not what religion you follow its how seriously you take it that matters. And this is where sam harris and other horseman failed.

[@peo_w]

Very good ! I will share. Thank You ! Heroic work.

[@ShawarmaHunter]

while I see your point, you seem to automatically assume unruliness as only perceived. real unruliness is a real threat to soverign power - as you said in p1. unless you want a revolution any time soon, unruliness is a real serious threat. you seem to mock that in your dismissal of cultural differences such as honour killing. arab and western cultures are not really compatible. it may be hard to see from the west and its westernized arabs, but if you'll care to learn about real arab culture you'll see the problems very easily. their view of honour is untithetical to many pillars of our culture. I agree it's wrong to fight unruliness with discrimination. the question then is, how do you fight unruliness? I don't know, but you seem to ignore the question's existence all together. either you prove that all unruliness is only preceived and nonexistent, or you start to think of a real solution.

[@jesusbrito5165]

You should re think your use of unruly i know what you mean but you are not using the concept in the same way olly does. "The Unruly" are not the terrorist from an Isis cell ( these are terrorist) the concept of unruly is meant as a label for the grups that sovering power needs a excuse to demonize because their existence points out flaws in the system that unfairly favors sovering power while pretending to live by these "liberal values" like the existance of black slaves in post revolutionary usa or the way conservative americans speak today of "mexicans" ( there is a parallel with mexican is a natonality ergo "i can't be racist" and islam is a religion ergo "i can't be racist") No one is saying that anyone who is an actual source of danger has to be excused but that the reasoning behing it can be lazy and a vehicule for racist colonialist rethoric.

[@fledanow]

Thanks. This was an excellent two-parter. You clarified and strengthened my inchoate thoughts. I've asked my local library to order the books you referenced.

[@Bridge2110]

Lots wrong here. Are you comparing a man killing his girlfriend with Muslims stoning a woman? Can you or see the difference that with the Muslims, Islam tells them to do this, whereas nobody in the west is telling people to beat up or kill anybody. Quoting the dictionary is not begging the question. Giving a definition and then saying "Look. It doesn't match the definition" can not be begging the question. Really though, definitions are determined by usage and people just don't use race to refer to any set that Islam could be an element of. Only people who are now trying to redefine words do use race in that way.

[@Bridge2110]

It's hardly a strawman to say that any criticism of Islam is being dismissed because it is apparently racist. You can say that it is fine to criticise Islam, but when there are a lot of people that do take criticism or Islam as insults to Muslims and racist and islamophobic, then it really isn't a strawman.

[@Bridge2110]

Lastly, a lot of millenials are being oversensitive and making stuff up. Look at the black lives matter movement. I can't remember which college now, but the son of a multi-millionaire black guy ran into a car and then claimed he was hit by the car to gain even more victim status and then used that to demand that the teacher got fired. You then have the video example of the girl who literally days that college isn't for learning but is for feeling safe. Whilst there are certainly some legitimate issues, it is just dishonest to say that there aren't a large number of people who really aren't being super sensitive. Also, safe spaces. It's segregation. I've typed all this on mobile, which is why it is all split up. You can't play the video whilst typing.

[@TallDarknCreepy]

+Thomas Bridgewater "Are you comparing a man killing his girlfriend with Muslims stoning a woman?" If I'm understanding the argumentation correctly, his comparison isn't meant to conclude that there is no difference, but rather that the notion of "honor killing" is being exploited in order to make Muslims in general (not just the perpetrator) into a savage, unenlightened people incapable of civilized society, whereas a white man who kills his girlfriend does not condemn the whole of his culture for his actions in the eyes of white people. "Quoting the dictionary is not begging the question." It is. If one side is arguing that contemporary definitions of "race" are not satisfactory, and another side is arguing the opposite, then the latter side using the definition of "race" as an argument is begging the question because they are using the conclusion of their argument as a premise in their argument. "It's hardly a strawman to say that any criticism of Islam is being dismissed because it is apparently racist" That isn't what Olly was talking about, so far as I can see. He's saying that advocates of the definition of race he discussed claim that the solution to the conflict between Western culture and Islam does not lay in depicting those facets of Muslim culture that clash with Western culture as indicative of barbarism or the abandonment of reason, as that only serves to widen the perceived gap between the two groups. However, this does not mean that Western culture should not voice criticism of certain practices, and to say that the aforementioned approach requires such action would be to misrepresent that view. So, to attack that view on those grounds would be a strawman. "a lot of millenials are being oversensitive and...demand that the teacher got fired." Can't help but notice the very sort of racialization these videos mentioned in your example above. You took an instance of one kid who abused the system and expanded it to cover not only the entire Black Lives Matter movement, but "a lot of millenials," depicting both groups as oversensitive and casuistic. Are you using this example as a pretense to dismiss out of hand the kinds of claims BLM makes? It seems like something of a non-sequitur to say "I know of a black guy who lied and got a teacher fired, so black people across the United States have never had to endure institutionalized racial inequality and thus have no standing to protest it."

[@Bridge2110]

TallDarknCreepy Then that isn't as bad as I thought, though it still ignores the ideology behind it. Islam orders killings and Muslims share this religion. Except he wasn't saying that it was begging the question in the argument that one definition is better than the other. That wouldn't be begging the question even then though. At the most, it would be a non sequitur. The dictionary says the definition is X, therefore X is a better definition is a bad argument, but it begging the question. Right, fair enough. Giving an example is hardly painting the entire group. I did say "a lot of"; not all. The examples I gave are just some of the best examples though. Like I said, there are definitely some legitimate issues being discussed. This clearly demonstrates that no, I am not dismissing all BLM claims out of hand. Please don't confuse giving an example so people can get a clear idea of what I mean with giving an example and saying everybody is exactly like this so we should ignore everything they say.

[@TallDarknCreepy]

+Thomas Bridgewater First off, I read over my reply to your comments a second time, and in that reading I'm afraid I might have come off more confrontational that I had intended. Apologies if I gave offense. It is true that Islam can justify honor killings, and that having such a rationalization is more dangerous than having no rationalization. I think the lesson here is to try to prevent ourselves from thinking that all Muslims would adhere unthinkingly to this doctrine, which would in turn feed into the narrative that Muslims are untrustworthy as a whole. When he mentioned the question-begging, I had the impression that he actually had referred more broadly to a "what does race mean" discussion, going back to the first video. I could certainly be wrong, though. However, if you are trying to determine if the definition of "race" is satisfactory, then you can't look to the dictionary definition of "race" as an authority because you are then presupposing that definition to be satisfactory. In neither case, though, did I intend the question he put forward to be framed as "which definition is better?" and I'm sorry if I gave that impression or spoke out of turn. [NOTE: As is my character flaw, I tended to get a little rambly and ranty in the proceeding paragraph. It strays a bit off topic, having more to do with writing style and communication if anything than the points discussed above. Still, I've left it in, cuz fuck it. Feel free to skip if you so wish.] If by "paint," you mean "characterizes" or "typifies," then I agree that a single example would hardly do that. The trouble with such statements, though, is that the information you give limits your listeners in the number and types of inferences they can make about your opinions/beliefs. You said that "a lot of millennials are oversensitive and make stuff up," and buttressed it by invoking the BLM movement, using an example of a dishonest black student. You followed up with an apparently vapid quote from a college girl. You have since qualified these as the "best" examples, and from the context I can't tell if you mean that those examples most clearly express your point or if these examples most accurately represent millennials and the BLM movement as a whole. Contrary to your claim, you had not in any way said prior that there are legitimate issues being discussed within BLM philosophy, and so no such assertion of your consideration of their viewpoints had been offered until that very sentence. Collectively, then, you seem to use the two examples you gave as evidence of the behavior of the whole (or at least "a lot"), for except for the tangential note that you are not dismissing BLM claims out of hand, you offer no contradictory statements that listeners may use to infer that you don't think of millennials writ large as oversensitive liars. So if you intended to use those examples to give people a clear idea of what you mean, I'm puzzled by how I was *not* supposed to infer from your statements the conclusions I expressed previously. All that said, now that you've explained yourself, I get a bit more where you're coming from.

[@gublinchscrivener7891]

Would you say that marriage has historically been a camp?

[@StNick119]

You know, I could see that, particularly for married women, who weren't allowed to work outside the home.

[@redonwight]

Wow propaganda philosophy

[@hoagie911]

Great series, thank you for putting so much work into this.