Why "Hearing Both Sides" Is Dangerous

[@SecondThought]

I beg some of you to watch the video before commenting. The title doesn’t suggest what you think it does. For those who actually watch first, much love as always, and I hope you enjoy 🥰

[@thetabaxii]

Yeah the title seems undemocratic but just watch the video lol

[@SuperEbbandflow]

Great video, but imo the title only lends ammo to the very ghouls this video is meant to neuter

[@goutamboppana961]

MLK talking is just so chilling i like it

[@Chrisko1492]

Americans really need to learn three things: Liberal ≠ progressive Democratic Party ≠ progressive Republican Party ≠ actual political party If you americans could only understand that Democrats are center-right (=neo-liberals) and Republicans are corrupt grifters at best and fascists at worst, your country could actually become great. You guys need a new progressive party, a center party (core of the democrats) and a conservative party (the right wing of democrats and MAYBE the few sane (ex-)republicans like Kasich or Romney.) Calling democrats „left/progressive“ and republicans „right/conservative“ is so unbelievably stupid. 😂😂

[@Golems_victory]

@@thetabaxii lol nah, I mean FACIST don’t care about democracy so they GET NONE.

[@MrARock001]

The TLDR is that if one side says "2+2=6" and the other side says "2+2=4", that doesn't mean the correct answer must be in the middle, at 5. Some sides are just incorrect and can be ignored.

[@SecondThought]

Exactly right

[@nasis18]

Damn, that's a good way to put it.

[@imnotmike]

The example I use is if one side says 2+2=4 and the other side says 2+2=22. The middle ground people would then argue that 2+2=13. 13 is no more correct than 22. At least with 22, you can see how they got there. 13 is just a random spot with no relation to the problem.

[@owenstevens7151]

sure... but who decides which side is correct and which side can be ignored. There is a significant fallacy of conditional ownership of the decision making process. Just because it's dangerous to "hear both sides" doesn't mean it's any less dangerous to "hear only one side". Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Good idea theoretically, but impossible to implement anywhere but an empirically based math class.

[@chrispo7610]

@@owenstevens7151 I mean it's fairly clear in scenarios where the extreme end is very clearly ridiculous, such as trying to deny trans people the right to exist (or more historically, women and minorities the right to equal treatment)

[@StevenM44271]

As a Swiss, to me what is dangerous is having only two sides. Plurality should mean more than just two parties facing each other, in most countries you have at least 3 big parties. In countries where democracy works best like Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, you may have up to 5 parties battling to win elections. It's not a coin toss anymore and people are held accountable for their actions and ideas.

[@50-50_Grind]

I agree from Belgium (6 big parties).

[@trollingisasport]

Indeed. Ideas need to come from multiple places and synthesized.

[@the1exnay]

Yup. We need ranked choice voting in america. And we need multiple representatives for each district (probably best done by combining districts).

[@Aronia55]

Meanwhile in the Netherlands we have 16 groups in our parlement and it's making things unworkable. Some kind of sweetspot seems important.

[@atanaZion]

Politic is always two sides at the end,tho

[@Leopoldshark]

I think we should hear Third Thought's take on this before making any decisions.

[@keanuxu5435]

What about First Thought

[@yonatanhoresh2695]

​@@keanuxu5435 We don't talk about First Thought

[@keanuxu5435]

@@yonatanhoresh2695 You're right. First Thought is pretty much Capitalism.

[@tapan97]

What is their take?

[@buglerplayz7497]

Third thought- promotes authoritarianism

[@diablo595]

Listening to all sides is why I’m here in the first place

[@Geopoliticsandnewscentre]

Same pinch brother

[@nostalgiatrip7331]

that and reading history

[@ear322]

The problem with Debate in America is that debates, at least at a political level, are not about finding the best idea and bringing forth evidence and reason to support what one politician thinks is the right idea; but who can shout their idea the loudest and make it sound the most popular among the public. Televised debates are more of a verbal wrestling match akin to a WWE ppv event than a frank exchange of ideas, and they are tailored this way because the end result is viewership for the television stations and channels. It's who can lie the best and make their ideas sound the best, rather than actually putting forth truth and evidence to support their ideas.

[@SpoopySquid]

"Debates" as they're commonly understood nowadays are just the WWE of intellectual discourse

[@petermmm42]

yes but when you debate is it like that or in the dream way your implying

[@rezakarampour6286]

Search . ' America Is a Mafia State Run by Democrats & Republicans . '

[@ianashmore9910]

One side doesn't use evidence or reason and they certainly don't propose solutions to problems.

[@animalmake7149]

no the worst part my guy is the slaughtering of actual debate around the debates by leftests who are gutting our freedoms

[@qiae]

It is also worth addressing the psychology around repetition, and the ways that concepts can be made to appear more real regardless of evidence if it is repeatedly heard by a person.

[@animalmake7149]

a tenant of leftist fukktards propaganda against the truth or good people in all cases that it or they does or do not agree with their ideology

[@qiae]

@@animalmake7149 I generally try not to get on people for their grammar but I legitimately cannot make out what you are trying to say with this word dump

[@animalmake7149]

@@qiae ah well ya know what they say... when they loosing the argument they go straight to grammar or spelling 😂 I believe that describes you. try again and try a little harder this time

[@qiae]

@@animalmake7149 I'm sorry, but sometimes it is actually a legitimate issue, even though it is often used as a method of looking down ones nose at others. As best I can understand you were claiming that a core part of leftist propaganda is about creating in group and out group classifications as a method of going against what you perceive to be good people and truth, however that is a struggle to parse out because of the waffling-esque part in the middle. As for this accusation, assuming I am reading it correctly, I am very curious how you assess what you classify as truth and how you classify good people, as the essentialization of people as 'good people' or 'bad people' fails to account for the complex interplay between people's actions and their effects, let alone perceptions and societal pressures. Beyond this, the truth is oftentimes claimed to simply be what a person says without properly justifying such to be the case, and the methods by which we come to understand truth are often disputed between groups based on which methods lead to conclusions which align with the ideological basis upon which a person stands, however the idea that this is specifically a leftist problem and not a political problem as a whole of seeking out the methodology which supports preconceptions, is an incredibly narrow and naive outlook which suggests a severe lack of introspection being involved in the thought behind such accusations. To conclude, nothing you said goes against my original statement, in which I referenced the methods used by wealthy conservatives throughout modern history to create a world in which the majority of the populace believe demonstrably untrue things, with the express purpose of maintaining their positions of power and privilege by siccing the populace upon each other instead of the actual malefactors of our world. I use the term wealthy conservatives to refer to those who possess extreme wealth and use it to maintain the status quo, regardless of the political ideology that they claim to support, as this is the basis of conservatism, to maintain the status quo of borderline monarchy.

[@animalmake7149]

@@qiae well my 99 percntile testing in all english areas including writing would be evidence against your subjective experience there my smoothe friend... yes what I said very much pertains to what you said ... u used a hell of a lotta words there to like say nothing my guy... that plus your comprehension issues show it is your cognitive limits that are at play.. i suppose you are evidence that literacy and education are very very removed from intelligence. As it is clear you are quite literate and you have thought a great deal just in really really broken logic paths tethered to failure by ur leftist biases... you misplace success with greed.... greed is the issue as well as lack of intelligence (the ability to order complex magnitudes of data sets over long periods of time) you may not be so afflicted by greed but it shows itself in all... those poor people you often idolize are well how do you say lazy or waiting to become tyrants when they get some level of influence or access to resource. Look no further than China to see how greed is often harsher in its ultimate affect on the poor and vulnerable than capitalism which itself is no saint. you leftists are so damnmn intellectually lazy. you are verbose AF but the words echo from empty minds devoid of actual hard thought as to their own entitlement and emotional traumas causing bias very destructive bias in what would otherwise be intelligent people such as yourself bro I am not the one unless you wanna get shredded by truth. Im ruthless

[@watching7721]

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" -Aristotle

[@spnyp33]

This should be the top comment.

[@MrPeterReyes]

@@spnyp33 If it’s a real quote.

[@spnyp33]

@@MrPeterReyes It is likely not; however, the sentiment is valid.

[@KingBobXVI]

It sounds vaguely profound, but in reality there will always be an infinite number of bad ideas for every good idea. An "educated mind" needs to be able to filter which ideas are _potentially_ valid (or at least presented in good faith) before "entertaining" them, or else you're just swamped with endless bullshit with no space for actual rational thought - which is the argument regarding time; as long as you can generate an endless stream of bad faith garbage, you can protect the status quo by preventing any correct solution from being considered. And that's not even getting into the bigger issue of continually insisting on "entertaining" ideas that have already been thoroughly debunked.

[@watching7721]

@@KingBobXVI The importance is not the idea itself that's being entertained, but instead on the ability to do it anyways. Doesn't mean people should for every idea every time. There should absolutely be a filter, But the ability to consider and understand ideas they don't agree with is the mark of an educated mind according to the quote.

[@ericthetuber]

When issues become insanely nuanced, always be on the look out for ways you could be wrong. Check, once in a while, even on the ideas that aren't insanely nuanced just to make sure you aren't thinking dogmatically

[@scaryblackrifle1481]

Yet this supposed socialist always shields himself from any ideas that may challenge his cemented beliefs.

[@entropy8634]

When issues are straight forward and truth is clear, it’s frustrating how much they’re willing to sacrifice truth. For example: global warming, Covid, Covid vaccines. Science is clear, but they simply deny science

[@SavageGreywolf]

A journalist once told me, if one person says it's raining and the other person says it's sunny, the journalist's job isn't to publish 'both sides'. The journalist's job is to go outside and look up.

[@real_dddf]

journalism, at its core, is akin to scientific research. It is the reliable data that you then quote in your arguments.

[@ianashmore9910]

That's pre-Internet journalism. Now they find a picture on Twitter and repost it asking us what we think.

[@wildfire9280]

And that’s exactly why objectivism in journalism was held in doubt after McCarthy. It seems we’ve regressed from that realization.

[@dopepopeurban6129]

Good call, however todays discussion world works different. Now you have a bunch of people sitting inside a sealed container arguing about wether it’s raining and if yes if rain is an animal…

[@oo--7714]

@@ianashmore9910 that’s all journalism, journalism is just regurgitating stuff

[@gjvnq]

I find it interesting how the sentence "we must hear both sides" seems to be used to mean "we must give both sides an equal platform" instead of "we, who are judging or analysing a question, must hear both sides before reaching a conclusion but after that we should only give each side a platform proportional to their validity/truth".

[@marjoriekaye9336]

"Both Sides" is pretty two dimensional in a complex world.

[@tonycampbell1424]

Part of the problem is that one side is often just wholly fabricated propagandistic nonsense and lies. Examples: literally everything out if Matt Walsh's mouth.

[@ILoveMahCat]

Yep. There’s this weird idea going around in a lot of leftist spaces that even investigating the ideas of people you disagree with is inherently evil because “the other side doesn’t deserve any kind of validation.” Guess what? Maybe they don’t, but you’ll never know if you don’t even listen to why they think the way they do!

[@tonycampbell1424]

@@ILoveMahCat Listening to what is obviously propaganda, disinformation, and flat out lies is not of value.

[@psychopompous489]

I'd say there's an inherent value in giving a platform to a viewpoint that's common but wrong. If you showcase the viewpoint, then you'll let the audience feel understood before their beliefs are challenged. So if half the population is wrong in the same way, giving both sides an equal platform is valid.

[@commanderazure771]

I feel like half the comments here are about the MLK quote, but I really did love it. It's crazy just how few people realize that MLK wasn't a "moderate who wanted to hear both sides and only peacefully protest" but an anti-capitalist radical. And the video was amazing, it might be something to show to my centrist dad

[@SecondThought]

Yes! His legacy has been whitewashed to make his rhetoric more palatable to “moderates”

[@BeautifulEarthJa]

@@SecondThought and to set him up against the 'evil ' Malcolm X

[@Quixy21]

@@SecondThought Even worse is the right wing hijacking his legacy to make him stand for things he very explicitly opposed. MLK's legacy is probably one of the most bastardized in US history.

[@RobinHerzig]

The widely used MLK quotes are selected phrases not even the entire sentence. When do you see MLK's anti-war or demsoc lines being quoted - certainly not from the right nor on corp media 😕

[@hudson2441]

Malcolm moderated over time but MLK actually became more radical.

[@erikkennedy8725]

You can't come to a compromise with someone who wants you utterly destroyed.

[@animalmake7149]

ahhh yes that is how the left operates and sees the world. sad and disturbing account of the damaged mental states of those who follow its sick teachings

[@erikkennedy8725]

@@bewawolf19 you're serious saying this on a socialist channel? You obviously haven't watched a single one of the videos.

[@dr.livesey7595]

@@erikkennedy8725 It would be great if leftist people would finally reveal what real socialism or communism is. Every single communist dictor used this argument before you, even lenin was bragging about that his stuff wasnt real socialism. What tf you want?????????????????????????????????????????

[@dr.livesey7595]

@@erikkennedy8725 Yeah according to him. And then you have 10 million others who give you a different opinion because there is no real definition. So i guess leftist will need to try "real" socialism 10 million times until they figure out it always ends up in a dictatorship or semi dictator ship that one way or the other destroys itself?

[@warthunder9155]

That's why the second amendment exists, so that people like you don't destroy people like me, you can be a socialist in America you can't be a capitalist in North Korea.

[@PrettyPrincess9609]

I know this is about politics but I have to speak on this. I was a victim of SA and I was blackmailed by a guy friend at 21. When I called the police and reported this, the police told me “ boys will be boys “ and asked “ if it’s not a sex thing we did “. They also said they didn’t have any evidence and no proof that he blackmailed me since I withdrew the money from my bank myself. I also opened up to my mother about this and she started blaming me by asking why I invited him to my room ? Ironic she asked this when she herself didn’t protect me when I was m word by her boyfriend at 15. Her boyfriend at the time told me not to tell anyone and I was afraid my mother would choose him and kick me out. People claim they want to hear “ both sides “ but they never wanted to hear my side. I was automatically accused of lying and trying to “ set a brotha up “. Even though I was the victim, he was victimized while I was villainized even by the police.

[@doodle3984]

Sorry that happened to you but yes I understand what you're trying to say. Puting the voices of the victims and oppressors especially when in the present system you only have to walk 3 kms without public transport (because fuck poor people and the climate) besides multiple homeless people (because the market doesn't supply to this demand ) to see exactly who the oppressors are. Yet people want to give a chance to those who own almost entirely every means of production.

[@vladikas4633]

I'm sorry this happened to you. As a man I will never understand what goes through those dumb mfs heads who choose to violate a woman nonetheless a teenager. I know you can't completely heal trauma but you have to keep pushing and fighting for yourself don't let other people push you around, don't lose yourself and seek therapy. It's something I wish I would've done sooner and so should a lot of people. I hope you turn out a beautiful strong woman and when one day you'll have children of your own protect them and raise them right. Right now do what's best for you. Stay strong.

[@PrettyPrincess9609]

@@vladikas4633 I’m not a teenager. I’m 26. I was a victim of SA at 21 back in college and was m word by my stepfather at 15. I am currently in therapy. Thank you for your encouraging words. 🙏🏿

[@cillinodonnell8729]

I hope that you are ok. Sorry that these terrible things happened to you.

[@LifeInJambles]

Oh, fuck all of this, but fuck cops. Anyone who has felt safer with cops around is either really privileged or really disappointed. When my mom's ex husband was abusing me, they showed up, told him "I would have done worse" and fucked off. Really disappointing that your mom reacted that way though. The idea of "hearing both sides" is such an insidious tactic to shut the victim up about oppression or mistreatment most of the time. It's basically right in line with the neoliberal call to moderation. People have this idea that being level-headed and not showing emotion is by default the reasonable, correct choice and that idea is used as a weapon. Some things warrant emotion. Some things warrant getting very not-level-headed. To be calm and emotionless in those situations is unreasonable and often, unjust. What would have been reasonable from your mom in that situation is fury. I'm sorry to hear that's not what she came back with.

[@se7enei8htnin97]

I used to be like “I hate Nazis but I’ll let them speak their mind…if they’re wrong, people will recognize it” then I realized that it only made them more popular

[@Soullessknight1999]

@@anomaly_echelon7994 hurting innocent people is bad.

[@waltershumer4211]

@@Soullessknight1999 what determines innocence? Seemingly innocuous individual actions can have large consequences in society, drug abuse divorce promiscuity etc.... .

[@zimmerman8733]

@@waltershumer4211 ah yes we should ban divorce and sex before marriage great idea buddy 👍

[@TomVonDeck]

If you don't let Nazis speak, no one will recognize Naziism when it comes disguised as something else. That dynamic is creating lots of problems right now.

[@waltershumer4211]

@@zimmerman8733 ... I didn't say that, what's your solution to broken families?

[@jordanhenderson8350]

A German friend of mine once told me her family had a saying: "One side says it isn't happening and the other side says it is happening. You shouldn't argue for both points, just look outside the window and you'll see the Nazis for yourself." Seeing both sides isn't always logical, it's a convenient way to not take a stand, an excuse to do nothing in the face of struggle.

[@pecoguy]

Always check instead of arguing

[@terra_creeper]

Seeing both (or multiple sides) isn't bad. There is a difference between seeing both sides and blind compromise. Seeing both sides requires checking the validity of both sides. Compromise can only happen between valid viewpoints. Always disregarding the other side is the same as what conservatives do. "I'm right, you're wrong, so it doesn't matter what you say"

[@snkybrki]

​@@terra_creeperAgreed. Seems like the fella behind this video conflated those two ideas somewhat, was pretty dissapointing.

[@موسى_7]

In India they have the same saying, but it is about the weather, and looking for rain rather than for Nazis.

[@Queen_of_Coffee]

This is the approach I take to things like racism and LGBT issues. If a person tries to argue that white supremacists have a point or that LGBT people don’t deserve the same rights as their straight cisgender peers, they are just flat out wrong, and I’ve better shite to do than waste my time on them.

[@ad8447]

I had this same belief. U r stupid and will realize that someday

[@juehju]

LGBT deserves rights, sure. but thats not what its all about...

[@Queen_of_Coffee]

@@juehju True, but it is applicable.

[@juehju]

@@Queen_of_Coffee yes

[@Creepex]

Just.. no. Lgbt doesnt mean anymore what it meant 20 years ago.

[@skylerclyne6542]

For people who haven’t tried The Deprogram yet - I HIGHLY recommend you do so. I previously had only watched SecondThought so I wasn’t sure how much I’d enjoy the other hosts. After around two months of listening I’ve already gone and listened to the whole back catalogue. Hakim is measured and charming, Ygopnik is boisterous and ornery. It’s the first international podcast I’ve ever really loved.

[@SecondThought]

Thank you so much!

[@LordOfElysium]

Can confirm :D

[@johndotcue]

It’s too snarky and sarcastic for me but I’ve listened to a few episodes and they’re great and they definitely know what they’re talking about.

[@kokorochacarero8003]

It's the right mix of homoeroticism and intelectually challenging deep dives into the basics but also sometimes the more theory-heavy aspects of this very complex socio-economical project that we call Hakim's ER balls anecdotes

[@frostyelkk]

waiting for the deprogram onlyfans

[@hellboy30098]

I had been saying the same thing for years. If one side is "Gay people are unacceptable in society" and the other is " gay people are a part of society" listening to both sides just means that we've accepted that "gay people are unacceptable". Constantly listening to both sides when one side is accepting to an idea and the other is rejecting an idea outright just leaves room for that ideal to exist as a basis. Thank you for cover this Edit: Some of you make it really tempting to go and respond to your comments and then I realize, wait I'm already up 600 more positive responses to yours, I gotta remember that you can't change these people's minds. Remember that other people.

[@minhducnguyen9276]

Just like you said. Listening to both sides implying some of the batshit lunatic ideas are allowed to weight equally with other ideas. It will give them an opportunity to be seriously considered. "Gay people are unacceptable" shouldn't deserve to be put on the discussion in the first place.

[@User-jr7vf]

"listening to both sides just means that we've accepted that..." that's completely wrong. Listening to both sides means that we are trying to decide which one is valid. We haven't picked a side if we are listening to both sides!

[@Ironsuaba]

@@User-jr7vf If you haven't picked a side, you tacitly endorse the status quo. If the status quo is that, say, gay people are unacceptable - by stayong "neutral" you endorse the unacceptability of gay people.

[@Luftgitarrenprofi]

@@User-jr7vf Look at it this way - if we give both sides enough credibility to be tolerated, then those who don't accept gay people within society are within their moral and legal right to act this out, because we have "not yet" decided which is better. There simply are ideas that don't deserve to be listened to. There is no debate over whether or not gay people should be accepted within society. The default is to accept everyone until they demonstrably and directly harm others as individuals or in organization, not due to sexual orientation. Tolerating those who don't tolerate others for no good reason reduces tolerance within society as a whole and gives very bad and harmful ideas a platform. Not tolerating those who choose to not accept those who harm no one and harming them in the process increases tolerance and opens up the stage for problems that matter.

[@tmkeesler]

I agree with @User, By definition the conservative viewpoint or idea already exists as a basis (you can’t conserve something that doesn’t exist). The point of progressivism is try to move beyond the existing idea/ls to establish a new basis, and that requires hearing both sides. But, as JD explains, what’s missing is any attempt to qualify the contents of each position.

[@julienzajac4843]

But what if I have second thoughts?

[@SuperEbbandflow]

AAAAHHHHHAAAHHHHAAAAA LOL you beat me to it 😭

[@erstwhilegrubstake]

That's the name of the show!

[@thejuiceking2219]

roll credits

[@seanpol9863]

Then you need deprogramming. 😉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4rNpKJpbqiiqqM

[@renaigh]

second thoughts are kind of the point of reexamining ideas.

[@MagicXRoads534]

The “marketplace of ideas” is actually really accurate, because no product, no matter how good, will sell if you can’t afford to advertise it. Likewise, if you can dump billions into telling people it’s great, it’s going to sell (at least for a while) no matter how bad it actually is.

[@jones1618]

Exactly. And just as in the "free market" if a large, well-funded competitor wants to they can release an "idea product" as a loss leader and undercut and crowd out the competing idea. For example companies and billionaires supporting tobacco, Teflon, big Pharma, gun lobby and climate-denial can peddle their false narratives "at a loss", to people's well-being and even absorb huge civil losses and legal fees versus the competing proponents of right ideas that won't or can't. In the free market, anti-trust regulation counters this, somewhat. In politics and media, however, we don't have any strong defense against "bully" ideas.

[@tktspeed1433]

You have a mistake in there, you meant to say won't sell instead of will.

[@NoxietyPrime]

@@tktspeed1433 Nah, they got it right. Remove that middle bit, and then check it again: "No product [...] will sell if you can't afford to advertise it"

[@ianmartins6303]

What about Facebook? Or email?

[@captainjames4649]

You could literally say this about anything

[@antimattv]

The environmental issue is actually considerably worse than the mainstream understanding. It's just that the IPCC has to put everything into extremely conservative terms for the sake of various political positions. Once you start learning about how the different process converge and combine you realize that we are REALLY risking everything by pushing the issue aside. We are currently in an ongoing environmental catastrophe and *must* act accordingly.

[@RosscoAW]

I mean, what, are you going to start telling politicians that the *best case realistic scenario* if everybody starts getting their act together (and we don't forget that over half of the global population has yet to industrialize to the point of having living standards that at least nullify infant mortality rates) is a minimum of 10 meters of sea level rise -- and that they have to start acting accordingly? Lmao. As if. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you, but our window of opportunity to actually cause meaningful systemic change on that issue closed like a solid 15 years ago (more like in the '90s, frankly). At this stage, we've got to accept the 10-50m of sea level rise, and the ~1 bil+ collective indirect climate refugees over the next century as a *pure inevitability* and, in your own words, act accordingly: global revolution. Straight up the environmental issue is utterly helpless until after we've actually achieved actual international socialism, unfortunately, and the longer it takes to get *there* the more swathes of coast line and jungle we just write off entirely. Unfortunately.

[@antimattv]

@@RosscoAW Sea levels rising is an issue, with a couple of caveats. From what I've seen the pollution problems are far more concerning (including ocean acidification and heating). Also, the rising sea levels can be assuaged fairly simply (simple, not easy) by forcing the imperial countries to pay for decent adaptations and relocation for the immediately affected island nations (not really many people, and they will need to have proper infrastructure and clean up programs). As I noted above the biggest issues right now are based on the pollution and toxic substances we are constantly pumping into the biosphere. That can be dealt with simply as well. There are many ways to cope with pollution, climate change and ocean changes. However, like you said, it probably won't happen. We live in an utterly sclerotic neoliberal imperialist hegemony. There are green shoots, like the multiple socialist and communist states that are fighting back. They can't do everything on their own, though. I liken it to strangulation and the offender keeps saying, "why can't you breathe, idiot?" We need the choking to stop.

[@graveyardshift6691]

@@antimattv Great. Convince China and other third world countries who are in the midst of their socialist revolutions to actually get in lockstep with the rest of the environmentally conscious first world nations and that pollution issue should solve itself. They are the major contributors to pollution after all. Whining about the US and the EU 'doing their part' when they're almost carbon neutral if not carbon negative won't change anything if China's factories keep doubling their carbon output annually. Let me know when you're ready to tackle the real offenders.

[@antimattv]

@@graveyardshift6691 Hang on a moment. Colonialism and neo-colonialism, which the elites of the imperial core benefitted from, are the reason they're so behind in the first place. Also, they actually have definitive environmental programs. China is the world's biggest producer of solar panels. I'm not going to stand for anymore imperial doctrine. We in the imperial core are one of the most heavily propagandized groups in history. Also, there is something called the "needs met" theory. The group that produces the least ecological footprint is in the middle, who have their basic needs met. The poorest produce waste because they lack the infrastructure to deal with it (etc.) and the luxuriant wealthy who waste untold amounts of resources on shallow pursuits (ie. The gigantic amount if pollution produced by the American military industrial complex, which spends more than the next ten countries combined). This is an exponential function, by the way. Per capita carbon footprints in the US are 5 times that of a Chinese middle class. Things are not as simplistic as we see in the corporate media.

[@graveyardshift6691]

@@antimattv Blah, blah, blah, blah. Did you forget to take consumer need into that attempt to sidetrack me into the American defense argument? While I agree that the American defense budget is ludacris, it PALES in comparison the amount spent by american civilians on material goods. And who produces the majority of those material goods? It certainly ain't the US. Also I hardly think that just because China is 'the biggest producer of solar panels' means they're environmentally conscious considering A) the process and pollution need to PRODUCE said solar panels and B) the pollution and carbon footprint needed to get them from factory to site. This same argument applies to ANYTHING that produces ANYTHING that is used or consumed. While I will concede the point about needs met, that really just tells you who the real pollutants are. The fact that we're not dealing with them out of kindness for their industrializing state to focus on those who are already cleaning up their act just vindicates what I've said. Wasting time and effort on rebuking someone who's already cleaning up their mess and ignoring the ones now making the mess. If you cared, why are you not dealing with everyone making the mess EQUALLY and giving passes to certain areas?

[@michaeld4861]

Well said, this issue of false equivalency is a huge problem in our society. Sad, cause most of the problems are so obvious and ridiculous but billions in propaganda only supporting one side seems to be effective enough to overcome common sense, decency and evidence.

[@rezakarampour6286]

Search . ' America Is a Mafia State Run by Democrats & Republicans . '

[@neoqwerty]

@Валера There's some opinions that are a fecking waste of space and time to hear. Like flat earth and breatharians and young earth creationism and marjorie's space lasers and the 9/11 conspiracy and that one guy who says planets are made of meat and have genitals or the other guy who thinks egyptians built the pyramids with dinosaurs or Atlantis was real and not, y'know, a metaphor Plato made up?

[@GeoPePeTto]

@@neoqwertyBut how do you fight them if you don’t understand why people believe this kind of ludicrous shit? Don’t get me wrong, it’s pointless to debate people who don’t value logic or evidence. But understanding where they come from and why they’re so susceptible to these ideas, maybe we can do something about it.

[@daanmollema6366]

The problem is that humans are in most cases not rational actors. politicians and policymakers still have to factor in objectively wrong opinions. If you ignore objectively wrong opinions for too long, civil discontent follows and problems still aren't solved. The reason we have to hear both sides is not because the truth is somewhere in the middle, but because systematically suppressing stupid people makes them obscenely violent and dangerous.

[@atanaZion]

@@daanmollema6366 Yet, not to get along with whatever's right wing do still lead us to violence and danger

[@indypendant3125]

As a trans individual, I have to say thank you. Our existence is constantly treated as extreme by moderates.

[@Thespeedking0098]

@@chickensandwich8808 the Right's stance on trans science has and will always be to literally burn it.

[@Azure_Horizons]

yep. and people wonder why we are more on the left xD

[@idontknoq4813]

Holy shit thawt's awful.

[@mitkoogrozev]

Well, like it was also mentioned in the video "there's nothing wrong with determining that one perspective is more correct or more valid than the other" , and I wonder if anyone is actually against the ''existence'' of people that call themselves trans, or just find that their ideas are nonsensical and invalid. I for example, after hearing out their ideologies, explanations and attempts at definitions , found them to be contradictory, nonsensical, circular, and even promoting bigotry and sexism by imposing stereotypes of men and women.

[@sourgreendolly7685]

@@mitkoogrozev It makes no difference when it put lives in danger. Besides, it's entitled to expect everyone makes sense to oneself. I don't need to understand someone to defend their right to be who they are, just knowing they're not hurting anyone (realistically, no need to engage in made up bull that exists to confirm bias) is all that I see as relevant.

[@isaak1748]

This is exactly what I've been thinking. Like with the climate change example, it's always the "I've studied" vs "I read in a Facebook forum" . Sometimes it's just best to listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.

[@warthunder9155]

Or the experts have been wrong about climate doomsday every time.

[@onlylauri]

@@warthunder9155 which has been never

[@RedSunUnderParadise]

​@@warthunder9155 Just because you claim they have =/= they actually have especially if you are the one claiming it.

[@MuttonErase]

@@warthunder9155 fact check? since theyve been wrong everytime surely you should be able to provide some evidence to support your claim

[@fredericksaxton9782]

​@@warthunder9155 ??? Since when??

[@boiledelephant]

The first time somebody told me "the marketplace of ideas doesn't work" it was devastating. Because it was in the water supply, I'd never questioned it, but once provoked I couldn't stop noticing evidence of its failures.

[@moonie9000]

I will never accept the notion that we should be afraid to listen to people who don't have a point. If they don't have a point, then why should we worry about hearing it?

[@aran_200]

The sides that are worse will say to not listen to everyone else because if they do listen to someone else then they'll leave the bad side 👍

[@SebastiansSebastian-fc4pj]

3 points: "If you tear out a mans tongue.." You inform yourself of your enemies. You inform yourself and get a reality check.

[@1026JMS]

I do not think it is dangerous. I'm doing it right now. If you "have to pick a side", how can you decide which one is right if you do not hear both sides?

[@baribari1000]

have you watched the entire video? because yeah, the title is misleading.

[@1026JMS]

@@baribari1000 I plan to, but sometimes I comment while I progress on the video, so I will make new comments later. I don't know why the title would be misleading, that is what I will comment on later, probably.

[@baribari1000]

alright.@@1026JMS

[@beansworth5694]

I believe strongly in hearing both sides. Know thy enemy, even if they speaketh bullshit lmao Internalize the structure of their nonsense without adopting it in your regular reasoning. It takes self-critical reflection as well as critical engagement with what you're listening in order to do this, but it is very rewarding for the purposes of navigating the structure of the bad arguments effectively. Sure, it's a bit dangerous, but it allows you to be a hell of a lot more sincere and effective at dragging idiots away from idiocy if you're willing to learn to do it well

[@ChiliForEveryone]

Just got this argument recently concerning the layoff waves in the tech industries. Some of my friends got laid off and were very furious (they are at least a bit class conscious, at least going so far as to set up a solidarity network between those laid off and those still in the company). When I discuss this with a different circle of friends, someone in that other group says dis "You gotta think from a business perspective also. They also have difficulties in their financing. Rather than having them leaving their employees hanging in uncertainties, it's better to lay em off" (the quote is translated by me, English ain't me first language, comrade) Sorry, I aint giving some cushy multimillionaire with multiple connections to the bourgeois state to bail em out in case their ventures fail any two excrements. Not when me actual comrades and bestest of friends are being thrown into the pits of unemployment without any recourse

[@LucinaMeow]

Or people on Twitter actively endorsing harsh work condition. "You're just weak I work 60 hrs per week blah blah blah". Things you would see with the elon musk dick riders rn. Like sure if u wanna work 60 hrs per week it's your choice but that doesn't mean they're obviously exploiting employers. I'm not from America I'm from the Netherlands and there is a huge difference in the amount of hours we work on a weekly and yearly timescale. (The Netherlands has the shortest workweeks in the world averaging around 29.5 hrs) but we're still a wealthy and thriving country. America gives companies a lot more power over the employers and that's dangerous. I think it's up for debate if you like to overwork or not. But is it up for debate that employers in America simply have too much power over the employee?

[@RobinHerzig]

Musk is a multibillionaire, wouldn't feel it if he employed those laid off people for decades. His lack of business sense is why they're leaving. Dude's a self-serving idiot where it counts in this super obvious case 🐦

[@graveyardshift6691]

Counterpoint. How do you know the financial state of the company? Are you one of their accountants? Are they in their profitable years yet? Companies always start with sunk costs that they need to recoup. That is a business is not profitable until the money that was put into it is paid back. This can take 5 years or more. Why? Business expenses. Of which employee paychecks are a massive one. This is an ongoing expense that the employer has a contracted guarantee to provide day 1. This shrinks the amount of money available from the gross profit made by the company to the net profit. Which won't be ACTUAL profit until the sunk cost reaches from negative to zero. Business decisions are calculation that cannot be made with emotional investment. It sucks to lose your job. I've been there. But I'm also willing to bet that if this business had been owned by your friends, they wouldn't blink twice at cutting employees if the risk was their own business as their livelihood.

[@guy-sl3kr]

@@graveyardshift6691 Yes it's the very structure of capitalist society that is the problem. That businesses aren't run to provide goods and services, but to enrich their owners. That workers have no agency over their own livelihoods. That social safety nets are thin/nonexistent because insecurity drives wages down. Maybe the same outcome would have occurred if OP was employed by their friend, but that just reinforces the point that the problem is capitalism itself.

[@graveyardshift6691]

@@guy-sl3kr Know what's also great about capitalism? NOTHING IS STOPPING THESE GUYS FROM BECOMING THE BOSS. All these laid off people now have the skills and knowledge to become the business they were laid off by. So are they gonna continue to sit there and whimper about their lost jobs, gonna go out and look for new ones? OR BECOME THE BUSINESS THEY WANT TO SEE? The workers have plenty of agency. They have choice of employer. They have the ability to negotiate. There is always the chance the employer says no. That's how it works.

[@alistairmackintosh9412]

The "two sides" fallacy was neatly demolished in an incident where a physics student presented a hypothesis to a senior physicist, who responded "It's not even wrong." There are necessary preconditions for an idea to be seriously considered.

[@gerhitchman]

Yea, and to you conservative points don't check all the "necessary preconditions" to even take seriously, but to conservatives, your points don't check the same boxes. So essentially, you have two groups of assholes who refuse to consider challenging views. Well done.

[@whatever990]

That MLK quote is just so beautiful and accurate for any social justice movement, whether it's civil rights, women's suffrage, socialism, veganism, LGBT+ rights

[@whatever990]

@@toxicgamer6038 In what way?

[@Astro2024]

@@toxicgamer6038 what's unironic is how full of shit you are with that comment

[@veiserexab1428]

@Zaydan Alfariz so socialism is better?

[@rini9325]

@@toxicgamer6038 here comes the brodude who didn't even watch the video

[@internalizedhappyness9774]

@@veiserexab1428 ya probably…

[@purplehaze2358]

I actually do think there is some merit to hearing both sides; but that doesn't mean I'm going to be taking the side opposing mine seriously any time soon.

[@ggexgaming6020]

How can you fight against your enemy if you don't even know what your enemy is. That's why I think it's important to listen to the other side and why I watch this channel, to understand the opposite side of my views

[@purplehaze2358]

@@ggexgaming6020 Again, listening to someone ain’t a guarantee of taking someone seriously. Believe it or not, they’re not mutually inclusive.

[@mrosskne]

That's why I don't take you seriously

[@ggexgaming6020]

@@mrosskne ?

[@mrosskne]

@@ggexgaming6020 idiot

[@victoriancu7358]

The scariest part of all this is actually discerning truth anymore. Where does one find truth? On youtube? Social media? News networks? Newspapers? The government?

[@ivanmunoz9055]

Well, maybe the problem is thinking of truth as something universal and almost mathematical, especially in politics. This doesn't mean that every opinion is valid of course, as things as segregation can't be justified. Now in a debate someone could justify those type of things by lying or presenting the information in a dishonest way, although the last one is used pretty much by everyone, knowingly or unknowingly and is where statistics come into place. One statistics isn't hard to read but for getting a full picture it is important to read more than one, relate them and get statistics out of those statistics. A good example for this will be a classic debate of race and criminality. Someone says x race commits a lot of violent crimes, considering it is a minority it most likely doesn't represent a majority of the crimes committed in the country, but he can bring up the fact that if you take in account criminals per 100 people of x race you'll find that x race is much more likely to commit crimes, he can be right as this isn't something strange. Now in this debate taking into account where most of x race lives is important as you can then see what those places looks like and considering we are dealing with violent crimes you are probably going to find poverty and margination because that's what almost always causes the violence, x race or group of people won't be violent because of genetics, that isn't something that happens and as of culture, culture develops from the environment. Then it is needed to determine what caused that margination and poverty. At this point there are many possibilities, a classical one is segregation which literally means that racism is the problem and not the solution, other times is just that countries have a limited capacity to absorb new people so when lots of immigrants enter a country at once it takes time and resources until the situation stabilizes and in this case racism doesn't help either as it only isolates people making it harder to integrate in the culture and society. Now a similar situation could of course happen without an outside race, but in that case it wouldn't have racial connotations which will make solving the problem easier, which creates the question of why racism happens. Our brains are kind of designed for it. We are great at identifying patterns, so racism happens when rational thinking goes out, is a primitive response for modern problems. It's the worst solution to any problem but it's an easy solution that involves no rational thinking. Racism is the antithesis of democracy and civilization as a whole.

[@lyndabethcave3835]

You can find truth in all those places, but it's not a case of true/untrue, it's more like well this thing is mostly true, this other thing is partially true, that thing has a tiny bit of truth. . . Anyone who says something is 100% true or false is probably trying to sell you something.

[@mykachina_]

You can't anymore.

[@indigopines]

I start with scientific journals. Scientific consensus is the only source I can actually trust. That said, just like that the issues climate change, pandemic nonsense, and trans people are all solved very distinctly to be on the left. If that fails, choose kindness instead of hate. Maybe all the science on trans people being valid is a huge conspiracy, but are you going to bully a trans kid out of wearing the clothes they like? Those are my methods. Sincerely, a leftist surrounded by conservatives

[@msmit3669]

@@mykachina_ when has politics ever been objective.

[@HansVonMannschaft]

Unfortunately I've mostly seen the "paradox of tolerance" used to justify intolerance. Just label arguments you disagree with "intolerance", and you can pretend you have the moral high ground while refusing to address your own intolerance.

[@Window4503]

Better to just stop making tolerance the standard in the first place. It’s like when people say “don’t judge” but they’re judging you by saying your judgement of their argument is wrong. It’s just a stupid metric to use overall. Truth and evidence, not tolerance and emotions.

[@melloncollic]

Weird I have only seen it used as supposed to be the person who thought that up.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Sounds like regressive right projecting to me...

[@andrewscheelar9656]

My problem with this (not yours, this channel) logic is that they assume they're correct. You're never 100% correct. When you walk in with thinking you can never be wrong and it's always someone else's fault your ideas failed in the past then of course you think you're the arbiter of what is worth talking about. I don't want a 100% free market in health care. But I don't want nationalized extreme either. But in my Canada I'm treated as a pariah for having the wild notion that maybe "just fund it more" isn't a valid solution to our ever declining health care system. But no, people are so convinced that "we're better than Americans" that anything we do we can't criticise it because it's somewhat left wing. It's just not your place to decide what's valid sorry, it's the audience. Honestly, get better at arguing and you can win. I repeatedly look at the leftist party here (NDP) and I hear blatant lies and misrepresenting context then am told I'm just an evil conservative for pointing out flaws in an idea. It's exhausting.

[@unclestarwarssatchmo9848]

I listen to both sides only to fuck up my algorithm

[@radu-adrianmihai864]

Yep, in this way, my algorithm will become sentient soon. :D

[@Rodrigo-kq3js]

based anticentrism

[@karlklein2263]

There is an inherent irony in asking people to watch first before commenting on a video titled "why hearing both sides can be dangerous"

[@ts4gv]

lol true

[@rednemesis88]

As a proletarian socialist, I often tell people that, at some point, history is going to ask you to make a choice: either you support fascism or socialism. There no room for debate there.

[@comradetrashpanda8777]

At this point, given the present state of the climate, I'd say we must collectively make the choice between Socialism and Extinction

[@kiythetheocrat5723]

Which side are you on?

[@supercalifragilisticexpial1727]

How about both since socialism is a economic system and fascism is a authoritarian government. That way both sides can be happy and can live happily ever after.

[@guy-sl3kr]

@@supercalifragilisticexpial1727 Is this bait? Has to be lol

[@DrummerJake_57]

@@supercalifragilisticexpial1727 😂 you got me for a second.

[@mixedbagclips2511]

Thanks to a lot of your videos I was able to finally understand that "systemic problems" do exist, I was one who always blamed everything just on individuals... but thanks to your channel I have been able to see that some evil things are trully systemic in my own country, and that I grew up with propaganda and in some cases even defending evils as goods. Thanks for your content.

[@Hubcool367]

Yep, most of those "evil things" are systemic. As soon as there's more than a handful of occurrences of "evil things/acts", you have to think in systems. Also a very good idea to compare what happens between different places. When a country has significantly different outcomes than another, different systems are invariably at the root of them, they're just logically better explanations for significant societal-level differences than "pure luck", purely coincidental differences at the individual levels that somehow just happen on a massive, significant scale, "for no particular reason". No scientific field would ever accept, without explanations, the massive differences in social outcomes we can observe if they were differences of similar scales in any other field.

[@ACAB.forcutie]

It's harder to convince someone they have been fooled than to fool someone

[@ACAB.forcutie]

@@Hubcool367 there is rarely true evil, it's usually greed, fear, or arrogance/ entitlement, but it is definitely systemic

[@dizbiz49]

Thank you for being open minded enough to accept something different from what you've known! If only more Americans would 😭

[@animalmake7149]

aye well you were correct before ... the problems are all from the greed and stupidity of the individuals, which then gets worse in group situations.... now the systems entrench that but bro comminism is like 1000000 times worse in how things play out ... take a deep breath and step away from the deep end bro

[@chocomilkfps1264]

I love that you included the MLK quote and was actually wondering if you would when you brought up the paradox of tolerance. It is my all time favorite quote.

[@orionlax626]

​@@sizlax Please be trolling.

[@marcriba7581]

@@sizlax You're talking about "not seeing colors" right after BLM and while quoting MLK. So, again, you trolling?

[@neoqwerty]

@@sizlax Here's food for your thoughts: if you prefer not to see color at all, how do you know if you're not being accidentally racist? Because there's ways to be racist without trying to attack POCs and they mostly happen if you don't think about it. As an example I can give from within my community: white trans folks tried to use the sayhername hashtag to bring attention to Brianna Ghey's murder in broad daylight. The problem is that that hashtag was made by black feminist activists to raise attention for black women who were victims of police brutality and dehumanized by media never saying their names like they do with white women victims.

[@fredericksaxton9782]

​@@sizlax Not seeing colour IS racist. I used to be like you, and thought I was saying a good thing, but actual people of colour kindly corrected me: Their skin colour matters, their culture matters. Not seeing colour is also pretty much ignoring how different we all are, which isn't great either. Not being racist doesn't mean you act like other races don't exist, understand?? That in itself, is ignorant. We are not all the same, but that shouldn't be a negative.

[@elucified]

​@@sizlax You're wrong about that. We don't fully know ourselves. Your family knows one side of you. Your friends know one side of you. Absolute strangers know one side of you. And you know a big chunk of yourself. But you are not just what you know about yourself. You are all of them combined, and until you accept that (aka the ability to self-reflect and take personal responsibility) you will never know 100% of yourself.

[@chrissolace]

Honestly, I agree. At some point, you just draw the line. Sure, you can debate on what advancement and progress is better, but they both further society. The current system of debate holds us back with outdated concepts that should already be passed over. Instead of progressing, we are allowing ourselves to regress. Why do we need to debate white supremacy? We know it’s wrong. They don’t deserve a platform at all-there is no debate about it. You made an excellent video discussing it all.

[@bloodymares]

The problem is, the culture doesn't really know how to "heal" the people from the white supremacy believes, and doesn't even try to do so. To cure a decease one must understand not only the symptoms but the source of the sickness as well. Instead, people resort to inefficiently fighting the symptoms by bullying white supremacists to make themselves feel better. "Look, I punched a nazi in the face, I'm so badass". It in turn makes white supremacists feel victimized, and gives them more ground to point fingers at the "crazy SJWs" and prey on ignorance of others to indoctrinate them into their ideas. It's not so much about them having power or a platform, it's about the objective cultural factors that make those believes possible in the first place which society doesn't address. No matter how hard you try to shut them up, it won't work if the actual cultural problems don't get solved. A seriously ill society can't get better without a proper treatment.

[@isaiahdemeule8090]

its good to have a well thought answer against white supremacy than not engage it at all. at least than you might be able to deradicalize people or stop them from falling down the rabbit hole

[@MaakaSakuranbo]

Miscategorisation mostly. You can get so entrenched in "white supremacy is wrong" you end up thinking people asking for a white char creation option in a game means they're white supremacists. If you just block them without letting them explain their views, you're just stamping them with whatever you think you categorise them as.

[@soywho9837]

So censorship? This is dangerous because eventually ideas that are worth arguing will be censored too

[@Thessalin]

Shoulder devil: Hey, look what I can do. Me: What does that have- Shoulder angel: No, no. He's got a point.

[@SecondThought]

One of my favorite movies

[@Thessalin]

@@SecondThought I'm planning on cosplaying him with the shoulder morality play attached. Wander around arguing with myself.

[@ElPizas]

being unbiased is the ultimate way to pick a side, because you are able to depure the ideas and get to a conclusion having informed yourself in every way possible, hearing every argument

[@claytonphillips7976]

The MLK quote shakes my soul. Such a good letter.

[@Jacobsthechandler]

I thought that quote was so good too. I might try and use it for my English essay

[@SebastiansSebastian-fc4pj]

But MLK is republican therefor an evil racist. Im right.. and the right wing is wrong and evil just as Second Thought hinted at

[@Qarcass]

“I can’t have my ideas challenged because they have no merit and fall apart under scrutiny”

[@samdavies2573]

watch the video before commenting :) also it's usually leftist ideas that are based off of empirical data and critical analysis whereas conservative ideas are based off of a perceived "common sense"

[@rivulet5417]

It's click bait He does that a lot This focuses on how the media platforms bad ideas like (antivaxxers) and how this is bad

[@giovannipedulla4257]

@@samdavies2573 Bra, he basically assumes that Marxism is right and there's a plot to suppress it, when there are more Marxist in the West now than anytime in history. I'm not saying it's wrong and I'm not saying that Capitalism is right either, but this video is really close to Qanons' ones.

[@raegatan2110]

​@@samdavies2573 its literally "stop listening to both sides is dangerous because my side is obviously the good one"

[@elvastan]

That isn't really what the video is about. It is "We have a system where one side's ideas are massively favored so hearing out both sides isn't really possible". He really should change this video's title.

[@blackhogarth4049]

Thank you for pointing this out. I've always disliked the term "marketplace of ideas," because it implies that the most popular idea is always the best.

[@i8dacookies890]

"Hearing Both Sides" is indeed dangerous one one context, but very necessary in another. We shouldn't hear out the news channels and personalities funded by billionaires and let them spread their propaganda, but to the actual base of people who listen to those con artists, being respectful, earnest, and non-combative is the only way to actually change minds on a grass roots level.

[@oculusquest2460]

i 100% agree with that

[@spehhhsssmarineer8961]

So… indoctrinate the masses and ignore the opposition? Got it.

[@i8dacookies890]

@@spehhhsssmarineer8961 That reminds me of another video on this channel about propaganda. You could call this video indoctrination if you want, it doesn't really matter.

[@pastelpanta2966]

I have found this is a popular sentiment used to deny victims. People say they are staying neutral when in reality they are working for another side. It's more heartbreaking and wrenching to me to lie to me. I would rather have someone outright reject me than to claim they accept me for safety. I will never fall for it 💯

[@rezakarampour6286]

Search KZbin . '' America Is a Mafia State Run by Democrats & Republicans . '

[@chocomilkfps1264]

Just in case you didn’t watch to the end, there is a quote by MLK that is a mirror to what you are saying. I agree with you though, I want to pull my hair out sometimes when people don’t realize that not choosing a side is choosing a side

[@coastalcapybara]

Yeah. It’s like a person during the holocaust can either 1. Fight the nazis, therefore saving Jews 2. Support the nazis, therefore killing the Jews OR 3. Ignore the nazis/have a centrist viewpoint, therefore allowing the Jews to be killed. #1 is the only viable option if you don’t want the Jews to be killed. I understand that societal/legal pressure can (and does) cause people to be silent and go with option three out of self preservation or social circle protection instinct, (or apathy due to the belief that their voice does not matter). However, so-called “enlightened centrists”, who are apathetic even when they are in a position to (ex: protect LGBT+ people from persecution and Republican legislation), and want to “listen to both sides” (including the side doing harm), are still complicit in the persecution/harm/oppression of (insert discriminated/persecuted group) and therefore are wrong, and are one of the wrong answers out of these 3 options. ✅ Option 1: Right, prevents bad by opposing it. Protects target group from persecution by group 3. ❌ Option 2: Wrong, allows for and therefore empowers option 3 by means of apathy to or sympathy with the objectively wrong choice (3). Fails to protect victim from persecution by group 3 even when they are able to. ❌ Option 3: Wrong, actively (and purposefully) causing bad things to happen, while in a position to do good.

[@mattd5240]

@@chocomilkfps1264 What if you're against both if not all sides?

[@iiFallenWish]

How do you know they are working for the other side? you are just ASSUMING because it's a sensitive subject that hurts your feelings. You assume if they aren't coddling you, they're working for the other side. Neutrality exists.

[@andrewkohler3707]

Do you know why I have such strong convictions on some issues? Because I *have* listened to both sides and realized that one side is somewhere between unconvincing and calamitous - and the calamitous positions need to be presented as such. (Just to be clear, I am in agreement with the video.)

[@andrewkohler3707]

What exactly do you see Second Thought as advocating here? I didn't hear anything advocating for governmental censorship, but rather that not all perspectives should be given credence or a platform. I've never gone or cable news, had an HBO show, been listened to by the most powerful people in the country, or anything like that, since that's not an inherent right.

[@YouHaveAnApeHead]

Love the MLK quote at the end. Great video as always. Also the podcast is amazing. You, Hakim and Yugopnik are comedic and great at dealing with serious topics.

[@SecondThought]

Thank you so much!

[@PartyUnclean]

Thank you for this!! I've been SO frustrated by hearing "reach across the aisle" over and over again. Why in the world would it be "sensible" for me to compromise with or even consider the arguments of someone who is actively trying to take my (or other people's) rights away?

[@moon_wei]

@Zetsubo if you don't wanna work with pedophiles then avoid conservatives, republicans, and priests

[@jamesphillips2285]

@Zetsubo Except that is just a made-up lie used to justify violence against a marginalized group.

[@coastalcapybara]

@Zetsubo You mean like evangelical pastors and a certain/certain Republican Congressman/men?

[@HibiTeamQueso]

How can you know that someone is actively trying to take your rights away without listening to what they have to say first?

[@jamesphillips2285]

@@HibiTeamQueso Look up the 10 stages of genocide. Most of them involve speech.

[@senbontorii2680]

"Hearing both sides" is not the same as "not choosing a side". It just means "hearing both sides". Hell, the climate change thing was the perfect example of this: we heard both sides. One side made a better argument and had the evidence to back them up, so we accepted their premise - that's why the debate had to change from "is it happening" to "how fast is it happening". In fact, I'd argue that "hearing both sides" is vital to being able to accurately determine which side you're on in the first place. You mention it yourself that some ideas are suppressed and others are promoted; how can anyone properly assess the merits of the ideas that are suppressed if we just shrug our shoulders and say "well, I don't need to hear both sides"?

[@Sophiaaasophiaaa]

I can't help but be unbiased because literally everyone is bullshitting

[@bombattzorzz]

I am SO GLAD that your channel has become so successful. It is more heartening than I can possibly say.

[@TheNeoVid]

The way I'd heard this put before is that if one side says the sun is out and the other says it's raining, journalists' job isn't to report both, it's to look outside. Unfortunately, I'm too young to have seen journalism in action.

[@sometimessamantha7135]

if one source says its raining, and another one says it isnt; its not your job to quote both, its your job to look outside and see if its raining

[@andrewscheelar9656]

Ok well how about if it's clearly raining and one feels it's good for X reason and the other says it's bad for Y reason? Are you so certain you're right that your view of rain being good or bad is correct? A lot of the world has nuance and subjectivity. People just have other opinions. Freedom of movement will hopefully solve a lot of our divides, as people can be economic safe anywhere (maybe a ubi?) Then conservatives/libertarians like me can have our world and y'all leftists can have yours. Maybe we just aren't meant to live together.

[@jaykay1899]

Here’s the thing tho- where it might be raining for one person, it might not be raining for another wherever they are 👀 life isn’t always black and white.

[@CamouflageMaster]

After watching the entire video, I think I generally agree. It can be dangerous to allow any perspective, and not all opinions are of equal truth. Though what is even more dangerous imo, is only hearing ONE side of a debate. And marginalising and suppressing ideas and values etc. (no matter how much you disagree with them) is also very dangerous.

[@CamouflageMaster]

I also want to add that including the opposing side perspectives in the debate makes it so that these ideas can be challenged, which is very important imo. I find myself a bit frustrated or disappointed when interesting topics get debated but the ideas I hold on the topic are not being talked about. This way I may unknowingly believe some crazy stuff without people 'peer-reviewing' it

[@atanaZion]

Instead,let's hear the side that openly says we should marginalize amd supress the other 👏👏

[@TurtleWargaming]

The reason bad ideas are coming back is because we have people unwilling to have conversations about these things. We on the left side of the aisle, are staunchly unwilling to talk about things in a non-egotistical manner. Often times I see my fellow left leaning people, look down on people instead of educate and talk. That, or they'll say I can't talk with you because you're a Nazi/transphobe/homophobe/fascist or whatever they can slap on for a label. This person they're talking to is going to see the conservative side willing to talk about their position, and indoctrinate them. This is how we're losing people, and we're seeing resurgence in fascism and so on. This video is probably the first video i strongly disagreed with.

[@NotSoPhotogenic]

Same here. And I'm a socialist myself.

[@jaketerpening3284]

I think one of the best role models for the point you are making is Daryl Davis. He is a black man who has a collection of KKK uniforms he has collected from former Klan members who he convinced to leave by having repeated respectful conversations with them. Before I heard his story, I would just assume that anyone who ends up in such a hateful organization would be irredeemable.

[@TurtleWargaming]

@@jaketerpening3284 I've not heard of that story, I'm gonna give that a read. Thank you for sharing that info!

[@gibra-elwalker8022]

@@jaketerpening3284 you know the guys he has "Redeemed" are on record calling Davis himself a stupid monkey behind his back, right? Lmao, Davis is borderline psychotic with some kind of complex, and he isn't really doing anything good.

[@melodye14]

This is understandable to an extent though right? Depending on how extreme someone's beliefs are and how bigoted they may be, it's a lot of emotional labor to have that conversation especially if the person they're talking to wants to take away rights or wishes harm to a member of a marginalized community. I'd say that's unfair to expect or everyday people. It's not to say everyone who has any conservative ideas us evil or a villain, but the best case scenario for someone who could be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Nazi-sympathizing, etc, would be that these beliefs are born from ignorance and fear of social change, possibly their upbringing. But is that a good excuse? Does that help anyone who is facing their rights being under attack? Even something more along the lines of gun control or climate change, for these big ticket things, it's hard again a bit unfair to expect that conversation from the left, as these issues have real stakes. Of course conservatives also believe their issues have stakes, but again, it's not up to us to find a middle ground, it's up to our elected representatives. That's what they're being paid for, more directly, being paid to turn that middle ground into real change. I definitely agree there's nuance here but it's valuable to remember how tricky it is to discuss these things.

[@giogonzalez8908]

Well to me, it’s more so about learning the “other side” so that you can pin point what is wrong about their idea, and thus strengthening your own because no one “side” has the perfect answer. Going to either extreme will lead to dangerous outcomes. And another part is about learning that there are no “sides” but rather a spectrum of ideas and if we keep rejecting ideas we dont like simply on the basis that it disagrees with your own and we will get nothing done because realistically we live in a world of billions of people, so cant just disregard the “other side”, we instead have try to make others understand by understanding them first

[@giogonzalez8908]

However, I agree, we all should have a stance on a topic we cant just say we stand in the middle of everything

[@arkcliref]

@@giogonzalez8908 it depends on the topic imo

[@aquasnippy]

Why do you think that an extreme automatically means dangerous outcomes

[@ZenAndPsychedelicHealingCenter]

Simple minded nonsense.

[@kaleetean458]

The problem with approaching ideas "so that you can pin point what is wrong about their idea" is that it misses the point. Approach any idea with skepticism (even views you currently hold, maybe especially those), and seek the truth. Not why the "other side" is wrong.

[@anni3805]

The problem is when describing this, it is a big societal issue, but when it comes to talking to extremest or people with objectively wrong “opinions” you can’t just shut them down in conversation, or else they’ll continue to live in an echo chamber. You have to act understanding in a way so you can keep the door open.

[@Qwitsoender]

“My bias is correct, so we shouldn’t listen to anyone that disagrees. They’ll only lead us into tyranny, but my side means well for all people of good will.” Dude, really? Why is this kind of thinking so popular? It’s just childishly simplistic. Same goes for the unspoken assumption that everything that calls itself progress is in fact progress.

[@mallios13]

Second Thought is here to monetize prefabricated ideas because prefabricated products sell. Saves them time having to actually think, they only have to take in and then regurgitate.

[@Qwitsoender]

A year on, I find it hilarious that he thinks that people disagreeing must only have reacted to the title. No, dude, no. It’s not the title that’s the problem.

[@excd1]

You know when we did that? During the dark age. 10 centuries of the church refusing to listen to different ideas.

[@excd1]

@BlueAA I have. My comment still stands.

[@magik97]

@BlueAA its a dumb video

[@nananou1687]

I think there is an essential difference to be highlighted between hearing and listening Somewhat similar to speaking to someone vs being heard

[@dannya1854]

Reminds me of Zizek saying how he dreads the day when he will have to debate why rape is bad. Society needs strong convictions of justice and not passivity towards the flood of evil.

[@prot07ype87]

*The irony of this channel named "Second Thought" is not lost on me.*

[@DarthTingleBinks]

Well, there's a difference between hearing both sides and taking both sides seriously.

[@toppersundquist]

A lot of people don't know that.

[@DarthTingleBinks]

@@toppersundquist Which is extremely unfortunate.

[@TheSUGA1202]

No, ill give you an example. Should we bring back slavery? Yes or No. If we get past the point this message gets broadcasted or in the news or a vote then we have failed as a democracy cause we are advocating for the removal of human rights. You cannot allow the debate cause that in itself is putting a threat to those rights. There are some principles you cannot put a middle ground to cause they would be a step back and a regression .

[@Bluesine_R]

In political lingo there isn’t really a difference.

[@DarthTingleBinks]

@@TheSUGA1202 I didn't say middle ground. Again, just because I'm willing to hear out someone's insane nonsensical ideas and opinions doesn't mean I'm going to take them seriously, and it certainly doesn't mean I want their opinions televised nationwide. If someone thinks we should bring back slavery I not only think they're objectively wrong, but I hope everyone else thinks the same way, and I hope that individual dies a slow, painful death with nobody around them because nobody cares about them.

[@kurtsherer8211]

Being unbiased is what happens when you only have a surface-level understanding of the differences between "both sides".

[@Bolognabeef]

No that's the definition of Dunning Kruger effect, you HAVE to be unbiased to have a scientific approach, no matter how much you put yourself on a superior moral level. If you already have an understanding of the other side good, that means you already listened to their arguments in an unbiased way.

[@fotnite_]

No, being unbiased is looking at the evidence and realizing that one of the sides is full of shit. What you're describing is "enlightened centrism/both-sidesism", very much not the same thing.

[@wobby_1974]

The problem seems to me that if some has a opinion, especially if a significant part of it has that, and then someone just pulls out a scientific paper, saying "No, you are just wrong" isn't a good way of having a discourse. I can imagine how one might think that there is some kind of conspiracy or that you cannot state your opinion if it's just being stated as wrong.

[@higztv1166]

I heard your ideas, and it didn't work for me it just couldn't compete on the free market of ideas, wasn't able to convince me

[@jadibdraws]

Thanks for putting a less know mlk speech out there to a broader audience the media always parades "I have a dream" they don't want ppl to hear the rest of his speeches

[@kermit6237]

The sad thing is that even in that speech they only look at one Line of the speech

[@jonathanwright5338]

From what i understand, may be wrong, MLK was staunchly anti-capitalist and that hit a lot of nerves. So that side of him sadly just gets buried in history books.

[@The_fusion_physics_guy]

The history of "both-side-ism" in journalism, specifically about climate change, is Fascinating. I recommend the "drilled" podcast, first season, for those of you who don't know much about this. Specifically, the founder of the first "public relations" consulting company after ww2 in the US was a US psychological warfare expert during the war, and used the need to hear "both sides" as a way to attack and pressure journalists into airing "scientific" viewpoints developed by scammers hired by the fossil fuel industry. This is one of the main reasons we still have climate deniers to this day.

[@rezakarampour6286]

' America Is A Mafia State Run By Democrats & Republicans . '

[@MrVlad]

That bit with "running out of ideas" at the beginning made me laugh far too hard, thanks for that. And the great video. A lot of these videos of yours do help me put into words some concepts that I had a hard time expressing before and I appreciate them for that.

[@SecondThought]

Thanks so much! I’m glad you like the videos

[@g0d5m15t4k3]

Yeah, delivering that line deadpan, then with a *shrug, low level cringe* "but we're gonna do it anyway", gave me a giggle. I don't think you're running out of ideas. It's more that you discuss the same handful of concepts in each video. If topics are a bowl of M&M's and each time you reach in and grab a handful, you're still going to get the same colors (topics). But the ratio will be a bit different each time. So the emphasis will be slightly different each time. Personally, I enjoy seeing the same topics discussed repeatedly with different angles. Because it allows them to sink in my brain better. Sometimes it takes those repeated, nuanced discussions to fully get it. Heck, the only unsolicited advice I have is actually breaking down concepts piecemeal. "Explain like I'm 5" style for people who have become so disillusioned that they just willfully try not to get involved in any political discussion.

[@mikkitoro8933]

If you listen to what the other person is saying, you can look into how he thinks. And then you could possibly lure him to the other side. I think it's much better than confronting someone who sticks to his belief till the very end, and you know said belief is wrong. Some people are too proud to admit that they were wrong, and some people just grew in a certain environment. Wrong or not, they are still human. If their views aren't dangerous or too extreme, I think they should just be left alone.

[@AltereggoLol1]

Have you ever considered that someone you disagree with may be right, and your entire belief system cannot handle any response but to either "correct" or silence them?

[@mikkitoro8933]

@@AltereggoLol1 We're not talking about "what if", we're talking about objective truths that the other person refuses to listen to.

[@AltereggoLol1]

@@mikkitoro8933 I've never met a leftist that didn't treat every party doctrine as undeniable objective truth. This guy is no different if you look at his twitter where he called for genocide the other day.

[@spiritualagnostic209]

@@tangyblueberry5013 He has though. ( see how anyone can make a statement without evidence) 😂

[@fransliszt]

You're basically admiting that your side can't withstand debate.

[@gerhitchman]

Yep

[@icyx9268]

here come right wing reactionaries or privledged inexperienced naiv false centrists there is no debate it is manipulation and violence you filled in the plossability gap of which he left in fashion of acting in accordance with anti fragility objective logically aligned reality where general interest is in advancment of greator good and of which you take those reservations open minded questioning as an unconscious squablling little fragile rat slave that wants to pretend everything is well and there's no evil because and as i can tell by your very name there is no oppression against you you dont even feel majority of flaws in system

[@lincolnb2244]

This comment admits that your side can’t withstand comprehension

[@evelynlamoy8483]

the best part about not being centrist is people saying that if your biased towards a subject that affects you, you shouldn't get a say on it. Like thats not a recipe to get stripped of all our human rights.

[@MelodicDinosaur]

But you can hear 'both' sides, choose a side, and try to understand why the other side argues the other thing to see what insights you can draw from that. If you tell me "Basically, this is right, just ignore anyone who says otherwise", I'm going to do the opposite thing and go listen to them because I feel like I'm being manipulated. I need to assess things for myself.

[@elvillivle]

To an extent, that's right. However, if one argument is not just wrong but also dangerous, it does not deserve to be presented equally with the truth. For example, mainstream media holds a big debate between Nazis and Non-Nazis, or if school shootings are sometimes right or not, where millions of people are certain to watch. If you're aware of logical fallacies and can't be easily manipulated with fact twisting then you're good. But a portion of the population, no matter how small, is certain to fall for it. That debate will not bring extremists to believe the other side no matter how good their arguments are, but people who have never really considered anything extreme will be introduced to the idea and some of them will be convinced because it's easy to be against the beliefs of the establishment that is very unfair to you and follow a group that's against it also no matter how absurd their ideas are. That debate does not bring any positive impact and is just being "fair" just so they won't be accused of "hiding the truth". But what determines which ideas deserve to be presented and considered equally? I don't know. So you're right, but in some cases, it's better overall to just not to put an idea to the spotlight. Like you wouldn't offer drugs alongside candy and toys to a child just so they are presented with all choices. The title of the video is a clickbait though.

[@bloodymares]

@@elvillivle It's one thing to realize that one side has a dangerous argument but you can't simply say "don't listen to it, that's bs". With that type of sentence you're basically saying "I think you're too dumb to think for yourself and I know you're gonna believe what they say and I don't want that so instead listen to what I say because I know better". That's coming from a bias and self-righteous believe that other people are dumb. If we really want to make our point, it's not enough to simply point fingers and say "Look how crazy they are". We need to make an effort and explain to undecided our point and to not only say they're wrong, but explain WHY they're wrong or THE DANGER of accepting that belief. In the core, none of the people buy into ideas because they're dumb or evil people, but because there's something in the current system that makes them feel worried, insecure, or afraid. It's important to address that insecurity and fear, and find the source of those feelings, in order to ADDRESS them. That's why it's important to listen to both sides, because an opposing side usually has OBJECTIVE REASONS to distrust the mainstream narrative. If a scientist looked at the political discord of US, the correct overview would be that there are objective flaws with the education system, with holes in capitalism, with inequalities that need to be addressed, with cancel culture that is quick to judge and destroy people without giving them a benefit of the doubt, with 2-party system that limits and polarizes people, making them side with something they don't agree with just because it's better than that other thing that they completely disagree with, etc. These things need to be addressed if the society wants to actually progress in values and become more civilized, just, and fair. In reality though, both sides tend to ignore objective factors that cause issues with distrust or worry, dismissing them as insignificant or irrelevant just to continue feeling morally superior.

[@nerobernardino88]

@@elvillivle ...And people are by any means incapable of seeing the nazi and the non-nazi argue and come to their own conclusion that nazism is fucking atrocious? Are you calling everyone fucking stupid?

[@rhobidderskag1121]

Hearing both sides doesn't mean treating both sides as if they are always of equal merit. Hearing both sides means listening and evaluating both sides with as much objectivity as humanly possible to discern their merits. This is what a wise citizen does, full stop. It is distinctly unwise to use one side's sullen reputation to save yourself time and emotional discomfort by dismissing what they have to say out of hand, without processing it. If you do that, you begin to place yourself in an echo chamber and prevent your own side's bullshit from being checked by someone else. That is what's dangerous, and it's dangerous because human beings have a natural proclivity for that kind of groupthink. We like it. It's comfortable. It feels right. It makes the world feel appropriately simple to our sensibilities. It's also what runs groups, companies, movements, and organizations into the ground when they lose their ability to course correct.

[@aeway_]

Absolutely. I'm tired of hearing that we have to capitulate (is that the right word?) to people who's ideas are incompatible with both our ideas and many of our allies' existence.

[@taboowriter9229]

You changed my mind on allowing certain ideas to be debated. Because who allows the debates sets the tone, and its rarely in people's interests. Thank you, JT 👍🏽

[@mike1134]

The video doesn’t say to not allow ideas to debated. It says don’t make the mistake in assuming the “correct” answer is in the middle and all sides are necessarily valid. Censorship of the “bad” side is not the answer either. In that scenario, who decides what ideas are harmful? The answer would be those with power. If not for free speech, MLK would have been further silenced by the FBI. This KZbin channel would not be allowed to exist, it’s ideas would be considered harmful. Debate all ideas, but understand not all viewpoints are valid and equal.

[@coolioso808]

Even the point he made about what ideas are just out right rejected in mainstream society, such as criticism of capitalism. When have you ever heard a shred of criticism of capitalism on the mainstream media? I can’t recall any. That should make people of critical mind very curious as to why that is. Until capitalism can be openly criticized, we are far from an open, free society.

[@Hardstyl3r17]

@@coolioso808 because modern society is built on capitalism and you just deny because not everyone is "equal" or has equal opportunity and dont bother to look at the society was built and the comfort it provides, then you are just stupid. between a capitalist society and whatever else you have in the world, maybe look at it and see if its better for you on the other side, i guess you wont move out of your comfort area, thats what people like you do criticize but dont go elsewhere cause its not for you.

[@coolioso808]

@@Hardstyl3r17 you’re not making any logical sense. I’m sure you think you are, but you are repeating false narratives about capitalism and how “modern society” came about. A typical defence of capitalism is something like “we wouldn’t have advanced technologies like the Internet or smart phones if it weren’t for capitalism.” No, it’s collaborative, over time, scientific research and development - often not motivate by profit - that improves the standards of living possible in society, not capitalism. Capitalism is just along for the ride. Historically, capitalism was forced upon people. Now it’s the only force of economics in the world, and other attempts have been some degree of capitalism with social supports. Furthermore, the more socialist aspects of society have developed many of the technologies that our modern society is built on. The Internet was a government-funded project. The World Wide Web was developed by a guy named Tim Berners-Lee and he wanted everybody to have free access to it and not turn it into a profit making scheme for him. So I think you could do some more research on the structural violence of capitalism and then look at viable alternatives like a resource based economy, before you jump to conclusions about what capitalism is responsible for and what other systems could be better.

[@DoctorCyan]

This channel is poison

[@liamvt2]

I think one of the best points was that you cannot treat both sides as equal without analysis on where these points came from. Yet... there lies a huge problem. The analysis is often incredibly wrong. Especially when you're talking to another human being talking about points that might come from a very toxic place on a macro level. They might even have multiple origins. Its a good approach when forming your own ideas. But horrible when trying to understand/shape other peoples. And its a tool misused by liberals as well. And people often fall for its misuse thanks to their material conditions. Like how the liberal corruption within going to green energy caused a lot of people to simply deny climate science. Because its now being pushed not just by activists, but by a big corporate aparatus just like the coal industry. Their analysis is deeply flawed. But the class struggle is there. And focussing on that positive is so important.

[@digaddog6099]

If you can't adequately debunk your opposition, there are only two possibilities. Either you were wrong, or you lucked yourself into the correct positions, and that might be worse. After all, conservative ideology adapts over time. You can always seem to find it just by the margins of what's socially acceptable. But if you luck yourself in, you have the potential to make cool and new conservative talking points. Do you know how many 2nd wave feminists became terfs? Do you wonder why people become conservative with age?

[@gepmrk]

Yes, 'the marketplace of ideas' is a popular utterance we hear a lot these days. When I hear it I'm instantly overcome by a kind of bland nausea that momentarily puts my mind to sleep.

[@zeppafloyd]

Perfect explanation of what the right is doing now at around 4:20. "Fascists blame what's wrong with the world, not by blaming systems, but on the existence of the wrong kinds of people, thereby protecting existing institutions." There's a recent video by Midas Touch featuring Texas Paul reacting to the father of the Colorado shooter. Paul says. "there is no common ground with that." And he is right. That ending with MLK is excellent. Another fantastic video by Second Thought. Thanks for the great work you're doing.

[@quarfg]

The right: we should game end minorities The left: we should treat minorities equally Centrists: maybe we can find a middle ground

[@supernovaedits14]

Lmaoo fr

[@jmcinha]

One little thing I’m grateful for at this moment in history is that with youtube we can access other ideas.

[@MickeyMouse-lm6zj]

Hearing both sides isn't dangerous. Only hearing one side is, however. Debates exist for a reason. Unless the point is "there's more than two sides", it's a flawed argument made so people don't change their views.

[@courier6932]

@Alex Chopin Tfw you never heard of de-radicalizing people Next you're gonna tell me The Opposition™ are not human beings

[@courier6932]

@Alex Chopin Agreed, though I would extend this “de-radicalization” to all extremes, left and right. That brings into question, who would you call “vulnerable”? I assume only children and animals, right?

[@courier6932]

@Alex Chopin Well, that’s a very biased view of the “extreme left”, all things considered. Would you call the leftist who want to “Eat the rich” or “Destroy the middle class” not radicalized? Also, going with the “killing entire populations of innocent people for no reason save blind hatred”, what would be the difference between the millions that died under communist or socialist regimes? And no, my “de-radicalization for the left” means getting people out of “Everyone who disagrees with me is a literal nazi”, which is a sentiment common among modern-day leftist groups, mindset. Sorry if this a sensitive question, but what group are you part of? As you said “fragile white dudes” keep shooting people of your community. And, with that, my guess is that both should have the same prioritization, as all are very harmful to our society.

[@atanaZion]

@@courier6932 Ah yes, the main target of Bazi genocide Kids

[@sentientnatalie]

Another banger episode, thanks for doing what you do, JT. :) Even when I was a liberal/progressive, I could not understand why one side of an argument so utterly repugnant absolutely had to be given any weight at all. No-one of conscience could be so cavalier, only someone who'd suppressed theirs. Btw, that Deprogram road trip artwork? Absolute props to the artist, every single element of it was just so heartwarming and amazing! :D EDIT: Ofc, Bandit's and Bagel's visual Pitt-heeler artwork presences were much appreciated. :3

[@jaimemarrero3982]

Yes, I watched the video. Hearing both sides is not dangerous. Giving some credit to both sides is. Saying you don't need to listen to any other side because your side is correct is not only arrogant, it robs you of the oportunity to gain something, even if that something is pleasure from mocking someone who is absolutely in the wrong. If one side says "2+2=4" and another says "2+2=22", you can still hear any other sides that says something different to "2+2=4" without giving it credit. When it is something with less evidence and more based on morality, where there are different schools of thought, saying "I don't need to listen to anything else" is very close minded. Saying "going vegan prevents global warming by reducing cow farts" (this is an example, people can eat what they want), and refusing to hear any debate on that, robs you of the oportunity to consider the carbon tax of transporting goods from places where they are grown, the effects on pesticides to keep specialty products healthy, and so on, while a localy sourced diet can also leave you with an unbalanced diet. Also... your use of the tolerance to intolerance paradox is wrong... Taken directly from his "The Open Society and its Enemies": "In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise." To popper, intolerance is a very specific act, not a quality of a position. You could have any position in the world, but if you refuse to engage in argument with people who hold different positions, and instead move to dismiss and silence them outright, then you are intolerant, and you are the kind of person that popper is saying should not be tolerated. To popper, even racist sexist or anti-religious ideologies should be discused, in so far as the people spewing said ideologies are willing to have those ideas challenged, and do not encourage people to ignore oposing, more "correct" by our standards ideologies. If you want to say X religion is superior to others and all others are inferior, you must be open to discussion, because saying all other arguments have no merit so you shouldn't listen to them is the intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated. On the other hand, if you believe your religion is superior, but are willing to listen and debate somebody else that says Y religion is superior, even if neither convince each other, and both still hold both beliefs, that should still be tolerated. For this example, religion could be swapped with race or gender or anything else you want...

[@spehhhsssmarineer8961]

Well said.

[@AkiraUema]

OMG! Thank you so much for this video!!! You're saying stuff that I've been screaming myself to people around me since forever but in such a way that is so easy to comprehend! I'm so happy to have found your channel!

[@jakubotevrel5058]

Greetings from the Czech Republic, Mr. (Second Thought). I watch you regularly for about two years now and I really like your content, but this episode was one of the best ever. I especially appreciate the way you present socialist ideas succintly and in an easily understandable way, which is a must in our current world defined by short attention span. Really, you are one of the best left wing agitators out there. Cheers for that. I am thinking about starting a left wing blog myself here in my country (without skills in making and cutting youtube videos and not nearly confident in my charisma I would have to stick to writing 🙂), as political situation here is also not great (though not as bad as in yours, we still have free healthcare and no university tuiton fees and fascists here are - for forseeable future at least - far from coming close to power), with all left wing parties failing to get into Parliament. The main problem in the Czecg Republic (as with other post-"communist" countries) is latent, dum anticommunism, which colours everything leftwing sounding as dangerous and fiscaly irresponsible. I remember when Chomsky once said that the fall of Soviet Union was the best thing for socialist movement in the world (and I strongly agree with that statement), but the reality is, people still use it to "prove" socialism is inherently disfunctional and any leftwing tendencies should be avoided. This line of reasoning works even better here in eastern and middle Europe, where many people still remember evils of "socialist" regime (while quickly forgetting some of the perks of living in more equal society). I have studied English language and literature (and Film theory) in college, so I focus my attention mostly on American and British politics (I came close to crying when the Corbyn project lost in 2019, that was probably closest modern Western country came to socialist government), where the true battle for international socialism takes place, but I also agree with Chomsky, that a citizen should concerns him/herself predominantly with the affairs of his/her own country and hold the government to account, so I should probably do that also 🙂 Anyway, once again, great work, really appreciate it, keep fighting the good fight. Solidarity forever!

[@janhamaldvorak560]

Hi, you might enjoy kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3SuloueqcZmfpI. The fiscal responsibility scam is rampant even here in Czechia. I mean, didn't they recently abolish a tax (superhruba) that only affected above-average-income people just to ponder whether they should introduce tuition fees couple of months back? And while we're sliding deeper and deeper into debt, they refuse to introduce property taxes that would actually make more flats available to young families, even though OECD is yelling at them to implement them for several years now. Anyway... nice to meet you.

[@graveyardshift6691]

It is fiscally irresponsible and dangerous. The US Left Wing's response to problems is 'throw more money at it'. This has resulted in inflation where the price of goods is taking advantage of the excess money in the system to rise higher. Wages have not been balanced against this so people's purchasing power has dropped. Do you really want me to explain why socialism is inherently dysfunctional? It's really easy.

[@jakubotevrel5058]

@@graveyardshift6691 Not sure, what a person with your views doing in this comment section, but I guess I applaude your courage😀You really are a lonely knight, trying to guide misguided souls on the right path, I guess. Ok, please, enlighten me, why is socialism inherently dysfunctional?

[@graveyardshift6691]

@@jakubotevrel5058 Its reliance on altruism. The ideal socialist state as personified by socialists is one where people's needs are met without the need for monetary transactions. You just exist and the system gives you everything you need. Food, water, shelter, goods, materials, ect. All at no cost to you. Now is every human so selfless and altruistic that they are willing to give away the fruits of their labors for nothing in return? REALLY think on that before you answer. And don't tell me that they're getting what they're missing in return for providing what they can. That's just regression into bartering and the issues with bartering were solve with monetary trade. You cannot create something from nothing. Those materials provided by the system for free have to come from somewhere which means someone produced them.

[@jakubotevrel5058]

@@graveyardshift6691 Given that most of the work today is done by machines (which are currently owned by a handful of capitalists), there is one possible answer to the question. Also, I think you really underestimate human nature - you would be suprised how much more freely and happily would people work and share, if they lived in a society, where they would be given things like free healthcare, education, some version of UBI. And who said there would be no need for money in socialist society? Maybe in some utopian society in 100, 200 years time, when people collectively evolve over the point where material possesion no longer seems a motivational factor...

[@mickeyg7219]

Yeah, "hearing both sides" is just "argument to moderation (AKA argumentum ad temperantiam, golden mean fallacy, false compromise)." We all know deep down that we don't value every arguments and opinions equally, and it would be lying to ourselves to think that political theater is above this. And like how many people think "freedom of speech" or "democracy" ="my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Many ideas are utterly incompatible with each other, and "compromise" will more or less just give one side more advantage than the other, which might be less than a decisive decision, but still an advantage regardless. And remember that the success of the far-right is strongly reliant on their opponent's naivety, good will, and blind trust in the system. In fact, the far-right knew about this and weaponized it. They don't play fair, but they expected their opponents to play fair, and they'll try to convince the field is already level. This is why you need to have a strong (but maintain some level of flexibility) commitment to a cause.

[@Lousysuperior]

I think there is an issue in the US of people really politically “digging in” The issue is, your asking the “other side” to question their beliefs and to possibly change their mind on a topic, but you are unwilling to question your own beliefs on the same topic. Questioning your beliefs is an essential part of being an informed citizen, and if that means changing your political views because you feel you previously might have been too Zealous for an idea you didn’t fully understand, that’s not “giving in” to the other side, it’s thinking for yourself. The issue with US politics is uninformed citizens who don’t know how to think for themselves and are more concerned about what other people think.

[@Blackreaper95]

I think that's a problem all over the world, everything is becoming hyper partisan and people are becoming easier to suppress and control instead of being encouraged to research scrutinize all sides.

[@Dave1507]

well, when 99% of all scientists of that field share my views on the topic, I'd be stupid to change or question that.

[@nerobernardino88]

@@Dave1507 Yeah, that's close to what Einstein saw in his field before coming up with the most comprehensive model of physics yet, no?

[@Dave1507]

@@nerobernardino88 No, not really, but anyway, there are no Einsteins these days, and certainly not in the group that call themselves "free thinkers". Einstein at least knew what he was talking about.

[@nerobernardino88]

My point is that the suppression of dissent through "most experts are of this position" is worthless whenever a credible expert demonstrates another position backed by the data seen in reality. I'm not saying those self-proclaimed free thinkers are these experts nor that their charlatans are them. I'm arguing that being unwilling to consider that you - and by extension, those whose words you've read and learned - might be wrong is downright stupidity.

[@mateuszkucharski1350]

I disagree with you in this topic. If you think that we can be biased and hearing both sides is wrong then we have to suppose that we ae perfect and we can't be wrong. Which is not true, cause we aren't. As a Pole I'm glad that in my country some people are aware how dangerous islam (especially for women) is and that some LGBT postulates are totalitarian in it's core. Don't go this way - be reasonable leftist, cause economical, ecological and also secularistic postulates of left wing are necessary but don't let yourself to be far left idiot, which don't see differences between better and worse developped cultures and that every perversion is normal.

[@keirfarnum6811]

I have made this point often. Some times the “other side” is not a valid POV. Some people think in rhetorical terms that assume that there’s always a valid “other side.” This is why we sometimes see conservatives saying that the “other side” of the Holocaust should be taught; which is absurd.

[@HibiTeamQueso]

I lost you on the last sentence. I genuinely have never heard that. What's even the "other side" of Holocaust?

[@tteqhu]

@@HibiTeamQueso I think that's history..? You learn what made germany volatile to rapid changes? I don't think we will know what someone, that heard, wanted to say.

[@nehalilisays]

"the other side of the Holocaust" are antisemitic conspiracy stories aka Holocaust denial which is illegal in 18 mostly European countries since it's considered hate speech.

[@HibiTeamQueso]

@@nehalilisays That's what I thought, the comment doesn't make much sense

[@DanielRodriguez-gs2xj]

Going into this video I was really skeptical tbh but u did lay out a well-explained reason that won me over, ur absolutely right we SHOULD stop catering to the extreme whose only proof is belief with no hard evidence.

[@Santino590]

But if you lived in Soviet Union and you thought "communist party is not good for this country" you wouldn't have any hard evidence. Journalist, scientists, politicians, writers - everyone would be against you. Do you should follow your idea or "trust authorities that have evidence"?

[@DanielRodriguez-gs2xj]

@Santino590 in a sense your kinda right but very wrong as well. Comparing the USA to the Soviet Union is a false comparison. One allows its citizens to access the world wide web and gather unbiased information about other countries while the other would have access to outside information limited and locked out. Right now u can go online and look to see what other countries death rates are, how much they pay in taxes, what their Healthcare system is and so forth. In a dictatorship like the Soviet Union you can't cause that would pull the veil too far up and the citizens would rise to oppose the government. Here in America our leaders don't have to worry about that cause enough people have been indoctrinated into believing we are the best there ever was and only our system works. Doesn't matter that other countries have a better system cause to those that believe the former it's all "propaganda designed by the liberal elites to take my guns and cause the downfall of America".

[@RawNoLimits]

Both sides at this point can be such a waste of time when there is so much great discussion to be had on one side. The hearing both sides thing can end up just being a pat on the back for the sake of having tolerance and civil discussion, but for example, when the other side says climate change doesn't exist, I would rather the debate be between members on one side where we compare renewable resources. Edit: I made this comment before the eight-minute mark when you touched on this. 😂

[@Eliel-Lin]

Not listening to both sides feeds extremist ideas.

[@beast_pasta2392]

I think you'll find it's the opposite. Fascism is an extreme idea but the pursuit to "hear both sides" has led to it becoming more mainstream because it has been given a platform under the guise of being unbiased.

[@Eliel-Lin]

@@beast_pasta2392 I think youre going to hear about both sides want it or not and the only way to restrict it would be cencorship. I feel like the majority of people can agree that silencing people has rarely done any good. Its better to just not restrict freedom of speech any more than nececary. A bit of free press wont harm anyone. Ofcourse it has its downs alongside its ups but I dont think you can think openly and freely if you only gobble up one agenda. And if we silence the far right we should do the same to the communists too no? And maybe a few others? Whos going to draw the line I wonder.

[@beast_pasta2392]

@@Eliel-Lin I'm not advocating for censorship, but rather pleading for people to, on their own terms, discard baseless arguments such as climate change denial that doesn't add anything to the issue that's being discussed.

[@iancrowley420]

we shouldn't listen to the ideals of the fascist, bigoted right, but it's crucial to analyze the material conditions that led these people to accept these ideas rather than branding them as overtly evil

[@underscore4505]

based as hell

[@Mister_Cereal]

Not hearing other sides out is dangerous. There should be more civil debate and not shutting down or ignoring the other side

[@SecondThought]

Watch the video

[@Rct3master44]

@@SecondThought we did.

[@zeekz101]

Excellent job. One of the best videos you've made so far. I wish more people would wake up. Also loved the MLK quote and definitely agreed with what he said about the "white moderate". It's crazy how we still haven't learned anything from our history and continue to repeat the same mistakes today.

[@rezakarampour6286]

Search KZbin . ' America Is a Mafia State Run by Democrats & Republicans . '