25 thoughts on “Liberalism Is Ideology [1/4]

  1. Liberalism produces racism… The (ONLY) ideology that provides the flexibility for people to advocate for their own rights is racist via petition, advocacy, and protest… K Thorn.

  2. Might have missed this part, but I am pretty sure I don’t remember a claim that liberalism is uniquely hypocritical. Also, to your question of “why pick on liberalism” or whatever, I think it’s fair to say that a short video series on liberalism the focus would be liberalism.

  3. 5:59 The difference is when liberals violate principles they believe in theory when it comes to practice. Being a hypocrite isn't the same as the theory itself having the exceptions.

  4. Why do you keep arguing against things olly says which arent antagonistic points so much as setting the record straight? I assume its so you can pull an argument out of every video instead of just the later ones.

  5. U can express ur disagreements without trying to ridicule him. It may perhaps give u a little schadenfreude to u and ur viewers, but doesn't add anything to the discussion.

  6. The video was great and I enjoyed going through the references you cited. Could you please also cite the songs you use as well? Your videos always got the bops.
    Playlist, maybe?

  7. Where is the rebuttal? He defined liberalism at the beginning but you paused it as if to disprove his statement but he was actually correct and you agreed with him wtf!??

    Pure IDIYOLOGY INTENSIFIES

  8. Yeah I agree with you on this one. Also I did see how people can put liberalism into a specific category when it simply means a philosophy or ideology that supports liberty and equality. It's important to distinguish the variants to like social liberalism, classical liberalism, neo liberalism, etc. Anyways, great video!

  9. Okay. I was a fan, but I watched that video, and given your apparent intelligence I have to believe you're intentionally being picky and disingenuous about the points he was clearly trying to make. You're attacking him on twisted technicalities when his intention was clearly the something else entirely.

  10. I don't have any affiliation with "Philosophy Tube" but seriously, you come off as a very smug individual. And it has huge impact on the appeal of your material. Let me put it this way, which social philosopher did you like, who was smug? Who is your forefather, who is the one you respect the most? Are they smug? Its really. Fucking. Annoying. You seem to take this seriously, and for that I respect you, but yeah, don't be smug. It is a super high-risk strategy.

  11. But wasn't he doing an analisis of the begginings of liberalism historically and not of current forms of liberalism? To deal with the people that point at liberalism's past to argue that it isn't good?

  12. There was a liberal/conservative once 5 generations ago….

    People have no guilt for the sin of Adam (not a real person).

    Liberals today are as associated with Dixicrats as today's conservatives are associated with Robert G. Ingersoll. Which is to say fuck all.

  13. You have seriously misrepresented the points Olly made in his videos. I'm not surprised. I've often watched you create absurd counterfeit versions of what someone said so that you can then torch a fallacious, caricature of their position. This strategy would be dismissed as pointless anti-intellectualism on any other platform, but on YouTube it's celebrated as the peak of intellectual thought. This point is only reinforced by Sargon's support of this video and his comical advice that Olly should "check his own biases." That advice is made even more absurd by the fact that Sargon himself makes his money from gullible fans who can't be bothered to fact check the accuracy of much of his content.

  14. Olly is a closet socialist because only in a socialist utopia could a person rationally justify being an struggling actor with a philosophy degree. He need to grow up.

  15. Exceptions. Like fighting racism, except towards one particular race because they have power, except when its the minority individual that has power because he is not the system, except when its the majority individual that has no power because he represents his race, except when people are mixed race because of intersectionality and we need to split then in parts…
    Yep, no exceptionalism in other ideologies at all. S/

  16. 4:30 MUH HUMAN NATURE! Also, nice strawman of anarchism. Anarchists, as much as everyone else, accept the need for guidelines as to when violent restraint is necessary.

  17. PT's video was a bit over-simplifying, but I think you are using some of his less than perfect phrasing as a way to completely eliminate his points, which have validity as criticism in need of defence from a liberal standpoint. When he points out that liberalism often markets itself as "not an ideology", he means that liberal thinkers, more often than most others, see their political positions as a sort of default, as something that is not motivated by a clearly defined intellectual structure but rather by a common sense approached simply informed by empirical observation of the facts before us. If your point is that liberals do not do this, you would more easily debunk him by showing liberal politicians who clearly define their political actions as ideologically motivated. I would posit, as PT seems to do, that Obama is an example of a liberal who masks his ideologically charged political actions as simply the best possible action given the current evidence. Both marxists and fascists clearly point out their ideological approach and in that sense acknowledges the inevitable bias of any viewpoint.

    As to the question of exception, that liberalism is in some sense defined by exceptions to the rule. I will give you that PT was vague and unclear with exactly what he meant when it comes to that point. Obviously, all ideologies make exceptions in practice. What I think he meant, is that exceptions to the general rules are more built into the liberal ideological structure. As liberalism, through its focus on individualism, does not have any obvious way of dealing with societal structures on larger levels, it is forced continually to wander outside its core of individual focus. How could the founding fathers handle the already collectively labeled black slave population? They couldn't, not through their ideology. They therefore had to make an exception and allow for a collectivist treatment of the black slaves as black and therefore less deserving of freedom. So, to me, the problem with liberal exceptions isn't so much that they have them, but that their ideological structure has too many points where it cannot handle a situation and is therefore forced to use exceptions to structure certain parts of society. That creates a loop-hole for liberal policy to execute almost any sort of order under its ideological banner.

  18. I tried listening to olly's video. I can't do it.
    People like him, (attitude, mannerisms, smarminess, the moral grandstanding) are the reason I ran screaming from a university degree in philosophy over ten years ago.
    Even with all that I have learned, I still feel the urge to either kick his face in or tear his shitty, shallow worldview to shreds.

Leave a Reply

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