Warnings about the content of the video in the description box below.
Two years ago, shortly before putting this channel on hiatus, I published one last video in which I said this:
"I think someone correctly uses its freedom of speech if it is pertinently used,
if what is said is relevant and/or the remarks made fall in line with basic moral principles."
"I believe the issue stems from the fact that nowadays,
freedom of speech has more value to people rather than pertinent and/or moral speech."
Yup… we said that…
Come on… it could have been worse right?
That's not an excuse and in the long term, that's the kind of stuff that will be used against us.
We're going to remedy to that.
Because in fact over the last two years, my opinion on this issue actually changed
so I think it's necessary to set up a new strong, clear and broad basis,
in order to elaborate on more isolated topics afterwards without necessarily having to repeat everything that will be said here.
Ladies and gentlemen, my name's Auguste Eclancher, I'm back online and chances are the show will get interesting
so make yourselves comfortable because what follows could completely upset you as much as it could fully convince you.
Roll opening credits.
In order to understand what I'm going to talk about for the next few minutes, let's start with a simple premise:
Different people with different opinions exist here on Earth. Simple.
pH 14.
It's something that can be very easily verified, may it be for pretty serious topics like politics,
where a variety of ideas exist and are confronted,
or for slightly more light-hearted ones like that of the legitimacy of a certain ingredient in a certain dish.
It's an immutable fact, inalterable on a large scale and when faced with this state of affairs,
two reactions are conceivable.
Either you reject the opinion of the other person when it is different from yours because you think you're right and… that's it.
Or you accept that other point of view as being potentially correct and a debate will thus start.
This allows for the wording of disagreements because reality can validate two different theories on the same topic,
and something that makes sense for someone, can seem completely absurd for others.
Furthermore, no matter where you stand politically or philosophically speaking,
you probably at least once simplified your worldview using labels.
Examples include: One's position on the political compass along the right/left and libertarian/authoritarian axes;
by the way, there I am.
The use of words referring to forms of activism, like feminist, antiracist or antifascist for example;
as well as terms deemed more as insults: sexist, homophobic, racist.
Admittedly, the last ones are more often used to attack and discredit, but they remain simplifying terms reflecting a viewpoint.
All of these constitute the well-known labels that by essence are neither good nor bad in my opinion.
There are just a tool and come with a batch of advantages.
They enable for summaries of long descriptions of a notion, facilitate exchanges and make communication more efficient.
Indeed, you will agree that it is much simpler to say "I'm vegan" rather than saying
"I rejected meat, fish and every other product of animal exploitation, including, among others, milk, egg, honey, wool, leather, etc.
This stems from the fact that I'm opposed to the way animals are treated in slaughterhouses and farms and in the long run,
I'd like society to change as well and adopt this way of life
that I deem more respectful of the planet and living organisms inhabiting it".
I'm an asshole hippie works too you know…
And on the other hand, as every tool, it has its cons:
This simplification can lead to conflations, an inaccurate portrayal of a certain group of people
or even an oversimplification based on the already simplified notions.
The thing is, by oversimplifying complex lines of reasoning by excessively using certain labels,
we find ourselves as said earlier with terms that, for some people,
are associated with an altered portrayal of reality, and rarely in a good way.
As a result, as soon as it reaches someone that disagrees with that group, we are left with intolerance and closure to debate.
A typical and very French example is that of the "Rassemblement National" (main far-right political party in France)
which is still for a lot of people as of today, consisting of racists, homophobes and Nazis.
You could have limited to "nazi" you know. The beauty of that term is that it encompasses everything we want.
And well… personally, that bothers me a little. Let me explain.
Firstly, I believe that debates with respect for everyone are essential in order to change mindsets.
As said at the beginning, opinions aren't something you can change (efficiently and a 100% successfully) on a wide scale.
Everyone has to advocate in their entourage, share their viewpoints and talk some sense into others00:03:46:07
if people we're talking to believe in something clearly false.
That's why unlike two years ago, I think that everyone has a right to speak and say whatever he or she wants.
In addition, I believe that censorship by a superior authority is something extremely dangerous
because the line between morality and personal opinion is still something very blurry.
Understandably nonetheless, as soon as you say something publicly you have to take full responsibility for what you said.
For example, if tomorrow you shout that all women are cunts,
you shouldn't be surprised if you get criticised and if feminist groups attack you afterwards.
But where do we cross the line between proportionate and disproportionate reactions?
I will talk about that but not now since there are too many things to say.
Furthermore, one of the cornerstones of my opinions and line of reasoning
lies in the importance that I give to individuals rather than groups.
On the one hand because I'm opposed to the fact that your age, your sex, your skin colour
or nationality are the only factors dictating your principles and on the other hand, if we go back to the premise of this video,
namely that everyone has different opinions,
labels, as convenient as they are, convey only a part of how things actually are.
In the event of a disagreement with somebody, deducing their opinion using the labels they're using to define themselves,
that's intellectual laziness at best: you refuse to debate and to exchange perspective because it wouldn't be productive in your opinion,
because you would rather talk with your political and philosophical allies, because you can't be bothered, etc.
At worst, a proof of your dishonesty: you concluded something potentially wrong of these much talked about labels
and instead of asking for clarifications to be sure to have understood everything,
you prefer to stick with your potentially wrong analysis and to use it against this person to discredit him/her/them.
And while you're at it, you're also going to associate him/her/them with bad examples that can exist within his/her/their movement
in order to prove how much you're right and how much he/she/they are wrong.
But that doesn't make any sense: someone can only be held accountable for their actions and not those made by other members of their group.
For example, if you're a female Twitch streamer,
something tells that you wouldn't like to be associated with Alinity or Celestia Vega for example.
"Is this the
SEMEN SPA?"
Likewise, if you're a liberal feminist, there's a chance you wouldn't like to be associated with
Valerie Solanas for whom, among others things and I'm quoting here:
<i>"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."</i>
You're going a little too far there though. There are clear differences between the multiple feminist movements.
Well, if you run into a dishonest political opponent, the line between feminism and misandry can be pretty thin for him.
In short, associating yourself with a group and labelling yourself should not be an argument used to discredit you.
Quite the opposite actually, it should be the starting point of the discussion and the exchange of viewpoints.
This would allow everyone to qualify and clarify their use of that label on themselves,
since the nuance and the deep thinking vanished during the elaboration of the label.
And starting from that, we can further develop and exchange, always in respect, joy and good mood.
Ugh… You became such a cheesy care bear…
Yeah a little. But hey, I'd rather be like that than calling for punches in faces.
Not sure you'll convince anyone with such a flat and boring philosophy.
We'll see… In fact, the aim here was just to define a new base for what will follow which actually, might get pretty restless.
Anyway, keep a critical look on what you're hearing. Always verify by yourself,
beware of people presenting their point of view as the universal truth, starting with me and most importantly,
never let yourself be persuaded that what is said to you is true if no tangible proof is presented.
The line between trust and gullibility can be really fine if you let you guard down and before you know it,
you end up believing the Earth is round…
Wait! Who wrote this garbage?!
For more infomation >> Оздоровительный Цигун с чемпионом мира Советы по оздоровлению Часть 1 (Цигун) - Duration: 1:02:07. 
For more infomation >> 120 Best Metal DIY Decoration Ideas For Your Garden | DIY garden - Duration: 12:03. 
For more infomation >> Texas Governor Erupts After Proposal To Change the Way the Alamo Is Taught - Duration: 4:20. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét