Is Violence Ever Acceptable?
Рет қаралды 25,590
Күн бұрынAdamandEve.com. Code: T1J. 50% Off 1 Item + Free Shipping US & Canada *some exclusions apply
Some people believe that violence is justified and necessary even outside of self-defense situations. Let's discuss.
HOW TO FOLLOW/KEEP UP WITH ME:
Subscribe ► goo.gl/qVF6Cu (and click the bell)
Website ► t1j.site
Twitter ► / the1janitor
Instagram ► / the1janitor
If you or someone you care about is depressed/in pain and cant see any way out, please call 1-800-273-8255 in U.S, 1-833-456-4566 in Canada, or 0800 689 5652 in the UK. For more options: bit.ly/32somNn
HOW TO TALK TO ME/ASK ME STUFF:
Say hi ► www.the1janitor.com/contact
Business inquiries ► t1j@standard.tv
Curiouscat ► curiouscat.me/the1janitor
Leave me a Voicemail ► 205 - 433 - 9516 (ONLY If you agree to the terms below)
FAN COMMUNITIES
Discord ► the1janitor.com/discord
Subreddit ► / t1j
NEW HERE?
New Viewer Playlist ► bit.ly/3fbNIPy
Livestreams ► goo.gl/VfK2vP
HOW TO SUPPORT ME:
Become a Patreon Homie ► / the1janitor
Become a KZfaq Homie ► the1janitor.com/join
PayPal► the1janitor.com/paypal
Merch ► the1janitor.com/store
Amazon Wishlist ► a.co/5jRUmEa
AFFILIATE LINKS:
Literally Everything I use for KZfaq/Streaming ► amzn.to/39E7DFQ
Budget KZfaq Starter Kit ► amzn.to/2XnJZZt
Budget Streaming Starter Kit ► amzn.to/2DhRnhs
FAQS/MISC:
Help caption/translate my videos► goo.gl/x4eewf
What is HAKO? ► www.the1janitor.com/hako
FAQs about T1J ► www.the1janitor.com/faq
TERMS OF CALLING THE VOICEMAIL:
By calling or texting this number, you agree to allow me to record your voicemail and use the recordings and texts for personal and commercial use. I agree, however, not to give or sell any of your information to any parties unafilliated with video production on this channel.
1. No one will ever answer this number, it should always go straight to voicemail, so don't expect to talk to a human.
2. It is very, very, unlikely that anyone will call or text you back. If you get a response, it will be in a public way, such as when part of a video.
3. There's a caller ID, so I will generally be able to see the number you called from. As mentioned above, none of this information will be shared or used, but if that makes you uncomfortable then I suggest not calling. I also suggest that you do not share any unecessary personal information.
4. Your basic rates and charges for calls, whatever they may be, will still apply.
5. Your voicemail might be used for or responded to in a future video!
Did you see a unpleasant ad on my channel? Let me know: www.the1janitor.com/contact
If would like a source for or elaboration of a claim made that is not listed here, contact me at www.the1janitor.com/contact
Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Edited by John Ivory
Outro Music by John Ivory: www.soundcloud.com/kingjohnivory
#T1J #the1janitor
/ the1janitor
@T1J 2 жыл бұрын
While making this video there was a string of high profile mass shootings. This video has nothing to do with that, but a video about violence when everyone is talking about violence can't be ignored. Just want to acknowledge that and show my support and sympathy for victims of such crimes (which unfortunately happens every single day, but that's a topic for another discussion). Also I bump into the mic several times in the latter half of this video, didn't realize how close I was to it during filming LOL sorry about that.
@alanamarshall5334 2 жыл бұрын
Thanx
@lindelltulloch5405 2 жыл бұрын
Can you pin this?
@dude9318 2 жыл бұрын
Violent crimes happen everywhere in world each day in the world.We can decrease it ,but unfortunately there will always be people that act violently no matter what we do.
@kritikadeval 2 жыл бұрын
@@dude9318 Reducing violence is worthwhile even if it isn't possible to eliminate it.
@ethantidlund6388 2 жыл бұрын
T1J Out of curiosity what happened to your video on how healthcare can be racist?
@arklestudios 2 жыл бұрын
I think like with many things, context matters. I also think that this conversation can make people fall into the trap of conflating "acceptable" with "understandable." I do believe that there are instances where a person who is violent should face consequences for their actions while at the same time the person they were violent to, for want of a better phrase, had it coming.
@kwahujakquai6726 2 жыл бұрын
I wish people would stop thinking in extremes!! When an individual speaks of a specific group or ideology, that doesn't mean they don't understand the nuance of the fact that not "ALL" members of said group thinks the same. Wow! It's so upsetting when someone makes an argument about something and they have to deal with "not everyone in said group is that way." If this kinda shit continues, nobody can make a claim about any group!
@kalpic11 2 жыл бұрын
"Conflating 'acceptable' with 'understandable' " I agree.
@EphemeralTao 2 жыл бұрын
This, like T1J's video, makes the fundamental mistake of postulating violence as an individual action; instead of of a system social construct. Violence exists far beyond individual actions and consequences, especially when it's invested in and wielded by the State and its organs such as the police. In the context of riots and other forms of violent protest and unrest, it's important to understand the power structures that motivate those acts of violence. Minority communities and other marginalized people are subjected to constant and persistent violence in their daily lives, and the riots, vandalism of public property, and clashes with law enforcement are the inevitable reaction of oppressed groups who have been denied any other source of justice and reparations for the wrongs committed to them, the violence inflicted upon them for decades or centuries. Individualizing the use of violence, like individualizing bigotry, is a tactic used to deny the validity of violence as a tool for effective social change, and demonize the inherently reactive and defensive nature of violence committed by oppressed marginalized peoples against their oppressors. The historical facts are, rights and self-determination were never won or defended except through violent opposition to oppression.
@kwahujakquai6726 2 жыл бұрын
@@EphemeralTao I don't think I disagree with anything you wrote in you reply!
@dude9318 2 жыл бұрын
@@EphemeralTao what about the gangs in America that murder each other? Are you going to ignore them and blame everything on the police? Dont get me wrong some people in the police are bad but you can't ignore the problems gangs cause . I mean look what a mess Mexico is .The cartel is ruining their country.
@Minmaximus Жыл бұрын
Violence is not the same as using force to defend oneself.
@ericvilas 2 жыл бұрын
Strangely enough, I went the exact other way when you talked about Richard Spencer: I used to think it was unjustified, but eventually I came around to the realization that the memeification of that punch was a major player in rendering him irrelevant to society, cause everyone now knows him only as "that nazi who got suckerpunched that one time". That punch made him irrelevant, which was the best thing that can possibly happen to a white supremacist imo. As for Will Smith, I think he would've made his point better if he'd stopped immediately before the slap, though it would've been far less memetic and might've brought less attention to the issue.
@Robstafarian 2 жыл бұрын
The memeification of that punch is what led people to ignore Richard Spencer instead of paying attention to neonazis and their activities.
@iszey12 2 жыл бұрын
Neo-Nazis have always been cringe laughingstocks and most extremist activists are destined for irrelevance. The punch changed neither of these facts.
@LaneMaxfield 2 жыл бұрын
Here's a question: can an action have an overall positive impact in a singular context, but still not be acceptable to generally accept? I think that if it wasn't for the "punch Nazis" meme, white supremacists would have gained even more power in the wake of Trump than they did. That one guy who hit Richard Spencer probably did a lot of good in that sense, due to the way he changed the narrative. I also can't think of much that was non-violent that would have had the same impact. But that was such an unusual situation, given the specific weirdness of the election and the discourse and everything. Does it actually follow that violence is generally the right response to people having ideas, even odious ones, that you disagree with? I have to say no.
@Robstafarian 2 жыл бұрын
@@LaneMaxfield The only thing the puncher did was give Richard Spencer something to claim his was strong enough to shrug off. A real difference would have involved severe, permanent damage to Spencer's ability to live as he chooses (e.g. paralysis), appear as a leader to neonazis, or fund his or other neofascists' activities.
@audunms4780 2 жыл бұрын
@@LaneMaxfield punching nazies and giving them wedgies is moraly right by the grace of god!
@joestack1921 2 жыл бұрын
Once while bicycling drunk as a teenager, I fell off my bike in front of someone’s house at night. Landed on their grass. That was the only time I’ve ever had a gun pulled on me. I left the bike and sprinted
@kevinprzy4539 2 жыл бұрын
@@Tiera_H Tbf stuff like that is rare, I’ve done worse and have never had a gun pulled on me..although I don’t recommend riding a bike while drunk at night because something bad is bound to happen regardless.
@victorbevz9584 2 жыл бұрын
This Tuesday, an older man unleashed his road rage on me in a car park. He ripped the sunglasses off my face and threw them. I took it calmly, which I should be proud of, but in all honesty it bruised my ego. Given that context, your words came at a good time for me: "Sometimes people just suck and the most reasonable response is to disengage. We can't go through life always expecting our emotions to be validated." Disengaging is hard, especially when you're not sure whether you should have fought back. Does copping the abuse reinforce an asshole's sense of righteousness, or does refusing to respond deny him the shitfight he was trying to provoke? Even with my strongly pacifist disposition, I'm not sure.
@ruaoneill9050 Жыл бұрын
I'm really sorry that happened to you.
@victorbevz9584 Жыл бұрын
@@ruaoneill9050 That's really kind of you to stop and say. Here's wishing a good day on you. ✌
@Shalondria Жыл бұрын
I’m sorry. You did the right thing, or I’ll say you handled that situation REALLY WELL. Go you! Hope/faith in humanity restored (a little bit). Thank you for sharing.
@seanmatthewking Жыл бұрын
Don't let people touch you for one. You owe yourself that level of defense, otherwise your ego is always going to be bruised. Don'tet angry people within arms reach. Assholes will get what's coming, you don't need to be the one to give it to them if that's not your nature.
@drdavinsky Жыл бұрын
Violence is never acceptable. Learn to control ur anger. No such thing as hate speech
@concibar4267 2 жыл бұрын
Fun Fact about Stand your Ground Laws: In Germany we basically have a self defense law that is extremely similar to stand your ground laws. There are some exceptions for over-reacting (e.g. if a child kicks you, you aren't allowed to beat the crap out of him), for provocation (if you bait someone to punch you, you can't then claim self defense, even if the provoked goes way overboard) but in general it's the same. We just don't have more guns than citizens. When someone wants to kill someone else out of rage, they are just far less likely to have a gun and thus far less likely to succeed.
@gustavmeyrink_2.0 2 жыл бұрын
There are millions of privately owned guns in Germany. The difference is that NOBODY gets a carry licence, concealed or otherwise (except police and professional bodyguards). If you have to transport your gun to somewhere be it for sport shooting or hunting it must be unloaded and field-stripped. While when stored at home it must be kept in a dedicated gun safe which will be inspected before you are allowed to take your gun home.
@concibar4267 2 жыл бұрын
@@gustavmeyrink_2.0 Yes, I mostly really like the regulations we put on guns. What is your opinion on the Bedürfnisnachweis?
@gustavmeyrink_2.0 2 жыл бұрын
@@concibar4267 makes perfect sense to me.
@trenvert123 Жыл бұрын
What's insane about Stand you ground laws is that there were already rules in place for defending yourself if you felt threatened. These laws just allow you to yell, "I feel threatened" then gun someone down, and have you not be prosecuted when forensics determine the victim had been trying to run away from you. You can see videos of guys in America yelling that while walking toward people and being aggressive, with an outline of what looks like a gun and holster under their shirt. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/frtkktiXvM20aY0.html
@seanmatthewking Жыл бұрын
@@gustavmeyrink_2.0 The US obviously isn't getting rid of its guns. And I doubt the right to carry will be restricted country-wide anytime soon. People want to be armed more than ever considering we have a mass shooting every week. And criminals rob stores with guns. The trade-off is in the heat of the moment someone will shoot someone they're disputing with.
@samwildstein2092 2 жыл бұрын
A lot of people have a view of retribution that I'll call "blank check retaliation": these people are waiting for someone to wrong them in some way so they have the excuse to unload on them. They feel like "he started it" is justification to do whatever they like and escalate the situation tremendously. It goes well past self-defense to use force for the purpose of getting even but the "f*#k around and fight out" crowd see any perceived provocation as justification for any action against a so-called aggressor. I think anyone with an older sibling should be able to explain how everyone who uses violence feels their violence is justified, and that just because someone feels the other person started the conflict that is not necessarily true. When a bully who as struck someone in the past pushes them to respond to taunts & threats with force, is that bully really justified in defending themselves? You can be sure the bully feels entitled to crush resistance in the name of their perceived fairness. 13:21 You mention "several studies have shown that Stand Your Ground laws don't reduce death or violence." I don't doubt you on that, but some sources would be nice even they were just on screen briefly. Otherwise it's very easy for a skeptic to write off that point an unsubstantiated. "Studies show" without citing anything is like using "They say" while not quote anyone in particular.
@jcspoon573 2 жыл бұрын
I call these people ... "cops".
@YggdrasilAudio 2 жыл бұрын
He has a website where you can contact him for sources.
@totorod Жыл бұрын
These are people who have a desire to visit harm and injury on others, people who probably take actual pleasure in the act. Their tendency toward authoritarianism as well as the fear of punishment is the only thing that keeps them from instigating the act.
@srr9930 2 жыл бұрын
I don't like how this conversation is always all or nothing. No every time I person talk shit you shouldn't hit them but there is a point beyond what is considered eeasonable to tolerate and agitators usually knwo that line. When someone crosses that line it is reasonable to respond physically bc that person did everything but physical to escalate the situation.
@taylorbew1854 2 жыл бұрын
The issue that with violence, you can’t truly control the outcome. One small hit in the wrong place can kill a person. Death may be on the extreme end, but serious injury is not. So when once becomes violent, they are inherently taking on that responsibility. The issue is, most people forget that and then get mad when their actions have consequences and usually the consequences will gloss over any context, nuance, and/or critical thinking
@bananalord3882 2 жыл бұрын
Lmao the Adam and eve sponsorship
@Q269 2 жыл бұрын
13:00 Had a guy near here who was on campus, nearly got run over, went to yell at the guy who shot him. Dude was defending his Castle (car) and thus was not charged with anything at all.
@Akanio_Vatheros Жыл бұрын
I get it, sometimes, you can't just talk it out, which is a shame but it's our reality. Context matters a lot in violence.
@mungomungoson3160 2 жыл бұрын
My issues with and for? (not sure how to phrase it) stand your ground laws is that they ineffectively take the place of laws that I think are necessary to protect untrained people if they don't make an ideal choice to flea or stop at the first opportunity when placed under extreme duress or unreasonable demand, the fight or flight response isn't much of a conscious choice. I don't actually know what that law would need to look like to be fair.
@crackingback37 2 жыл бұрын
T1j has the school photo background now
@gota7738 2 жыл бұрын
I think sometimes I worry less about the violence itself and more it's glorification and reinforcing the notion that 'it's good when bad things happen to bad people'. As we see time and time again, under this idea all we have to do to justify violence that is favourable to us is to find a way to paint a person or the demographic as immutably bad. I don't think it's possible to exist without violence in the broadest sense, and I think in matters of self-defence physical or impeding violence can be necessary for survival (though what calls for self-defence should have some level of observable reality). However I'm very wary of models of thinking that incentives harm and support the use demonisation or criminalisation to create or increase capital.
@madjangler 2 жыл бұрын
Such a thoughtful video, and I find myself aligning with you, for the most part. However I’ve recently heard good arguments that when (specifically) prominent fascists are physically humiliated in public, it undermines their message of strength in a specific and effective way.
@Hoopsnake 2 жыл бұрын
I don't really know if that works. A major basis of most fascism is the ability to magically flip-flop when it comes to the antagonists they create. So when they are the victim, the narrative switches to "we are all in danger from these powerful forces and we need violence to protect us". Then, when they're in the reverse position it transitions to "our opposing forces are weak and worthless and don't deserve a voice". So a figure in the situation you describe would milk the victim card as hard as humanly possible, then immediately flip to the message of strength later. Their followers would be absolutely fine with this paradox, since its one of the pillars of most totalitarian ideologies.
@jcspoon573 2 жыл бұрын
Like the featured nazi. It's a tough call to make.
@Robstafarian 2 жыл бұрын
The point of violently opposing fascists is protecting the people they would harm, not public humiliation.
@EphemeralTao 2 жыл бұрын
@@Hoopsnake Except that's not what happened. After getting publicly humiliated, Spencer pretty much dropped of the map, lost the majority of his influence. Fascist depends very heavily on what Mel Brooks called its "shoddy theatrics". It needs to make itself look strong, look powerful, in order to convince people it can effectively protect them from the "powerful forces" Once those theatrics are broken, exposed for for the lie that they are, they cease to work as effectively. Leaders who look weak and foolish simply cannot convince people to join their side. It's a lot harder for them to "flip to the message of strength later", and none of them have really managed to do so nearly as effectively. Humiliating them through tactics like punching, milk-shaking, ridicule, etc. has been demonstrated to be effective time and again; especially when combined with other tactics such as deplatforming.
@asafoetidajones8181 2 жыл бұрын
The 1988 Geraldo episode where his nose was broken in a brawl with white supremacist skinheads invited on the show was a huge recruiting boost for racialists. It showed them, at least to their target market, in a position of strength and proactivity. That's the other side of the coin. Whoever looks tougher and less foolish wins; whether that's disappointing in terms of the human condition or not. Trump prowling around Hilary on the stool made him look "better" and stronger than her and helped him win. Refusing to display power because it feels distasteful is conceding to the fash who won't be so delicate. Metzger went on to be held responsible for inciting the murder of an African immigrant two years later. The very real consequence of letting them show their power while Refusing to show ours.
@NelsonStJames 2 жыл бұрын
If you just take the question at face value, anybody who has ever studied history -- or actually left the house knows that while violence might not be the course of action one may want to take, it is unfortunately sometimes the only response to handling a situation. Which kind of makes the word "acceptable" strange. As someone else commented, we seriously need to start taking context into consideration. All topics can't be boiled down to a "one-situation-fits-all" generality.
@jeanf6295 2 жыл бұрын
It is quite weird to oppose emotions to rationality when it comes to moral matters : what kind of moral system would be completely alien from emotional responses ? As I see it, violence can be a powerful way of expressing one's emotions, one that can hardly be ignored but is however concise to a fault. That power is tied to violence unwanted side effect of leading to an escalation of conflicts, a feed back loop of emotional negativity that is obviously not desirable. De-escalation of conflicts requires some kind of good will from all sides, and getting that from an act of violence requires a well thought follow up, especially in a culture that see violence as legitimate only insofar as it is used to protect the current public order.
@EphemeralTao 2 жыл бұрын
It also requires both sides acting in good will, and willing to accept and respect their shared humanity. When one side is not acting in good will, and does not recognize your shared humanity, then violence is inevitable, regardless. And when one side limits themselves to non-violence, that gives the other side a monopoly on the use of violence, and ensures that they will remain in power and able to oppress. What we already see is that the government, through the police force, has no qualms about using violence to oppress minorities of all sorts. They commit violence against vulnerable people every single day. Saying that those oppressed and marginalized people are only allowed to act non-violently, says that they are not allowed to defend themselves, that they should simply accept the status quo and endure their oppression.
@kevinprzy4539 2 жыл бұрын
@@EphemeralTao What about the minorities that use violence on people that aren’t inciting violence themselves, it happens all the time..who’s to blame then? The culture that perpetuates violence as being ok?
@bozo7893 10 ай бұрын
@@EphemeralTaothroughout all of human history violence has been used as a tool. No mater how small or horrendous. It can be used in a good or bad way, now that completely depends on the individual and is a more philosophical question.
@BigBadBalrog 2 жыл бұрын
I disagree with a lot of this on a gut emotional level, but the scary thing is that I know I would have also disagreed when I was 17, and 17 year old me was not a good person. Looks like I need to reevaluate some of my gut reactions and internalize more of the points in this video that are obviously more reasonable 😳
@isaiahwilliams2642 7 күн бұрын
For a while, I worked at a car wash. A lot of my coworkers there were actually pretty cool and chill, until one guy joined who was not only an asshole, but actively made the work harder for everyone else around him, he would snap at people for no reason, he would give me and others instructions that either made no sense or actively went against how the bosses trained us, and if we didn't follow them, he'd get aggressive or enraged, and he would even take reckless actions that could genuinely hurt people if we weren't on our guard (He would pull cars out of the tunnel without checking that he had clearance, and open car doors from inside even when there was a step ladder with a person on it right in front of it). He would say many racist, homophobic and transphobic slurs under his breath, and sometimes out loud if the customers were just out of earshot. On occasion, he even shouted out customers and once caused a younger female coworker to go home crying after he chewed her out over something only he had a problem with. He would push my buttons more than anyone, and I often wanted to just say "Fuck it all" and hurt him regardless of consequences. Thankfully, a coworker beat me to it, and it was the one guy who was still his friend after he politely asked him to keep distance when he found out the dude had a bed bug problem. There were no fisticuffs, but the friend threw that creep to the ground allegedly after he rubbed his whole body on the friend's car. The worst part was that this was just after COVID, so no matter how many complaints we got, the bosses couldn't let him go out of fear of short staffing. After I had enough and put in my two weeks, I came to work on my last day, we passed each other by, he just casually stated "F*got." At that moment was my ultimatum. I was either going to drop my towels and beat this guy, or walk out of the job on my last day. And immediately, I just walked away and never looked back. I know if I let my impulses take me over, I would have ruined my life, as many of my family members had at my age. I left, and now have a State office job that may not be very pleasant, but it pays the bills, and it's not seasonal so I have a reliable income and benefits. I don't know where the dude is now, but I hope he got some help, and if not (which I think is more likely), I hope the right person finally sticks it to him. But of course, that's just the emotions talking.
@MainelyMandy 2 жыл бұрын
As always, another great video and great discussion. I definitely think violence is sometimes necessary but as you point out I can sometimes be more forgiving of violence on my "side"
@marcusblankenship6345 2 жыл бұрын
Brilliantly put as usual!
@jeremymichael520 2 жыл бұрын
Really needed to hear this
@adammyers7383 2 жыл бұрын
I don’t think I agree with everything here, but I think it’s a very good start to a very important conversation
@VossLikeTheWater 2 жыл бұрын
In a fair and just society, these are great points. But that's not the reality we live in. Our government has right-leaning tendencies and have actively chosen to antagonize peaceful protesters while exacerbating violence. Judiciaries have used unequal sentencing on people who may find themselves justified vs those who were promoting fear through terrorism. At the end of the day, violence should never be the first choice, but so long as you know the consequences of your actions and have made your peace with them, you have to do what you believe is right. There is no universal axiom that can properly encompass that. Yes, that is an individual pushing their ideology onto the world in a violent manner, but that's been happening, and by people with far less scruples than you or I; and it works for them. Can't argue with results, even as we dissect and analyze the outcome.
@taimatsuko 2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely LOVE this discourse. Thank you!
@kingbeauregard 2 жыл бұрын
I find that life's dilemmas are typically a matter of individually valid principles coming into conflict; then it's a matter of trying to figure out which principles matter the most and how you can try to honor all the principles as well as circumstances permit. So just taking a second to think about the principles coming into conflict can help guide a person's thinking.
@muffitytuffity5083 2 жыл бұрын
Thoughtful and articulate. Great work
@JohnDoe-zp3vy Жыл бұрын
I really appreciate this video. There's so many people out there both in my personal life and online that always seem to be saying we need to be as aggressive as possible to our opponents. I never thought of this as the case. Someone gets smacked, the natural response is to smack back. This almost never solves anything. We should never be the aggressors and use our violence sparingly when we must.
@Infamous-K 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for such a thoughtful video. I appreciated hearing your take.
@paigeu311 2 жыл бұрын
Your videos are always so thoughtful. I appreciate the way you approach issues a lot
@CodestarProductions 2 жыл бұрын
Great video, and great arguments
@borrsthemottled 2 жыл бұрын
One of the ways I navigate what I am willing to tolerate and how I act when my tolerance is gone is the notion that tolerance is not a moral absolute... it is a peace treaty. Tolerance only exists if all agree to its principles and act accordingly. Richard Spencer is (was?) an important face of and recruiter for the far right in general and ethno-fascism in particular. He has played an important role in taking the far-right online, and creating a leadless radicalization pipeline. Additionally, his ideology has historical examples we can draw from, and those examples were universal in their pursuit of their goals through violence. His ideology violates my general principles of tolerance and non-violence. He has, through his actions and words broken the peace treaty. I may not want to use violence to make change, to resist, but I have the privilege of not being the first class of people on the chopping block if his ideology wins. I will not tell others that they cannot use more violent means to try and protect themselves and those they love from the very real threats to their safety and their lives. A final thought: Since The Punchening, it seems like Spencer has vanished. I can't say that punching Nazis on camera will always work, or that his diminishing as a public figure is permanent, but this anecdotal evidence hints vaguely that it is really disruptive to people like him to have his sense of power so publicly shattered. (Minor grammar/spelling edits. Typing out my politics on a phone screen doesn't work well(
@EphemeralTao 2 жыл бұрын
This. Fascism depends very much on image, theatrics. Breaking that breaks the influence, and so far Spencer and several others, like Yiannopolous and Ngo, have effectively fallen off the map following their own "punchening" -- that is, being publicly humiliated. They don't have nearly the influence they used to. It doesn't always work, of course, but it does work more often than not.
@kevinprzy4539 2 жыл бұрын
@@EphemeralTao Lmao Ngo hasn’t fallen off the map? Tbf he’s exposed a lot of bs out there
@pointegal96 2 жыл бұрын
This is an amazing video and actually made me realize something I value in others, thank you for your content!
@VitriolicVermillion 2 жыл бұрын
"He was the initiator of the conflict, after all." Most people would agree with you, but I'm in a particular position where there is conflict brought down on me, initiated by others, whose worldview allows them to be completely ignorant (or in denial) that they're hurting me. He was definitely the *escalator* of the conflict, though.
@KarolaTea 2 жыл бұрын
Interesting video, thank you for sharing your thoughts!
@joshuavance5424 2 жыл бұрын
This was great. Heres an algorithm bump
@Keelsman 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for share your thinks! 🎉
@pabloquijadasalazar7507 2 жыл бұрын
I think violence is ok, sometimes, but it’s hard for all of us to agree when it’s ok. Also, Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t drive across town, he drove across state lines.
@thefreestofspeech6951 2 жыл бұрын
Rittenhouse Lived 2 hours away. You know this you have to be joking?
@pabloquijadasalazar7507 2 жыл бұрын
@@thefreestofspeech6951 He lived in Illinois, the place he murdered people was in Wisconsin.
@thefreestofspeech6951 2 жыл бұрын
@@pabloquijadasalazar7507 You are joking correct? His school place of work and stepfather all lived in that Kenosha. How do you think he got there do you think he had to get on a plane and fly for 4 hours? Do you think it took a 12-hour road trip? It was 2 hours away if you look at your whole life you will find that you spend 2 hours probably traveling to the grocery store.
@pabloquijadasalazar7507 2 жыл бұрын
@@thefreestofspeech6951 I live within a 10 minute walk to my grocery store, it’s nice actually, I’m also poor as f^ck. Your choices are yours alone.
@thefreestofspeech6951 2 жыл бұрын
@@pabloquijadasalazar7507 Well I don't have that privilege of yours my grocery store is a half hour away and I have to walk there. No matter the weather because I eat food.
@MrRenardbleu 2 жыл бұрын
we have to view violence like a means of production. I'm not saying we have to be violent necesarily. But What happens usually when we discuss about violence is that people against violence in political movements are criticizing or downright phisically stopping (sometimes with violence wether they like to call it that way or not) the people who are protesting in a violent way or protecting themselves from police attacks, while the people against violence in manifestations haven't got the power or the means to stop or deffend nobody from the armed forces that are being most violent of all.
@racheltadeu346 2 жыл бұрын
I appreciate this
@Mankeyification 2 жыл бұрын
It’s funny that you mentioned richard spencer cause that guy is now completely irrelevant and it’s because of that punch. I’d also say your desire for no violence is itself an emotional response that ignores all the places where it does work because you don’t like how it feels.
@d14551 2 жыл бұрын
What will provide a meaningful solution to a problem...I think that's a great yardstick to use in evaluating options.
@xKumei 2 жыл бұрын
I've spent some time learning about nonviolent communication and I was left with an impression that it is inversely proportional for how long you want the changes to last. If there is an immediate threat, nonviolent communication is less likely to work. But if you want to changes to stick over a long period of time even if you aren't around to enforce them, they need to change internally. That being said, it still wouldn't be moral to use violence to make long term change even if it were effective as long as there are nonharmful ways to do so. It wouldn't be right to hit your kids even if it made them turn out "better." The other thing that comes to mind is Just War Theory in general. Inflicting violence for the sake of punishment has never been just. Although, obviously it would seem kind of dumb to be like "Wait until they literally take up arms before you fight back." Which is why another rule of engagement is proportionality. I would say the Richard Spender example was disproportionate and only invited escalation. I would think what would be is similar activist efforts, but it seems like the left in America are having a hard time organizing? But I don't know enough about activism to say for sure.
@angrynoodletwentyfive6463 2 жыл бұрын
I would say violence outside of self defense is never "Acceptable" because violence is never Productive, it only serves to escalate things and make you look bad. A common excuse i hear is "well the people i am against are using violence, so why shouldn't I?" and the truth is that most of the groups who are using violence are despite whatever they may claim trying to escalate whatever situation they are involved in. So it makes sense for them to be using it, that doesn't make it ok, but they are using it because it suits their needs to escalate Racial tensions so that people feel the need to choose sides, to escalate protests so that they can say "see these guys are a problem".
@THELITTLERIVERNERD 2 жыл бұрын
I think you have been doing this for a while now but DAM your lighting setup is really top tier. Looks super good.
@alexcox2481 2 жыл бұрын
This conversation is muddied by our political circumstances. The state should not have a monopoly on violence and I often find non violence and the rhetoric that violence is always wrong to be effective propaganda tools for the state.
@alexcox2481 2 жыл бұрын
@@InDeepPudding wasn't directly responding to T1J, just commenting on what typically happens when we discuss this topic
@nicholasrodinos4701 2 жыл бұрын
Isaiah Lee claimed to be offended by Chapelle's trans jokes, but he's a Trump supporter, I mean those two things aren't inherently mutually exclusive but it just doesn't seem likely.
@ValerietheLovelyDeadlyItalian 2 жыл бұрын
every political ideology has some amount of violence. the greatest way to distinguish different ideologies may very well be when and where each one "justifies" violence.
@jasonharrison3873 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@T1J 2 жыл бұрын
thank you!
@azazelgrigori9244 Жыл бұрын
I agree that violence shouldn’t be our first reaction to a situation, even though sometimes we may feel it was warranted. But still, the threat of retaliation is also what discourages violence. Without it, certain people might be bolder in their actions. The fact is if someone is willing to commit violence onto another, then only the threat of retaliation will dissuade them. It’s the oldest method in self defense. Pure nature. I’m not saying we should react violently to every slight. But I won’t feel pity for someone who attempted to harm, or kill, a man on a public stage. Especially over jokes. As for Will Smith, personally, I think chivalry gets men into trouble. If he really wanted to express his displeasure, there were better ways to do that. Simply yelling “not cool” from his seat would have been better. And if I recall, Jada cheated on him, manipulated him, and disgraced him. And because of her, Will assaulted another man over a joke. I agree the joke was in bad taste, but I don’t consider her worth defending.
@rhiawolf 2 жыл бұрын
Really good and practical assessment of violence as a tactic for change. I've had a similar journey myself, of starting as a pacifist and then exploring more nuance over time. It's really a case by case question, but I think you're 100% right that the most important question is whether or not violence will actually be effective at ameliorating the situation. Whether it feels satisfying in the moment is not the issue. That Rittenhouse case is a very complicated one, and a good example of layers upon layers of nuance. Was there a right solution for the protesters in that situation? I think they did correctly identify a threat, but was there a course of action for them that could have led to less death and injury? We'll never know. I don't actually believe they were morally wrong in such a circumstance (or, at least, I'm in zero position to judge them, myself), but I also do see how their choices helped to create the possibility of Rittenhouse getting the lenient verdict he did. Some situations are terribly complex and start with the deck stacked in favor of injury and death or other negative outcomes, and it's very difficult to assess the morality or even the practicality of using violence in such circumstances. I think it's important not to moralize about situations that complex. No one can be expected to get every little thing right in complex self-defense circumstances. But practical strategizing in order to prepare oneself for being useful in the minimizing of injury and death can help to make the world a better place. Faced with another brainwashed and inflamed teenager with zero combat training carrying a deadly firearm in a tense situation, what are useful strategies that those who are (genuinely) threatened by this (almost literal) loose cannon can take to minimize harm? I certainly don't know and don't expect you to either, but I think that's the real question here, not anything about morality. The people in that situation did their best, and the results, for all we know, may actually be better than what would have happened if they'd done nothing. We can only hope to learn from their circumstances for the future.
@MrRenardbleu 2 жыл бұрын
talking about "acceptable/inacceptable" is a moralistic point of view that I have no interest on entertaining
@episdosas9949 2 жыл бұрын
peaceful activist here. self defence is not violence.
@Nick-pu3of 2 жыл бұрын
It concerns me how many people (men especially) dismiss "shame and bruised egos" as something minor. Shame is one of the most toxic of emotions and is at the root of almost every act of public violence, it's the feeling most commonly expressed in the memoirs and notes left behind by actors of public violence. Whenever a socially powerful person shames someone weaker without repercussion, that's a trigger for more violence later down the line.
@annabelapurva-madhuri4861 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you
@guj19 2 жыл бұрын
The problem is that "retribution" has traditionally been subjective. From the attacker's perspective, Chapelle was causing some level of thought violence into the world and was, therefore, justified in jumping on stage. There were a number of years there where we kind of reached some level or real "sticks and stones..." but we're rapidly going back to all that. We're really in a bit of a conundrum where employing historical power dynamics in trying to determine justification. If we're doing that, you're calling into question the justification for horrible, horrible shit; are the shooter assholes justified in the violence for their perceived "injustices" perpetrated on them; what about every terrorist bombing?
@Molecular-Brainwaves-Translate 2 жыл бұрын
I always thought that "Thought Violence" only existed in terms of psychological torture. Like, "lock you inside a coffin and pretend to bury it as a Halloween prank" kind of psychological torture.
@Caterfree10 2 жыл бұрын
@@Molecular-Brainwaves-Translate I mean, bigotry is violence, even if it’s “just words” (or “just jokes”). If I said the N word to a black person as a white person, that black person would be within their rights to beat the shit out of me, imo.
@Molecular-Brainwaves-Translate 2 жыл бұрын
@@Caterfree10 that's insane
@Molecular-Brainwaves-Translate 2 жыл бұрын
@@Caterfree10 You can maybe argue that it is violence if calling a black person the n word makes him "off himself". But only after he does himself in is it violence, not before. If the receiver of those words doesn't care, then it is null. Words are never inherently violence, just how they are received/reacted to.
@Molecular-Brainwaves-Translate 2 жыл бұрын
@@Caterfree10 I haven't watched the video yet, so maybe T1J will explain it differently. But words rarely have any meaning unless backed by action. That's always been my philosophy.
@xcalubir4915 2 жыл бұрын
I might be raising an unpopular opinion here, but based off the information that I have received, from legacy media as well as private news groups, everything said in the video about Kyle Rittenhouse is incorrect. He was removing graffiti, administering first aid, and protecting property. The only reason he had a gun was because he was afraid of being attacked. He did not antagonize anyone, and all three people he shot were attacking him as he was trying to get away. One pointed a handgun at Kyle and threatened to shoot him. The second was attacking him with a skateboard, hitting him over the head, and the third was chasing him, yelling obscenities, and trying to take his gun away, most likely to shoot at Kyle and kill him with his own gun. Kyle actively was trying to get to and surrender to, the cops after the first incident, but was stopped by the following incidents. Every cop and military individual that I saw interviewed (except for those that believed he should've let them kill him because he was against the protest and had white privilege) said that while Kyle being there was not the best situation (not saying that he was wrong in any way to be there), he acted professionally and correctly in the situation he found himself in. He handled the gun correctly, waited to use it until only when necessary, and used the gun correctly for the situation. Was it the best situation, no. But considering he had family and worked in the city in question, he felt it was his duty to protect it the best way he could. He did not go there to be a vigilante, and while a court of his peers found him innocent on all charges and the he did not break any laws, he says that, knowing that he would actually have to shoot people while there, that he would never have done it. He didn't want to shoot anyone, and had the gun mainly as a deterrent to stop issues. That doesn't sound like someone who was going out there just to kill someone to me.
@smk2457 Жыл бұрын
Another thought on stand your ground: If you're in a place you're allowed to be perhaps letting a bully or thug make you retreat gives them power. E.g 'Get out of here (insert bigoted slur) or I'll beat your ass.' In this case you're definitely justified in not leaving and if they put their hands on you and you fight back it's self defense. If you left, the guy wins. You've given up your right to be somewhere just being who you are. That's one way to look at it. I don't how often that actually happens and if that was the intent of the law.
@OverthrowMedia 2 жыл бұрын
so i got to say if violence doesn't work where is mr spencer at now?
@sunofapeach 2 жыл бұрын
was that "follow me" voice clip from oddworld: abe's oddysee 👀
@T1J 2 жыл бұрын
👀👀
@lyrablack8621 2 жыл бұрын
3:01 Dave Chappelle asked Isaiah why he did it, and he initially said he wanted to bring awareness to the fact that his grandmother was kicked out of her home due to gentrification. Isaiah did later say in court it was because he's bisexual 17:47 "You can look at the rich history of public and political activism and advocacy throughout the world" … and quickly come to the realization that while nonviolence definitely gets more people on your side, at the end of the day, effective revolution does not come about peacefully or without discomfort; revolution is, in and of itself, an act of conflict against the status quo. Not all of this conflict will be necessarily violent, but it is very much going to be met with violence nonetheless by the supporters of the status quo. Like you said, it's not a good idea to punch people you disagree with, either because their supporters are watching, because in the long term, they can punch better than you, or for the simple fact that your time and energy would be better spent having a conversation with them. That being said, need I remind you that Jesus Christ (assuming he actually existed; which, I would say a man like that existed but has now been elevated to God status quite literally through fanfiction) was crucified, despite never acting out violently against the status quo? What about Martin Luther King Jr? What about Angela Davis and every other peaceful protester taken to prison/court and abused for acting in self defense of their ideas and their right to exist peacefully? In this video, your focus was very much on the individual, and settling individual conflicts, but systemic change is brought about by the collective, not individuals. Were the Vietnamese people wrong to (successfully) defend their way of living from the United States military? Is Pakistan wrong for fighting for its independence from Israel, who seeks only to enslave their people and exploit their resources? Is Hong Kong wrong to revolt against China, who seeks the same? There's obviously a lot of nuance here, and it's very very different to punch up to a fascist who is propped up by the status quo (seeing as it was he himself who designed it) versus punching down to an already marginalized group who cannot fight back, or whose odds are stacked against them from the very beginning. Personally, I would much prefer a temporary period of productive, useful conflict (perhaps lasting my lifetime) than this negative, useless, ceaseless period of "peace"
@bob3ironfist 2 жыл бұрын
A period of violent conflict lasting your lifetime is a lot more likely to produce bad outcomes than it is to produce good ones.
@lyrablack8621 2 жыл бұрын
@@bob3ironfist Well, I mean either a violent conflict (the likes of which the global south has been forced into for _their_ lifetimes, without their consent or even the benefit of being prepared) kills us, or the climate crisis does. We can't just sit and do nothing, especially when Besides, I never said we should have a revolution _right_ now, but I am saying that it's only natural that one will come, most likely brought about by fascists and the police they're currently working to militarize. We might as well be prepared and set up supply chains through mutual aid, if not to defend ourselves, then at the very least to make sure those who can't fight for themselves don't suffer because they couldn't get the medicines or support they need. Again, I don't know when this will take place, but given what happened when Trump lost the election, it's definitely not a bad idea to lay the groundwork for collective action, even if that just means getting to know comrades in our communities and forming stronger social bonds with them, volunteering together to protect indigenous land, national forests, and parks like the one in Atlanta they're trying to raze to make room for cop city. If I haven't made this clear, I don't _want_ to have a violent conflict, nobody wants that. Given the course of history and the political instability of the United States, especially after the pandemic and when the power grid shut off in Texas a couple years ago (and when, instead of attempting to help people who were freezing to death in their own homes, the police chose instead to guard dumpsters full of food dumped by grocery stores rather than let people get it for free), it's just inevitable that it's going to come to a head sooner or later, again assuming that the climate crisis doesn't kill us first; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if environmental damage actually were the instigator of a conflict, when we're fighting over the last remaining petroleum; heck, I filled up my tank just now, and it was $80 for 10 gallons. At the very least, we should organize to get some decent infrastructure and public transportation, it's too expensive to not carpool anymore
@Marc-ck2mu 2 жыл бұрын
@@bob3ironfist Yup, this person people has no idea what they're asking for. The non-white & non-het folks that they claim to fight for would be the ones who suffer the most in a civil conflict with the reactionary right.
@kevinprzy4539 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah…so much is wrong with this comment
@EdenLippmann 2 жыл бұрын
You're one of my favourite philosophers.
@nadiasydorova7100 2 жыл бұрын
Agree with your points on interpersonal violence, would you consider doing a video about geopolitical violence?
@EdwardSkihands Жыл бұрын
Fascism actually does fear violence, it's fueled by fear and Spencer got out of picture after being punched, he was weak in their eyes and not being able to lead them anymore. Even if someone else took his place it took a while and their confidence to scare others was weakened.
@ashleybrock5228 2 жыл бұрын
💚
@srr9930 2 жыл бұрын
Kyle Rittenhouse I believe did everything in his power to escalate the situation other that violence. He did so, so he could shoot people and I believe he threatened the crowd implicitly. For 1) if u give someone a command and you have a gun every command u give is punctuated but a implicitly (or else) 2)Kyle broke the law first which was ignored bc the judge said the rule was hard to follow
@TheCommanderFluffy 2 жыл бұрын
OMG thank you! I felt the same way about Rittenhouse.
@JRey28 2 жыл бұрын
Totally agree. And even having a weapon out that people can see in benign situations changes things. If a neighbor comes to my door and asks, “someone hit my car, did you see anything?” I would probably try to help them out. But if they say the same thing holding a gun, I’d think they were accusing me and threatening me with violence without saying or doing anything overtly violent.
@sub-harmonik 2 жыл бұрын
? he was literally running away from people chasing him. How is that doing 'everything in his power to escalate'? what command did he give?
@hayaokakizaki4463 2 жыл бұрын
@@sub-harmonik Why were they chasing him? Is it because he was pointing a gun at a crowd?
@thefreestofspeech6951 2 жыл бұрын
@@hayaokakizaki4463 You do realize life isn't a movie? This group of people who had an assortment of weapons including Guns themselves. And have been demonstrating violent acts towards him and others. That makes them the aggressor.
@evanjuleen Жыл бұрын
It's a game called f around and find out.
@JWFdocumentaries 2 жыл бұрын
the word "offensive" is often misused in ways that it's only used emotionally or verbally. Ppl forget that attackers are on the offense. That being said, defense from violent offenders is necessary. Especially when its group of offenders against a single defender.
@sara-ara-ara 2 жыл бұрын
❤️❤️❤️
@ShadaOfAllThings 2 жыл бұрын
"Talk shit get hit" is more of a phrase, at least in my experience with how its been used, to imply that if you go around pissing people off eventually someone is going to hit you
@79AlienFinger79 2 жыл бұрын
As for the 'Punching Nazis' argument, there is an interesting facet that wasn't explored in this video. Namely, if you read research on fascists (Bob Altemeyer's work is a strong starting point), you find something interesting. If you ask groups of people how authoritarian it is desireable to be, people who have low or medium level of sympathy for authoritarian principles say that it is very undesireable to support authoritarians. People with high levels of authoritarian sympathy responded that it is desireable to be 'in the middle'. In other words, they often don't see it as a moral good to support authoritarian movements in the abstract. But once one gains speed, and they look at the people around them and can say 'I'm not that far out on the fringes,' they are more than willing to go with the flow. Richard Spencer and his like getting punched in the face - very publically - may very well lower recruitment to fascist movements. Not because it makes people change their minds. It likely won't. But the people who would join fascist and neo-nazi groups are less likely to do it, the less powerful and mainstream those groups appear. It's the same reason that massive counter-protests are an effective way of pushing back against nazi rallies. If there are three times as many angry progressives with baseball bats around your march, encroaching on every photo op and yelling over any video footage, it robs the fascist movements of the 'acceptability' it desperately needs to maintain and gain momentum.
@jenliferfronester6429 2 жыл бұрын
My biggest point of disagreement here is: when was the last time you heard from Richard Spencer?
@fearsomefawkes6724 2 жыл бұрын
Yea, might have stopped one person, but blatant racism seems to be increasing. It doesn't seem to have helped the larger cause.
@empatheticrambo4890 2 жыл бұрын
There’s so much to be said here. I appreciate that you went through so many of the different perspectives on this issue I joke about punching nazis, but I really don’t know how much good it would do society
@limner123 Жыл бұрын
Something to consider is the tangential effect on others. For example: Smith didn’t engage in violence to change Rock’s behavior, he did it to make his wife feel defended. (This was unsuccessful but still.) I just watched your analysis of what labels people should use about different ethnicities: It doesn’t matter if the gay person or the black person or whomever to which you are speaking takes offense to the label or the joke. It’s not about if Frank is offended that Tom made fun of him for being gay. Jimmy heard that, and received and internalized the societal message that it is less good to be gay, even if you can make it more ok by not being “one of those gays”. I’m more careful in my middle aged years to not validate something on behalf of all women or gays just because it doesn’t bother me. Back to this video, if in a public space the one guy punches the other guy for a racist comment: Does it change this or any racist’s mind? No. Does it make that bystander feel a little like public norms are more likely to have their back? Maybe.
@totorod Жыл бұрын
Lol, I have a new saying! “Is this a marvel movie?!”
@SLYKM 2 жыл бұрын
I believe the one who attacked Chapelle was a conservative person, but don't remember the source I got that from.
@justjukka 2 жыл бұрын
Did anyone get hurt after Spencer got punched? What I mean is, did someone see that happen, and then take it out on someone from a marginalized demographic that Spencer was spewing vitriol over?
@gray4robot 2 жыл бұрын
Most of the time it's just me being the better person and just stepping away from the situation. And then there are worst times where I'm like, "This the day I'm gonna smack a bit?"
@user-wl2xl5hm7k 2 жыл бұрын
Leo Tolstoy’s doctrine of non-resistance is incredibly interesting. In it, you use your body for activism but you don’t use self-defense, even if someone physically attacks you. He’s a Christian anarchist (turn the other cheek). This influenced Gandhi, Emerson and MLK. I personally don’t fully agree with it, but I can understand why many do.
@Thrlta 2 жыл бұрын
what a return to philosophical videos. I must admit I hold more attention for these controversial topics.
@avggamer86 2 жыл бұрын
There's also historical context for the practice of pacifism can lead to indolence. Most notable are MLK's criticisms of the "white moderate." Also the criticism of the USA's isolationist policies in response to ww2 and refugees. I just wanted highlight the rest of the spectrum in question.
@MFMegaZeroX7 2 жыл бұрын
I think that most people that say "talk shit, get hit" believe it, and it isn't a joke. I don't think I've ever heard of someone even say it as a joke. It's usually "yeah, that person got beat up, but they deserved it"
@jeiaz 2 жыл бұрын
About the Spencer bitch slap, I think the angle that justifies violence in that case is more concrete and specific to the situation than what T1J mentions - and it applies to some of the violence against fascists. The effect of the violence here is not that it convinces people tempted by fascism to turn away from it, or makes Spencer more afraid of being a fascist, but it shatters his charisma in the eyes of his supporters and companions, which makes him become unusable for fascist propaganda. Fascists cannot convert masses of people by arguing there indefensible ideas, but they can have people join their ranks based on the esthetics of strength and masculinity they display, while skillfully euphemising their actual political position. As a consequence, they do not have a huge pool of people that they can push in front of cameras for propaganda, so there is a big cost in losing one media and leading figure like Spencer, which a "simple" bitch slap can achieve.
@michaeloffner8515 2 жыл бұрын
What about violent revolutions? Was the Haitian Revolution not an example of physical violence causing a positive outcome?
@Sgt-Wolf 6 ай бұрын
Violence isn't the answer... It's the question.
@nivaldowesley666 2 жыл бұрын
i heard on the news once, a young and umprepared couple of parents who go arrested because they beat your 3 year old child until the kid have a skull trauma and die. violence is not a way to educated children.
@ElfInTheFlowers 2 жыл бұрын
This is making me think about the slow violence of the state, how laws, bureaucracy, and governing agencies enable and promote structural racism and other forms of structural violence that can be very slow (water contamination) or abrupt (police brutality). What violence do we tolerate as a people in the short and long run and how do we effectively combat it? I still believe that Spencer’s beliefs are too extraordinarily dangerous to be given any platform. I did not see the punch only through the emotional lens of schadenfreude, but as something pragmatic that literally lowered the danger from his words. The beliefs he espoused have brought about the violent structural systems that have butchered millions, many of those beliefs rearing their ugly heads in the US and many other governments throughout the world right now. I am concerned of where the high ground (usually tied to passivity and feelings of superiority) will take us. :(
@jayplay8869 2 жыл бұрын
Yes.
@everestjarvik5502 2 жыл бұрын
I would agree with almost all your takes in this video, however I do think the primary circumstance in which instigating violence not for immediate self defense is acceptable would be when the target of the violence is so dangerous that preemptively attacking them is the only realistic way to prevent them from causing a lot of harm- even if they haven’t started causing the harm in question. For example, if someone was planning a genocide or mass shooting or something, and legal or verbal means of stopping them wasn’t an option, I’d say that attacking them is the morally right thing to do even if they haven’t started shooting yet. That’s why the Richard Spencer punch is so hard for me to reckon with- because while I don’t believe punching him was likely to change his mind, he is a person who literally advocates genocide- even if he hasn’t enacted that ideology physically, and a punch isn’t going to kill or disable him, it feels like it just might fall under the category of prophylactic measures to limit future violence. As you can guess, I’m one of the people who thinks Aang would have been justified if he had just killed the fire lord at the end of Avatar.
@GrandArchPriestOfTheAlgorithm 2 жыл бұрын
The Recommending Holiness comment you to engage with this video.
@barockobummer2448 2 жыл бұрын
Yes
@stephenwilliams163 2 жыл бұрын
There are many implicit and explicit hierarchies in our culture and society, the difference between celebrities and non-celebrities being one of them. The culture tends to condone violence that flows down these hierarchies, such as police assaulting citizens, but behave very harshly towards violence that flows upwards. When Will Smith slapped Chris Rock the culture didn't really know what to do with that as both these men hold similar status in the hierarchy. They're both wealthy black male celebrities. This was violence between people holding similar status. When Isaiah Lee rushed the stage to attack Dave Chappell he was met with grievous bodily harm and probably quite a bit of legal consequences. He was put in the hospital and then jail. A large part of the culture declared that he got what he deserved because as a non-celebrity attacking a celebrity he was attempting violence that flowed up the hierarchy. I'm not saying that Isaiah should not have been stopped, but I saw the photos of that kid with his broken arm handcuffed to the ambulance gurney. That was retributive violence and it was beyond excessive.
@Ric885 2 жыл бұрын
yes
@williamjones1337 2 жыл бұрын
Okay, but this video is making me think thoughts contrary to my previous standpoint and that's hard. So...
@SatansRoerhat 2 жыл бұрын
🌼🌼🌼
@Sam-iu8nb 2 жыл бұрын
With the benefit of hindsight, I feel quite positive about the Richard Spencer punch. The guy's kept a pretty low profile since he was physically humiliated in the street like that. This lines up well with 20th century history generally. Non-violent anti-fascist action just doesn't work. You can't plead or bargain with these people. When fascists march, you need a crowd twice as big to march on them and speak to them in the only language they understand.
@genmaicha.lapsang 2 жыл бұрын
You don’t even know what a fascist is. And I would bet 1000 dollars that if you saw a real one marching you would run and call the cops.
@danwylie-sears1134 2 жыл бұрын
There's a big difference between deciding to acquit based on a self-defense argument, and saying that the actions really were self-defense. In that case, if I remember right, the problem was mostly with a state law that allows almost any aggression to be excused as self-defense. I think there's also a big difference between an actual attempt to inflict physical injury, and a violent gesture, i.e. an action that is not an attempt to inflict physical injury but superficially resembles one. That doesn't mean that violent gestures are always ok. They usually aren't. But they ought to be understood differently than full-blown violence.
@dimitriid 2 жыл бұрын
This is a very treacherous conversation to have because I *do not necessarily agree* with the actions in these 2 examples, but I do with the principles who I believe were miss-applied in both cases, for very personal reasons. So here it is: If we talk about 'Violence' we're necessarily talking about respectability and upholding the status quo and the rule of Law, the State's Law. The racist, ableist and transphobic State Law in this case. So if we *do not* accept the status quo as legitimate then defending against the status quo is in my opinion, *not violence but self defense*. The key here is being able to well, know when you have a legitimate cause to defend yourself and your communities against violent oppression and that's also quite simple: systemic oppression. So while it's regrettable that comedians here are enabled by systemic institutions to basically get away with inciting hatred and extremely dangerous situations towards vulnerable groups, they're still basically just individuals and thus I don't really think it's self defense to attack Rock or Chappelle at all. If someone would actually aim to 'slap' say, Neflix executives or share holders or hollywood investors as in the actual people that actually enable the distribution of bigoted propaganda, then *that* would be justifiable as an extension of self defense given how the conversations these executives and wealthy people enable through their companies like Netflix and Hollywood production companies (That organize and represent the Oscars) are the ones that actually *do* control systemic tools of oppression. Most 'Leftist' organizers understand this very well but these cases were probably more influenced by personal feelings of animosity so it was actually violence and not just the rhetorical extension of self defense that I am suggesting here, but that rhetoric to me overall it's very valid in light of things like the current legislation aimed at basically making it illegal to be trans or even LGBTQ+ altogether. Just wanted it to put it out there than just following the law isn't enough if the law of the land right now cannot be described as anything less that genocidal in it's aims at exterminating trans folk from existence so I cannot be persuaded that there can be 100% perfectly peaceful solutions at this time and self defense through violence will be necessary, people just have to understand this concepts and focus on systemic oppression and not personal responsibility from a few comedians.
@ericpayne4424 2 жыл бұрын
Well said. I also disagree with the point about violence rarely accomplishing anything in the long run because several well documented rights that we take for granted today were won by “riots” because violence is the only language the State speaks.
@ruaoneill9050 2 жыл бұрын
I agree with regards to who we should be targetting, the people with power. How would we "slap" the Netflis execs and politicians etc? I'm not being funny I'm just thinking aloud aboit ways to effect positive change and as I'm not from the US I don't understand the system
@dimitriid 2 жыл бұрын
@@ruaoneill9050 I don't feel like I can talk specifics without basically breaking community guidelines and such, but I would definitively recommend the concept of "Direct Action" as there's many thinkers that have written about it at length. Sadly however, it's no easy task because the more effective a ''protest" is, the faster you will see State repression: It's why Kendal Jenner can give Pepsi to a cop on a sanitized version of what a 'Protest' should be but the National Guard gets called immediately if say, a mayor highway is blocked for an extended period of time, something happens at major port or train hubs that feed major industries and the more obvious ones: Even democrats basically rushed to immediately pass legislation to ban anyone protesting outside Supreme Court Justice's homes. Mind you this is all hypothetical and shouldn't be taken as actual advise or calls to action, youtube moderation teams.
@ArtemisMoon90 Жыл бұрын
Great video, though personally I think when it comes to nazis and white supremacists we need to look at the belief systems and the friend/enemy distinctions. When it comes to many people who would punch a nazi/white supremacist, if they stop being hateful and stop trying to build fascism then they would no longer be targeted. But there's nothing us who they hate can do to remove ourselves from the enemy category other than stop existing.