Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "The Year in Review: Politics, Immigration, Culture Wars, Monarchy" video.

  1. If part one (up to 18:00mins) discusses identity (Being) for a person turns on arguments that Analytical Philosophy classes as ad hominin fallacy, then part two () on immigration of people turns on arguments of process (Becoming) slippery slope arguments Analytical Philosophy also classes as a fallacious. Politics and law are too dependent on notions of Being as visible spectacle, an event, and not on the subliminal Becoming as a process. these onto-metaphysical categories do make this clear, I think. on Emma Webb's point at 22:00mins: listen to the kinds of conversations people have the degree of freedom in discourse. Listen to what kinds of factual and absolutes peoples discussions flee to as grounds. the mixing up of the institutional and the "profane" here. also there is now by my experience a kind of Lyotardian normative discourse limit of recognition and legitimacy. Lyotard used this for the "profane against the institution's norms as limits. Now the institutions use the Critique as a maxim tactic. they now ground this in the sciences of psychology and sociology and in just the same way treat the Critical work of Foucault and Agamben as manuals. In the city, there' a thousand things you can say that are deemed inappropriate, as say referring to local history and tradition of Being there. the Revisionists History of Colonialism is not the point here, but rather that of referring to local knowledge is deemed exclusionary and not showing respect for the other. thus increasingly they talk about money and qualifications, jobs and houses. and really interest8ing is that in metropolitan cultures they use a lot more word to communicate a thought then are used outside of metropolitan areas. All the talking is to try and imagine a conversation where the other is seems in the first o be absolutely alien to any local understanding and so they try to build this up in discourse and end up talking about money as a common ground. having recently visited a metro any one can give you directions as they have mobile phones. and they seem to be continuously both highly sensitive to the connotations of race and gender in discourse and will play tricks tests and so on in search: not of a ground for themselves, but as a way of rejecting anyone else's arguments or stories as legitimate. they also will use someone's ethnicity as an argument if they question social justice, they play the role of a racist sexist and say well you need social justice to deal with me don't you. in conversation its as if the metropolitan in the discourse thinks the other is sitting at thee glass screen in an interview or in their office or are a student and its a lecture you have to pass in an exam. Asymmetrical in the extreme with status and identity here attempting to drag their institution into the Bed Room even. I have experienced all this many many times. The old hierarchy re-invented as right and right hierarchy intellectual status and instituional status, but without reflective Critique. the latter only in terms of equal opportunity to become one of them. That is its pseudo legitimacy, since they clearly are not experts but with their self interests backed up with their dependencies conditions, exculpations and escape roots. My knowledge of the recent history of Western Democracies tells me that a rapid turn over of leaders is a real Canary in the Coal Mine. There was also a massive intellectual brain drain during the1980's (up to 30:mins in)
    1