Japan is a communitarian country, you can find citations from Tokyo University, and many Japan-based scholars, they consider themselves to be a communitarian country. It can work, Japan is highly developed country.
@AntoniousAutodidacticasaurus
3 жыл бұрын
There are many things unique to Japan, such as it being an island as well as it's history with Korea and China.
@9eleven1877
2 жыл бұрын
Japan is pretty much a dystopia
@tiramisuvodka8353
Жыл бұрын
they're struggling economically bcs they don't accept foreigners tho
@tiramisuvodka8353
Жыл бұрын
and there isn't many different comunity there
@laurawalker3403
9 күн бұрын
ha! yet it is not national communitarian.
@pinochet3698
Жыл бұрын
I don't think that every state/country/nation in the world should be the same, but I think that an increase in communitarian nationalism in the world is both inevitable and good. I think the rise of communitarian nationalism and the alliance of the 'new new' right with the old right on many issues is what many people are calling the rise of neo-Fascism, but I think that just goes to show how watered down the term Fascism is. It's also a good example of how Fascism has taken on a necessarily negative connotation. The ideas of Fascism are no longer viewed with an open mind the way some view Communism, Fascism almost means 'bad'. I don't think any single ideology is bad in every aspect, Fascism included, and I shouldn't be afraid to say that, especially when Communists can run out in the open.
@shelbyspeaks3287
Жыл бұрын
Damn, pretty based take...
@Peregrin3
Ай бұрын
Cultural Compatibility is far more important than shared ethnicity. Many ethnicities can live just fine together but if they have fundemently opposing cultural values it will create guerenteed friction. Many people who push for mass immigration do so out of some degree of compassion whether genuine or faned, but I don't think they realize that they creating more problems then they are fixing. A good analogy is someone seeing a butterfly struggling to get out of it's cocoon and out of compassion they help it out but by doing so they cause it's death. Helping people is admirable and as a Christian it is a duty but compassion needs to be tempered by wisdom. The problems that mass immigration is that it is a cookie cutter solution, it may help a few people now but it will cause far greater problems in the future and not just for the country accepting them but especially for the country they are leaving. Having large numbers of your work force, especially your educated work force leave is devastating for a country's economy which will lead to more poverty and more people leaving. A far better better and long term solution is to encourage people to to stay and build up their own countries by limiting immigration but also by helping them with access to education, industry, etc. Like the saying, give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.
@Darksoul0899
Жыл бұрын
I want to hear your thoughts, i'm algerian citizen and i think we have two ways, 1. Making a one worldwide country with a universal currency and universal economy and universal government that cares for everybody on this planet. 2. Having countries and every country should be focusing on their citizens and only, and immigration shouldn't be banned but citizens should be A periority in their land and country that they created immigrants shouldn't be allowed to have another country nationality but also i think every citizen should have the right to let go of his nationality. Why i think that ? 1.When you immigrate you are not solving any problem you're running away from your problems and when you're new country gets into trouble you wouldn't stay and defend it or help, you'll run away like you did with your previous country. 2.The rich countries are getting richer, meanwhile the poorer countries are getting poorer, for example my country algeria 🇩🇿 have free education free healthcare low peices ..ext but it has problems that makes a lot of people want to get out of it, basically algeria will give you all those things for free, but in return you'll just immigrate and all what you learned and the money you make in it you'll fly away with it and benefiting a richer country instead of returning the favour and fixing your countries problems you'll just think about your own interests not the peoples.. There's no benefit for the country. 3. If algeria were to be a civic nationalist state, islamists will come from all over the serounding arab countries, and over the years they'll become a majority (just because they have a lot of kids not because they changed the majorities mind about something) and when they do i'll be forced in my own home state that i created.. by an outsider to live under an islamic state. How can i be okey with that ? So my friend i guess that system works for you cuz you're an american, but put yourself in another shoes and you'll find it difficult.
@prenuptials5925
4 жыл бұрын
Where on earth did this come from? From all the communitarian literature I've read, never heard of anything like this. I don't know how I could possibly put this other than you're totally misrepresenting communitarianism, and basically equating it with facism. I've been watching your channel for a long time and have shared so many of your videos, can't say I've watched any so misinformed. EDIT: To put into perspective how wildly out of proportion this is, probably the most popular communitarian philosopher, Charles Taylor, is in favour of multiculturalism in a society. Not only is this running contrary to "communitarian nationalism", it even contradicts your basic claim about communitarianism. Like, where did you pick up these terms??
@CarneadesOfCyrene
4 жыл бұрын
This is pulled directly from prominent philosophical literature. Here's the SEP: "On the philosophical map, pro-nationalist normative tastes fit nicely with the communitarian stance in general: most pro-nationalist philosophers are communitarians who choose the nation as the preferred community (in contrast to those of their fellow communitarians who prefer more far-ranging communities, such as those defined by global religious traditions). However, some writers who describe themselves as liberal nationalists, prominently including Will Kymlicka (2001, 2003, 2007), reject communitarian underpinning." Which identifies this position as communitarian nationalism. plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/#ClaLibNat Macmillan's Encyclopedia of philosophy does the same "Communitarians argue that the civic paradigm is too thin to capture the bonds between persons that are both necessary and desirable for the robust experience of nationality. The ties of nationality are and ought to be the rich bonds of membership in a historic community marked by a shared societal culture and way of life (Volume 6, 2nd Edition, p486)" I will say that I am speaking of a particular view that I identify as "Communitarian Nationalism" which does not necessarily overlap with Communitarianism, but may. As the Routlege Encyclopedia of philosophy notes "The term 'communitarian' is applied to the views of a broad range of contemporary thinkers...It is important to note, however, that there is no common creed to which these thinkers all subscribe and that for the most part they avoid the term (p. 155)." My goal here is not to define communitarianism, but rather a vein of nationalism held by some but not all communitarian thinkers, and therefore called in the literature "communitarian nationalism" If you disagree with the presentation of communitarian nationalism here, your beef is not with me, but with the existing philosophical literature, from whence my claims are drawn. I encourage you to take your claims up with Stanford, Routlege, and Macmillan, but these are the prevailing views, I'm just restating them Additionally, fascism is a technical term with a real meaning (kzitem.info/news/bejne/zJ9urp2YcGVmdqg). While it does make the case for a strong national character, it goes farther arguing that the only way to achieve the goals of the state is through violence, and that multilateralism is problematic. Someone may easily be a communitarian nationalist but hold that non-violent means are the best way to accomplish their goals, and believe in multilateral institutions.
@luckydave328
4 жыл бұрын
I am not too familiar with the term. I have responded to communitarianism as defined in the video above. I see you believe it has been wildly misrepresented. What is your definition ?
@prenuptials5925
4 жыл бұрын
@@CarneadesOfCyrene i see what you're saying, but the common conception of communitarianism is the emphasis in community and immediate social relations being the basis of identity and political basis. communitarianism was a reaction to Rawlsian liberalism, and the Western individualism it was based on. in this way, it's agnostic to nation states, and even in a practical sense against it considering the multiplicity of cultural identities in a country. from Lasch, Taylor, MacIntyre, to other international philosophers, the emphasis has always been on small social units, never national ones mostly for this reason. i've read over the nationalism article where it mentions communitarianism, and it mostly uses the term as a theoretic backing, not a specific ideology. further, when it does, like the quote from your last comment, i'd dispute the author for the reasons already mentioned. "My goal here is not to define communitarianism" at parts you do actually give a definition of just communitarianism though. still, even when i search the term "communitarian nationalism" nothing comes up in Google or Scholar. instead, i do get "cultural nationalism", which seems to fit your description better.
@prenuptials5925
4 жыл бұрын
@@CarneadesOfCyrene i see what you're saying, but the common conception of communitarianism is the emphasis in community and immediate social relations being the basis of identity and political basis. communitarianism was a reaction to Rawlsian liberalism, and the Western individualism it was based on. in this way, it's agnostic to nation states, and even in a practical sense against it considering the multiplicity of cultural identities in a country. from Lasch, Taylor, MacIntyre, to other international philosophers, the emphasis has always been on small social units, never national ones mostly for this reason. i've read over the nationalism article where it mentions communitarianism, and it mostly uses the term as a theoretic backing, not a specific ideology. further, when it does, like the quote from your last comment, i'd dispute the author for the reasons already mentioned. "My goal here is not to define communitarianism" at parts you do actually give a definition of just communitarianism though. still, even when i search the term "communitarian nationalism" nothing comes up in Google or Scholar. instead, i do get "cultural nationalism", which seems to fit your description better.
@123Homefree
3 жыл бұрын
Its marxism creeping in to subvert the word that points the way out
@RigorTortoise22
4 жыл бұрын
This might be a silly question, what if an individual is born in communitarian society that doesn't mesh with the cultural norms of their particular nation? Should that individual then be exiled from the nation in order to maintain national identity? What about their family? Great video series btw, really enlightening to why a person would identify so strongly with a national identity which is something that I find a hard time understanding.
@CarneadesOfCyrene
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks! It is not a silly question, it is a good objection to communitarian nationalism. For many communitarian nationalists, they are committed to either forcing those individuals to conform to the national identity or kicking them out. This is a particular problem with religions communitarian nationalisms since people often choose to reject the religion that they were born into.
@lightsinthedarkness
11 ай бұрын
Kibbutzs kinda are communitarianist, so using them as a base, we can see that in extreme forms they exile you probably keeping what was given to you as a member of the community, in less extreme forms they give you money and kick you out, and in non extreme forms they would just separate you from receiving the benefits of the community and ask you to leave.
@lightsinthedarkness
11 ай бұрын
@@CarneadesOfCyreneI don't agree. It depends where you live and how you were taught. In the western world, many usually distance themselves from born-in religions but in other parts of the world that is not really common. It also depends on the severity with which your born-in religion is. If it's extremist, there is a higher chance, if not you most likely don't.
@johnnytilar792
2 жыл бұрын
Is it just a coincidence that communitarian nationalism kinda resembles 3rd positionist philosophy and ideologies (Fascists) or do those ideas fall in the same category of being communitarian nationalist? I can see a bit of a resemblance.
@lightsinthedarkness
11 ай бұрын
I don't think so. Extreme Nationalist Communitarianism probably. In other communitarianism mostly no.
@jeanduplessis1780
4 жыл бұрын
From what I know about communitarianism it's more about localism. What you describe here is the old apartheid system of south Africa. It failed because of the totalitarian control that is necessary. Wouldn't the canton system of Switzerland be closer to communitarianism?
@mweibleii
4 жыл бұрын
Would you say post-apartheid has been more successful or less successful? I've met a number of South Africans who left and they said it's horrible some of the things being done. Bad enough he said out of politeness he'd rather not say anything. That bad. It's think the White SA should leave? Why not either marry a Black SA or if not, then immigrate to Europe? It seems odd to remain separate for centuries.
@CarneadesOfCyrene
4 жыл бұрын
To be clear, the position of "communitarianism" is a very broad and includes a lot of different positions. In this video I am looking at a specific type of nationalism which is often called communitarian nationalism because it fits with some, though not all version of communitarianism.
@jeanduplessis1780
4 жыл бұрын
@@mweibleii South Africa has always been a crazy place. White people have been here too long to go back to Europe. They don't want us haha. Yes the government sucks. And it's dangerous. But at least it's not boring. There are many races here living together. They have their own identy and don't want to inter-marry.
@mweibleii
4 жыл бұрын
@@jeanduplessis1780 That's such a fascinating situation. I suppose, I just cannot fathom wanting to live in a situation where both my Government was a danger to me, and the people around me didn't want to (in general) marry me. I'd feel nervous. There was a time when Japan was composed of separate "nations". Kind of like ancient Greece. Nobunaga united the country and it has remained ever since. He did this through war of course. Some see Nobunaga as a devil and others as the great unifier. It seems like a theme we see replayed over and over again in history, from Alexander of Macedonia to the Prussian Kingdoms, to the unification of China. Empirical evidence in the form of history (maybe not the best evidence) would suggest this will happen to parts of Africa at some time, eventually.
@jeanduplessis1780
4 жыл бұрын
@@mweibleii that's very interesting. People make the mistake of comparing south Africa's history to America. This place is truly multicultural. For example the largest Indian population outside of India live here. Then there is the anglo white nation, the Afrikaner white nation, there are the native black tribes, Nigerians and other north Africans etc. The government isn't really a physical threat. Their only true goal is to extract wealth from the middle and upper classes. The economy has been damaged by communist policies and has been massively weakened by covid. So there is something in the air and the government is embracing black nationalism. Personally I think that South Africa will end up as a failed state with communities living in enclaves. One thing it will never be is a unified nation. But it can be groups living a peaceful coexistance.
@santoshsam333
4 жыл бұрын
nice video.
@CarneadesOfCyrene
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@luckydave328
4 жыл бұрын
"...and if the other culture says the opposite about a different religion.. " I think you meant to say "...if the other culture says the SAME about a different religion..."
@treytrapani9813
2 жыл бұрын
You're really taking a huge jump from Communitarianism to what is now called nationalism. Nationalism isn't the only logical product of Communitarianism. This implies that "nationality" is a useful or clear label, which you do address to a certain point. However, race, ethnicity, and nationality are very rarely mentioned as central to Communitarian identity and that's all you address.
@CarneadesOfCyrene
2 жыл бұрын
To be clear, in this case the phrase "Communitarian Nationalism" is referring to a specific type of nationalism which has some communitarian features. Not all communitarians are nationalists in this way. This is not a video on communitarianism writ large, but rather a type of nationalism that shares some communitarian features.
@jakecollins2680
2 жыл бұрын
Im surpsised you havent done a "what is communism" breakdown. Could you do that please?
@CarneadesOfCyrene
2 жыл бұрын
The closest we have is "What is Socialism?" (kzitem.info/news/bejne/yqpr2IZ9nGSEY6Q) But I think a "Communism vs Socialism" or "What is Communism?" would be a great addition! I will add it to my long list of videos I want to make. :)
@angus7278
4 жыл бұрын
Sounds a bit like Israel, which has declared itself a state not for all its citizens, but for only those that share a ethnic-religious identity. This leaves out about 20% of the population. There isn’t a shared history or culture for the favoured group because they arrive in the new state from across the globe. However a myth was adopted to invent a unifying identity, and a type of shared culture has emerged. Personally I find this sort of nationalism repugnant.
@luckydave328
4 жыл бұрын
I agree with you 90% but I don't think the unified culture was entirely mythical. Jews generally maintained their separateness of culture and particular identity by means of their religion and folk tales etc.
@CarneadesOfCyrene
4 жыл бұрын
Zionism is an example of a communitarian nationalist movement. It took a religious/ethnic nation and worked to establish it into a state (regardless of how loose or tight you think such national bonds are). If you think all communitarian nationalism is problematic, then a Zionist Israel is an issue for you.
@luckydave328
4 жыл бұрын
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Yes it is a problem for me. I have Jewish friends. Only one of them does not support Zionism. We argue a lot about it but I find their cultural loyalty overcomes appeals to rationality - or justice. I think it was not a good idea. We should be able to make (and largely have made) the world as safe a place for Jews as any other ethnicity. They are thriving in the USA and live comfortably and safely in many parts of Europe. I dislike religion generally it is divisive besides being irrational and unscientific. To found a country based on ethnicity with religion as an excuse for driving out and murdering its current occupants is an abomination in my view. I particularly don't like Islam or Christianity for that matter but find the use of Judaism in Israel as an excuse for these crimes extremely hypocritical, especially as so many Jews are secular or even atheist !
@Arrakiz666
4 жыл бұрын
Sounds like a not-so-clever attempt to rebrand national socialism.
@CarneadesOfCyrene
4 жыл бұрын
I would say that national socialism is an extreme type of communitarian nationalism, however, there are much less radical versions. You may still have a justified issue with even moderate communitarian nationalism, but a spectrum does exist (though you might also argue that moderate communitarian nationalism is not ethically different than the more extreme versions).
@jfs5873
3 жыл бұрын
National socialism is a specific party, not an ideology.
@ananonymousoyster365
3 жыл бұрын
Im a communitarian (at least I mostly agree with communitarianism) and I don’t know if I agree with communitarian nationalism, but nazism is a despicable plague on the earth. Same with fascism in general.
@curtisdavis2157
2 жыл бұрын
#HailEverythingUnderTheSunOrBlueMoon!
@JohnusSmittinis
Жыл бұрын
#What?
@mweibleii
4 жыл бұрын
Would this include Jewry and the Israeli Constitution?
@luckydave328
4 жыл бұрын
Probably - but also monocultural nations like Japan !
@mweibleii
4 жыл бұрын
@@luckydave328 Yes, there is some similarity. I'd say, a Japanese couple who moved to the USA for example, and had children who couldn't speak Japanese, they're not really Japanese by most standards. A half-caste born in Japan, world be 50% Japanese by most standards. But this isn't religious, more like an opinion. Younger Japanese would be more inclusive, older Japanese less inclusive.
@mweibleii
4 жыл бұрын
I was speaking to a Japanese the other day about the riots in the USA and she said: One good thing about us, is all of us care for one another, unlike in the USA. Even after major earthquakes, I never heard of anyone looting. That's one great thing about monocultureal Japan. Even if it's not strictly true, it's close to completely true. A bad thing is the pressure to conform. Some Japanese can't take it, and they usually leave nowadays. But others like it. It's almost certainly a genetic disposition.
@luckydave328
4 жыл бұрын
@@mweibleii I have been to Japan. I have Japanese friends via music and teaching connections. I have been on the Tokyo Metro at rush hour when people are crushed against each other. It was about 15 years ago.There was a wide space all around me as people were desperate to avoid any proximity with me. I asked my Japanese companion what was the matter, did I smell bad etc. He was embarassed to answer. Later on I finally got it out of him. He told me that many Japanese don't really see "gaijin" as human ! I asked him what they thought I was. He said "Maybe some see you as an animal. Maybe some think you are just another species like an E.T. " As you can imagine, I was pretty shocked. It did go some way though to explaining the horrendously cruel and inhuman treatment meted out to my father as a p.o.w. of the Japanese on the Burma Railway aka the Death Railway during WW2. He was taken prisoner in Singapore. I have never held this against younger Japanese people who have also largely put the past behind them and forgiven the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However I have been distinctly uncomfortable around Japanese of my father's age or older. He was around 19 years old when captured. There are not many people of that age around now. He has been dead a long time. His life was destroyed by this experience. Therefore I am totally opposed to any nationalistic or cultural isolationist movements. It often, perhaps always, leads to seeing others as lesser or alien.
@mweibleii
4 жыл бұрын
@@luckydave328 I'm not sure why your friend said that. 99.9999999% of Japanese, Koreans or Chinese would think you're just as human as themselves, Just not Asian, they would of course think you're a foreigner. Many Asians do think in terms of blood and genetics. So, the idea of national identify and blood is common. I think most people around the world recognise ethnicity and most value it. Tokyo has such a large gaijin population I'm surprised there was space around you in a lunchtime train. It must have been holidays 😂 That's very sad what happened to your father during the war. I can understand your sentiments of not wanting those events to happen again. But I think you're conflating the two things. 1. It's certainly possible to have monocultreal nations without war. 2. The USA proves multiculturalism does nothing at all to stop invasion and war atrocities. As it is happening at this very moment. 3. Most wars have been between people of the same ethnicity. The European wars, the Native American wars, Japanese Wars within Japan. Or China. Etc.. So, the issue of war is more an issue of humanity and will be solved when there are near limitless resources. I would think. Perhaps after the sun's energy is completely harvested? Even with homogeneity, people have and always will immigrate. The Dutch in Japan. Or Chinese in Japan 1000 years ago. I prefer national identify with a limited number of immigrants who should marry and integrate or have their visas timed out. I like the idea of preserving Native American tribal identities, Japanese ethnicity, Maori people - even if they did eat the Aboriginals before them into extinction. I still value their culture now. And they didn't do anything. That was their forefathers. I guess I value diversity. And I've worked and lived everwhere from the USA to Japan, from China to Australia.
@justineady4251
4 жыл бұрын
Why trump? Are you implying something here?
@CarneadesOfCyrene
4 жыл бұрын
Trump has been accused of being a Nationalist. If he is any kind of Nationalist it is a Communitarian one. Arguably policies that privilege Christian immigrants over Muslim immigrants (e.g. the "Muslim Ban"), and European immigrants over African immigrants (e.g. attempts to eliminate the Diversity visa lottery) might be justified through a Communitarian Nationalist argument, (i.e. a particular national character needs to be preserved to maintain unity, the only way to do that is through maintaining national identity, and the only way to maintain national identity is to restrict immigration from countries with different national identities). I do not know that this is Trump's justification for these policies, nor am I convinced that these claims are sufficient to justify these policies. But this appears to be one line of reasoning that has been used by Trump supporters to justify such policies.
@legionofdecency8390
4 жыл бұрын
@@CarneadesOfCyrene If that was a "Muslim ban", why were so many muslim majority countries not on that list? Trump is a Civic Nationalist, if anything. It's the left that attributes race to his motives.
@Donnieboy7
3 жыл бұрын
@@legionofdecency8390 I agree.
@jeanduplessis1780
4 жыл бұрын
Isn't Trump a civic nationalist?
@CarneadesOfCyrene
4 жыл бұрын
It likely depends on the policy. Policies limiting immigration from Muslim countries, preferencing European immigration over non-European immigration, or giving special treatment to Christianity in policymaking over other religions look at least somewhat communitarian. Civic nationalists care deeply about democracy and respect for human rights as a way to balance multiple nations in the same state. Many would argue that Trump has pushed against democratic governance and human rights and inflamed tensions between ethnic and racial groups. Other policies may have more of a civic nationalist flavor.
@Donnieboy7
3 жыл бұрын
@@CarneadesOfCyrene wouldn't trump then be a mix of communitarian and civic nationalism?
@nickhall1632
4 жыл бұрын
What kind of pisses me off about your channel is that you monetize while lifting substantial sections of other peoples work from the various philosophical encyclopedias. You are effectively plagiarizing even though you say you take from those sources you are directly quoting the work of other authors, you should really be quoting them directly.
@CarneadesOfCyrene
4 жыл бұрын
Interesting critique. I am not conscious of any direct quotes that I have pulled without attribution. If such quotes exist, please feel free to provide a specific citation in a comment. My intention has never been to directly quote an article without attribution. I am pulling ideas and information from encyclopedias, but I do cite all the encyclopedias that I am pulling from in the description of every video. There is no standardized form for citations in videos (academics can't even agree on a standard form for citations in papers), so I think it is disingenuous to claim that my using a method of citation that you disagree with is plagiarism (any more than someone that preferred APA to MLA would be justified in claiming that all works of the humanities are plagiarized because they did not use APA citations). One of the reasons there is no standard form is that this is an informal presentation medium. Anyone that asks to cite my videos I discourage from doing so and refer to my source material. The videos are meant to get people interested in the topic of philosophy and learn (mostly) brief, summarized introductions to these concepts (though some do go deeper). Philosophy articles and encyclopedias are technical and difficult for newcomers to access. I try to make these ideas more digestible to the public for the purpose of drawing more people into the discipline. This is done that the expense of some of the rigor of traditional articles (such as in-text citations, for each claim I make, as opposed to the general citations in the description which I use). Philosophy will die if it is not successful at bringing more people into the discipline. There are too many people worried about creating perfectly crafted, original, deeply technical articles that no one will ever read, and not enough people making those ideas and arguments accessible to the public. The value that videos like these add is not in proposing an original idea, but in taking the ideas of others and amplifying them. There are many people who would never read a philosophy paper, but would watch a short video on the same topic. You may disagree with how I cite these sources, but do you think that there is a place for those who make complicated concepts accessible, even if they propose few of their own?
@nickhall1632
4 жыл бұрын
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I don't really care what you say. You are monetizing the work of other people. The least you could do is cite the people who write the articles for the encyclopedias that you summarize. If I wrote a paper and summarized a detailed position without attributing my source I'd be accused of plagiarism. Here let me help you with the first one: Bell, Daniel, "Communitarianism", , Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
@only20frickinletters
4 жыл бұрын
I think that's a harmful idea of intellectual property. Anything profitable monetizes the work of other people. A philosophical paper has to add novel ideas to have any value, and it can't summarize quotations or citations lest it misrepresent what was said by others or obscure the original source. These videos, however, add value (for me) by paraphrasing in layman's terms, walking through examples, and showing the script's text alongside the soothing narration (plus the text pictures are cute). They do not claim any ideas as original, nor are they to be graded or used as a source. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine the SEP's authors wrote it not out of desperation to make a buck, but to spread useful definitions. In lifting its work, these videos further that endeavor, and are a testament to its success. I'd argue that even in attracting customers, they're not in competition, but cooperation. I, for one, wouldn't look at the SEP nearly as much without this channel. Certainly, the idea of plagiarism can be a useful lens to analyse problems on youtube. hbomberguy's video on youtube plagiarism highlights that some larger channels lift not just a video's idea, but its outline, pacing, editing style, one-liners, transitions, etc from a video on a smaller channel. He argues that the best way to profit on youtube is copying what does well, which hurts the quality of content. If this channel either failed to list its sources, or worse, served to strawman the positions by presenting them incorrectly, that'd be a major issue. As it is, I think this video adds significant value to the SEP through script writing, recording, and editing that needs to be compensated to continue.
@nickhall1632
4 жыл бұрын
@@only20frickinletters I don't think so bud. You copy someone else's ideas, take from someone else's music, or write the words of another person, you are stealing. These videos aren't topics that are widely discussed and mostly theoretical. For that reason, the topics have nuance and sources that can be identified. The people who write the entries are credited with doing so. At the very least, setting the precedent of attributing source is a noble deed. Also, if you look at Philosophy Tube he does this very thing. Identifying sources also establishes author trustworthiness for topics as uncommon as this. So miss me with the hedging pseudo-philosophical bullshit and just start crediting your sources.
@shelbyspeaks3287
Жыл бұрын
@@nickhall1632 hey a*shole, if you care so fucking much wheres you philosophy channel? you talk about philosophytube as if he's not a biased political youtuber, and then you put "siting sources" as if that makes him "trustworthy" just because he puts a fucking description, you care enough to bitch in paragraphs so where's your response flakeass?
Пікірлер: 135