DocWatts

Of course, and obviously that's going to require a Systemic Solution as the world continues to develop, but it's also something that's not going to happen overnight. Also isn't the idea of just handing out cash to people the whole idea behind Universal Basic Income?

I actually happen to agree with this, but at the same time I realize that the kind of the sort of large scale changes needed for a more just and equitable world are going to take time; what's a realistic time frame for an overhaul of the global economic system, and how many people aren't meeting their human potential until that happens? Especially if you happen to take a development lens towards looking at the world's problems, it should be apparent that the timescales we're looking at are likely to be generational. Thinking about it as an either/or dichotomy between Social Activism and supporting effective Charities is the fundamentally the wrong mindset to take in my view. Charitable work isn't meant to be substitute for advocating for a more just world, but rather a supplement to it. Organizations with targeted aid towards alleviating global poverty have literally helped millions of the most needy people in the world; some of their successes include the virtual elimination of Smallpox and Guinea Worm. The number of people living in extreme poverty is around half of what it was just thirty years ago (this wasn't entirely due to the charitable work by NGOs, but targeted charitable aid played a significant role in this). It's also important to keep in mind that this is targeted aid, using an evidence driven model to identify where aid can do the most good per dollar, and a relatively modest amount of money can immunize a large number of people from deadly and preventable diseases, or provide the support networks to help lift people out of poverty and become self sufficient. "A society with more justice needs less charity" is a sentiment I agree with, but at the same time it's important to recognize that we don't live in an ideal world, and there are huge obstacles to implementing a more just system across the entire planet. Yes billionaires shouldn't exist, but long as they do, isn't it worthwhile that some number of them are choosing to give away almost all of their wealth for worthwhile causes? Asking some portion of people in affluent nations to donate a small part of their income to help those in need can make a meaningful impact in the world.

@commieContributing to end global poverty if you're fortunate enough to live in an affluent nation and advocating for social change isn't mutually exclusive, and I'd argue that both are necessary. And yes the amounts are quite low, but if that's being raised from hundreds of millions of people, it amounts to more money than you would think (if the above scale with its very modest values was adopted by people living in affluent countries it would amount to $600 billion dollars a year, which obviously dwarfs what countries are currently spending on aid to developing countries). Also this gives something concrete and tangible that almost any conscientious person in an affluent country can do to make the world a better place. And of course the rich have money because they're siphoning it from others, but what's an average person in a developed country going to do about it? Most middle class or even moderately well off people aren't in a position to shift the entire structure of our society (even those of us that happen to live in Democracies), these things take time. Often it takes the dying off of a previous generation that was hostile to change for society to move forward. Those numbers above were made with concessions to human psychology in a consequentialist framework, with the hope that by asking a reasonable amount that's sustainable and not detrimental at all to someone's quality of life, more people will be willing to contribute.

Like a lot of his content, I think it only becomes useful if someone is already at a certain stage of development, as this video isn't really something you can show someone who's down a Conspiracy Rabbit to get them to question their own views, as the ego backlash will prevent them from getting anything out of the video (especially the opening 20 minutes). But that's not the video's goal; it's more to get people who already aware of the dangers of Conspiratorial Thinking to have a deeper understanding of why the mindset behind Conspiratorial Thinking is flawed, knowledge that they can then use in more practical ways when they're interacting with people in the real world (or at least that's the sense I got from the video).

Well you know what... Fair point. For what it's worth that was meant more as an assessment of the current environment rather than an absolute statement, about where our attention should be focused right now. I take your meaning though, and it's a good point to keep in mind.

Here's a link to the article; https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.detroitnews.com/amp/5922301002 Tldr version: the FBI thwarted a plot for an armed militia group to storm the Michigan capital building and kidnap Governor Whitmer with the express intent to try her for treason and/or execute her. This came largely as a response to Trump's 'Liberate Michigan' tweets.

I've noticed that Existentialism is a popular philosophy among people at an Orange level of development; it definitely was for me back in my early twenties, with its emphasis on having the freedom to construct your own meaning in response to Nihilism. There are definitely flaws with existentialism as a philosophy, but on the whole I see it as a relatively healthy response to nihilism for someone at that stage of development; and of course something to be transcended once you develop a bit more and begin to finding meaning and value in your relationships with other people.

Communism is an outdated ideology that almost no one takes seriously these days (exists on the fringes, but little to no political power). Might as well focus on the political extremist faction that's seeing a resurgence and literally killing people. Yeah I might see Communism as not a great or realistic solution to the world's problems, but they're not the ones driving cars in to groups of people and being dog whistled to political violence in the United States these days.

Touché! Well said.

Great video. Considering the fact that we evolved as hunter gatherers whose sensory organs evolved primarily to help us find food, escape predators, and mate, it's not surprising that the psychical laws of the universe are deeply counter intuitive and abstract from our vantage point.

Seconded.

Leo's someone who has hundreds of hours of content on a wide range of topics; if you don't end up disagreeing with him on some portion of his ideas or worldview, it means that you're accepting his ideas uncritically, and should probably seek to find and incorporate more outside views in to your lexicon.

I like this. I've been using proto-fascists as a shorthand, so this works just as well either way One difficulty I see is that people have trouble distinguishing fascists from the most well known example, Nazi Germany, when it can be applied to really any far right authoritarianism with aspirations to set up an ethno-state.

@Leo GuraLate to the party, but in all sincerity that was one of your best videos. While I don't see it convincing anyone who's already down the Conspiracy rabbit hole (for the reasons you describe), it's one of the best resources I've ever come across for people who want a deeper understanding Conspiracy Theories on both a practical and an epistemological level, and something I would recommend to someone who's disturbed by the harms of Conspiracy Theories but may not understand it on a deep level. And considering the challenges society is facing right now, I also think it's one of the most timely and important videos I've seen over the last year or two of watching your channel. Kudos man.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa The antifa scare mongering is an intentional bad faith argument by the right to draw attention away from social movements taking place in the country, and to draw false (and absurd) equivalency between protest movements against racism and police brutality with right wing domestic terrorism.

Just came across this on Reddit, point was too good not to share (for those outside of the states, the previous Republican Governor's criminal negligence was responsible for a humanitarian crisis that left an entire city without drinkable water for several years).

Some of the more formative books that I've read, In no particular order: - The Seven Mysteries of Life : Guy Merchie - Ishmael : Daniel Quinn - The View from Nowhere : Thomas Nagel - Guns, Germs, and Steel : Jared Diamond

I'll qualify 'saving the world from a nuclear war' as a checkmark in favor of him being a very good president. Sad thing is he only got to serve 3 years before being assassinated, so we don't really know what sort of legacy he would have left if he'd been in office for 4 or 8 years.

Well 'good' is going to be somewhat subjective, and subject to the political bias of the person answering the question, but I'd argue the last president that was respected by a broad cross section of the American public (regardless of political affiliation) would probably be Dwight Eisenhower, or possibly JFK to a much lesser degree. Keep in mind that this is more than half a century ago, with things getting increasingly fragmented the closer we get to the present day.

Never thought I'd be living in a time when the President is encouraging armed insurrection on Twitter, but here we are.

Things have gotten so bad I'd count a Conservative party that's not actively trying to undermine democracy, doesn't deny the reality of Climate change, and has an economic platform that's not just 'loot the country' as a major win for the long term prospects of our country.

It's not just Trump who's out of touch, of the last 7 presidential elections, the Republican party has only managed to win the popular vote one time. I'm hoping they either implode and are replaced by something better, or eventually change thier policy platform to a more moderate one that appeals to more people, so they don't have to resort to fanning the flames of racist resentment and voter disenfranchisement to win elections. Of course all evidence points to them just furthering thier attempts to subvert democracy to win elections, so my hopes aren't exactly high...

The Republican Party literally needs this to win elections, as their voting base is shrinking due to societal and demographic changes (appealing primarily to wealthy people but more importantly to whites who harbor racial resentment), and are going to do everything in thier power to block reforms to make the system more fair and democratic.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry for how true this is...