Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "JRE Clips" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22.  @goober69er    I think your analysis suffers a bit from 'mile wide inch deep' perspective. You brought up a smattering of issues, however when you look more carefully into each one, i think they are not all the concern they appear to be. 1) I don't know that Canadian law regarding child sex reassignment actually differs from US laws substantially. These procedures are already allowed in the US and have been for a long time. The issue is that barring the most extreme cases, they are very difficult to actually have done due to a combination of a stuff (ethical standards among provider professional associations, cost, exposure to legal/civil liability, etc.) Furthermore the process is not as simple as alarmist conservative media tends to make it, as the amount of medical and psychological evaluation that needs to take place prior to a full on reassignment surgery is so extensive that (barring extreme cases like biologically intersexed individuals) it is unlikely a child will be able to qualify before enough time has elapsed that the individual is at adulthood. All signs indicate that this seems to be a virtual non-issue that has been blown out of proportion. Almost certainly any reform in this area will probably happen through refinements in the criteria for surgery as published by the relevant professional associations and not by any new legislation. Simply put, this is a red herring. 2) I also agree with the Roe v Wade standards, as do most Americans. While half of your statement is true (with some conservative states trying to undermine the ruling by effectively banning abortion) the other half is not. There is no equivalent race to allow for abortions at the last day. The situation of the US right now is that we are failing to meet the RvW standards by a wide margin due to lack of funding, access, and a number of other deceptive and complex schemes plotted out by anti abortion conservatives. So again, this is not a case of evenly balanced sides. We are radically below the RvW standard, with zero risk of being above it. And only one side is working to undermine the law in this regard. 3) The US has faced much greater threats to freedom of speech than today's PC culture. McCarthyism, total domination of broadcast media in the 80s, etc. Currently speech is more free than it has ever been. Now, it's true that there are some annoying college kids out there. But there are a few things to consider: - There always have been. - Social movements tend to gain more traction when traditional sources of power are dominated by the opposition. The PC police are high profile because Trump is in charge, just as the Tea Party saw its zenith under Obama. Don't get distracted by the pendulum swing, it'll roll back when leadership changes. - Most social movements are initiated and led by their most annoying members. So it's usually ridiculous people asking for ridiculous things. But when the dust settles, we tend to find a good balance. When this is over we won't use some of the offensive language we used to, but we also won't be the politically correct automatons some young idiots are asking for. - Honestly the PC movement appears to already be losing some steam. I think it peaked like a 18‐24 months ago. - Comedy is a good example because whereas comedians complain about it, anti-PC comedy is actually extremely popular with all the anti-PC guys making record revenue. And comedy in general is experiencing a golden age right now. That's a good tradeoff for skipping some college gigs. So all in all, this doesn't seem like a real threat.
    2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47.  @Typecast-L  Joe is spreading misinformation about a topic that he is blatantly ignorant about and jeopardizing the public health in the process. Elon Musk is extremely unqualified to weigh in on this matter and is far worse than Joe in this regard. He is peddling unscientific conspiracy theories and jeopardizing people's lives for his own selfish purposes. Both of their positions are directly opposed to the domestic and international scientific consensus on this matter. The entire world's supply of medical professionals, virologists, and epidemiologists are remarkably united in their disagreement Musk's (and Joe's) dangerous and outlandish claims. YouTube is exercising it's social responsibility by limiting the degree of dangerous misinformation being peddled. However, even within this context they have not censored Joe's discussions with Musk. So they have been extremely tolerant of both these guys abhorrent behavior. So let's be clear that neither of these men have the moral high ground here. That said, Joe's entire show is based on ranting. It's not surprising he'd rant about demonetization. However, as you said yourself, he's made a lot of money of YouTube. So demonetization isn't actually that big a deal for him. You know what is though? $100 million. PS: YouTube isn't silencing medical professionals. They are banning crackpots who are giving illegitimate medical advice that counters national and international guidelines during an extremely deadly pandemic. They're doing the right thing.
    2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2