How To Do Politics

How To Do Politics


  1. As someone who doesn’t use Facebook, I’m curious: Where is the worst for angry and unproductive politics? My guess is Facebook, but I also see a lot on Twitter, and I wonder if the character limit helps or hurts in this respect.

  2. As an outside observer, i believe this is why Trump had won (i have no preference out of the 2 major candidates in US presidency since i'm not from the US anyway), liberals kept shouting obscenities (as i have observed on social media, it's like 90% of the let's say "strong-feeling" hurls are from liberals) towards the other side for a plethora of reasons that perhaps grazed some views of those who were just on the fence so they decided to vote Trump.

  3. I have a question. If changing politicians doesn't really affect a situation and changing a system does, how do you change a system? Could you please address this? Thank you.

  4. There is a big issue in our society because defending something with facts has become extremely complicated. This issue is noticable in almost any country in the west but its becoming very dangerous and needs to be treated with the highest caution.
    Here in Germany, we have old parties who always get the old blame ( sometimes rightfully so) but the issue is that we don't have a new party that does give us new solutions without all of the old blame. I was thinking about reforms but in the end, we don't need a reform, we need a political revolution. There is a big difficulty in what I like to call system stubbornness and it is important to eliminate it now.
    If we wait to long, the influence of could have enabled far right nationalistic populism to weaken the integrity of our treaties and our alliance in the NATO and this must not be allowed to happen.

    On a different note, Hilter was excellent in talking to people according to who he was talking to. No matter if he held a speech before peasants, workers or industrials. He always hit the nerve. Its good to know that today's populism is far less dangerous but something bothers me very deeply. If an apple no longer is an apple, truth becomes fragile. It's a dangerous concept. Recruitment of people who don't even necessarily disagree with you but refuse to accept facts and statistics is extremely complicated because one is always tempted to become what one hopes to overcome – to use populistic arguments to appeal to the simple wishes someone has, to use half truths just to achieve victory. But there is an important lessen to take away from what I said. The truth is fragile. And we need to protect it. Not for any political agenda. This goes beyond liberals or conservatives. We need a new middle ground. And we need to protect the apple. It must never be allowed to be misinterpreted as something that it isn't.
    I always recommend Orwell on this topic. "1948", as well as the lesser known "notes on nationalism".
    Nationalism is nothing to be underestimated.
    And even while it may seem appealing if you think about it, just remember these two short quotes:
    "Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind."
    Albert Einstein
    "Our true nationality is mankind."
    H.G. Wells

  5. Well this is like the fifth channel that talks about how broken America is and that people need a system change !

    (I guess there will be a second civil war ??)

  6. Do you know the flag of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF SOMALIA is featuring in your video whitout copyright act.
    I will report you?

  7. Elites are Monopolists. Everything they do is aimed at taking the whole world and everything in it for themselves. They use the Hegelian dialectic to create a problem and offer a "solution" to get the"result" that furthers them to their goal. That of being the full on owners of Plantation Earth. They back both parties and anyone who thwarts that can be easily discredited or got rid of. Too many people will whore themselves for a few crumbs at all levels.

  8. I have an IQ of 100000 then because you can (sorta, not really) rig the election by just making a very bag argument of what you disagree with so if you are right just make a bad or angry argument for the left and make the people on the right or in the middle think of the opposite and go with your beliefs.

  9. Politics is 100% about cooperation and trust, and how to build them with healthy levels of counterbalancing contest and distrust. Ultimately, politics serves as the expression for how much fear is felt and deterministically valent in a society at a given time; the more volatile the politics, the more that people are afraid. In this regard, the above video has some successes as well as some misgivings.

    + Acute observation for most to either run away from politics or to double down. This accurately captures the fear mechanics at play; some feel cornered and with a need to lash out, others are just wary and weary of the conflict and duck out.
    + Feeling that the political opposition is reckless and/or dishonest as an important part of the fear profile; representing the two prongs of danger perception, namely that "this is dangerous because it's out of control" and "this is dangerous because it's out to get us"
    + Correctly noting that "attempting to change minds" is not the motivation behind pretty much any element of politics – in fact the entirety of politics on every level is a "post-making-up minds" activity, and the very act of trying to change the interlocutor's mind or give them the impression that they need to return to basics and recalcuate, is actually one of the strongest drivers of political mistrust and animosity. Without extremely clear and obvious evidence, of a sort that's outstanding rare and immediately suspicious as a contrived forgery or fabrication, most people (however solipsistic and short-sighted they may seem to you) can feel pretty confident that they've got the gist of things, and will respond badly to any form of effort to change their stance; they're at the point of willingness to make a deal and not change their or your mind/s.
    + Understands the value of political recruitment
    + Noting the gravitation among political enemies to focus on extreme points and arguments for the other side but stick to the most central and safe/normal ones of their own; fear again is the root of this behaviour. Threat assessment must always be made in terms of the highest possible damage the danger could unleash, regardless of how fringe or unlikely that is. Meanwhile preaching to the choir/home audience means appearing as safe and sensible as possible. When political tensions are at their highest, the safe home preaching of each side is guaranteed to sound like increasingly dangerous provocations to the other.
    + Acute perception that attempting to hard research or confer on every point is impossible and never works.
    + Observes the efficacy of using mild, conciliatory, flexible and deal-bargaining language in actually changing minds. All of these things serve allay fears and diffuse tension. Eliminating the stressors of the opposition is the fastest way to make them no-longer your opposition, which choosing to aggravate them is the fastest way to make them double down and swear on your destruction.
    + Interesting observation about the "four posts" rule, which is something that I can say lines up with my experience of internet arguments fairly well. Simply put, people just tire of engaging in the battle of constant assertions and contradictions, each of which seems like detailed and careful astute insight from one's one vantage but mendacious quibbling and forest-missing-for-trees from the other. If hard, "okay wow that's true"-tier evidence can't or won't crop up in four comment exchanges, it likely never will, at least not today.
    + If there's one thing that everyone can take from this video, it's the simple truth that systems break. The bad politicians and bad laws that characterise the system are symptomatic of its problems, and make sense when assessed as such and not as independent and disconnected problems in themselves. Viewing nations and governments ans organisms helps immensely with understanding the complex interplay of forces and conflicts and cooperations in power.

    – Opens with the claim that it's easy to be angry when there's some much to risk, but you actually shouldn't. Doesn't really back this up, and in fact justifies a position of anger in many ways while at best redirecting it and enhancing it. General focus on anger common among left-of-centre politics, and not of other equally or more valent emotions such as fear.
    – Feeling that the political opposition is ignorant, which is typical only of the left and the centre. The right is more prone to feeling the opposition is simply delusional and in denial.
    – Sense of "standing up for what is right" only works in a defensive context, and not in a fashion for instigating active change which always involves a persecutory and or analytically discriminative perspective.
    – Circuitous logic concerning the Pacifist example. If a Pacifist was truly a committed Pacifist, capital P, then they would object as strongly to the suggestion of using force and violence to defend themselves as they would the very violent attackers coming after them. And if someone was only a little letter p pacifist, then they wouldn't need persuading along this line. Ultimately one cannot change hard convictions that are rooted in deeply felt survival emotions, which includes the feeling that "if I engage in XYZ acts, I am corrupt and forsaken". To object to this in any fashion is to tell someone their feelings are "wrong", which is impossible and will only result in further resistance. You can only bargain with them.
    – Advocates political recruitment unmitigatedly, when in fact this tendency is at the base of the issue in politics, namely the spreading of fears and fanning them to more easily earn support and votes. All factions do this because it's easy and consequence free, and lets them get at more power within the system. In fact it's the most basic observation of all that all factions tacitly agree to this as they all benefit from a climate of high continual stress and fear. In the game of politics, the voters are the ball.
    – Blanket advocacy for picking limited or narrow issues does not work. The points raised against having diverse platforms with many goals have some sense to them, but almost all major parties do hedge their bets with may stakes high and low. One-note one-issue parties are generally the rump of the system, with only limited moments of genuine success – typically under extreme conditions such as Brexit.
    – Connected to the above, picking only one talking point to "shout out" may in fact be the most dangerous way to "strike out" if you happen to pick the one thing that's everyone's panic button. Of course, some make a living out of deliberately defying safe standards of society, and that's an excellent thing in my books, but it won't make an argument or political stance/campaign/party safer or stronger. It'll make it sharper and more interesting. Big difference.
    – Forwards a notion of an early-life tabula rasa of key beliefs that get used as a rule of thumb from after the point you're views harden. This is another common left-leaning belief, and perhaps an actual trait of left-leaners themselves, but not necessarily of centres or rights. For what it's worth, centres tend to more belief in constant belief flux and update in the face of evidence, and rights more in a profound gut feeling that remains felt throughout life, and which is backed up as being highly heritable through twin studies.
    – Often times simply stating "Dogs are better than cats because I just feel that way" is a safer and more friendly, less fear-generative stance than claiming an objective "Here's why". It's the details of reading someone else's "here's why" for something that you would never do ever that drives most people apopleptic, and leads to the sense that the other side cannot be trusted because they're all stupid, evil or crazy. This is most crucial in light of the fact that the people writing up the "Why" argument aren't intending to whip up the other side into a terror froth. They are casually advocating for something they think is good and they'd like to see, and have no perception of what might make one or more aspects of it scary to the other. So perhaps the best approach is to say – not "Here's why dogs are great" but rather "Here's why dogs aren't a problem". At least this directly addresses the concerns of the other side. You're still not going to convince anyone however, but you might not send them into a paroxysm of knee-jerks either.
    – "Equality and Fairness" contra "Pride and Duty" is a fairly textbook left-of-centre take on the distinction between left and right. A more accurate might be "Finding a role for everyone, no-one left behind" versus "Fair rewards for fair results, everyone matched to their fitting station". The left tends to think organisationally in horizontal principles, as though everyone is a different type of organ with a different function, big or small. The right tends to think in z-axis principles, with some needing to be safely compressed at the back/under and others expanded to deal with the frontier at the outer surface. This reflects the left and right's genesis from individuals adapted to the interior of complex civilisations contra their exterior, which is reflected in the predominant voting distribution in living occupations to this day.

  10. Please subscribe to me. I post everything about politics! I’ve just started so any support will be appreciated

  11. Your theory is based on disproven or outright false assumptions. The most glaring false assumptions is this BS about "A true believer accepts violence that ends all atrocities." For example, they called world war 1 the war to end all wars. We now know thats a lie. Violence only triggers more violence. You need to start citing what you say man.

  12. Am I the only one seeing a hidden message in my native language at 5:19? Do you guys see one as well, just with your native language?

  13. I’m doing heritage fair and its due tomorrow!!

  14. 3:11 They do. Without enough information a person should not even hope to become a politician. The idea of being a politician solely involves that you know how to solve others' problems.

  15. Basically the flaws in democracy and why we should switch system to…

    (Idk AnarcoCommunism seems like the best alternative system)

  16. The universe moves forward, conservatives always lose in the long run. So just keep telling them they are retarded and eventually they will go insane and you will win.

  17. If you like Pinker I highly HIGHLY recommend reading The Coddling of the American Mine by Jonathan Haidt. It's amazing and seeks to explain the polarity we see today and shines a light on the exclusionary practices of those that practice intersectionality, and victim culture.

  18. I have always thought to be politically correct would be morally wrong is why they sell it to you as politically correct because they can’t sell you something that is morally wrong.

  19. been thinking about getting into politics for years. sadly libertarians are the black sheep of political parties -.-

  20. i was thinking about helping my country somalia and suddenly i find this video and surprisingly i find that my flag is on the thumbnail.. ✌️

  21. Two things I totally distrust: politics & religions. All full of hypocrite assholes. And media doesn't help. Also full of assholes.

  22. Haha I clicked cuz I saw my county’s flag and thought it might be mentioned ? kind of glad it wasn’t, politics isn’t looking so good right now 🙁

  23. There's actually a strategy called Mobying where a person tries to infiltrate a social/political group and then takes the most socially unacceptable or decisive stance on a hot topic in order to divide and sow strife among said social group. I despise it for its deceptiveness, but I think it happens a lot, and it plays off ideas in this video a bit.
    Really nice video and quite helpful

  24. i tell people this and they tell me that im just ignorant and to shut up. that’s why im going to major in political science to continue to learn ab politics and be less and less close minded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *