6 ms·

Any examples? Because she still gives good statistical overviews/analysis.

by Lemmi 3y ago

0xcde4c3db 3y ago
Her "capitalism is good" video is remarkably bad. I noticed that takedowns of it were making the rounds in left-ish online spaces recently, and figured it would be one of her worse videos, but even with that bias I was shocked at how bad it is. Hardly any real-world history or economics, and zero engagement with actual critiques of capitalism. She name-drops Adam Smith and Karl Marx, but doesn't really quote or integrate the ideas of either. Overall, it's a disorganized mess of pro-capitalism cliches, hypothetical examples, and eliding discussion of key issues with phrases like "that's another story". I'd honestly expect better from PragerU, let alone someone whose tagline is "science without the gobbledygook".
- Lemmi 3y ago
  I have the feeling this might be a video were she gives more of some type of overview with her view without imposing a too strong opinion. But I could be wrong this particular video I haven't seen yet.
- nosefurhairdo 3y ago
  She provides a basic description of fiat money and the process by which capitalists allocate resources, taking on risk in the hopes that their investment produces goods/services that consumers value more than the price to produce them. It should be uncontroversial to state that that arrangement has facilitated extraordinary increases in global prosperity. The many "that's another story" caveats are important because there are many ways in which the interaction between markets and governments can cause bad outcomes; far too many to be covered in a 20 minute video. I'd like to hear just one example of a society which does not have capitalism (as defined by the ability to risk capital in hopes of future profits) which is a nice place to live.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    You appear to have defined a universal practice as "capitalism", a person in a commune walks to a field, they "risk capital" (their very person) as they could be killed en route. Everytime you plant a crop (build a factory, launch a satellite, write a program,...) you risk capital in hopes of future gains, I'm struggling to see how a human society can proceed without doing that. In short, your definition of capitalism seems extraordinarily deficient. To attempt to get a little closer: Capitalism is the funding of an activity by people who are otherwise uninvolved in order to take some of the gains without direct application of work/effort. Society could collaboratively endorse actions, eg through democratic choices, but instead those who have inherited power, acquired through past violence, get to decide on the application of resources and cream off the benefits of the workers whom they have used to action their (the Capitalists) chosen activities. Many actions (in a just society) would have been chosen in any case, things like delivery of water to each person; now the Capitalist gets to make delivery of water something for which they claim the right to profit from, ultimately extracting worth from the inherent nature of people's needs.
    - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
      Let's work with your definition of capitalism. > Society could collaboratively endorse actions, eg through democratic choices... There is nothing about capitalism which prevents this from occuring. People can be allowed to invest while simultaneously participating in a democracy which elects to provide all sorts of publicly funded goods and services. What has never existed (to the best of my knowledge) is a society which prevents "the funding of an activity by people who are otherwise uninvolved in order to take some of the gains without direct application of work/effort," which is not also a terrible place to live.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        What you are describing is basically social democracy and exists in large parts of Europe. That said capitalism is a state enforced system, which is protected with violence. Every attempt to topple the system and provide an alternative has been met with violence by the state, and every successful revolutions have been through violence. It is hardly a scientifically pristine environment to provide a fair comparison of alternatives, is it? There will come a time in human history where capitalism is a thing of the past, and only then will we have the tools to judge alternatives. As of now, we can clearly see that early attempts at capitalism were horrible, and resulted in travesties for the common working population. This is the same story of any system that preceded it. I have a feeling future peoples will largely blame the current system for the climate crisis, and deem it equally bad—if not worse—than our historic alternatives.
- runarberg 3y ago
  That was my final straw. Her video about rabid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) was bad. While she correctly (sorta) dismissed the theory of ROGD she was appallingly sympathetic to many of the ROGD talking points. Her worst offend was being skeptical of gender affirming care because of some vague and unproven long term-effects and because “the mental health of the treated kids didn’t improve, so much as the mental health of the kids that didn’t get treated declined”. This kind of misunderstanding of the science is suspect when coming from a scientist famous for her skeptical take in her own field. Her sorta dismissal of ROGD is also suspect, because she seems to sorta believe the anecdotal “evidence” for it why also noting the lacking of actual evidence. This is the opposite of the kind of skeptical take she is known for. I call it suspect because here we have a social issue surrounding a minority where she flips her philosophy. I wonder why she did that.
  - Lemmi 3y ago
    I remember that one and thought she had quite a neutral view on it. The only concern she mentioned was a statistical point of a few more girls potentially being / having a little bit too much rogd.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      The thing is, ROGD is not a scientific theory, it is a misdirection—or rather a debate tactic—by people with an interest in trying to discredit the existence of trans people. A true scientist would not have a “neutral take” on ROGD, just like a true scientist would not have a neutral take on the chemtrail conspiracy, or the theory that vaccines cause autism. There are no evidence for ROGD other than very bad and highly suspicious anecdotal evidence. There isn’t even a statistical evidence for it. A scientist would know that, and would quickly dismiss this theory and all the talking points of those advocating for it. btw. she raised more “concerns” than just the population skew in favor of trans people assigned female at birth—which btw. is not a concern, but at most a curiosity. She also had concerns about the efficacy and the long term health affects of gender affirming care. The concerns were without merit, and a true scientist with a neutral take would not find the long term health impacts “concerning” given the evidence we have, and as for the efficacy... well... see my parent post.

Any examples? Because she still gives good statistical overviews/analysis.

by Lemmi 3y ago

Any examples? Because she still gives good statistical overviews/analysis.

Her "capitalism is good" video is remarkably bad. I noticed that takedowns of it were making the rounds in left-ish online spaces recently, and figured it would be one of her worse videos, but even with that bias I was shocked at how bad it is. Hardly any real-world history or economics, and zero engagement with actual critiques of capitalism. She name-drops Adam Smith and Karl Marx, but doesn't really quote or integrate the ideas of either. Overall, it's a disorganized mess of pro-capitalism cliches, hypothetical examples, and eliding discussion of key issues with phrases like "that's another story". I'd honestly expect better from PragerU, let alone someone whose tagline is "science without the gobbledygook".

Lemmi 3y ago
I have the feeling this might be a video were she gives more of some type of overview with her view without imposing a too strong opinion. But I could be wrong this particular video I haven't seen yet.
nosefurhairdo 3y ago
She provides a basic description of fiat money and the process by which capitalists allocate resources, taking on risk in the hopes that their investment produces goods/services that consumers value more than the price to produce them. It should be uncontroversial to state that that arrangement has facilitated extraordinary increases in global prosperity. The many "that's another story" caveats are important because there are many ways in which the interaction between markets and governments can cause bad outcomes; far too many to be covered in a 20 minute video. I'd like to hear just one example of a society which does not have capitalism (as defined by the ability to risk capital in hopes of future profits) which is a nice place to live.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  You appear to have defined a universal practice as "capitalism", a person in a commune walks to a field, they "risk capital" (their very person) as they could be killed en route. Everytime you plant a crop (build a factory, launch a satellite, write a program,...) you risk capital in hopes of future gains, I'm struggling to see how a human society can proceed without doing that. In short, your definition of capitalism seems extraordinarily deficient. To attempt to get a little closer: Capitalism is the funding of an activity by people who are otherwise uninvolved in order to take some of the gains without direct application of work/effort. Society could collaboratively endorse actions, eg through democratic choices, but instead those who have inherited power, acquired through past violence, get to decide on the application of resources and cream off the benefits of the workers whom they have used to action their (the Capitalists) chosen activities. Many actions (in a just society) would have been chosen in any case, things like delivery of water to each person; now the Capitalist gets to make delivery of water something for which they claim the right to profit from, ultimately extracting worth from the inherent nature of people's needs.
  - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
    Let's work with your definition of capitalism. > Society could collaboratively endorse actions, eg through democratic choices... There is nothing about capitalism which prevents this from occuring. People can be allowed to invest while simultaneously participating in a democracy which elects to provide all sorts of publicly funded goods and services. What has never existed (to the best of my knowledge) is a society which prevents "the funding of an activity by people who are otherwise uninvolved in order to take some of the gains without direct application of work/effort," which is not also a terrible place to live.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      What you are describing is basically social democracy and exists in large parts of Europe. That said capitalism is a state enforced system, which is protected with violence. Every attempt to topple the system and provide an alternative has been met with violence by the state, and every successful revolutions have been through violence. It is hardly a scientifically pristine environment to provide a fair comparison of alternatives, is it? There will come a time in human history where capitalism is a thing of the past, and only then will we have the tools to judge alternatives. As of now, we can clearly see that early attempts at capitalism were horrible, and resulted in travesties for the common working population. This is the same story of any system that preceded it. I have a feeling future peoples will largely blame the current system for the climate crisis, and deem it equally bad—if not worse—than our historic alternatives.
runarberg 3y ago
That was my final straw. Her video about rabid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) was bad. While she correctly (sorta) dismissed the theory of ROGD she was appallingly sympathetic to many of the ROGD talking points. Her worst offend was being skeptical of gender affirming care because of some vague and unproven long term-effects and because “the mental health of the treated kids didn’t improve, so much as the mental health of the kids that didn’t get treated declined”. This kind of misunderstanding of the science is suspect when coming from a scientist famous for her skeptical take in her own field. Her sorta dismissal of ROGD is also suspect, because she seems to sorta believe the anecdotal “evidence” for it why also noting the lacking of actual evidence. This is the opposite of the kind of skeptical take she is known for. I call it suspect because here we have a social issue surrounding a minority where she flips her philosophy. I wonder why she did that.
- Lemmi 3y ago
  I remember that one and thought she had quite a neutral view on it. The only concern she mentioned was a statistical point of a few more girls potentially being / having a little bit too much rogd.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    The thing is, ROGD is not a scientific theory, it is a misdirection—or rather a debate tactic—by people with an interest in trying to discredit the existence of trans people. A true scientist would not have a “neutral take” on ROGD, just like a true scientist would not have a neutral take on the chemtrail conspiracy, or the theory that vaccines cause autism. There are no evidence for ROGD other than very bad and highly suspicious anecdotal evidence. There isn’t even a statistical evidence for it. A scientist would know that, and would quickly dismiss this theory and all the talking points of those advocating for it. btw. she raised more “concerns” than just the population skew in favor of trans people assigned female at birth—which btw. is not a concern, but at most a curiosity. She also had concerns about the efficacy and the long term health affects of gender affirming care. The concerns were without merit, and a true scientist with a neutral take would not find the long term health impacts “concerning” given the evidence we have, and as for the efficacy... well... see my parent post.