5 ms·

>but non-ultra-leftists without large social following are doomed Completely false, "left" YouTube channels I know of: like Philosophy Tube and Contrapoints ar

by otalp 9y ago

>but non-ultra-leftists without large social following are doomed Completely false, "left" YouTube channels I know of: like Philosophy Tube and Contrapoints are having serious problems with their videos being demonetised and removed. Videos which even mildly critisize capitalism are being demonetised, it's pretty much impossible to run a left wing YouTube channel without Patreon. Virtually all political videos are demonetized. For example, PhilosophyTube wanted to make a relatively straightforward series on the history of Liberalism, but even before uploading the videos was told by YouTube(when he contacted them) that under the new rules videos like that wouldn't qualify for ads(https://twitter.com/PhilosophyTube/status/898261400786657280 https://twitter.com/PhilosophyTube/status/898261400786657280) So you're displaying a huge persecution complex if you think this doesn't apply to the left even more, since Google and advertisers are large corporations, which means they are de facto fine with pro-capitalist content while obviously against helping spread or advertising on anti-capitalist content.

notahacker 9y ago
It's perfectly possible to run the channel. You're just not going to make any money from it. Can't really blame advertisers for not wanting to associate their brands with political content, especially if it's as toxic as a Jordan Peterson rant on gender, and can question the motives of anyone whose decision on whether to critique capitalism or not is based on whether they can get enough juicy ad dollars for doing so.
- l33tbro 9y ago
  I thought Peterson was a psych professor who has interesting perspectives on the bible. What are his toxic views on gender? Genuinely curious.
  - canoebuilder 9y ago
    "Toxic" views I suspect along the lines of, It does more harm than good to the individual and society to entertain the delusions of mental health conditions. The condition of gender dysphoria is a personal issue best dealt with between the affected individual and their health care provider. But the key driver for Peterson was that pronouncements on these issues have absolutely no place in the Canadian constitution. I think it was only with this issue(legislative lunacy) that he started discussing this, and it wasn't out of some contempt or animosity for people inclined to dress and behave a particular way, but rather because when societies start legislating what people are and aren't allowed to say and think, things tend to go real bad, real quick. Peterson felt a strong duty to take a stand here due to his long study of the horrors and atrocities of communism the 20th century that often stemmed from mandates imposed on acceptable speech and thought.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    Peterson gained a lot of attention and an entirely new YouTube following for refusing to call transgendered students by their preferred pronoun on the basis it was "mouthing Marxist words" and directly linking it to gulags and mass slaughters Lest one think that this might be an unfortunate bit of hyperbole taken out of context in what must be an unusual situation for an outspoken middle-aged religious intellectual to face, he's doubled down on it with an angry lecture series on the subject and other crackpot theories like "the idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling" and actually it's all a myth caused by the birth control pill making modern women hostile towards masculine men. I wish I was parodying that argument; I'm merely summarising it. I doubt advertisers were upset by his studies on the Bible
Borealid 9y ago
Shouldn't we take a moment to consider the irony of monetizing a video promoting anti-capitalist philosophy?
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  No? Capitalism doesn't own the idea of "markets", "sales", etc. Rather, the distinction between capitalism and most other economic theories relates to the ownership of organizations and the splitting of the revenues from sales between different economic factions, eg capital and labor. Capitalism is the position that ultimately, capital should own the organization, while things like socialism argue that the people who perform the work should have the ownership. In almost all systems, it makes sense to monetize a video, so the owners of the organization that produced it can get some of the value they created returned to them.
  - canoebuilder 9y ago
    Isn't saying "capital should own things," not so much an ideological perspective but rather just a rephrasing of "things have costs"? Things having costs is a fundamental fact of nature. There is nothing in the current system that prohibits people performing work from owning the fruits of that work. How does socialism supersede capitalism's benefit of promoting the transfer of economic value in the form of currency, or capital, from one creative realm to another which has immense creative potential over a less abstracted approach? Are you saying that socialism basically boils down to prohibition of people owning anything that they did not make with their own hands? And I guess handmade goods can be traded? Do they lose trade potential after they've left the hands of their original creator? I've generally seen capitalism, not as some sort of cause that emerged from some Magnum Opus and was subsequently cheered on by ideologues in the way of socialism/marxism/communism, but rather as essentially an outgrowth of fundamentally true aspects of nature. Things have costs, energy is cycled and exchanged, etc. Not to say societies shouldn't have laws and regulations, but when you try to impose laws and regulations that run counter to natural orders and fundamental truths you inevitably run into trouble.
    - 9y ago

by otalp 9y ago

notahacker 9y ago

It's perfectly possible to run the channel. You're just not going to make any money from it. Can't really blame advertisers for not wanting to associate their brands with political content, especially if it's as toxic as a Jordan Peterson rant on gender, and can question the motives of anyone whose decision on whether to critique capitalism or not is based on whether they can get enough juicy ad dollars for doing so.

l33tbro 9y ago
I thought Peterson was a psych professor who has interesting perspectives on the bible. What are his toxic views on gender? Genuinely curious.
- canoebuilder 9y ago
  "Toxic" views I suspect along the lines of, It does more harm than good to the individual and society to entertain the delusions of mental health conditions. The condition of gender dysphoria is a personal issue best dealt with between the affected individual and their health care provider. But the key driver for Peterson was that pronouncements on these issues have absolutely no place in the Canadian constitution. I think it was only with this issue(legislative lunacy) that he started discussing this, and it wasn't out of some contempt or animosity for people inclined to dress and behave a particular way, but rather because when societies start legislating what people are and aren't allowed to say and think, things tend to go real bad, real quick. Peterson felt a strong duty to take a stand here due to his long study of the horrors and atrocities of communism the 20th century that often stemmed from mandates imposed on acceptable speech and thought.
- notahacker 9y ago
  Peterson gained a lot of attention and an entirely new YouTube following for refusing to call transgendered students by their preferred pronoun on the basis it was "mouthing Marxist words" and directly linking it to gulags and mass slaughters Lest one think that this might be an unfortunate bit of hyperbole taken out of context in what must be an unusual situation for an outspoken middle-aged religious intellectual to face, he's doubled down on it with an angry lecture series on the subject and other crackpot theories like "the idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling" and actually it's all a myth caused by the birth control pill making modern women hostile towards masculine men. I wish I was parodying that argument; I'm merely summarising it. I doubt advertisers were upset by his studies on the Bible

Borealid 9y ago

Shouldn't we take a moment to consider the irony of monetizing a video promoting anti-capitalist philosophy?

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
No? Capitalism doesn't own the idea of "markets", "sales", etc. Rather, the distinction between capitalism and most other economic theories relates to the ownership of organizations and the splitting of the revenues from sales between different economic factions, eg capital and labor. Capitalism is the position that ultimately, capital should own the organization, while things like socialism argue that the people who perform the work should have the ownership. In almost all systems, it makes sense to monetize a video, so the owners of the organization that produced it can get some of the value they created returned to them.
- canoebuilder 9y ago
  Isn't saying "capital should own things," not so much an ideological perspective but rather just a rephrasing of "things have costs"? Things having costs is a fundamental fact of nature. There is nothing in the current system that prohibits people performing work from owning the fruits of that work. How does socialism supersede capitalism's benefit of promoting the transfer of economic value in the form of currency, or capital, from one creative realm to another which has immense creative potential over a less abstracted approach? Are you saying that socialism basically boils down to prohibition of people owning anything that they did not make with their own hands? And I guess handmade goods can be traded? Do they lose trade potential after they've left the hands of their original creator? I've generally seen capitalism, not as some sort of cause that emerged from some Magnum Opus and was subsequently cheered on by ideologues in the way of socialism/marxism/communism, but rather as essentially an outgrowth of fundamentally true aspects of nature. Things have costs, energy is cycled and exchanged, etc. Not to say societies shouldn't have laws and regulations, but when you try to impose laws and regulations that run counter to natural orders and fundamental truths you inevitably run into trouble.
  - 9y ago