Why the Right and Left Hate Each Other.
video description
Basically people are remarkably uneducated, illiterate with very little self awareness living mostly in a dreamlike state of negative moods and associations of self interest and self absorption. As expressed in the Christian mythology of Genesis, man in his essence is good but due to natural and man made influences lives in a fallen state and is not meeting his very high potential. Modern politics especially that of the right wing focuses on race and class identity to divide the population and attempt to consolidate power and support through disinformation that the uneducated white working class are too ignorant to see through. Meanwhile these same sources of mass deception while acting like they serve the interests of the working class only serve the interests of the top 1% as they exaggerate and misrepresent the views and policy positions of the left. Basically these think tanks funded by billionaires intentionally create characters of leftists that no one in their right mind would identify with or even like. The results is a dramatically divided population that actually agrees on 70% of the political issues but this is never expressed in the corporate capitalist media system thatd is supposed to be independent. This division, the lies and disinformation are systematically ripping our country apart to prevent the population from uniting and turning against the real threat to our democracy which is corporate power and greed. This corruption and system of social controls will not be discussed in their media or by the politicians they control. Thus slowly the population has been radicalized in hatred for those that are perceived as different and other. This we are seeing the rise of a unique form of far right Christian Fascism that is blindly serving the interest of the billionaires over the interest and wellbeing of the masses of people. The results are mass shootings and a country in the verge of an imaginary revolution the right wing just wish they could come see to act out the outrage at their broken lives caused by these same billionaires, business owners and hand servant management class that are making them broke and ruining their lives with ever rising costs of living and ever lowering wages of workers. This will continue till the economy collapses bc everyday ppl cant afford the things they need let alone the things they want. Its the end of the American Dream meanwhile facing the collapsing trust and usefulness in our institutions. Its a full on corporate takeover moving the US population into a totalitarian state where all people and parties serve the interests of international corporations and their profits. Its mass large scale slavery and all hidden in the thin veneer of democracy. God help us all.
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Cybernetic
Ignoring proportion is the root of all evil.
So much thinking is done in conceptual terms, e. g. Like arguing that invading Normandy is a good idea is conceptually sound but if you only have 5 soldiers then the numbers make it unsound. Proportion is everything.
If someone contends that a certain good comes from an issue related to purity the progressive position is often impossible for the right to comprehend because it's the obtuse position that the two concept placed up against each other have a numerical disproportional influence on society.
So proportion is everything.
E. g. Should there be gun rights? Let's assume one of the several different justifications: That the people need to have the power to rise against an oppressive dictatorship, should the American government ever become so.
This is only ever argued on this conceptual basis. Ignoring proportion.
A proper question here would be What is the numerical amount of effect that gun rights would have towards the goal of preserving a society founded on liberty?
If that numerical amount is pretty large then whoever argues on this particular basis would have a proper debate to bring to the table.
However you could argue that unlike in the 1700s the modern government has so much more military power in terms of missiles, drones, FBI and other organizations, surveillance, etc. etc. etc. that firearms in the hand of average people is a drop in the bucket. Proportionally far less effect than in the 1700s then.
This makes the argument, even from the conservatives own viewpoint, weak, since it's conceptually sound but not numerically or proportionally sound.
Of course the back and forth argument could go on back and forth and I'm not going to take sides as to who would 'win' the debate in the end but that's not the point. The point is that having a debate with someone who isn't aware of the proportion issue about any of the many important topics is like talking to a brick wall.
Every single topic can ask similar questions of whether one side or the other has proportion on it's side.
Does taxing the rich more give better outcomes? Exactly how much? Does lowering tax give better outcomes? Why, numerically?
Unfortunately it's almost impossible to have TV debates or debates before the public that delves deep into who actually has the numbers on their side in a complex society so people have to resort to rhetoric rather than logic. Knowingly or unknowingly.
When we all do political discourse, the positions people hold are usually stated not even acknowledging the existence of proportionality even though it affects every issue.
reply
Ignoring proportion is the root of all evil.
So much thinking is done in conceptual terms, e. g. Like arguing that invading Normandy is a good idea is conceptually sound but if you only have 5 soldiers then the numbers make it unsound. Proportion is everything.
If someone contends that a certain good comes from an issue related to purity the progressive position is often impossible for the right to comprehend because it's the obtuse position that the two concept placed up against each other have a numerical disproportional influence on society.
So proportion is everything.
E. g. Should there be gun rights? Let's assume one of the several different justifications: That the people need to have the power to rise against an oppressive dictatorship, should the American government ever become so.
This is only ever argued on this conceptual basis. Ignoring proportion.
A proper question here would be What is the numerical amount of effect that gun rights would have towards the goal of preserving a society founded on liberty?
If that numerical amount is pretty large then whoever argues on this particular basis would have a proper debate to bring to the table.
However you could argue that unlike in the 1700s the modern government has so much more military power in terms of missiles, drones, FBI and other organizations, surveillance, etc. etc. etc. that firearms in the hand of average people is a drop in the bucket. Proportionally far less effect than in the 1700s then.
This makes the argument, even from the conservatives own viewpoint, weak, since it's conceptually sound but not numerically or proportionally sound.
Of course the back and forth argument could go on back and forth and I'm not going to take sides as to who would 'win' the debate in the end but that's not the point. The point is that having a debate with someone who isn't aware of the proportion issue about any of the many important topics is like talking to a brick wall.
Every single topic can ask similar questions of whether one side or the other has proportion on it's side.
Does taxing the rich more give better outcomes? Exactly how much? Does lowering tax give better outcomes? Why, numerically?
Unfortunately it's almost impossible to have TV debates or debates before the public that delves deep into who actually has the numbers on their side in a complex society so people have to resort to rhetoric rather than logic. Knowingly or unknowingly.
When we all do political discourse, the positions people hold are usually stated not even acknowledging the existence of proportionality even though it affects every issue.
reply
Penguins
I found your analysis thought provoking, and it took a lot of work to put together. but somewhat incomplete.
Western Civilization was built, to a large extent, on Christianity. It is what enabled Europe, despite its constant wars, to be the most powerful force in the world for centuries. Christianity led to higher education, the printing press, scientific advancement and ultimately the spread of representative republics and the end of state supported slavery.
The Left, whose deepest thinker is the disgusting Karl Marx, seeks to destroy it all and replace it with its own concept of Utopia. The Left cannot defend its ideas and goals in the court of public opinion so it works to silence its opponents by any means available.
Concepts such as protecting the environment, improving puublic health, reducing poverty and having increased opportunity should not be the domain of one side or the other, but noble goals worth achieving. It must be understood that there will always be poor people with us and Utopia is beyond man's reach.
Dostoyevsky put it best in The Brothers Karamazov. If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong except for what man decides for himself. Then, mass murder and genocide become acceptable.
This is Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot.
Another thought. It was Progressive Academia who decided, after WWII, that National Socialism is right wing e en though fascism is an offshoot of Communism and they share many of the same goals and methods.
reply
I found your analysis thought provoking, and it took a lot of work to put together. but somewhat incomplete.
Western Civilization was built, to a large extent, on Christianity. It is what enabled Europe, despite its constant wars, to be the most powerful force in the world for centuries. Christianity led to higher education, the printing press, scientific advancement and ultimately the spread of representative republics and the end of state supported slavery.
The Left, whose deepest thinker is the disgusting Karl Marx, seeks to destroy it all and replace it with its own concept of Utopia. The Left cannot defend its ideas and goals in the court of public opinion so it works to silence its opponents by any means available.
Concepts such as protecting the environment, improving puublic health, reducing poverty and having increased opportunity should not be the domain of one side or the other, but noble goals worth achieving. It must be understood that there will always be poor people with us and Utopia is beyond man's reach.
Dostoyevsky put it best in The Brothers Karamazov. If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong except for what man decides for himself. Then, mass murder and genocide become acceptable.
This is Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot.
Another thought. It was Progressive Academia who decided, after WWII, that National Socialism is right wing e en though fascism is an offshoot of Communism and they share many of the same goals and methods.
reply
Aliksander
I've only recently been introduced to your videos and have been enjoying them, and you are certainly a FAR CRY fairer than most creators.
That being said, some of your characterizations of the disagreements between left and right show an obvious left-wing bias. For example, your characterization of the conservative objections to abortion (13: 25) misses the mark of what makes abortion wrong. While there is certainly a feeling on the right that women SHOULD be more encouraged to not look disparagingly upon motherhood and family life, and that both women AND men should consider it a moral good to try to continue humanity through the production of children, the MAIN objection against abortion is the killing of the child. Many conservatives generally see the baby, at ALL stages from conception onwards, as a human life, worthy of dignity and consideration as any human, playing into the 'sanctity/sacredness' pillar you described earlier in the video. Abortion destroys that life unjustly and hence is morally wrong.
This is not the first time I have noticed a mischaracterization of the 'right-leaning' position in your videos. Just food for thought.
reply
I've only recently been introduced to your videos and have been enjoying them, and you are certainly a FAR CRY fairer than most creators.
That being said, some of your characterizations of the disagreements between left and right show an obvious left-wing bias. For example, your characterization of the conservative objections to abortion (13: 25) misses the mark of what makes abortion wrong. While there is certainly a feeling on the right that women SHOULD be more encouraged to not look disparagingly upon motherhood and family life, and that both women AND men should consider it a moral good to try to continue humanity through the production of children, the MAIN objection against abortion is the killing of the child. Many conservatives generally see the baby, at ALL stages from conception onwards, as a human life, worthy of dignity and consideration as any human, playing into the 'sanctity/sacredness' pillar you described earlier in the video. Abortion destroys that life unjustly and hence is morally wrong.
This is not the first time I have noticed a mischaracterization of the 'right-leaning' position in your videos. Just food for thought.
reply
Aiden
upbringing and genetics being the primary factors for ideology does not indicate that all ideology is not a result of ration. take my case for example, my ideology is a direct result of my genetics, but that is because my genetics gave me a hyper logical brain (I break the world down into small parts and use them to build a picture that fully explains the world, thus giving me a far greater understanding of most things than most people. this does not make me better though, it comes with drawbacks: I do not understand emotional behavior, meaning people don't make sense to me, the best I can do is break down their emotional behavior logically to have a cause-effect understanding of it. just to be clear I do have emotions, they just have no effect on how I behave. through my hyper logical understanding of the world, I have come to some objectively best beliefs politically, as well as a detailed understanding of both sides, resulting in me favoring the republicans much more than the authoritarian democrats.
my genetics gave me a more logical understanding of the world which in turn gave me more objective political beliefs.
reply
upbringing and genetics being the primary factors for ideology does not indicate that all ideology is not a result of ration. take my case for example, my ideology is a direct result of my genetics, but that is because my genetics gave me a hyper logical brain (I break the world down into small parts and use them to build a picture that fully explains the world, thus giving me a far greater understanding of most things than most people. this does not make me better though, it comes with drawbacks: I do not understand emotional behavior, meaning people don't make sense to me, the best I can do is break down their emotional behavior logically to have a cause-effect understanding of it. just to be clear I do have emotions, they just have no effect on how I behave. through my hyper logical understanding of the world, I have come to some objectively best beliefs politically, as well as a detailed understanding of both sides, resulting in me favoring the republicans much more than the authoritarian democrats.
my genetics gave me a more logical understanding of the world which in turn gave me more objective political beliefs.
reply
Buffaloaf
There are a lot of points that i agree with on both right and the left. However, both are terrifying. I find the idea of perfecting yourself in anyway shape or form nonsensical and insane, No one can or will ever do that and if they claim they are perfect and smarter than everyone else its probably a good idea not to listen to them. Also the whole college degree thing in my mind is silly, you discount half the population because they didn't purchase an education? What if I tried college it wasn't for me, I went to be mechanic why does that disqualify me from having social respect and holding office. Your social justice discredits itself when you prejudge me for not being as smart as you. On the right i disagree with women just being here for having kids and being a house wife. I wanna raise my kids too, i want my wife to do what she wants in life I don't think legalizing abortion will make her not want have kids or be a mother. I don't really see the left as being evil, but i see humans as being naturally violent and leaning towards the selfish, violent, greedy and we do have to try to be selfless.
reply
There are a lot of points that i agree with on both right and the left. However, both are terrifying. I find the idea of perfecting yourself in anyway shape or form nonsensical and insane, No one can or will ever do that and if they claim they are perfect and smarter than everyone else its probably a good idea not to listen to them. Also the whole college degree thing in my mind is silly, you discount half the population because they didn't purchase an education? What if I tried college it wasn't for me, I went to be mechanic why does that disqualify me from having social respect and holding office. Your social justice discredits itself when you prejudge me for not being as smart as you. On the right i disagree with women just being here for having kids and being a house wife. I wanna raise my kids too, i want my wife to do what she wants in life I don't think legalizing abortion will make her not want have kids or be a mother. I don't really see the left as being evil, but i see humans as being naturally violent and leaning towards the selfish, violent, greedy and we do have to try to be selfless.
reply
Douglas
We like digital displays as opposed to analog displays even though they're less accurate because it's easier to think of things as yes or no. left or right, on or off. the truth is analog displays are more accurate because reality exists as a continuum of potential. Not as a binary interpretation. Most of us live our lives selecting our beliefs on what we consider to be their individual merits, influenced by our own experiences. We may be conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Rationalizing any discrepancies with our own internal logic. It's never as easy as saying a liberal is x or a conservative is y. the problem is we think of others as absolutes. Most of us live in that gray area in-between that no one ever wants to acknowledge.
reply
We like digital displays as opposed to analog displays even though they're less accurate because it's easier to think of things as yes or no. left or right, on or off. the truth is analog displays are more accurate because reality exists as a continuum of potential. Not as a binary interpretation. Most of us live our lives selecting our beliefs on what we consider to be their individual merits, influenced by our own experiences. We may be conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Rationalizing any discrepancies with our own internal logic. It's never as easy as saying a liberal is x or a conservative is y. the problem is we think of others as absolutes. Most of us live in that gray area in-between that no one ever wants to acknowledge.
reply
Kathleen
When people talk about income inequality they arent saying everyone should make the same. The concern is wages have stayed stagnant since the 1970s and not kept pace with increased cost of living. This is eviscerating the U. S. middle class and they have increasingly slipped into being closer to working poor than what we think of as middle class. Most people dont really want a lot of expensive stuff. They want decent housing, reliable utilities, transportation, healthcare, and a general ability to pay for these and other basic necessities as long as they work a full-time job. The elites in this country have been squeezing the American middle class for decades and it makes their lives severely stressful and precarious.
reply
When people talk about income inequality they arent saying everyone should make the same. The concern is wages have stayed stagnant since the 1970s and not kept pace with increased cost of living. This is eviscerating the U. S. middle class and they have increasingly slipped into being closer to working poor than what we think of as middle class. Most people dont really want a lot of expensive stuff. They want decent housing, reliable utilities, transportation, healthcare, and a general ability to pay for these and other basic necessities as long as they work a full-time job. The elites in this country have been squeezing the American middle class for decades and it makes their lives severely stressful and precarious.
reply
Hoi-Polloi
I'd say the hatred comes from several irreconcilable differences. In the US, Liberals tend to believe:
1 Society can and should be actively engineered
2 The government should be strong (to facilitate #1)
3 Western civilization due to its historical behaviors is bad and should be replaced
4 Due to #3, mass immigration should be sponsored
Conservatives tend to believe:
1 Society should evolve organically, and above all slowly
2 The government should be weak
3 Western civilization is a good thing and should be maintained
4 Due to #3, immigration should be limited to rates which allow successful assimilation of immigrants
These are pretty core differences, and hard to reconcile.
reply
I'd say the hatred comes from several irreconcilable differences. In the US, Liberals tend to believe:
1 Society can and should be actively engineered
2 The government should be strong (to facilitate #1)
3 Western civilization due to its historical behaviors is bad and should be replaced
4 Due to #3, mass immigration should be sponsored
Conservatives tend to believe:
1 Society should evolve organically, and above all slowly
2 The government should be weak
3 Western civilization is a good thing and should be maintained
4 Due to #3, immigration should be limited to rates which allow successful assimilation of immigrants
These are pretty core differences, and hard to reconcile.
reply
education
Anonymous Native American said: What if I told you the Left wing, and the Right wing, were part of the same bird?
It is something of a Coke vs Pepsi thing, you know Americans all believe in the exact same Constitution which is a relatively lengthy operating manual, though they dicker on the details of interpretation of a few of the Amendments. These are milked to the extreme by politicians from the two parties trying to use them to gain advantage over the other.
Anonymous American #2 also said, Only in our country are there 50 choices for Miss America, but we're happy forever only having 2 for the top position to run the whole government. These anonymous folks are righter than we care to believe.
reply
Anonymous Native American said: What if I told you the Left wing, and the Right wing, were part of the same bird?
It is something of a Coke vs Pepsi thing, you know Americans all believe in the exact same Constitution which is a relatively lengthy operating manual, though they dicker on the details of interpretation of a few of the Amendments. These are milked to the extreme by politicians from the two parties trying to use them to gain advantage over the other.
Anonymous American #2 also said, Only in our country are there 50 choices for Miss America, but we're happy forever only having 2 for the top position to run the whole government. These anonymous folks are righter than we care to believe.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
