Philosophy Tube

This is honestly the best way to describe him. Oliver is a person of extreme economic privilege afflicted with the same old fashioned backwater society bigotry that has been commonplace among the rich for the past 300 years. He just uses radical racial and psudo-socialist politics to justify his hatred of the poor; not unlike Richard Spencer.

>Advertising (all forms) is not welcome—this includes any type of referral linking, "offers", soliciting, begging, stream threads, etc.
don't promote yourself here

This isn't advertising, it's discussion over the content of this particular lecture and his philosophy.

He is the worst. He's down there with ideachannel and nerdwriter1.

Shut up, bitch. All those channels, while not perfect, are great and are doing more for culture than you.

...

...

You realize that "not perfect" is one thing, but literally disinformation about history, while simultaneously taking priding in using vague concepts as to shield anything you say from criticism and redefining terms and using buzzwords to make terrorists look legitimate in their action, is another thing.

Ideachannel and nerdwriter1 are the most basic bitch highschool girl shit on YouTube.

There is another

The guy that does Ideachannel is clearly pretty fckin good, it’s just literally impossible to have a decent channel about philosophy and media on YouTube. The moment he would touch on anything to do with gender his vids would get downvotes to shit, and it was a total flamewar in the comments.

nerdwriter1 is unironically a fan of this guy and named his channel in honor to him. John Green is the daddy of all the pseuds on youtube. He can't keep getting away with it.

I don't like using /pol/ buzzwords, but the guy is a total soy boy.

Is nerdfighteria still a thing?

nerdwriter is pretty basic but ideachannel was legitimately fun

hi oliver

Yeah, the comments are really depressing. These people truly think this guy is some kind of genius.

Read those comments, they're all like ''thanks for illuminating (read : indoctrinating) me, soyboyliver!''

Where do they fit on the chart?

They go before the first image, waaaay before. They give you negative brain matter.

Can somebody that got the skills make a complete one?

Has anyone else come across this channel, Then and Now? It's not too bad, The guy is on the left side of the fence but he's not in-your-face about it as other youtubers tend to be. Good video on Derrida:

youtube.com/watch?v=HKJlSY0DBBA

Can all of you guys go back to /pol/ pls?

Can you go back to where you came from? Africa.

Stop embarrasing yourself, I'm not from Africa

This was always obvious, brainlet.

Read books instead of browsing Reddit.

We're all from Africa if you go far enough back.

Antifa has a philosophy, as do nazis. Don't know why OP is being a fag about it.

the out of africa theory has been disputed or disproven recently, I can't remember which but look it up

>Antifa has a philosophy, as do nazis
>ideology = philosophy

Wrong, you look it up

disputed, yes, but not disproven.
Out of Africa will probably never be put to rest due to the political wills of outside forces but "Soft" Multi-Origin theory via the introduction of non-Human DNA is widely accepted as fact now.

If you actually believe that strategizing about tactics and using them, regardless of their ethical impact, simply caring about their effectiveness, while simultaneously claiming that this stems out of an intellectual pursuit which has been disproven (communism, leftist economical policies, etc.), constitutes some form of "philosophy", you're wrong. Antifa uses violence to pursue their agenda and stops any form of dissent or counter viewpoint to theirs ; this is as antithetical as can be to a true philosophical pursuit. Just reading the definition of the word or about Socrates is enough to be convinced of that. Antifa is a violent, intellectually bankrupt ideology, just like Nazism. It's anything but a philosophy.

Sauce?

He is talking about the fact that they found the remains pre-Human early Hominid in Bulgaria a few months back. He is also misunderstanding the implications of that discovery.

Everyone uses violence in pursuit of their ideological goals and yes that includes soulless cock-sucking western Liberals like you too.

This is the truth. The tragedy of the SJW/antiSJW dialectictic is that it has become a sort of bourgeois Ouroboros. None of those driving it give a fuck about us. Both sides show nothing but contempt for the “lower classes”. It’s all signaling, to borrow the bourgeois-right’s term. You get faggots like this Oliver guy falling over themselves to be the Most Condescending to the plebs.

>Soulless
>Capitalism and free markets helped liberate millions of people from poverty, from all over the world, and daily helps the poorest in India and China.

serious question here.

Every antifa people I see are soyboys. How do these people plan on fighting the far-right morons that are living in the gym and collecting military rifles?

Public shaming

great video, olly has been doing great work lately

Their usual plan is to outnumber people. Don't know what will happen when guns become a regular part of these altercations.

>intellectual pursuit which has been disproven
lmao

Most far right guys are also pussies, remember the manlet that punched that crusty hippy chick at berkeley or some other protest? He couldn't even ko a girl with a sucker punch lmfao.

It's true that if shit actually popped off the right would wreck the left but that's mostly because they have country boys who know how to shoot and fight, the rightwingers that watch sargon and PJW on youtube and use the term soyboys will do nothing.

triggered

>The average Englishman was making three times as much income by Marx's death, as they did at his birth, thanks to the industrial revolution.
>Everyplace, irrespective of the culture in which it's been tried, communism has ended in bloodbaths.
>Early communist economies everywhere have created starvation, because not having free trade means you don't get to import goods like food, which you can't produce alone.
>The growth of GDP in communist countries over 50 has been nearly nil, while capitalist countries boomed. (In Cuba, a microwave was a "luxury", think about that.)
>Capitalist countries developed most innovations you today use, from kitchen appliances to the internet.
>Revolutions didn't happen in industrialized countries, like Marx claimed.
>Marx's theories on value and money don't even make internal sense, and don't hold up with facts (an easily found diamond is worth a lot).
>Men aren't a "black slate" : there are lots of innate dispositions or some which have favored to develop, and men differ from women.
>Marx didn't understand the scientific method and claimed that testing policies (in Das Kapital) in large countries and not in smaller scale cities first was the better approach.
>The Weimar Republic tried to suppress Nazi speech, which helped the Nazis... (Goebbels got jail time, etc.)
>The laws on censored speech enacted to prevent Nazi propaganda in the UK where also used against communists.
>Minimum wage is not good for anyone (just look at what it does in Seattle)
>Rent regulation leads to less supply of available houses and increases the price.

And I could go on as to why communism is failure, and as to why Antifa isn't a philosophy, but simply violent ideologues trying to push an agenda, but "lmao" I guess.

are we counting state capitalism as communism in this context

Olly is so condescending. I feel like you pinpointed the issue. He talks as if he was a prophet and basks in his own arrogance. He takes pride in all the buzzwords he uses, is obsessed with autoflaggelation to making himself look superior, doesn't care about any rational arguments, and can only see as deep as skin colour, and blames every thing on "fascism", racism or white supremacy and so on, while dismissing every possible counter-argument as religious speak ("they just keep repeating the same sentences...") and then, just as he mentions this, he winks, to show he's the best. Literally, he says that people are idiots and get brainwashed by cult-like fascists who repeat magical senseless sentences to convert people. This has got to be the worst single explanation I've ever heard for a phenomena.

>he says that people are idiots and get brainwashed by cult-like fascists who repeat magical senseless sentences to convert people.
except is doesnt say that at all, idiot
you deserve to be condescended to

It depends what you mean by "State Capitalism". If you mean communist approach to organizing economical activities (what the USSR did, and what Mao did - but not China post Mao), then yes I'm counting it as communist.

However, seeing as some people also use it to describe how fascist regimes pumped up some companies (Germany, Italy, Japan) and discouraged free trade and competition, then State Capitalism can also define that (which is also bad and doesn't work).

Finally, it could also describe some approaches to state monopolies, which are almost always bad (some are okay, though, depending on the nature of the good).

Re-watch the passage from 42:00 roughly to 45:47 where he talks about propaganda and its relation to how language is used. He says that fascists use speech not as a signal for truth, but as a "religious" (he doesn't say religious, but it seems to be that in effect) or as a tool to get crowds or people hyped up. He says they use language as an act. If you look at this claim, it's true - the fascists did do that (repeating "heil Hitler" for example) -, but it doesn't mean that people today do it, or that they are fascists even if they did. Most of the speeches Antifa opposes (Milo, Peterson, Sargon, and company), don't use anything like that. There's no rallying cry, and there's no empty sentences - it's all arguments and discussion (whether it's good or bad, it's another topic). However, when you look at Antifa protesters, they do use chants and repeated sentences to shut down people, and they do spam buzzwords. So, even if "fascists" did do what Olly accuses them of, Antifa would be just as guilty. However, the most baffling part is at 45:47 when he taps his nose : he says that from the act-speech, people can get indoctrinated and can understand and join fascists and fall for the propaganda. This is what I mean. It's a ridiculous claim : people don't magically get meaning from act-speech (I mean, that seems pretty contrary to what act-speech is), and they don't randomly get indoctrinating by catchy sentences de-void of meaning. That's just false. If it were true, everyone or close to it, would be an Antifa, because they too have rallying cries. And it's not because someone understands it - assuming they do - that they would agree with it. And even if all that were true, even if, then what? That still isn't an argument to stop their usage of speech. At best his ''I love you'' argument is a case to stop harassment, that's it.

alright, with that cleared up, this seems to be the 'make as many unsubstantiated assertions as you can and then hope your opponent wont bother to deal with your crap' method of arguing
>The average Englishman was making three times as much income by Marx's death, as they did at his birth, thanks to the industrial revolution.
Not particularly relevant. Try looking at the material conditions of the working class.
>Everyplace, irrespective of the culture in which it's been tried, communism has ended in bloodbaths.
reductionist
>Early communist economies everywhere have created starvation, because not having free trade means you don't get to import goods like food, which you can't produce alone.
The starvation part may be true, but that explanation isn't very good.
>The growth of GDP in communist countries over 50 has been nearly nil, while capitalist countries boomed. (In Cuba, a microwave was a "luxury", think about that.)
over 50 whats?
>Capitalist countries developed most innovations you today use, from kitchen appliances to the internet.
irrelevant
>Revolutions didn't happen in industrialized countries, like Marx claimed.
He was wrong, but largely because capitalism innovated ways of suppressing class consciousness
>Marx's theories on value and money don't even make internal sense, and don't hold up with facts (an easily found diamond is worth a lot).
where are you finding diamonds easily? is this about artificial scarcity?
>Marx didn't understand the scientific method and claimed that testing policies (in Das Kapital) in large countries and not in smaller scale cities first was the better approach.
I don't know, darwin thought marx was pretty good
>Minimum wage is not good for anyone (just look at what it does in Seattle)
look at what in seattle
>Rent regulation leads to less supply of available houses and increases the price.
substantiated this somehow

>Most of the speeches Antifa opposes (Milo, Peterson, Sargon, and company), don't use anything like that.
Milo definitely has
>they don't randomly get indoctrinating by catchy sentences de-void of meaning
The point is that you may find yourself having trouble logically working through a conspiracy theory with a nazi because what they really support isn't the truth of the matter so much as the spirit of the subject. Techniques like dog whistling are necessary when you advocate genocide.

Well sorry it's short, since I'm using greentext. I can't write an essay on Veeky Forums.

>Not particularly relevant. Try looking at the material conditions of the working class.
How is this not relevant? I agree that their income had been near nothing, triple is also near nothing. But you have to look at the industrialization process everywhere in the world : England back in the 19th century is the same as Bangladesh today ; all countries we now know as developed went through this phase of development. And triple you worth in income is better than being a farmer, as the Englishmen mainly were at his birth, because as a farmer you are unlikely to make any profit, requiring vast amount of works to produce a surplus, which you don't even know you'll get, because farming is an uncertain process. Point is, most Englishmen lived in misery at the beginning of the 19th century, but their lives got better (still not luxurious, yes, but better) when industrialization kicked in. That's their material lives made better, if anything is.
>reductionist
How is that reductionist? Different countries, with different cultural heritage tried the same policies, and all failed. Sure, it's a simplistic way to show it, but when you apply the same policies to vastly different entities and the results are similar, then it's more than likely that the cause of those effects were the policies, since changing other variables, like culture or the population's conditions of life, didn't affect the result.
>The starvation part may be true, but that explanation isn't very good.
I'm using greentext, bear with me. Closing the country's border while it previously was reliant on imports to sustain its food needs creates starvation, especially when, simultaneously, you kill the Kulaks, who produced most of the food in the USSR. (This is still simplistic.)
>over 50 whats?
I mean years.
>irrelevant
No, it's not ; these things are precisely the material conditions of the working class you mentioned in the first point. Having kitchen appliances, or washing machines makes the daily tasks of house keeping requiring less time and effort, which means people are freer to do what they wish and like.
>He was wrong, but largely because capitalism innovated ways of suppressing class consciousness
My time to ask for more explanations.
>where are you finding diamonds easily? is this about artificial scarcity?
It's just an example to show that Marx's theory that the value (price) of a good is determined by the socially required amount of work needed to be put in the good. A diamond would be worth the same had you had taken 10 years to find it, or 1 year, because value is subjective and depends on the individual.
>I don't know, darwin thought marx was pretty good
Einstein liked socialism too, but an appeal to authority doesn't make something true or right.
>look at what in seattle
The effective salaries of the average worker. It dropped.
>substantiated this somehow
(Klein & Buturovic, 2011).

Who advocates genocide, even? Milo? No. I don't see Ku Klux Klan rallies being raided, I see university speech being stopped.

Also, even if they are conspiracy-theorists, and not all of them all, why should that remove their right to speech? Speech can be used in numerous ways, from looking for truth, to making jokes and puns, to impress people, etc. ; the reason free speech is important is twofold. It's not only about finding truth, which is a huge part of it, yes, but it's also about person's being able to show themselves in world and develop themselves through relationships with others. This shouldn't be forbidden either. It's a huge part of life, and of good life. If you don't like a Nazi's mentality, don't speak or listen with them ; however, don't prevent themselves from speaking, unless you want to confine them to a victim narrative, and echo chambers for their own attitudes and beliefs, which will shield them from all possible change. There should be no limits on free speech, outside of harass in certain limited circumstances, and direct, concrete speech about committing realistically a defined crime. And that's all assume that speech is neatly separate in such categories, while all the time, a speech with truth as its aim is mixed in with act-speech like jokes.

If you believe, free speech would create a renaissance for fascism, then why hasn't it created one for Islam, or Christianity, or Buddhism, or religion in general?

Free speech is good but it doesn't mean I ought to think its worth giving bad faith arguments with nazis an audience or platform

That's even assuming that those who were shut down even were Nazis. And you have to differentiate between private platforms (which you can deny if you own said platform) from universities, which are a place for free debate of ideas, even made out of bad faith (some professors are of bad faith, everywhere on the spectrum -- some of them definitely compete for citations and honours more than trying to find truth), because it's not because an idea is made out o bad faith, that it is false. The reasoning or an argument is different from the intentions of the person who said it.

And it's not you who "gives" someone a platform. People organize activities an pay for them. That's not you giving the speakers a platform, that's other people doing so.

Universities are private platforms though, and regardless they have a responsibility to make value judgements about whom most deserves their platform

who are these nazis you keep speaking of? /pol/ edgelord larpers? Trump?

Hardly a real threat.

well, there's the people that ran over that woman in charlottesville with a car, killing her

Universities are open platforms for the scientific inquiry of ideas. And no, they shouldn't make value judgments, specifically because it undermines the truth-seeking process (shielding ideas from analysis), and fosters a group-think environment, at least in appearance (chilling effect), while allowing bad ideas (those you dislike) free to prosper and with an aura of victimhood.

If by whom most deserves it, you mean in terms of efficacy or wants from the student population, sure. But not in moral or political terms. Funding should go to all sciences at a certain base level, and those who work great get additional funding. It's not normal that some studies are systematically blocked (like on the mental condition of transgender, the positive potential impacts of colonialism, etc.). As for platforms, they are paid through by the students who organize them, or given to a professor for his research, that's it. It doesn't involve, or need to involve university administration.

You realize that's a single person, who's not Milo, Peterson, Sargon, Independent Man, and cie, who are the people you actually shut down, right?

Moreover, sure there are Nazis. There's a baseline of Nazis everywhere. That doesn't mean everyone to the right of Marx or you is a Nazi. Similarly, not everyone to the left of Hillary Clinton is a communist. There are extremes everywhere, and there will always be : you can't blame other people for the actions of extremes.

>who are the people you actually shut down
last time I checked, I havent shut down anybody

And then there are the people who intimidated that person by rounding up on his car and smashing it.

Giving bad arguments a platform exposes them as bad. The whole point of democracy is having people decide what's best for the society. If you make that choice for them by silencing other arguments, you're not really believing in democracy.

You don't know shit about real communism, dumb fuck.

It looks like I'm the only one who thinks Ollie is based.

Sometimes I wanna give small arms training to antifa members just so if a war breaks out it's significantly more entertaining

>people don't magically get meaning from act-speech (I mean, that seems pretty contrary to what act-speech is), and they don't randomly get indoctrinating by catchy sentences de-void of meaning.
They literally do, that's the function of a meme, a chant, a talking point, a propaganda poster: an idea faster than thought. But what the guy doesn't realize is that this applies both to the left and to the right, because he's under the illusion that his side is the right one. If you look at history this has ALWAYS been the case with radical leftists, they always assume they are correct and can't be wrong, hence the continuous talking about "reorganizing the left" when they inevitably face failure. If we were to follow his line of thought we should ban radical leftist organizations as well.

Cont.
I want to clarify that personally as an Italian I have no problems with banning fascist organizations since they have the historical responsibility of having destroyed this country. Anyways, given the tendency of american liberals of labelling anything they don't like as "fascism" I can understand why one would be skeptical of these practices.

/leftypol/tards BTFO

That's not the point ; the people you're defending, Antifa, do.

I mentioned this already, that Antifa also uses those tactics, and what I'm saying, on top of that, is that it's not wrong, or is it commonly used by the right-wing speakers. I'd need example of this.

Even actual Nazis shouldn't be banned, the whole reason Nazism and Italian fascism rose to power was because these ideas weren't given an open platform to begin with, but were subject to censorship and violent attacks (the Weimar Republic imprisoned Nazis, for example).

Well, them, instead of using an ad hominem coupled with a no true scotsman, could you give an argument?

>implying this looks even remotely like propaganda
There's literally an entire section where he goes
>well, if you're a pacifist, this pro-antifa argument doesn't hold water
>well, if you believe optics are important enough, this pro-antifa argument doesn't hold water
>well, if you're okay with the current social order, this pro-antifa argument doesn't hold water
and so on. He's very open to good-faith discussion, and he acknowledges that not everyone will side with antifa.

This isn't the greatest point in the world, but it's true. Antifa pick their enemies based on actions; fascists pick their enemies based on cultural affiliation. There is some nuance this quote leaves out, because it is possible to disassociate from a culture and become a "friend" of fascists, but that's much harder to do than just not dog-whistling.

ideachanel was pretty good, and nerdwriter is mediocre. If you want real youtube pseudointellectual slop, the Pop Culture """Detective""" is your guy.

>ideology = philosophy
This, but unironically. An ideology is a framework for thought, within which you can do philosophy. Anyone who tells you philosophy can "free" you from ideology is either stupid or lying. It can only let you move from one ideology to another.

>an intellectual pursuit which has been disproven (communism, leftist economical policies, etc.)
If you honestly believe any of these things have been "disproven," you need to learn some basic terminology. Hint: A lot of people would argue that the phrase "leftist economic policy" is an oxymoron.

Eh, he's really just recapping arguments that other people have made. I'd be more curious to see what he, personally, wants to contribute to the field.

He does overdo the dramatic flair sometimes, but if you look past that, his arguments are reasonable. The "repeating things" argument in particular is interesting, if you understand it.
>people say something untrue over and over
>they continue doing this even after being shown it is untrue, without greatly revising their statements
>therefore, they're not saying it because they want to have an argument about what is/isn't true
>but if they aren't interested in an argument, what do they want to do?
>the thing they're saying is highly emotionally charged
>hey, maybe that means they want an emotional response
>hey, maybe they're using appeals to emotion to make people side with them
Not much of a leap to be desu with you.

>Who advocates genocide, even? Milo? No. I don't see Ku Klux Klan rallies being raided, I see university speech being stopped.
The idea here is that Milo has more influence than the KKK, so he's more "damaging" (from the antifa perspective). Although he doesn't explicitly advocate genocide, he DOES repeat some of the KKK's talking points. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

>Antifa pick their enemies based on actions; fascists pick their enemies based on cultural affiliation
Affiliating with a culture is an action.

Is it? I was born into a white, Christian household. Was that my decision? Can I fairly be blamed/praised because I was raised to wear New Balance sneakers and believe in Jesus?

>He's very open to good-faith discussion, and he acknowledges that not everyone will side with antifa.

I doubt he's to a good faith discussion. He mentions several times that fascism is on the rise and has morphed into a new form, and the characteristics of that new form are things which are mostly false ("toxic masculinity", "capitalism") and most of which are degree-based (you a be a little in favor or capitalism, or a lot), so even if you subscribed to all those characteristics, you still might not be a ''fascist''. And he describes Antifa as being a vague association of people, with no common grounds, except being against fascists. This is patently false. They are all left wing, and their symbol (red and black flag) illustrates this. Besides, he doesn't even mention totalitarianism as a sign of fascism (best he does is talk about authoritarianism and talks about Lenin to show you can have some of the characteristics of fascism and not be a fascist). This is a ridiculous argument : totalitarianism is the true mark of fascism, or at least one of the biggest mark of it, and the left is as guilty of it as the right. Nazis want to limit speech to their viewpoint, but so does Antifa. And saying that the Nazis are wrong, and Antifa is right from a truth standpoint (not a moral one) doesn't imply that speech should be limited, since error is part of the truth-seeking process.

>Antifa pick their enemies based on actions; fascists pick their enemies based on cultural affiliation

And? Even if it were true, that doesn't show someone is right. That's just claiming some people are worst. Yeah, I'd rather live under communism as a polish Jew than under Hitler, sure. Doesn't mean Stalin isn't a criminal, though. And it's not "easier" or healthier psychologically to simply lie about your beliefs or what you think is true for you to be left alone by Antifa as it would be to change culture for you to go along with Nazis. Finding the truth, and exercising your speech about your beliefs and interacting with others freely is as important, if not more, to your well being than your culture.

>If you honestly believe any of these things have been "disproven," you need to learn some basic terminology.

Why do you say this? A lot of Marx's idea about economics, have been disproven and shown to be false.

>Not much of a leap to be desu with you.

Like I said earlier, act-speech or emotional speech, or speech without the intent of saying the truth doesn't only happen on the far-right, or the right, or the center : it happens all over the political spectrum, and across all individuals. Some may use it more, and I'd argue that Antifa themselves use it more than actual Nazis. Antifa protesters have chants, and phrases they continuously repeat for emotional value and propaganda, like the Nazis do. This sort of speech gets mixed in everyday dialogue (in the form of memes, inside jokes) and because it doesn't aim at truth, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

You could debate whether it's conscious or not (the extent to which it is or isn't probably comes down to the individual), but affiliating with a culture entails behaving in a certain manner which has an impact on the surroundings of affiliate. I don't know what to call that if it isn't an action, and even if there may be some better way to refer to it, it's far from inconsequential.

The top comments are absolutely disgusting.
Grown men (I presume) acting like over-excited puppies, because their YT idol made an HOUR LONG video! Hell yeah comrade, bash the fash!

The progressive left will die of testosterone deficiency.

>Antifa pick their enemies based on actions; fascists pick their enemies based on cultural affiliation.
That isn't true. Antifa pick their enemies on the basis of Political affiliation, just like Fascists and everybody else.

(cont.)

>Not much of a leap to be desu with you.

Using emotional speech is part of being a human being, and part of religious behaviour, which we are all guilty of. Chanting canticles isn't and shouldn't be illegal because it isn't aimed at truth. Same goes for Nazi speak, or Antifa speak. And like I said, it doesn't "convert" people like Olly claims when he taps his nose. People doesn't magically understand, and even if they do, they don't magically agree with what the emotional-speech tries to convey. Yeah, it is propaganda, and it's not a half bad analysis of it, but it's not only the right-wing which does this, and it goes beyond politics, and it doesn't imply it should be forbidden. It's a cheap tactic to be sure, when speaking in a rational debate, to use, but that's the whole point of having free platforms : you see who is wrong and who is right. You see who has argument, and who is using memes, and from there, you can judge on the truth of the matter. Not giving Nazis platforms, makes them go underground where they can foster in an aura of victimhood.

Also, if what Olly claimed is true, then why isn't everyone religious? Religion uses that sort of speech all the time. Therefore, it should convert a large portion of the population (religious tribunes aren't attacked, as far as I know, in western secular countries), and yet most countries don't have a majority religious population.

>The idea here is that Milo has more influence than the KKK, so he's more "damaging" (from the antifa perspective). Although he doesn't explicitly advocate genocide, he DOES repeat some of the KKK's talking points. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

The thing here is that KKK members can have some valid points. I'm pretty sure they are against the killing of innocent white babies. Does that mean that everyone who is against that, is a KKK member? No. To be a KKK member you have to share a set of beliefs with them, with a certain threshold. You can have some common beliefs, and not be a member of the KKK. If Milo shares one or two points with them, it doesn't mean he's one of them. If I recall correctly, he's even in favour of offering descendants of black slaves compensation.

Also, what kind of damage are you speaking about? If it's people getting shoked, or outraged, then it's meaningless, because it you applied the logic of preventing shoking ideas from entering public space (which is akin to blasphemy laws), then you'll end up with no speech, or speech only for the powerful, because everyone can be outraged at anything. Just look at the right-wingers Antifa protests against : they are outraged at Antifa.

>implying you can only have a soul if you care about hordes of third world subhumans
jej

/r/ing good YT lectures for someone with only cursory knowledge of philosophy

Also, and you might say this is ridiculous, but you have to look at it from the perspective of an honest Nazi. Two things make a Nazi, a Nazi : the quasi-religious belief in the superiority of his race over other races (and that some races might have a detrimental impact on life in society), which is a moral standpoint, and then the scientific belief that some races are better than others, which is a factual standpoint. The second part can be attacked and disproven, but the first one never will be, because it is the Nazis' very moral essence, and it takes a lot to change that.

However, we all to a degree think like a Nazi. We all have quasi-religious moral beliefs, and you can see that at how the left is hurt morally when people speak about men and women being different ; they want equality, they morally cherish it, and they think it would be (not false, but keyword:) ugly if it wasn't the case that there was equality and that women and men were the same. It's the same belief structure as the Nazi, but applied to a different object.

>I doubt he's to a good faith discussion.
Do you think he's lying or deliberately misrepresenting something? He may make mistakes (I'll argue that he doesn't, at least not that I remember in this video), but mistakes can happen in a good faith discussion.

>He mentions several times that fascism is on the rise and has morphed into a new form, and the characteristics of that new form are things which are mostly false ("toxic masculinity", "capitalism") and most of which are degree-based (you a be a little in favor or capitalism, or a lot)
I think this is a place where you and him might disagree on definition. For PhilTube, the definition of fascism might be something like "A right-wing political ideology that emphasizes the patriarchal family as the unit of civilization, and seeks to organize those civilizational units to preserve both racial and economic hierarchy." For you, what I'm getting is "A totalitarian right-wing government." I'd argue that his is more accurate, and we can go into that if you'd like.

>They are all left wing, and their symbol (red and black flag) illustrates this.
This is a common misconception. The original meaning of the red and black flag was a temporary union of anarchists and communists, true, but antifa isn't an organization. Anyone doing anything to stop fascism is an antifascist. Hell, I'm a right-libertarian, and you could argue that I'm doing antifascist activity right now, by clearing up misconceptions about antifa.

>Nazis want to limit speech to their viewpoint, but so does Antifa.
Sure, but Nazis want to ban much more of the political spectrum, and the logical conclusion of their worldview is genocide. Antifa, by contrast, aren't even all in agreement about limiting speech — some antifascists, myself included, think giving Milo or David Duke or whoever else a platform is fine, and the best thing to do is peaceful protest outside or near the event.

>If you honestly believe any of these things have been "disproven," you need to learn some basic terminology.
>Why do you say this? A lot of Marx's idea about economics, have been disproven and shown to be false.
Marx is wrong on a lot of minor points and technicalities, but the overall thrusts of his arguments (capitalism squeezes people's wages down, economic crisis is cyclical, labor makes things worth more, etc.) are correct, or at least controversial enough not to be conclusively wrong.

>Like I said earlier, act-speech or emotional speech
I'm not gonna respond to this in my current post because someone else is asking me about a similar idea. I'll lump my response to you in with my response with them. (Might be a little while, since dinner is almost ready.)

>affiliating with a culture entails behaving in a certain manner...
Sure, but this is a pretty complex issue. If I wear a hoodie, am I affiliating with black culture? What about when a black guy does it? Wearing a hoodie may be an action, but the extent to which it determines my cultural affiliation varies based on things out of my control.

>which has an impact on the surroundings of affiliate.
Is this impact always, or even usually, enough to deserve a violent response? Even if I were to grant you that cultural affiliation is voluntary enough to make a moral difference (I don't, but let's pretend that I do), you'd still have to show that the moral difference is drastic enough to warrant discrimination/2nd class citizenship/genocide.

>Antifa pick their enemies on the basis of Political affiliation.
This is true.
>just like Fascists and everybody else.
This is not true. Belonging to a culture isn't inherently political, nor is being female or a member of a minority group.

>Might be a little while, since dinner is almost ready.
It's okay, I'll response to this in the meantime (I did a cont. of my previous post too, I don't know if you saw it.)

>Do you think he's lying or deliberately misrepresenting something?

I just want to say that mistakes are fine, it doesn't affect your good will (and I think he does a lot of mistakes in his video), but I think that he's at least being willfully blind on certain topics which has the sad consequence of misrepresenting a lot of the facts. I don't think he's deliberately lying, though. However, he might be a little closed to discussion on right-wing topics (he mentioned as a rebuttal to this that he read Schmidt, but he's well-known in leftist circles already, so I'm not sure it's a good rebuttal).

>I think this is a place where you and him might disagree on definition.

This might be a good example of willful blindness or slight misrepresentation. The classic definition of fascism speaks of totalitarianism, or at least of a degree of control high enough over all strings of government and elements of society that it is totalitarian. Sure, it also involves high degree of nationalism, and other things he mentions, but, and this is important, without the control part, of the totalitarian part, it is not classical fascism, even if you have all the other elements, even overt racism. For example, the US during the slave era was very racist, but it was still not a fascist dictatorship. Russia today isn't great on freedoms, but it hasn't reached the point of fascism, since it isn't totalitarian.

And this brings me to my point : by neglecting to mention these elements, and by omitting to clearly use fascism in the common sense of the term and to not explain clearly his own definition of it, he surreptitiously lumps in the what you call "A right-wing political ideology that emphasizes the patriarchal family as the unit of civilization, and seeks to organize those civilizational units to preserve both racial and economic hierarchy" with the horrors of Nazism by using the same word to describe both things, although they are different. And I think this move is even more dubious, considering that there are few states who wish today to preserve racial purity, or whose majority population wishes for that, especially not in the Western World. Most claims of racism today, I think are either false, or greatly exaggerated. Sure, there are racist people ; and there will always be, because everyone has a propensity of liking those who share traits with them, and certain people push this to a degree of racism. However, this doesn't mean that people's acts are racist, or that a statistically significant portion of them are, or that the majority of people are racist at all, or that only whites are racist, if by that standard they are.

(cont.)

To go back to that definition, literally most states, from European absolute monarchies, to feudal societies, to muslim sultanates, to Italian republics are fascist. That's not helpful, if everyone fits the bill of fascism, except one particular ideal liberal democracy then nothing is truly fascist ; there are many elements, like the totalitarian aspect which are found within Nazism or Italian fascism, that aren't present in all the other political systems.

>This is a common misconception

I mean, if most of the people are leftist in Antifa, and use violence justified by leftist ideologies, then I'm pretty certain that those who call themselves Antifascists are a particular are leftists and aren't simply against fascism. Here, again, it's a play on word : Antifa means ''Anti-fascist'', simply against fascism, which is something, that if taken just like this, I would be a part of. However, the ''brand'' Antifa has a sense that's different from its literal meaning, because of how the groups claiming this affiliation are. I make the same point about Antifa as Olly is making about National-Socialism ; it's not because there's socialism in the name, that they are socialists, which is true (similar thing with the democratic republic of NK), but this also goes for Antifa.

Also, just because you are right-wing are claim that you are of Antifa (or in favor of it) doesn't discredit my claim, because groups have to be evaluated statistically, and I'm pretty certain the vast majority of people who claim to be Antifa are leftist. And even if Antifa isn't an organization, people who are "in Antifa" have similar enough belief for Antifa to be considered a certain ideology. Classical liberalism isn't an organization, and yet does who claim to be classical liberals still have things in common.

>Sure, but Nazis want to ban much more of the political spectrum, and the logical conclusion of their worldview is genocide.

Certainly, but it doesn't mean communism, or left-wing policies are good, either. They might not end in genocide, but if the end bill is tens of millions of death, it's horrible enough for me.

>Marx is wrong on a lot of minor points and technicalities

He's wrong about more than technicalities. Capitalism doesn't push wages down generally, nor does it push them upwards generally. In free markets, some rare expertise that are needed, go up in value, and some common expertise which are needed go down. In effect, competition makes salaries go down or up ; and this is not capitalism, this is simply other people existing and having similar or different skills that you. And even if salaries went down, so what? It also means the prices of the goods produced go down, because the cost of producing them is lower, which means that people can afford more and better things. Simply look at the evolution of free markets : with free trade, the average person today is richer in absolute terms than anyone living in the middle age.

(cont. 2)

Today, anyone has access to ice and spices, something which back 500 years ago was rare. On top of that, anyone has the internet, kitchen appliances, reliable access to food, heat, etc. All these things make the random New Yorker rricher than Richard Lionheart. Competition and free markets are overall good things, even if sometimes, yes, they do negatively affect some people, I agree. But that's the way it is : you can't protect those people (thereby increasing the price of their produced goods, and reducing their quality) because then you act against everyone else, who would benefit from lower prices and better goods, and you can't choose to protect someone's interests, but disregard others. Free trade, overall, makes everyone better off, and lifts people out of poverty at a rate much higher than communism ever did, if it ever did.

Also, labor doesn't make things work more. If you dig a hole for 20 years to find a diamond, the consumer will buy it at the same price as a diamond that was found in 1 day, because value is subjective.

On the cyclical economic crisis, there's a lot I could say, but I feel like it'd be long and kinda off-topic, so I'll just mention that partially yes, partially no, and Marx, if he ever got it (which I think he didn't), got it for the wrong reasons. Also, they aren't necessarily bad. And the claims I made aren't controversial among 90% of the economists. If you have any other point of Marx you'd wish to debate, I'm up to it.

Fascism isn't inherently against those groups either. It is only inherently (key word) against those groups that would harm the state as an organism.
You're arguing against a childish misrepresentation of Fascism as "Bigotry made Political" designed by people with a political interest in the destruction of actual Fascism as an ideology.

>Like I said earlier, act-speech or emotional speech, or speech without the intent of saying the truth doesn't only happen on the far-right, or the right, or the center : it happens all over the political spectrum, and across all individuals. Some may use it more . . .
>This sort of speech gets mixed in everyday dialogue (in the form of memes, inside jokes) . . .
I agree with you that act-speech isn't exclusively a fascist phenomena, but it is particularly prominent among fascists. In fact, most fascists and quasi-fascists use act-speech significantly more than any other rhetorical tool. The result is that their lectures, writings, and other media aren't actually "speech" in the sense that Liberals value (aimed at seeking the truth, open, honest, etc.). Rather, fascist media is a collection of political acts. This is what motivates antifa — they don't see someone engaging in dialog, trying to uncover the truth; they see someone engaging in acts that cause harm.

>Using emotional speech is part of being a human being, and part of religious behaviour, which we are all guilty of.
As I said above, act-speech isn't the problem. It's mostly- or exclusively act-based speech which antifascists view as worth protesting. Again, if some act-speech gets mixed in with some truth-seeking-speech, fine, but if it's the bulk of what you're using, then you aren't actually speaking —you're acting.

>Chanting canticles isn't and shouldn't be illegal because it isn't aimed at truth.
I agree that any anti-speech law is dumb, but I also think any anti-firearms law is dumb. If someone makes a good-faith argument, I think you should make good-faith arguments back. If someone engages in act-speech, then you should act-speak back. If someone shoots at you, you should shoot back. That's the critical distinction: non-escalation. It's about responding appropriately to different kinds of interlocutors. Nobody in antifa wants to make any kind of laws about speech (act- or otherwise) — they want to respond to speech appropriately.

>Not giving Nazis platforms, makes them go underground where they can foster in an aura of victimhood.
If a martyr falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear him, does his lack of a platform cause a political movement?

>You can have some common beliefs, and not be a member of the KKK. If Milo shares one or two points with them, it doesn't mean he's one of them.
This is true. But you have to remember that Milo isn't speaking in good faith. He doesn't always mean what he says, and he doesn't always say what he means. The thing about reparations, for example, is probably ironic, or only deployed to avoid accusations of racism. You can't just analyze the literal content of his speech. You have to look at what it does. Milo's speech doesn't have a focus on truth. It has a focus on provoking a response. It's act-speech, not Liberal truth-seeking speech.

I'll get to your newer posts in a few minutes.

daily reminder

>The classic definition of fascism speaks of totalitarianism, or at least of a degree of control high enough over all strings of government and elements of society that it is totalitarian.
This definition may be "classic," or commonly-used, but that doesn't make it accurate or useful. What PhilTube is describing is specifically the phenomenon that led to totalitarian government in Germany, Italy, and Japan. It's true that there are meaningful differences between these three cases, but they all had an emphasis on family, patriarchy, and preservation of hierarchy. That's why he narrows in on those three things. Totalitarianism is a part of the brew too, and he acknowledges that, but before fascism can become totalitarian, it first has to "catch on," thus the need to attack the more visible elements first.

>And this brings me to my point : by neglecting to mention these elements, and by omitting to clearly use fascism in the common sense of the term and to not explain clearly his own definition of it, he surreptitiously lumps in the what you call "A right-wing political ideology that emphasizes the patriarchal family as the unit of civilization, and seeks to organize those civilizational units to preserve both racial and economic hierarchy" with the horrors of Nazism by using the same word to describe both things, although they are different.
Are they different? If so, I'd hope you'd concede that the first was an important cause of the second. Hitler's rise to power was enabled by his racist/sexist populism, so, if nothing else, quashing racist/sexist populism is a good preventative measure, even if it doesn't make the country 100% fascism-proof.

>Most claims of racism today, I think are either false, or greatly exaggerated.
>This doesn't mean that people's acts are racist, or that a statistically significant portion of them are, or that the majority of people are racist at all, or that only whites are racist, if by that standard they are.
This is another definition problem. PhilTube's basic definition of racism is "stuff that harms minority races disproportionately," so for him, even though there aren't Jim Crow laws on the books or men burning crosses in anyone's back yard, society is still racist because it gives harsher criminal sentences to black men than white men. It's not really an accusation, more of a diagnosis.

>Today, anyone has access to ice and spices, something which back 500 years ago was rare. On top of that, anyone has the internet, kitchen appliances, reliable access to food, heat, etc. All these things make the random New Yorker richer than Richard Lionheart.
I don't know if you can attribute all these things to capitalism —it's more just technological progress. That said, I agree that a less regulated economy is a good thing, and I am a capitalist, so I'm not really gonna push back too much here.

More tidbits about Marx soon.