Individualism v. Individuality (VERY IMPORTANT DOCS №10)

Individualism v. Individuality (VERY IMPORTANT DOCS №10)

Show Video

Look, at history everything. We have every, great achievement has. Come from the independent. Work of some independent, mind, the, individual. Against the collective. Our. Country, the, noblest country in the history of men was based on the principle of individualism, well. Hey what's up. We. Are, bored. We're, cyborgs. From the Delta Quadrant buddy. No. Single, individual. Exist, within the Borg collective. But. With. The exception, of the, Borg Queen oh. You. Guys let's. Go swimming one, you have here no oh I, kind of decided I look better with hair so fork and happier no you. Could. Have said something I don't have to if I don't want to. Right. Otherwise. All, Borg, are linked into a hive mind our, ultimate, goal is the forcible. Assimilation. Of sentient, species all, the technologies. And knowledge. Buddy. But. All. That shit is bad right, I totally. Get why you don't want to be a part of it right and then. You, believe it individualism. Bro gem and or all and that's, the exact opposite, of this right. Right. Right. What. Is. Individualism. Well, through the years it's been conflated, with individuality. Which, is the acknowledgment that we are individuals, with our own wants, needs and, tastes. Individualism. Sounds, very much like it could be that but. Here's the thing it's. Not the. Individualism. Is an ideology. You, could take it as philosophy, as a moral, stance or just, an outlook, on life at the center of individualism. Is, you. Might be able to guess this one, the. Individual. Individualism. Holds, the individual, as the highest moral or intellectual, authority, in society, the interests, of the individual, should always take, precedence and, actions, taken by society. Or its institutions. Are regarded, as interference. That, boy claimed do you think you could do the collective, a favor no. My god I just got a new game on my phone and it gets me, individualism. Is often, defined as the opposite, of totalitarianism. Which is also oftentimes, conflated. With collectivism. Collectivism. Itself, is often missed defined as well used in reference to collective, characterizations. Of certain, groups for instance black. Lives matter is often collectively, described, as some, kind of terrorist organization. And they reject, that and rightfully. So they're. Protesting, police brutality, and violence which, is the, right thing to do ba. This. Collective. Ascription. Of means and motive happens. Externally. And not, by the choice of the group in question again, that's not collectivism, that, being said BLM, is actually, a kind of collectivism, because, it is attempting, to look out for the rights of black people, collectivism. Focuses. On societal, interests, it, prioritizes, the greater good now, that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as an individual, and collectivism. But that's individuality. Not. Individualism. But. We're. All unequal, no. One thank heavens, is quite like anyone, else however much the socialists may pretend otherwise and, we.

Believe That everyone, has the right to be unequal, that right there is an example of how individualism. And individuality, have, been conflated over, the years it's, actually fairly brilliant, what it does I mean total, trash but brilliant, trash it, takes the idea of inequality. And redefines. It as referring. Specifically. To what makes you unique as an individual. This actually, stigmatizes. The idea of equality, around here we don't flaunt, our special, talents because we, don't have any special talents, to flaunt is. That why you all have those cutie marks it, makes it sound like something that's going to end with you in a jumpsuit eating, beans in a 4x4 room, right next to the other seven. Billion. 4x4. Room's containing. A person in a jumpsuit eating beans and we're meant to believe that collectivism, causes, that after all China, is super, communist, and communism, is collectivism, right you know with their stock market, in their private industry. They're. Different classes. They're. Businessmen, let, their private jets and their factories. That exploit, the labor of its citizens, who literally don't make enough money to have a place to live so they, live in the factories, in dormitories. Which are small 4x4 rooms where, they eat beans, in jumpsuits, that's, communism, right. Well, actually what I described, to you is capitalism, with a little bit of feudalism mixed in but hey they call it communism, so it's collectivism, and that means it's bad now, if the individual. Is the ultimate, moral authority, than, the individual, is where the buck stops this. Is about individual, responsibility. Which you don't have enough of collective, Oh get. Off our ass, no. You get off your ass time to hike up those bootstraps, when I got started I only had a small loan of a million dollars and, I'm not talking about like keeping your house clean and paying your rent I'm not talking about your culpability, in a crime I'm talking, about your, situation. Individual. Responsibility. Is the idea that your situation is, 100. Percent entirely, of your own doing if you've done well in the world, because you've worked hard, and did a good job and no systemic consideration. Should be made such as your privileges, and he inherited wealth or lack thereof, etc, etc you, did it we, aspire. To be, like you, that's. Why we want to absorb you. Number. With the boy this is just. A shitty costume, or boy remember. His. Board now the trade-off of there being no systemic, factors in your successes, is that your failures, are also entirely. Your. Fault if you don't succeed you didn't try hard enough you didn't work hard enough you didn't bother to become educated, in fact it's your fault that you haven't seen all of the information despite. The fact there is no reliable guarantee, you'll ever get exposed, to that information, and there's also no guarantee that when given a choice you will be given a good choice, you may never be exposed, to a good option, and you'll be blamed for it because, you're ignorant and being, ignorant is a GREs, of, misdeed, in the world of individual. Responsibility how, dare you sounds, about right to me you leeches, we. Serve you we do your work so, what I innovate. In. 2017. Two psychologists. By the name of Nicole Stevens and Sara Townsend, published a research paper on how people feel about individualism. As influenced. By their social class their, research indicates, that people from working class backgrounds. Tend to understand, themselves as interdependent. With and highly connected to others in situations. Where there is no economic safety, net to fall back on values, such as solidarity. Humility. And loyalty, end up taking precedence within, their lives this, is different than with people of middle and upper-class backgrounds. Who tend to understand, themselves as independent. And separate, from others parents, teach kids the importance of cultivating their personal preferences, needs, and interests, common, sayings include the world is your oyster and, your voice matters, values. Such as uniqueness. Self-expression. And influence. Take precedence, and I don't know about you, but we the, Borg we're, really poor growing up you, gross. Speak, for yourself you nasty ass hive mind I've never been poor get a job and take a loser. I. Was. Kinda a, necessarily. Hostile. In the United States individualism. Is looked at as an ideal, self-reliance.

Is Next to godliness, individualism. Is one of the ideas that feeds into American, exceptionalism. An idea, that holds the United States in a unique place among nations to, Americans, in a positive, way to other, people throughout the world not necessarily, so although the actual technical definition. Of American exceptionalism is, just that it's different in the United States of America, exceptional. Is more often used as a means to say very. Good different. But above, different. With a positive, connotation. Superior. Because, different this, national, ideal, both feeds and is fed by individualism. And if you're an individualist, by gosh by golly you're one of the good ones according, to a man an individualist. Is a man who lives for his own sake and by his own mind he neither sacrifices. Himself to, others nor sacrificing. Others to himself he, deals with men as a producer, ain't, ran tended to hold production, as an incredibly, individualist. Trait and if you aren't producing, something to ain't rand you're a parasite of some kind like a tick not. Like the, tick like. A. Tick. See. Parasites. So. Would you like to clean the board toilets. Yeah. Didn't. Think so these. Amazing. Producers, take their product to market but, a market, isn't just merchants, customers, have to exist and the customer, is always right, individualism. Makes, that phrase pretty, fucked up people, like to negatively, associate. Participation. Trophies, with collectivism, or equality coaches, a patient's. Forever. But. Tell me something are all those people sharing, one trophy, did, the collective, achieve, a goal and collectively, receive, a reward is, that. One, trophy, for many no. It's. One trophy, per. Individual. A participation. Trophy is the customer, is always right. The event stops being about competition. And starts being about the individual, and their validation not. That competition, is the most healthy thing in the world but it's, the thing that sports, are usually, stated to be about a, participation. Trophy is the individual. And their parents, consuming. The event the, event is a product. It, is an experience, and, it, is the means to monetize. All, the, individuals. And their parents. Validation. If you want to criticize participation. Trophies talk about the commodification, of, experience, and realize, that it is capitalism. And, individualism. The event organiser, buys the trophies, and money, is made it's, bullshit. And it's, not left-wing, bullshit, in, neoliberal, capitalism, the system that the United States of America, runs on everything. Is a market, everything. Is meant to be seen as a transaction, meaning. You're always the customer meaning. You're. Always right and therefore. Always, acting, in quote/unquote rational. Self-interest. Which the gist of is that actions, can only be rational or, logical if. They act in the interest, of the individual, performing, them which sounds pretty good actually until, you consider that it was contextually. Used to criticize the idea of altruism, which is kind of like would--we the, collective, do you. Know work. In benefit, of others, without expecting, anything. In, return. Nice. Passive aggression you. Know what do that be. Happy it's not a labor strike it, was all part of a book in Rand authored, called the virtue of selfishness in the book she holds rationality. Is society's, highest virtue but it also diluted, the idea of rationality, by defining it as only, working in the interest of yourself, it's, actually pretty shitty if you ask man if you agree with this standpoint, it is irrational to help people I mean, unless you can get something out of it which nobody, who wants to be considered credible, would say yeah that's, a good way to do things you know it doesn't matter if they mean that or not it means that that is not something somebody would want to be known as having said selfishness.

Does, Not benefit. The many it doesn't, even benefit, the few it benefits. The individual. It. Is not good as a societal. Virtue in fact it is quite the opposite, and yet we have a system, that rewards it, if you're not acting, in your own rational, self-interest, if you are not putting yourself before, other people you. Often can't get anywhere so, from the perspective of getting anywhere, in capitalism, greed, is good however perspective. Is a very individual. Thing, and when I say individual. I don't mean individualist. I mean. By, nature, every, single person's, perspective is slightly, different our perception. Of the world is the result of our ocular, nerves transmitting. Data to our brain which is interpreted, and formed into an image that, system, in of itself is imperfect, lots of people see a blurrier, version, of reality whereas many, others see, it without certain, colors and that's, biological. Difference in perspective, there's also sociological. Difference in perspective, whereas, someone from a poor background may, not see the benefit in pure unchecked. Greed Scrooge, McDuck has, already, received it I mean, do you know what's swimming around in a pool of gold coins is like because. I do not between. Biological and, sociological differences. In perspective we have to acknowledge that people. See things differently, and this, isn't a comfortable, thought but this, is why there's no such thing as objective, reality, oh so. You're delusional postmodern. Fools who, think words mean whatever you want at the time that gender is a social construct and. You can believe your own personal, truth it's, all about you and what you want. The. Wouldn't. That, be, what an individualist. Was of. Course not all of that is degenerate, horseshit, it's, not about what other individuals. Want it's, about what I want. Yes. There is most certainly, a universal. Commonality. Outside. Of human perception, the, universe, is as it is whether we are here or not, however, truth is a concept, invented by humanity, just as facts, are and all other, words not, only is our perception, of reality colored, by our own person effective our recollection, of reality, our memory, the, way that we retain a grip on reality is.

Astoundingly. Imperfect. As well memory, is not stored in ones and zeros like, a computer, it is not definite, and nor, is the person with the most photographic. Memory in existence, perfect. Memory, is analog, and in flux it is fluid and in every way unlike, how computers, store data it's also not persistent, the ink on the pages of a book doesn't, change every time you read it memory. Does keep, in mind this is a simplification, this, ain't no brain class the takeaway, is that not only is perception, imperfect. But your ability to go back to that perception, is, imperfect. This, is why your, perception. Of facts. And reality, cannot. Be called, objective. Because, it's not this. Was a typical assertion. Of postmodern, philosophers. For instance Michel Foucault, however. The damn French say it presented. His ideas, and theories, on modernism. As a critical, history of he, didn't like being called a post modernist one bit but the, critique of modernism. Is, basically. Post modernism, now this is simplifying, but modernism. Presented, an objective, truth an objective reality and perspective. Kind, of makes that impossible this, idea advocates, acknowledgment, for the historical, and cultural construction. Of the concepts, that we power our societies, on but, also advocates, for ongoing criticism. To continue, in normal people terms this means being, skeptical of everything, but only if you understand, all of the historical, and cultural context. As well as its implications, so basically like YouTube, skeptics, but with, information. All of the information and. Acknowledgement. Of culture, and in, truth pretty much every, postmodern. Philosopher. Has something, different to say but ultimately. It's rejection, of empiricism, and objective reality, with the understanding, that human perspective makes, that impossible in. Perhaps, the most amazing, feat of irony ever, objectivism. Ain Rand's philosophy a. Philosophy that. Has guided some of the primary economic actors, of modern society, including alan greenspan also. Understands, this one, of the central tenets of objective, is that reality exists, totally independent, of human consciousness human, beings only have contact. With reality through, perception, which. I think is pretty correct, actually however, where post-modernism. Uses, this to frame critique, of human, perception. Objectivism. Asserts that you can attain objective. Knowledge through, perception. And the application. Of inductive. Logic this, is effectively, self aggrandizement of. The human race at, least in my opinion objective. Knowledge would require humanity's. Imperfections. To not be a factor, through, evidence, and standardized. Process. That acknowledges, evidence, skeptically. Of course applying. Scrutiny, when necessary we. Can create collective. Reality, but that requires, more than one person's, perception. Not, just perception, of an event or object, but their perception, of the evidence, regarding, it the more people who understand, the historical, and cultural implications, and, context, of these things the, more likely, our collective, reality is to be accurate.

Which By the way, accuracy. Is another, human concept, it, does not mean, perfect. Perfect. Is, impossible. So keeping all of this in mind what. Does an individual. Do when they believe themselves to be the highest moral, and intellectual, authority, in society, do they apply scrutiny. To the thoughts that they have upon, acknowledgement, of evidence, or, do. We simply view our thoughts as, correct. In several. Previous very, important documentaries. I talked, about the underlying need for validation that, we all have not, only is it important, for our own comfort, to be right about things but it is also important, for us to get and retain, employment, the, more like an expert, we appear to others the better and the, more like an expert we appear to ourselves the, easier, it is to appear, as such to others through, this and the lack of acknowledgement, that objectivity, is impossible, for the human race we've, managed, to conflate opinion, with fact and taste. With. Merit a person's. Viability, within, a system they must compete in order to exist, is almost, entirely, dependent on merit. And I promise, you that merit means different, things to. Different people so, does. The collective, even need, to ask your ideas on merit Queen well. None of your arguments, have any I choose, to ignore them, yeah. It sounds sounds about right when. The individual. Is the highest authority then. Agency. Is the highest, ideal and, when, agency, is the highest, ideal the, rights of the people are not. Having. No choice is no fun that's, why at Wendy's every, hand order isn't dressed the same you'll, get your choice the right to choose has not the right to any specific, choices at least, not in a system that seems to need loopholes, to exist, for, instance abortion. Unless, the very specific, right to get an abortion is both guaranteed, and delivered, on the. Right to choose doesn't, really matter and this, is how individualism. Functions. As a means of control, to. Force the will of institution. Whether public or private upon, an individual, is viewed, as an infringement on one's right to choose but. To control the environment to, ensure that any choice that could be made feeds, into the various agendas, of those with power allows, the individual, to retain agency. To, ensure that individuals. Believe, that that's all they require in, order to be truly free, then, all you really need is for, people to accept individualism. A man, that you may not have heard of but a man that has had a deep lasting, effect, on you, and everyone.

You Know is, a man named Edward Bernays, he. Was born November 22nd. 1891. And lived 103. Years he. Was Sigmund Freud's nephew we. Won't go too deeply, into Sigmund Freud on account well most of his work was bupkis, though on an essential, level Freud was incorrect, he had ideas that led Bernays to create highly effective, marketing, theory that worked, when applied practically, in, not just marketing, theory though he did start specifically. In the realm of marketing, he wrote the book on propaganda. And no I am NOT using that as a figure, of speech he. Wrote a book entitled, propaganda. That is essentially, how, to propaganda. Step. One don't. Call it propaganda, call. The stuff that the bad guys do propaganda, we, do public, relations here. Thanks. Among. His ideas, were attaching, a product, to a person's, inner self, including. Their desires and preferences, or what, you and I today might call identity. Character. Interesting. Characters. Always. The same the same hats, the same coat I'm, sure all of you were interesting. And have wonderful things about you, they're, looking at you in the street. You. All look so much, the same and. That's why I'm talking to you about the psychology. Of dress try. And express, yourselves, better, in your dress, he's. The originator, of the idea that, consumption, was an expression, of the inner self despite. Not personally, believing, it instead, using it to help create a controllable. Populace. As it, turns out some affords other ideas, such as everyone, holding dark internal, desires that they have no choice but to act upon and less redirected. In some way led Bernays to believe that the theories he created, should be used to control the populace, as, Bernays, put it in his a famous. Book of his called propaganda. Late. 1920s. Anything he. Said that we have learned that, the. Intelligent, minorities. Can. Engineer. Consent, through. The use of. Manipulation. Propaganda. And control. And we, should do it for the benefit of the public it's. For the benefit of the public that we should control. Them an engineer, their consent, because, the public, should. Not be participants. In the democratic process. They should be spectators, not, participants. They. Are ignorant. And meddlesome, outsiders. As he put it and for, their own benefit. We, the, intelligent. Minority the, responsible, men must. Control, them Bernays, believed that the masses, were unable to be informed. And rational actors. And thusly. Needed, to be controlled he, believed the best way to do this was to create atmosphere. Or what I have talked about as controlling. The environment coupled, with the idea that consumption. Was expression, of the self this, makes purchasing. Or whatever kind of consumption, we're talking, about and I say that because consumption. Can mean a pretty wide range of things it makes consumption, into a validating. Action, and that, validation, being, the ultimate means, of control, in a society where people resist, all attempts, at control, it sounds. Outside, the realm of possible. Except, it's not just possible it's, what we live in Edward, Bernays was not called the father of public. Relations for no reason, in fact the more that you believe you are above it that it is impossible, for it to happen to you they, pretty validated. Sounding, position, to take the, more likely that it is already, happening to you well. This, sounds a, lot. Like what people say collectivism, results, in quaint but. Aren't, you kind of just co-opting. The fact that people are all different just, to make the boogeyman out, of equality. Solidarity. And, cooperation, hell. Isn't, the board collected itself is a work of pop culture, at least partly. Working, to stoke fears of that very bogeyman, I mean, wouldn't. You say that, it all feeds into an ideology, the lies about choice, to minimize. Resistance, to control. We're. All individuals, but. There's a difference between being a, unique individual. And, individualism. No, shit we're all different no, shit we all want and need different things. Individualism. Is not the acknowledgement, or encouragement, of any of this it's, the co-option, of it it, uses, the fact that you are well, you.

As A form. Of justification. For every systemic, injustice you. Experience. It's, your, fault, because you didn't. Try hard enough never, mind the hurdles you just. Didn't jump high enough it, also places you, at the center of the universe making. You the highest moral authority, and the arbiter, of your, own personal, truth it's not post-modernism. That encourages, individuals, to define reality for, themselves, it's individualism. Post-modernism. And other forms, of skepticism. Our acknowledgement. That human perception, is flawed and the things should not be immediately, accepted, at face value if, you, were perpetually, correct about all things you wouldn't really need to learn, individualism. Makes you feel as though this is the way of the world your, decisions, are always right so when presented, with choices you, always pick the right one and if you are the ultimate authority in what's real and your agency, is the highest, ideal then. It's just a matter of ensuring that every, option is profitable, either economically. Or socially speaking. The, easiest, way to do this is to limit choice to a binary but, capitalism, can make it seem as though you have too many choices as, well either, way by, co-opting or, prefabricating. The options available to, people and ones agency, is affected, you are free to choose whatever. You want. Looking. For you you're. Being chased by the Empire. And it's super dizzying. Brah I know I, know, but. You got to remember it's not just you it's us, we. Could. Do amazing things together brah. But, more importantly, we. Can be here for each other you can. Be stopped. But, we we. Can get by with a, little help our. Friends. What, would. You do em for saying. Attitude. Would. You stand up and walk out on me. Let. Me. Your ears, and, now sing. You a song oh I. Will. Try not to, say Aniki.

2017-12-01 05:27

Show Video


Outstanding video. Under capitalism an individual has the "freedom" to choose between the choices the individuals at the summit of society present them, and the injustices of a capitalist world can be assigned to "individual ineptitude" to maintain an attitude of obedience. It's so easy to apply to everyday examples. You have the "freedom" to watch any TV you want... so long as you pay one of five megacorporations a hefty subscription you like. You'll need to order that through the internet, which you're paying one out of a few ISPs for. Of course you need a house to do that, and you're free to move wherever you like but moving out of your area is expensive and you barely make much as it is, because your employment options are limited to one market dominated by subbranches of the same TNC paying barely liveable wages! And you have a decaying mismanaged transportation system, corrupt and cynical healthcare, horrific food quality that is all you can afford and the thinning job market as automation sets in... all of which you are free to engage and interact in! Truly, the American dream. End capitalism to free the individual!

Owen Macdonald Hey it's you guy

You're awesome, Owen. Thank you!

Haha oh god this needs more then 1 viewing to understand

12:12 Content Warning: Sargon then PragerU. Skip ahead: 12:33.

This is the first video of yours I've seen and I love the character of the Borg Bruh. He's great. Why do I get the feeling that he was a one off and I'll be sad that he doesn't show up again? Still, great stuff. :)

I'll probably have to watch this a few times to get my little head around all this, but this is awesome.


Contra/Jim Sterling cameo. Nice.

I've never watched My Little Pony. How is it right wing propaganda? Or was that just a joke? Someone please enlighten me

Great video! I've found that most individualists ironically have a problem acknowledging individual choices and lifestyles that challenge mainstream society`s arbitrary definition of "normal"(Case In Point:Stefan Molyneux,RockingMrE and Scotty M`s racism and blocking of dissenting views from their free market utopianism,Ayn Rand`s homophobia,racism and ableism despite claiming to be a freethinking rationalist atheist and not to mention all the insults I get from the "Rational Skeptic" community for being a feminist and a High-Functioning Aspie.)

Thank god, Thatcher and Ayn Rand are dead.

Dam hon, you can SING :o


This video would have been really fucking great, and then Contra popped in, making it really really fucking great, well done!! ❤️

And CHOMSKY.... ❤️❤️

15:53 Why did you use a picture of Jacques Derrida (a different French postmodernist) when talking about Michel Foucault? And why did you misspell Foucault's name (Foucalt)? Was this a joke I didn't understand or a mistake?

I put Derrida's photo on screen instead of other philosophers. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last.

Am I really the only person who noticed this? I don't see any other comments about this.

The documentary was outstanding and enjoyable with well structured narrative and factual information. The sketches in between not so much, broke "immersion" for weak and sometimes cringy humour/references (even if that was the purpose all along). Just my individual (hah) opinion. Keep up the good work!

Instant thumbs up for Contrapoints.

So mutch for the colectivist individuality of capitalism that catter to people as costumers and not as uniques, hella spooky capitalism

"[the individual does] not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself" Isn't this completely incompatible with capitalism, or in fact with any competitive scenario? This is not moral judgment from part, I'm just talking semantics here: you can't have two runners in first place!

I think they would justify it by saying that their exploitation of the working class is actually them cooperating with this other person by giving them a job that they need done. So the worker is pursuing their self interest by getting a job and the capitalist is pursuing their self interest by getting someone to do the job they need done. So no one is sacrificing themselves for anyone in this supposed "free exchange" . Still utter tripe but that's the logic.

Yes, I'm glad you picked up on that. Ayn is full of shit.

I knew this was gonna be an episode on individualism when I saw the Borg cosplay on your Twitter

I like the way you say Buddaaaaaaaay Also do you mean

Peter ilu so much but do you think you could change something about the mid roll ads? I jumped out of my skin at least thrice throughout the video already because I was suddenly yelled at with an Irish drinking song.

why horses

This right here is the good shit.

holy fuck nattaaayyyy those voice lessons are paying off

Who's the guy at 10:07 ? He looks really familiar

Angus Fraser It's Jim Sterling in a French aristocracy getup xD

Man, that's some great Waterworld cosplay. Dennis Hopper was never so well represented.

"nothing holds value" says the guy who puts value in not holding any values. Postmodernism is a joke.

It's only a joke for people who spin quotes out of nowhere to jerk themselves off with.

Shit, I jumped ahead to see if he's actually bald and I got spoiled on Natalie being in the video. Oh well, I hope this means Peter's videos will actually get views from now on.

love love love love this collab

Why is rejecting objective reality necessary for post-modernism? I'm on board with everything else, but this has always been the one thing I've never been able to accept. Just because we can at best approximate objective reality with our imperfect perception doesn't mean there isn't one. My cultural anthropology class was basically "post modernism 101" and the professor said he didn't like the word "reality" because of this feature of post modernism. When I pushed him on why we can't still use the concept while acknowledging our experiences are subjective (both during the class discussion and when I talked to him personally afterwords) he didn't have an answer for me. Was still one of the most enlightening classes I've ever taken, though. Maybe it's just because I've done a mix of "hard" and "soft" science education, but I feel like this just unnecessarily makes the language used by different fields of study incompatible even if they are perfectly capable of agreeing with each other ideologically.

Jazz McGee is right, I did misread. That said, my critique still stands even if it doesn't directly apply to Peter's statement. "Evidence-based collective reality" is basically the definition of science. I have met postmodernists in my academic experience that interpreted the rejection of objective reality to mean "science is just another subjective point of view" and at least one that pushed that further to "and isn't to be trusted because of it." On the other end of the spectrum, I've met "hard" science people that reject postmodernism offhand because they see the rejection of objective reality and empiricism as a direct attack on the foundation of science, also throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Really it's just the ghosts of the science wars still battling on. I see no reason the two ideologies couldn't be synthesized once you get past the arguments over semantics. I mostly call out postmodernism on this because I have noticed a lot of arguments around it are tangled around the difference between the specific academic definition used within postmodernism versus how the term is used more generally. Case and point, differentiating between universalism and objective reality in the discussion here.

I think you misread that last line. He means "we" as society at large, not "we" as the left. He is proposing a greater focus on evidence based collective reality, not that we shouldn't take it seriously.

That last line is really the crux of the issue. Whether you intend it to or not, that last line in this context reads as "Science isn't to be taken seriously." That's really my fear, the anti-science undertones (or overt anti-science sentiments) that have been present in the postmodern rhetoric I've been exposed to. I'm worried about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I mean, I understand why this line of thinking exists. There has undeniably been a lot of wrong done in the name of science, and there are contemporary, real world discussions happening where it's useful, e.g: race realists and their beloved IQ statistics. Criticism of science is healthy, and in my view a necessary part of the scientific process. The problem, at least from a rhetorical view, is that it reads like the build up to a punchline wherein the postmodernist gets to shrug off all evidence based arguments against them. Don't get me wrong, I'm mostly on board with Fully Automated Gay Space Communism, I just feel like the biggest risk is it getting corrupted into de facto authoritarianism during the transition stage. Being able to cherry pick evidence is a very useful tool in an authoritarian's toolbox. Rejecting empiricism can be "Fake News" rhetoric by a different name when abused in the right context. Of course, I think a lot of this comes down to the language used. In my experience people who really believe in science and deep dive into the philosophy behind it understand science =/= truth.

It's not that there isn't universalism outside of human preception. It's that reality is a human concept, so is universalism. All of these things are preception, and perception can't be objective, it can only be corroborated. While we can absolutely come up with something accurate by working on that, it's not universal. It's collective. In fact any societally-accepted "reality" is collective. Humans can be wrong about reality on a mass level. See the supernatural. Evidence-based collective reality is a job that we don't take seriously.

Curious why you used a picture of Bowie next to individualism

He's often described as an individualist. The image was taken from a book called "The Radical Individualism of Bowie," though I'd argue he was more about individuality and not for a specific dogma or ideology. Honestly I used him because I like doing things that make people ask questions and think.

We love you, Contra! :D

I was an objetivist for about a year in 2010 and the problem of it is overcoming the animal nature of being a human, it's a perfect philosophy for the misanthropic or psychopathic. But my failing is I have empathy and my animal need for love and companionship it's oddly the same reason Judge Dredd was Cloned in the Comic, Batman too is a crusader using the same logic of Objectivism in the name of justice.

15:53 But isn't that Derrida?

Yes! Ha, good, I'm not the only one who noticed :)

Wow, Contrapoints AND Jim Sterling?  That's way too much sexy for one video.


PragerU... basically the reverse Buzzfeed >.

Oh, that JIM STERLING, SON! I wonder if he's seen this yet?

Well, he watches Contra's videos, so he's just one step away. Also, I'm pretty sure he's got plenty of this rattling around in his head already :P

I'm trying to bait him into watching it, I'd love this shit rattling around in his head.

No. No. You grow your god damned hair back right now. NOW! Hold your breath until it pops out!

Awesome! Lol nice cameo from Contra too ^_^ I hope these documentaries never stop. Keep up the good work, Peter.

A wild Contra appears! Contra uses Sploosh. It's super effective!

You had me hooked with that 10/10 Pauly Shore impersonation.

BlissfulMelancholy I liked it and then it got grating really quick...much like Pauly Shores' I suppose it was a good impersonation

uphold marxism-leninism-coffinism!

Quality Joe Cocker impression.

You do important work Peter!

ha! that contra cameo was funny ... but i'm still mad at her for the last video she made where her inner centrist was showing :/

Espurr she has been admittingly, very flip floppy lately. Im starting to wory she'll jump to bourgeois liberalism if class struggle starts ramping up

Borg bro. Brorg?

Got to love Ayn Rand. Her philosophy, I’m rational and the government is innately evil and I’m antiauthoritarian. Her life, died lung cancer after ingoing the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer because the research was funded by the government, lived the end of her life on welfare, was ok with the US government crushing Native Americans and gave evidence at the House Un-American Activities Committee so the US government could persecute people for possibility of having the “wrong” political option.

Am I the only one who thinks it gets very annoying when you talk "funny"? It's already grating in your other videos, but here I'm just 2:24 in and I'm about to throw a can of pickled herrings at my monitor...

I think that's supposed to be the point....I HOPE that's the point...

Borg Peter is best Peter

It's pronounced Michael Fucko, also,that guy in the front at 15:56 is Derrida.

+JohnnyTheWolf I know, I'm joking

Is this the "This is not Derrida (a pipe)" idea? The interpretation of text and blah blah blah...

Also I'm never going to stop putting Derrida up for other people.

No, Peter's pronounciation is fairly accurate. Of course, it does not sound very natural, but that is to be expected for a non-native speaker.


Holy shit Peter Coffin, this was the best video i've seen from you yet.

Thanks so much

This was great.

I like that ContraPoints was included in the video. More collaboration should be done within the "leftist" (socialists, feminists, etc.) content creators, as it would allow for more exposure to ideas from different communities. Even if a lot of progressive creators might consider socialism a no-no due to societal stigma, I think there is a lot of common ground to be had with critical analysis of society.

Axel Procopé yeah the cultural class struggle definitely needs to be expanded!

Many of Ayn Rand's ideas were appropriated from both Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche, which is funny because they didn't like each other. Also it seems like individualism is a spook itself, trying to sell itself as a more rational and capitalistic version of Stirner's egoism, but fails at it (especially as Stirner advised the cooperation of sane egos).

Stirner would've considered Rand a "duped egoist"; in other words, someone who lets a fixed concept dictate what "should" bring them satisfaction and happiness. The Randian believes that accumulation of wealth and power is the key to self-fulfillment and happiness. The egoist doesn't presuppose such superstition bc the egoist realizes that self-interest and pleasure is subjective. Also, Stirner despised the concept of "private property." To Stirner, property was whatever you could claim was yours.

László Szerémi I think the main difference between Rand and Stirner is that Stirner thought that everybody else's will is just as important as yours, and that you have a personal responsibility to help others achieve autonomy, as we exist in the same set of restraints. We all own everything.

the duke!


I think you completely ignored the concept that being altruistic sparks a satisfaction response which rewards the individual, and therefore can be categorized as a selfish thing. The person receiving the charity is sort of a byproduct of someone seeking personal gratification. How is that a bad thing?

No, you're using the end to denote causality. One can decide to help another for their own good, and feel good as a result. This doesn't necessarily entail a selfish motive.

It's not a bad thing to feel good when you help others. Lacking basic human empathy, on the other hand...

because that's a crap motivation

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. - Karl Marx

btf something that is very difficult to take into account in every analysis, but for that reason its all the more important!

Contra, is this the tiara your mum gave you for your birthday?

Cause it's absolutely fabulous

individualism is a ideological landfill

❤️ this

Dont you mean... S P O O K

Contra! :D Making the Borg look good.

And if you WORK HARD enough, you can be as fabulous as the Borg Queen too!

"It's not about what other individuals want, It's about what I want." That's a great line, even if it was from a straw Borg.

Great video and keep up the great work

Contra and Peter in a few days, hooray

Finally someone made a video about this. This should be common sense. Individuality =\= Individualism

Funny thing about common sense. I've found that it really really isn't all that common.

10:45 Lootboxes are the participation trophies of gaming then, I guess. Why bother with competitiveness when you can just buy power? The customer is always right, and being *more* of a customer makes you *more* right.


the right wing was created when a bunch of people had an existential crisis and couldn't handle it

Alexander Mothersill which can be bad to, pushing yourself to a point that you just aren't capable of

(BTW, Eric is too cool; check him out) I honestly feel that the Left will always be the force of goodness. The fundamental difference seems to be that while the Left plans for the future, the Right is trying to pull things back to the past.

Eric Taxxon funny thing is my panic attacks (at least I'm pretty sure they are) have gotten more and more weaker, the more I've "returned" to the left (gotta love that opposite force). I think it's the same for why I really like the "power of friendship" anime/cartoons so much because there's another person who has a pretty similar feeling and wants to help me in this long ass march

That gets really old, really fast, buuuuuuuudy.

It's very deliberately annoying! It makes it into a thing when ~don't~ do it, or cut it off.

The guy at 2:06 looks so much like António Guterres wtf

I love borg. I hope this will be a video where you praise borg.

Not nearly as much Borg praising as I wished, but a stellar video nevertheless.

Heavy handed Pauly Shore reference AND Contra? GJ Peter. This is going to be good.

Just forcing weird '90s thoughts.

Owen Macdonald What were you doing before there was Standard Power or Internet Service Providers?

another wonerful video Peter! you do a great job explaining these concepts in a digestable way.

Jacques Derrida is not Michel Foucault (wrong image). I find your shrug of Freud to be quite arrogant too - Bernays is not really equivocal to Freud on the basis of objectives. Freud wanted to understand drives and preconscious valuation (much like Nietzsche) in fact you already used many Freudian concepts in your video. Bernays wanted to exploit the subconscious by appealing to desire - even the creation of desire. Freud was misrepresented for years until Lacan, who called for a return to Freud and the implications of hypnotic recall. You should really have said that Freud’s Oedipus Complex was later challenged and shown to not be sufficient to describe the way one learns and forms their identity.

Regarding control and propoganda and identity etc... I left this comment for someone just the other day regarding their gender identity issues, as a bit of advice: - "Just to quickly add. You might find it useful to look into "The John Kappas Suggestibility Test" - it's not obviously related to gender dysphoria but in my opinion I think it reveals the differences between a cisgender and a transgender person in a way that isn't so subjective and reliant on self-reporting (due to second guessing oneself - understandable given the pressures of transphobia in society). There is a wikipedia article on it: it was developed as a result of failings of hypnosis therapy and resulted in the realisation that many people don't respond to explicit suggestions under hypnosis but instead require suggestions within the context of reason (derr?) - e.g. talk therapy/cognitive therapy. (I'm not an expert on this stuff) He split suggestibility into 'physical', 'emotional', and 'intellectual' and as well as general suggestibility for these he developed a gendered version as well (so involves stereotypes) for sexual, intimacy and relationship problems. Your 'physical' suggestibility types tend to be very stereotypical over-sexed sports jocks or cheerleader types whereas as 'emotional' suggestibility' types tend to be prudes basically and more detached from physical reality/'daydreamers' - that's the theory anyway. Parts of the brain relevent are the 'ventro medial prefrontal cortex' (shuts down during hypnosis and with rushes of dopamine... risk, fear, self-control and morality and active during REM sleep - is difficient in activity in those with anti-social behaviour and implusivity) and the 'dorso lateral prefrontal cortex' (shuts down under stress - e.g. a mother hearing cries of an infant - is implicated in working memory and is involved in 'major depressive disorder' and 'dissociative identity disorder')."

>Rants against individualism co-opting validation to make money >Lists individual Patrons' names, thereby giving them validation and encouraging others to give him money in exchange for similar validation Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I am of course being facetious and this video is awesome.

why David Bowie?

Is Maggie mistaken or deliberately deceptive?

stoner borg voice is REALLY annoying, but cute Contra makes up for it

Because I am wearing two jumpers, a dressing gown and a duvet cover, I feel only obliged to say 'ventro medial prefrontal cortex'.

Never watched a YouTube vid before that had Pauly Shore running through my head within 30 seconds.

Excellent video, really really good. Like painfully good. I shall now binge watch your entire channel and support you on Patreon.

Thank you so much

This is really well made. Props.

This validated my "SJW" postmodern socialist worldview considerably. Paradoxically making me feel even more lost, confused and disillusioned. How do you handle these feelings Peter?

I don't know lol

I think that's the joke...? I actually don't know as it also unnerved me as well

24:57 "The more you believe you're above it, that it is impossible forit to happen to you, ... , the more likely that it is already happening to you?" Sure, could be true. But that came out of nowhere, how do you know that's true?

Pauly Shore plus the cop dad from Bill and Ted 2 when he got possessed by Ted.


Woah. That Thatcher speech was putrid. Did she really get away with that? "The right to be unequal"! Seriously? What an obviously creepy, manipulative thing to say.

When I found it, I knew I had to use it.


I'm also quite obviously trying to get Me. Sterling to check this out. Thank God for him.

Uphold the Immortal Science of Contraism-ShaunNJenism-Coffinism

You have the freedom to do whatever yo want, it doesn't mean society owes you success in whatever you choose to do. Society doesn't owe you the exact TV content you want at the exact price you want. You can make your own content, with your own equipment, your own actors, make your own props, "but wait you tell me", "i need to buy camera equipment from one of few manufacturers. I need to hire actors from a limited selection of actors who probably aren't willing to work under my conditions, I don't have access to the sets and props i want, i don't have anyone to direct my show". to which i say you can create your own recording equipment, be your own actor, create your own props, direct your own show. "but I don't know how to do any of that". Well that's not anybody else's problem. Other people aren't responsible for giving you what you want. Somebody has put time, resources and effort into creating TV content and the infrastructure needed to allow consumers to enjoy the content, what makes you think you personally have the right to decide what is the correct price to pay for that. If the content wasn't worth it's price, people wouldn't pay and the cable companies would either be forced to change their product to be worth the price, lower the price, or just cease to sell their product period because not enough people was interested in the product. It is simply entitled to complain that the product you were offered wasn't good enough and act like it's some kind of injustice towards you. Imagine you were a youtuber and suddenly your ad money fell because all your viewers suddenly started using adblockers. you confront your viewers telling them that the ad money is your fee for making videos and that without it, you can't keep making the videos, your viewers in turn say that they don't think your videos are worth the ad money and that you thus shouldn't get it because you don't deserve it. Let's say you decide to start making videos about a different topic and your previous viewers get angry and claim you're taking away their right to live their lives as they want by preventing them the opportunity to watch the videos they want. say you tell them they can watch other channels for similar content, but they say they are entitled to watch you. You set up a patreon reward so you can make it worthwhile to make that content, but then people complain that you're charging money for content they could once watch for free. I think you can agree that expecting youtube channels to make the exact content some viewers request when the channel owner wants to make different content for personal or economic reasons is silly. Then why shouldn't cable companies behave the same way? You say your employment options are limited to one market. Why exactly? I assume you mean your qualifications are limited to one market. That doesn't mean you can only earn a living working that market. Anything you can do that people will pay you money for can be made into a living, there are people making decent livings out of buying and smashing Apple products in front of a camera. Knowledge is more available than ever, knowledge that few years ago would cost a lot of money to get hold off is now available online often for free. and i know that you have access to it since you managed to post this comment. Not to forget the online market makes it possible to obtain resources and equipment easier and cheaper than ever. I knew someone on the verge of financial ruin who started a company with his last $200 in savings and with knowledge mostly obtained from the internet, he managed to create a very successful, highly regarded company that pays even it's lowest rank employees far above minimum wage. Despite automation, there are evidently more opportunities for making a living today than ever, you have kids who can make above minimum hourly wage by streaming themselves playing instruments on twitch for crying out loud. I really wonder exactly what you think capitalism is supposed to be. Capitalism allows people to privately own their means of production. essentially giving you full freedom to be as successful as you can be, note the "can be" you still have to create your own success, it won't be given to you. Capitalism likewise gives you the freedom to fail as well. It allows you to both rise as high as you can and fall as low as you can. I'm not of the belief that anything is inherently perfect or beyond critique, but i struggle to see exactly how you think ending capitalism is supposed to free the individual. A system that provides goods and services for free would demand some people provide these without them being able to choose their own compensation for their work. There would be no point in trying to improve these goods and services as it won't yield better rewards as you have no competition cause it's free. capitalism doesn't cause human greed, as much as human greed causes capitalism. capitalism is simply about capitalizing on this, and greed is sometimes the best counteract to greed.

Now here's a question: how do you "get anywhere" while being able to live with oneself? That's what I'm stuck on at present.

I just about lost it when you first mentioned Bernays. Thank you thank you thank you for this.

Thank you for calling out China's 'communism'. They may be a superpower, but they're a colonized superpower even with their on-paper power.

"After all, it's our imperfections that make us human."

Falcon *and* Contra? Epic

Socialists are lazy, except that they seek representation in workplaces. Socialists want handouts, except that they want a share that is proportionate to their output. Socialists want no one to be special, except they want everyone to work to the best of their ability to achieve greater outcomes for themselves and their community. Also, I am deeply concerned by the Libertarian/Right Wing propaganda that has infiltrated MLP. Take a look at "To Change a Changling."

The Virtue of Selfishness totally deals with the idea of charity as a self-interested act. I believe the argument Rand uses is something along the lines of 'If your neighbour is starving, and you believe your neighbour has value as a human being, then it is in your own self-interest to help them.' The kind of Altruism regarded as evil by Rand is "the sacrifice of one's interests to someone else's", and 'sacrifice' is then clarified as anything which actually harms the person who is sacrificed. So what she's really referring to is when a person gives assistance to someone they DON'T value, out of the belief that that sacrifice is itself a spiritual virtue. So for example if your neighbour is a violent and unrepentant criminal, it is wrong to provide the support for them to achieve further criminal ends. Or if you have been persuaded that you must sacrifice yourself to society, based purely on the spiritual virtue of society as a 'greater good', and you do so against the inner discord of your value judgments, then you stand a greater chance of doing something wrong than if you mediated the transaction by broader considerations. It's also totally false that Rand saw individualism as the highest moral authority. That would be a case in which 'sacrificing others to the self' is seen as acceptable conduct. Rand saw Objective Reality as the highest moral authority, and her brand of capitalism (which at the very least by description is Classic, NOT Neo-Liberal) would be an economic system used as the ultimate adjudication between individual desires. Remember that in a society where we are all transacting, we are not only all consumers but also suppliers. If the customer is always right at the detriment of the supplier, and we are all both consumers and suppliers, then it is as true to say that we are always wrong as it is to pronounce that we are always right. Basically this means people only engage in trade where neither see the transaction as a sacrifice, even if they are pretty annoyed that the trade is the best deal currently available to them. But it would be fair to say that under these terms trades are never fully equal. The person who most correctly appraises the value of objectively real materials ends up with more material wealth. Ideally. Here I think Rand had too much confidence in capitalism as it currently stands. Her idea was that production requires contact with the physical world, knowledge of scientific laws and application of those laws to turn raw materials into valuable items. Thus those with the least wrong interpretation of reality are rewarded with the resources to produce more resources, while those producers with more wrong conceptions are financially restricted in such a way that valueless productions are discouraged from taking hold. Again, this is very idealistic, and comparing that system of objective adjudication to the system we call Capitalism today, where idiots inherit money and con-men thrive on ignorant consumers, is like saying communism is no different to the system that took hold in North Korea in the late 20th century. Basically the end-state of her capitalism and other's communism are identical - a world where pleasures are cheap and abundant, and choice, including to work, is largely voluntary. To say Capitalism is an economic system that desires scarcity is the equivalent of making a devil - pretty much no economic system 'wants' scarcity, they just deal with the overwhelming scarcity which has been present on Earth as a baseline, and that scarcity is the source of the evil we usually associate with economic systems. The real question is which economic system progresses us to an end-state of abundant choice in the swiftest, safest, and most efficient manner. It's also kind of important to point out that as vituperative a speaker as Rand was, she wasn't alone in calling people parasites. Marx also called people parasites. It's just that Marx acknowledge the parasitism of the rich, while Rand pointed out that parasitism can be a quality of both the rich and the poor - parasitism is just using violent force rather than negotiation to leech resources off the people who produce them. In both Marx's case and Rand's that parasitism was an institutional ill: when the rich do it, it's neoliberal corporatism. When the poor do it, it's social welfare. And, to return to the beginning, social welfare is something distinct from charity, because charity is a choice, open to value judgement. Social welfare is an obligation, and while at its best it focuses on elevating rational agents with no other avenue to succeed, at its worst it is devoid of such value judgments, elevating the rational and irrational alike. Finally, the idea of 'postmodernism' (more specifically, relativism), is expressed way better by Thomas Kuhn's idea of scientific revolution. Truth and so forth aren't just human concepts, they are, at least for the moment, concepts which are totally consistent with one another from within their own framework, which were arguably created by exposure to reality well before we evolved to have anything as sophisticated as an optic nerve. 'Outside' of that framework things get decidedly more complicated, and it is basically true that an acceptance of argument and observation as mediators of reality first takes a leap of faith; one cannot argue that argument is valuable unless one first values argument. And yes, science as we know it is essentially relativistic: we develop a model of reality consistent with our observations, and then broaden or abandon that model when new observations make that model inconsistent. While the media did much to make a story out of 'The Science Wars' by focusing on the more radical interpretations of Relativism, I don't think you'd find all that many people - even Objectivists - who deny individual heuristics and biases are basically true, and the fault of nothing but nature. Where those people are likely to disagree is that the nature of these biases automatically means that all other perspectives are valuable, or even right. This has close parallels to altruism: if a person sacrifices their model of reality and adopt someone else's model out of a belief that their own is wrong by nature of being individual, then there is a chance they will end up more wrong than they were. After all, a collective is made of individuals. This is where 'argumentation' ha to be coupled alongside observation as a principle of reason. To be objective, a person must be willing to judge the value of arguments, and accept them if it is in their self-interest to do so, and if an understanding of Objective Reality is what makes a person a capable producer, then it is always in one's self interest to accept a good argument, even if it does superficial harm to their identity or to the coherency of their world. As Tarski put it, one should not wish to know that the box contains a diamond if it does not contain a diamond. It's nice to think that one's illusions of reality are valuable, but ultimately they aren't something that can be utilized or interacted with. I'd concede that this idea was far from what Rand described in her writing, as she certainly pushed the idea of 'great men' in history - John Galt in particular - as superheroes with little need for argument. I'd argue that in a dichotomy of perspective, those great men are 'subjective' rather than 'objective'. But I'd also say that the dichotomy is false. Just as there is a middle ground between sacrificing the self to others and sacrificing others to the self, there is a middle ground where a person neither sacrifices their perspective to adopt others nor demands others sacrifice their perspectives to accommodate themselves. Subjectivism sits as one extreme, at least what some (but not all) conceive as Collectivism at the other, and in the middle, where people argue their perspectives by a shared method, sits something I'd call Objectivity. But feel free to exchange these terms for ones you are more comfortable with as brands of your own individuality. What they describe is eminently more important than what they are called.

I can't speak for the whole series, but the episode referenced ("The Cutie Map") was pretty blatant as an allegory. It's a story about a village of ponies who give up their 'cutie marks' (butt tattoos which give them unique talents) to live in equality in the belief that exceptionalism causes disagreements, and without equality true happiness and friendship are impossible. The 'heroes' are a group of ponies who reveal that the village is a cult run by a pony who is hiding the fact that she has a unique Cutie Mark, who is stealing the powers of the other ponies for a purpose which is probably made clear later in Season 5. If anything it's propaganda in that it associates collectivism with forced indoctrination, while it portrays the feudalism of the heroes in a decidedly more positive light. It can't be taken as a serious critique, which is perhaps typical of propaganda, but it also isn't overwhelmingly in favor of any kind of far-right Social Darwinism. As the protagonist Twilight Sparkle says at the end, "You're a part of me, all of you, and there's no doubt you're part of my mission to spread friendship too." Which depending on how you read it can be taken as a nationalist sentiment or just an affirmation that collectivism is possible without basing it on the surrender of individuality.

I mean, if the collectively-decided reality of who they were ever actually had physical correspondents in the world, sure. As it is it's great to feel morally righteous by burning their effigies.

It's more about market economics in describing the conditions under which people consent to trade (I'd recommend CrashCourse Economics for this). If you are selling a movie ticket, and I am looking to buy one, we agree on things of 'equal' value to trade to one another. But if the trade were 'totally' equal then there would be no point in either of us making the trade. You, for whatever reason, value my money 'more' than the ticket, and I value the ticket 'more' than my money. So we both make the trade under the belief that we are better off. While we have both lost something we both believe we've gained more than we've lost, and this falls outside Rand's definition of a sacrifice. In her terminology sacrifice is any transaction in which you lose more than you gain. It's also important to recognise that while it may take some bargaining to set a price, the supplier isn't in competition with the consumer, they are co-operating with them. Suppliers are in competition with other suppliers to provide goods and services at the lowest price, because the one who does so gets the reward of a transaction with a consumer, and if they do especially well they can make goods and services cheap enough to sell to more consumers. This is why Libertarians, the vocal modern equivalent of Objectivist politicians, tend to be highly critical of neo-liberalism and corporatism, which turn to legal avenues to stifle competition. I'm pretty sure Rand would hate the current economic climate, most of all that it has appropriated the idea of 'capitalism' as she described it. But that's supposition on my part. Rand herself tended to criticize other forms of competition. In The Fountainhead the protagonist Howard Roark explicitly refuses to take part in any activity that pits him against other men for sport. I believe at one point she actually describes an ideal competition as one in which a person competes against the best they believe themselves capable of. One case in which it is definitely right to say it is impossible not to have something make a sacrifice is in mankind's response to nature. Even as a basic law of thermodynamics, energy must be lost in one place in order to be gained in another, and the place 'losing' energy may be considered as making a sacrifice. I don't think Rand saw this as at all unfair, given that the natural world is the source of pain and starvation. Acting against it is a kind of justifiable 'counter-force'. The main idea was that while the brutality of force is an essential quality of man's (here meaning men and women) struggle with nature, it is not a necessary brutality in man's struggle with man. Because interhuman relationships 'could' be based on consensual trade such relationships 'should' be based on consensual trade. And this is largely the origin of Rand's claim that it is possible to be individual while avoiding human sacrifice - nature pays the price. But to be fair, her ideas on who gets to own chunks of nature and how they claim to own it seriously needs to be reconsidered as society moves forward.

It's pretty much the continuing effect of the Science Wars, Gould explains it pretty well in "The Hedgehog, The Fox, and The Magister's Pox". I don't doubt that there are people who do actually believe in totally subjective reality, or even in a collective reality where what humanity as a whole believes translates to what is objectively true (a distinction from what Peter is talking about which he should perhaps stress), but I'm pretty sure that's all out on the fringe. I tend to prefer the explanation given in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", which is a pretty decent synthesis, if not exactly well written. It suggests observation at the very least gives us less wrong ideas of what Objective Reality is like over time. It's also important to point out that if 'no' part of our conception of Objective Reality were true, we'd spend a lot of time bumping into invisible things and spontaneously dying. Our perceptions are at least well enough designed to react to the universe that we can exist within it.

Heavan Hart, yes, the one on violence.

Jake Hall, not lately. she actually started out quite right wing (or so i hear. Since i've been subbed to contra, i have noticed a somewhat leftwing shift) and that's why she thinks that if only mean lefties are nice to the right wing then they'll turn too.

Espurr which video? The one on violence?

So this video entirely ignores the whole 19th century, where individualist anarchists were quite prominent critics of capitalism, wage labor, house rents, land rents, and other forms of exploitation. Read Benjamin Tucker, Max Stirner, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, Henry David Thoreau, William B. Greene, and Voltairine De Cleyre. All were ardent critics of capitalism and usury. Individualism =|= Capitalism

Also there are quite a few spooks in the video like "rights" and "common good." It makes me think that the critique of individualism is pretty facile, depending on lowest common denominator thinkers like Ayn Rand (and other capitalist admirers) to act as straw-men of individualism.

If you are a leftist borg does that make you a soy-borg?

underrated comment xD

Your best one yet! Although, I must admit that this time around it is really hard to follow along. Well, at least for me personally. I've been replaying, pausing and rewinding it for a few days now and I think I'm finally getting almost most of it.

Jake Hall, yeah maybe. idk, i guess we have to wait and see. sidenote, i showed my brother your arthur profile pic (cuz we both watched arthur growing up) and he loved it XD

Espurr yeah but it seemed like she was finally get farther on the left with videos like decrypting the rigjt and others but yeah she seems to be regressing a bit.

Aaaaand in comes the Capi scum... Of course...

Having meals with family and knowing them. Pretending to know strangers in society. Same thing, except one is pretended.

You know how the bad guy is always defeated because he didn't believe in the power of friendship? That is collectivism vs individualism.

Superbly glorious and much needed work with passion and thought and effort clearly evident. Would have been proud to call it my own; bravo!

Very good. Amazing stuff. You and contra really produce high quality content. The way you present the information with some humour added might really convince some people to listen and think about their own beliefs. The right fails to do so, all they do is circle jerk about some specific topics out of their own ignorance. Gives me some hope in dark times.

Ert an i dont like the whole not engaging with people you disagree with it but we have to choose how we engage very carefully. We should keep violently opposing facsist protests but we need to also provide the counterpoints and ideology that fuel the antifascist violence. If we dont explain ourselves we'll look dumb. The rights we enjoy today are no being taken for granted and we need to re-justify their existance

Espurr arthur was the true vanguard of the proletariat

Ert an, that isn't necessarily why I complain about her. And "engaging" with people that disagree with you is completely vague. Do you want us to "engage" in a firefight with people that disagree with us? Debunking their shit, calling them out, organizing against them, all this counts as engaging with them and their ideas.

Contra has been middlingly leftist for quite some time. She just has a personal philosophy about engaging with people who disagree with her. I'm about as far left as you can get, and I still can't stand the "we don't talk with anyone further right than center-left" mentality. I don't think that refusing to engage with the opposition should be a qualifier for your leftist sticker.


You sir are my favorite bird :] *nudge nudge* To believe this content was right under my nose. I've seen you  comment on Shauns and Contras vids. Subbed.

omg your borg character is too annoying.


The centre of individualism is rights as formed from the individual, Buuuuuuuuuuudy. But I didn't see that one anywhere. Oh, LOOK!!! A straw man cometh!!!!

Hey, Buuuuuuuuuudy. You're falsely defining the term "individualism" making this entire thing a straw man. Buuuuuuudy. First, define "rights". No, the principle of them is not subjective. No, they are not a fabrication. Then, define morality. No, the principle of them is not subjective. No, they are not a fabrication. Once that's done, the understanding of individualism vs collectivism becomes clear as the dialectic would be properly framed. So OK. Rights. YOU invest irredeemable portions of YOUR life into benefits or values to YOU. Sorry, but whatever it is you're up to, that's what you're doing. Those portions are made up of YOUR finite time and YOUR finite energy. That portion of your life invested into a benefit or value is your claim on it. Were there no claim, why would you bother. It wouldn't be yours and it could never be yours. So humans protect what they've an investment of their lives into. When we claim this, we are claiming a right. It's NOT bestowed on us, and it cannot be taken from us. It can be respected (morality) or violated (Leftist ideology). Morality itself comes from the principle of reciprocity. We don't violate the claims of other's in return for them not violating our claims. Better yet, we actually protect each other's claims. Oh, look. Buuuuuuuudy. Under individualism, people actually get to value each other and to look out for each other. With valuing and respect going on, they might actually care for each other, Buuuuuuuudy. Now let's look at collectivism, and what it ACTUALLY is. Buuuuuuuuuudy. The individual now has little to no claim on what their individual time and their individual energy goes into. Everyone has a claim on it. Tell me oh wise sages. Who decides what is "fair"? Mob rule where the most well organised violence takes all? Or... The centralised authority set up to redistribute everything "fairly"? Oh dear, Buuuuuuuuuuuudy. Collectivism all falls down, as it can only exist as a power based dominance hierarchy....Buuuuuuuudy.

Like the first 15 seconds I can tell that's bollocks, because research is collaborative. It depends on correspondence and review. Too much competition atomises things and prevents sharing of useful information

Owen Macdonald wtf is this garbage? I have to pay taxes for TV. I can't even choose what I want to pay for!

I'm shocked 15:40

EdgePitSwing If you do it because it makes you feel good about yourself then yes you could say it's selfish. But if you do it because you're emotionally driven by feeling bad for the person in need then I don't think you can say it's selfish. A good feeling can be seen as only a byproduct of doing something good, no necessarily the incentive. But yes people that do 'good' only to feel good and not to cause good are selfish. The feeling and the outcome should be tied together

horse ass

Did you really shave everything for this?


I actually really wanna know what you think the anti's are really like. I can't tell where your jokes about them are being absurdist or where on the spectrum they actually lie because they lie and you exaggerate so I'm just kind of stuck.

Because purity of motive is more important than the end result, or so they say.

Sociologist chiming in here if I may. Be careful trying to lump all of Post-Modernism in together as a unified set of beliefs/attitudes etc. By its very nature post-modernism would reject that thesis. Ultimately, at its very core (based off Lyotard who coined it) Post-modernism is just a rejection of grand-narratives. It doesn't offer anything in place of those. Think of it more as a critique of what came before rather than another 'grand-narrative'. Everything else is just bolted on. Yes there's stuff about science in there but the key, without reducing down to epistemology, is simply that we live in a time whereby science is questioned (there is no value judgement here) - and let's be honest, it is (to varying degrees). The most powerful country in the world now denies human-caused climate change. A large group of people believe that vaccines cause autism regardless of what the science says. If that isn't a complete validation I don't know what is.

Also Rand is a bunch of pseudo-philosophical nonsense. There's that too.

beep boop randroid

Golf clap for Jim Sterl--I mean Duke Amiel duHardcore.

Very important point made in the video, but at 15:53 that was Jacques Derrida, not Michel Foucault. That was Foucault at 15:57. Was that intentional?

He is quite obviously more concerned with main stream right wingers who co-opted the term. Like even Max Stirner who has become a meme is almost completely unknown outside of leftist circles.

There's a reason her death was celebrated.

Personally I'd just say that it is impossible to prove that anything exists so therefor we can't really talk about there being any sort of objective reality because it is literally impossible to know. Assuming that there is one is completely baseless. We can act like there is an external reality because assuming that there is one can be useful but that is all we can ever do. This isn't exactly a new idea, in fact it's literally centuries old but a lot of people kinda forget the implication it carries.

I think Jim might secretly harbor similar ideas, or at least he has similar ideas but has yet really found a way to articulate them.

I think people are more scared of socialism than they need to be really. Like specifically content creators. Because survey after survey shows that young people are pretty radical. The interest is there, there is no need to hide it. Though one could question whether platforms like Youtube are restricting the people who talk about it. After all Peter has 200k subscribers but almost none of them ever see his videos.

No, he's been Henry Cavill-ized. It's a comment upon a larger media conspiracy to require all representations of Superman to feature Nietzsche's iconic mustache.

First paragraph response. Not an argument. Second paragraph response. Given the first paragraph was not an argument, the second is basically an affirmation of a the fallacies of the first. So no, you've deflated nothing. Now, if you need that all broken down I'd be happy to. Point by point, where necessary. The hint for you though is "Voluntary collectivism". You're conflating the societal with the ideological, and your "argument" on rights (which defines collectivism as an ideology) to try to relativise my position rather than argue it directly. So...... Address your fallacies and get back to me.

"whatever it is you're up to, that's what you're doing" - Or, perhaps there are those who don't agree with the universality of your assertions. One "individuals" inscrutable morality and rights often are merely dogma or doctrine to another. "Who decides what is "fair"?" - How about volunteers? Voluntary collectivism rather deflates your lefty dominance/violation boogyman.

But post-tending either is sitting upon the same toilet.

The vid seems to be more about how the term has been used/abused through the 20th century into contemporary "mainstream" discourse. It makes no effort to comprehensively lay out thousands of years of other philosophical contexts. That clearly was not its goal, so going into such detail would detract from the focus.

When I first heard in my teens that there was a philosophy called "objectivism", I was excited and optimistic that maybe it was like a science-based system that eschewed traditional primate status games in pursuit of an evidence-based-society. It was disillusioning to discover that it was simply enshrining primate status games and giving them a lofty and contradictory title!

Why not both? Trying to deceive people into participating in a mistaken scheme is pretty commonplace. Lots of people are uncritical enough to believe their own bullshit.

Iraski - Depends what you mean by science being "taken seriously". On an institutional level, that's really more a matter of consensus/marketing/politics than scientific methodology. But I think that scientists themselves benefit from being detached enough to not believe their of bullshit. Basically, knowing that we never reach objective "reality" ourselves only disincentivises science for those whose motives were based upon misunderstanding in the first place. Such as really wanting philosophical Truth, or the role of the ultimate authority on a subject. The safety of having finally found conclusive proof/answers. My (admittedly limited) experience has been that there is a large consensus among scientists that reality is essentially unknowable to the way human minds, concepts, and symbols work. Especially in physics, which has a reputation of being one of the "harder" sciences. We devise models, and see how they hold up in experiments. And we either disprove or fail to disprove our model. That's really all that happens. It tends to be the more applied science areas such as engineering where a more "common-sense" concrete outlook is assumed.

It is not ignoring a concept to disagree with or refute it. You could simply be projecting your own motives upon people to rationalize their actions. Nevermind not unpacking what "satisfaction" or "gratification" may be.

" Exactly - yet you have kept insisting upon framing each statement from me as if being a "claim" in the argument you prefer to have." Wrong again. Reality isn't a game of sophistry. "Even when I explicitly said that I am not disputing any of your points. I simply opined that you seem motivated by your self-satisfied soapbox of "confrontational" rhetoric." Wrong again. I am not my argument. "...there's nothing left other than opinion and the power of its assertion" - LOL You said it, buuuuuddy!" To you. Not to reality. That's a hell of an ego you got going there.

"None of that addresses anything I wrote." - Exactly - yet you have kept insisting upon framing each statement from me as if being a "claim" in the argument you prefer to have. Even when I explicitly said that I am not disputing any of your points. I simply opined that you seem motivated by your self-satisfied soapbox of "confrontational" rhetoric. "...there's nothing left other than opinion and the power of its assertion" - LOL You said it, buuuuuddy!

"Your form of "dialectic" seem too territorial and personal to be productive." Not "mine". Both individualism and individuality start from the historical conflation of organism, person, and sense of self - and the insistence that this aggregate is somehow "individual" in the first place. An atom of agency which cannot be divided into subsets of agents, or overlap with others. This is an ancient philosophical conception of what it means to be "human", based upon the common-sense reasoning of people millennia ago." None of that addresses anything I wrote. Most of what you wrote was babble. "Both individualism and individuality start from the historical conflation of organism, person, and sense of self - and the insistence that this aggregate is somehow "individual" in the first place." Seriously? You're going to use that drivel as a means of disputing what I presented as the basis of rights? Individual lives are not measured in finite time and energy? They don't invest it into things important to themselves? They make no claim on that investment? Go be full of shit somewhere else.

Your form of "dialectic" seem too territorial and personal to be productive. Both individualism and individuality start from the historical conflation of organism, person, and sense of self - and the insistence that this aggregate is somehow "individual" in the first place. An atom of agency which cannot be divided into subsets of agents, or overlap with others. This is an ancient philosophical conception of what it means to be "human", based upon the common-sense reasoning of people millennia ago.

"No, I am not very interested in my opinion, either. Don't be so presumptuous about other people's motivations, values, or goals. It is rather imposing." I used your own examples to explain where you were doing that. "If your "claims" were truly derived from objective reasoning, there would not be these many messy exceptions for you to complain about." Not an argument. Affirming the consequent in fact. Interesting that you've just dismissed without addressing every point I made. Which tells me again, that your own opinion is your only interest. After all, if it's all relative, there's nothing left other than opinion and the power of its assertion.

No, I am not very interested in my opinion, either. Don't be so presumptuous about other people's motivations, values, or goals. It is rather imposing. If your "claims" were truly derived from objective reasoning, there would not be these many messy exceptions for you to complain about.

"No, it isn't an "argument", I simply disagree with a lot of what you said,and stated this. Since you disagree with my disagreement, we have mutual disagreement. Yes, it is relative." Human nature is a subset of the entirety of nature. This is not relative. I am not my argument. I am not facts. I am not reason. I am not evidence. "Your thinking here seems to rest upon vague universal assertions about people." Wrong. There is nothing "vague" about them. This is an empty assertion that amounts to nothing. "Your starting notion that we somehow find rights and morality objectively in the world instead of devising or negotiating these suggests to me that your philosophy is based upon superstition, thought-terminating clichés, and attributing your pet values and motives to all humans "because reasons." Wrong. The correct approach to this is to ask the basis of the claim. The fact that you don't do this at all tells me you're most likely a narcissist who's only interested in the power of their own opinion. This is further substantiated by your attempt to relativise everything. What you're doing is trying to conflate the personal with the principle and diminish me as a means of your not having to address the argument. Morality and rights are not entirely subjective. Nothing is. The position that these things are entirely subjective comes from two main fallacies. The main one being a conflation of principles with particulars. Basically, it's a dialectical failure. The relativist position is that there is an infinite possibilities in the interpretation of information. While true, humans also know that there are almost infinite ways to get something wrong and only a very few to get it right. Morality and rights are no exception. It would be impossible for them to be an exception. Morality is based on reciprocity (No, not my opinion. Fact) in that anything you do, you have justified being done (No, you cannot argue your way past that one), and that means that the behaviour or act you exhibited, you have justified being done to others who now have the capacity to justify it being done to you (categorical buuuuuuudy). So humans, having a predisposition to avoid unnecessary suffering where they can, have this tendency to not do stuff they don't want done, and to discourage dysfunctional behaviour in others. Rights come from morality, but back them up as more objective than most realise. YOU invest YOUR finite time and YOUR finite energy into benefits or values to YOU, or into those YOU love. There is a portion of YOUR finite life invested, and this is irredeemable. Your rights begin with the claim you make based on those portions of your life. The reciprocity of morality means that we respect this in others in exchange for them respecting it in ourselves. Again, there is NO "argument" that will get past that. "I am not "invested" in trying to change your mind." I meet very few people infected with Post Modernist relativism who's respond to reason and evidence. You're already tried to frame things as merely preferred assertions or opinion. You've even done it there. No. You won't "change my mind" because I am not the argument. I am compelled to submit to reason and evidence, whereas you, the relativist, think you don't have to do that. "Mostly because our disagreements are so fundamental that it would fill the topic with verbose hot air and still not be productive." Only because you're not actually interested in anything other than your own opinion, to the point you'll conflate reason and evidence with opinion.

No, it isn't an "argument", I simply disagree with a lot of what you said,and stated this. Since you disagree with my disagreement, we have mutual disagreement. Yes, it is relative. Your thinking here seems to rest upon vague universal assertions about people. Your starting notion that we somehow find rights and morality objectively in the world instead of devising or negotiating these suggests to me that your philosophy is based upon superstition, thought-terminating clichés, and attributing your pet values and motives to all humans "because reasons." I am not "invested" in trying to change your mind. Mostly because our disagreements are so fundamental that it would fill the topic with verbose hot air and still not be productive.

None of that was an actual argument.

I like that you bring up Scrooge McDuck here. The Don Rosa version of him is a very good look at the folly of the mindset of greed. Scrooge is greedy because he values hard work an money. But the money he has is all that he has. His relatives besides his nephew have left him, he can't trust anyone due to his money and should he ever acknowledge that getting more money is not the peak of virtue, he has to accept that he wasted his life. That's btw why he treats Donald so badly. Because Donald stays with him out of the goodness of his heart and not because of inheritance. Because Donald still values family so much more, which is something that Scrooge had to abandon in order to justify his greed. Yeah, the pecker has layers!

Why did Ayn Rand go to college if she was against socialism?

Despite following you for ages on twitter I only just got around to working through your docs. Really enjoyed this one, was sitting through the last minute or so with a big grin on my face.

This was simply brilliant

So conflating the personal with the principle is an honest form of discourse?

Terry O'Brien It wasn't intended as such. Just points out some pretty undesirable character traits and events.


The Borg dude is....rather annoying.... Still very informative....even with the cringy Borg dude...

*duke armiel duhardcore

Jonen560ti and @Louis Cyfear You’re completely right. people complain a lot these days, but everything they need is a lot more accessible than it ever was, learning a new skill or trade only takes a few months maybe a few years at most, even a lot less for educated and skillful people. Learning a trade or skill used to take a lifetime, carpentry for example was something you dedicated your life to, but now you can switch and learn something completely new at the drop of a hat. And i find it strange that he complains about being a homeowner, when shelter is and was never, since the dawn of mankind ever free. You had to literally build shelter, but now you have more aside from building, rent, own, and share. Society doesn’t owe you any success, and true, most people don't amount to becoming millionaires or whatnot. But just living and surviving under a roof with a hot meal a warm bed, and running water has become a lot more accessible and a lot more sustainable than it ever was. People used to till fields, force their children into labor to support the family, winters were brutal and people didn’t survive to spring because heating didn’t exist, disease was rampant and people died from the common cold, etc, and they take these little things for granted. Everything in life has become so much more accessible, you can go wherever you want, take whatever career path you want, etc, it’s what you make of it. I find the people who generally complain just want freebees, all the while, not lifting a finger to change their lives, preferring instead to whine at the bottom rungs of society. But to some peoples credit, they don’t know any better.

He did point that out, but that statement was not merely pointing it out, it stands by itself. Can we agree that the statement was at best bad phrasing? Because I almost fully wholeheartedly agree with everything you're saying.

I think he's pointing out the fact that propaganda used in ads works by first making you think you are immune to it, that you are "different", that you are not a sheep. In other words, the advertised product becomes the defense against propaganda, a symbol of your individuality. Using your metric, it assumes you are 100% immune, while you are actually 0% immune. Or, in other words, it uses your own sense of confidence against you.

But the issue is I agree with you but not necessarily with him. If you believe you're 100% immune to propaganda, you believe something delusional, and as you say you must be ignoring your vulnerabilities, and therefore you'll be more easily exploitable. But the phrasing "the more like you think you're immune the more likely it's happening to you" is way too strong. And I only would agree that it applies to people that eg have 95% confidence they're immune to propaganda. On the more realistic realm of people that have 75% to 25% confidence how the hell did he draw that conclusion? It just seems like nice some nice sounding woke rhetoric. Maybe in less extreme cases actually the people who think they're 40% immune to propaganda happen to be just as or slightly more immune then those at 41%. Who the hell knows, you need a study for this. You can't just whip if out of your nowhere because it makes you feel woke.

Because the belief must always be checked with as much honesty as possible. If you don't do that, you won't be able to recognize any actual vulnerabilities within yourself. Which will make you unable to recognize when they are exploited.

To be fair, the idea of characters giving up special powers bestowed about them to be spinned to be a group of Ubermenschen that want to thrive only through their own ability. Which would be pretty badass. Then they could turn towards the protagonist and tell them "we have grown thanks to our will, our wits and our strength. We didn't need a mark to decide for us who we really were. We have become something more than our mark. Now tell me: can you say the same?"

wow. this certainly is some deep thinking. real funny too. so funny I forgot to laugh. there's a trannie in the video too. wow. what a surprise. sure fooled me. I thought it was a real woman there for a sec. she's sure brave. and talented. great sense of humor. real funny. so funny I forgot to laugh again.

wow. this sure is funny.

Foucault- well, there's someone to look up to. He was most definitely a well-balanced individual who had no issues.

wow. you're some smart. you're right smart. thanks for breaking it all down. I'm most definitely going to follow your example in the future.

Yeah. Awesomely gay.

peter coffin: wow. what a comeback. you sure set the record straight.

Wow. you convinced me. if a person of your obviously towering intellect thinks objectivism is all poopy who's some smarty-pants loser like Yaron Brook to argue otherwise?

Anazing video. I’m a little slow so I had some trouble grasping everything, but this system is absolutely evil genius. Double functioning to trick the public into supporting those in power and suppressing their own power at the same time. Kinda gave me chills to put those ideas into words like you did.

This is great and all but what would be the solution to this system when it's the best one that has been recorded in history?Recorded meaning that it has been applied. Not referring to theoretical systems. What do we replace it with and most importantly HOW?

+Owen Macdonald Biased video. Under capitalism an individual has the "freedom" to choose among the economic possibilities the ECONOMIC VIRTUE of each different era present them, and the injustices of a capitalist world can be assigned to "individual ineptitude" which some vulnerable people WHOLLY exhibit(like the disabled, the genetically disadvantaged), some partly, and some don't. The purpose of judging various qualities is to reflect the individual's judging and judged nature, the individual's true nature, and the individual's freewill. We can then learn to improve upon ourselves from judgement and learn to ignore the unreasonable criticism. We as individuals must have enough wisdom to judge each of the individual's qualities based on correct dimensional measurement. It's so easy to apply to everyday examples. You have the "freedom" to watch any TV you want... because the era you live in offers different types of TVs to sell to you. And you DON'T need to pay big bucks for televisions because capitalism presently offers the Internet which drastically lowers the price of TVs. You DON'T need to order that through the internet; you know you're wrong on this one. Many shopping stores are around you. Don't lie to yourself. Capitalism also offers a safe payment option like PayPal and other delivery services. Of course you DON'T need a house to do that; you can watch TVs at the public places like in mega-malls thanks to capitalism which create mega-malls. And you're free to move wherever you like. Moving out of your area is not necessarily expensive thanks to capitalism. We have speedy sky train systems, airplanes, motorcyclist service, bus service etc. Compared to all the series of previous eras and other non-capitalist societies, you barely make much as it is. It's the government's restrictions and monopolies that your employment options are limited to just one market dominated by subbranches of the same TNC paying barely liveable wages! Can't you see it's monopolies which happen due to government intervention in the first place!! Monopolies can occur by PASSING LAWS, not by free markets. And you have all decaying mismanaged corrupt systems due to government's intervention and monopolies, NOT capitalism. Truly, the American dream. End government's intervention and monopolies. Go fully ahead capitalism to free the individual!

OH dude! Your videos are also propaganda. You attacked individualism with no sound arguments at all. This and all the rest of your videos are too long, so vague: a mix-up of loose, ambiguous thinking. I'm not gonna waste my time refuting it. I sense that you and the people here are not interested in finding the truth anyway.

Biased video. Under capitalism an individual has the "freedom" to choose among the economic possibilities the ECONOMIC VIRTUE of each different era present them, and the injustices of a capitalist world can be assigned to "individual ineptitude" which some vulnerable people WHOLLY exhibit(like the disabled, the genetically disadvantaged), some partly, and some don't. The purpose of judging various qualities is to reflect the individual's judging and judged nature, the individual's true nature, and the individual's freewill. We can then learn to improve upon ourselves from judgement and learn to ignore the unreasonable criticism. We as individuals must have enough wisdom to judge each of the individual's qualities based on correct dimensional measurement. It's so easy to apply to everyday examples. You have the "freedom" to watch any TV you want... because the era you live in offers different types of TVs to sell to you. And you DON'T need to pay big bucks for televisions because capitalism presently offers the Internet which drastically lowers the price of TVs. You DON'T need to order that through the internet. Many shopping stores are around you. Don't lie to yourself. Capitalism also offers a safe payment option like PayPal and other delivery services. Of course you DON'T need a house to do that; you can watch TVs at the public places like in mega-malls thanks to capitalism which create mega-malls. And you're free to move wherever you like. Moving out of your area is not necessarily expensive thanks to capitalism. We have speedy sky train systems, airplanes, motorcyclist service, bus service etc. Compared to all the series of previous eras and other non-capitalist societies, you barely make much as it is. It's the government's restrictions and monopolies that your employment options are limited to just one market dominated by subbranches of the same TNC paying barely liveable wages! Can't you see it's monopolies which happen due to government intervention in the first place!! Monopolies can occur by PASSING LAWS, not by free markets. And you have all decaying mismanaged corrupt systems due to government's intervention and monopolies, NOT capitalism. Truly, the American dream. End government's intervention and monopolies. Go fully ahead capitalism to free the individual!

So how do you get away with using that song at the end??? Not complaining! Actually madly in love with your format! Great great great work!

Nope. On all levels. You're conflating the personal with the principle as the basis for your "argument". Don't do that.

It's simply that she has failed in the very system she argued for being the best one. Both on a matter of keeping to its principles and doing what she saw as ones purpose.

"But I'm not going to bother with someone as far up their own arse that a simple negation seems like a reasonable response to them." Why is it so hard to find a Leftist that isn't a complete narcissist and a coward? (I left out 'dishonest'....for now).

No. Reasoning is the explanation of why something is the way it is. Not merely stating what you think it is and leaving it at that. Personally, I'd love to see you argue your way around Pareto distributions and dominance hierarchies. If you presented an actual argument, I'd have responded with an actual argument. If you present an assertion, I will respond with an assertion. The irony then of saying I'm the one with my head up my arse made coffee come out my nose.

No, I outline my reasons for saying something ,that's called "reasoning", you did not. But I'm not going to bother with someone as far up their own arse that a simple negation seems like a reasonable response to them.

No unsubstantiated assertion does. I just did it back to you, but it less words.

You do realise your saying "wrong" literally has no bearing on validity of anything , right ?

So she contributed against a system she was opposed to, and that did not gain her consent to take this "contribution", but is a hypocrite for making a claim? "Her philosophy is rather easy to attack as well, simply by the nature of accumulation of wealth and resources and resulting stagnation." Also wrong.

I'm not making an argument against her own philosophy in there, simply one of her hypocrisy. Her philosophy is rather easy to attack as well, simply by the nature of accumulation of wealth and resources and resulting stagnation.

Starring Pauly Shore and Joe Cocker as the Borg collective

Also can we argue that the rise of ethno-nationalism is also a sign of people getting tired of individualism and wishing to form stronger collectives? Just in the opposite direction?

Is that some Barbra Kruger I see

"I just got a new game on my phone and it gets me'....

Freedom or rights, without the means to use them? Just more sugar-coated lies.

Bit late to this party but thanks for this video. Also, where do I go to hellp make Contra/Peter music collab happen?

why do you misrepresent everything you talk about seriously it is either black or with you, you have zero nuance

Ironically enough, the right wing accuses "cultural degeneracy" as being a reason for increasing crime etc. Which is funny, since the philosophy of individualism in essence tells us that we're not succeptible to such bullshit as cultural influence.

trying to get through this and i hit the propaganda moment at 21:57, when peter says step 1) don't call it propaganda - the bad guys use propaganda you use something else. but the video is interrupted by a fiverr commercial that goes "need a crappy drawing? go to you niece. need something professional" ..... yeah- guess the commercial might have worked somewhere else?

"You always pick the right one" Nice subtext, sir.

I'm going to have to watch this a few times to understand it

Without referring to subjective experience of any kind... What is red(the color), really?

How does red exist independently of observation?

If no humans exist, no red exists. Just the phenomena that we interpret as red.

God I'd love to recommend your videos to my friends but I just can't get over the cringe-inducing bro-act stuff.

but why is the Borg drone a Polly shore parody? lmao

Right wing individualism is objectiveism, well Left wing Individualism (Egoism) is subjectiveism.

Could you do a video on sociobiology and biological determinism?

Left wing individualism isn't individualism.


Individualism : You exist to serve me. There I fixed that for you Randies.

He used a pic of Derrida instead of Foucault, just like he used a pic of Derrida instead of Faye in a different video. Is this running joke I don't know about?

[dislike] "unfulltruths" are dangerous, they look alright from a surface level, but underneath they are overly dictatorial. "Chinese communism = capitalism + feudalism" this isn't really that true, prior to the 80s there wasn't any capitalist input, feudalism is the basis of order and structure in historical Chinese society, so a lot has followed through to the present, so a better equation would be socialism + collectivism + totalitarianism + traditions + capitalism = Chinese communism, the main part that capitalism takes in China is in use for trade with the west, which is how it still exists today, and hasn't collapsed. "in capitalism, greed is good" no, but it is a motive, everyone wants another 0 at the end of their paycheck, its a driver to do the right think, its the carrot, while "do it or ill kill your family" is the stick. selfishness isn't inherently bad, but quite often has bad implications, however without its use the world wouldn't be where it is today, that must be factored in when thinking about making a better society, otherwise you get the eastern bloc, lets not do that again please. free will? there is only so much free will you can have, I can't will myself to fly, I am governed by gravity, you aren't allowed to impede someone else's free will, that's a good thing, I can't go around shooting people and do so without consequences, we have more freedoms than our past generations, but we are still limited by circumstance there are plenty of bad things with this society, people doing shitty things, getting away with wrong things, starvation, but we need to take a more analytical route, collectivism puts people into groups, which if you don't fit into (as many dont) its a tad alienating, views should be discussed at an individual level and expanded to other people, don't use rhetoric or self righteousness, that's why there are so many people opposed to the left.

you look like Stephen crowder

Was the Borg dude meant to sound like a slightly less pitchy Bobcat Goldthwaite? If so, it was bang on :D But, also, nooooooooo, you said "central tenant" :( It's 'central tenet'. What is it with that phrase? Thanks for this video, it feels like a validation - löl - of my annoyance at the misuse of the phrase Individualism, as distinct from collectivism, as used and (apparently) understood in social psychology and sociology. To me, the left is far more concerned with individuality, and the collectivities that arise from that, where the right is more concerned with individualism (as you seem to conceptualise it, here) as a goal, having been educated into highly collectivist (Catholic) or individualist (Protestant) modes of thought. As such, I suspect there are more Protestant than Catholic Libertarians, given their fetishizing of individual(ist) freedoms. It seems like yet another case of needing to aim for desired goals obliquely, both the left and the right aim for a cohesive society of individuals, but the left seem to aim for that by reinforcing the unique and individual nature of the person, and figure out how they can make that fit into society (and sometimes they need to rail for societal change to make that work), whereas the right aim for it by training everyone to fit into to narrow conceptions of what it is to be human, all the while glorifying the individual... that nevertheless fits in.

Hot damn. This is some good shit

Why were you saying buddy like that, buuuuuddy

Contra is my queen

your most important video so far!

Complete self Reliance is a Myth

"Collectivism itself is often mis-defined as well, used in reference to collective characterizations of certain groups. For instance, black lives matter is often _collectively_ described as some sort of terrorist organization and they reject that, and rightfully so". Nah bro, I assure you that, like, no one defines collectivism like that, bro. In fact most westerners associate it with collectivist economic policies, this is not a source of confusion bro. We just don't trust the "collective" because you keep trying to trick us by making statements like that bro. We don't trust "the majority" because that is a logical fallacy bro. We don't trust centralization because its prone to hacking bro. FYI you just attacked the

The Borg? AND Contrapoints? o:

Other news