Racism, Law, & Politics (Race Part 1) | Philosophy Tube

1. 

   @Crotaro

   November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

   8:18 Don't worry, Abigail, something as bad as this would certainly never happen again. Society has come so far! Surely the US people wouldn't have a president send "unlikables" into prisons in a completely different country.

2. 

   @MarreN95

   November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

   When you talked about the internment of japanese americans it reminds me of how people are being sent El Salvador just because they look latino and have tattoos. Old habits die hard I guess.

3. 

   @LeBonkJordan

   November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

   I like the phrasing "an insistence that all citizens are equal". Nice way of softly implying that the reality of the system might actually enforce inequality but also insist that there is no war in Ba Sing Se so people have a harder time resisting that imposed inequality.

4. 

   @franr5371

   November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

   This video should simply have more likes.

5. 

   @Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper

   November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

   2:45pm 05/21/2023

6. 

   @SpadeFungi

   November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

   I think this video needs to be redone. It's limited to racialised people living with dominant group without taking into context the racialiasation of Africans for profit ie chattel slave trade and the racialiasation of people who were not threats but racialised to justify harm being done to them.

7. 

   @bxify194

   November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

   L video

8. 

   @axthla

   November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

   hey guys did you know that racism was bad
   pls subscribe for more epic tips!

9. 

   @kadran3263

   November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

   Race: socially constructed identity
   Racism: the power hierarchy as determined by the dominant
   Racial equality: attempts to ensure equal access to resources such as credit, employment and security

   'Race' is used as a technology by the privileged in Western culture to ensure easier access to resources.
   The historical development of what 'race' someone is not addressed in this video: Irish race vs Scottish race; Roman vs Celtic. the function of this technology is human society is not novel. I'd be interested to see a personage of your calibre present on this.

   One of the paradoxes at the heart of liberalism is this: social policies created jobs, housing, roads, health services, water, gas and electricity supply, sewage and etc, but not rich people expect to benefit from all that and to also enhance their profits.

10. 

    @BrassicaRappa

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    So so so grateful that you chose to leave these videos up. I still get so much value from them!!!

11. 

    @natural91LC

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    Is there a bibliography for this video?

12. 

    @quantumvideoscz2052

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    There is a certain problem with the whole argument. Racism itself does not come from power. Power uses racism. That is a very different thing. Racism is a tool, not an invention of "those in power". The race itself is the same. Are there some (not a lot, but some) biological differences between the races? Yes, there are. Therefore, the concept race itself exists. The way the concept of race is used, however, is the problem. I think the idea that the people who use race to divide society actually INVENTED the concept of race is just… redundant and wrong. Race has always been here. The point is how people in power USE race. Religion has also been used to divide society and to oppress others. Have those who did it invented religion? No. Have they used it for such purposes? Yes.

13. 

    @PoppPurp

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    i think …. im a blk man in america and how found out theres afro-mexicans being excomminicated from their i guess white mexicans that arent white smh i thought they stuck together but the dont even discriminate against me i mean in america i can live in maine and complain we need to lock our borders build the walls crap

14. 

    @PoppPurp

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    youre difficult for me now lol im a "cis male " whatever the fuc that means but ima man that never learned from other men , and you gotta option for me to exploit but now youre talking somthing thats so fuccin important its not even a real thing RACE … im black i gotta joke hope noone cancels me but if race was a race who would win lol

15. 

    @padraigmcgrath3876

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    This comment is long. Apologies in advance. I thought it appropriate to explain my position at length. It seems to me that Sheth's concept of racialization explains a lot of things about how new categories of discriminated-against people are created. Let me give a quite contemporary example. Now, before I give this example and my own take on it, please let me clarify that I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO BE DIVISIVE, OR TO STIR ANY POTS. Before I offer my examples, I'll first do a little introductory abstract spiel. It seems to me that contemporary liberalism simultaneously does 2 opposite things, which necessitate each other. On the one hand, contemporary liberalism seeks to expand the legal franchise and the recognition of the personhood of others, gradually bringing previously excluded groups of people into the fold, into what philosophers refer to as "the moral community." At the very same time, contemporary liberalism achieves this expanding inclusivity by simply identifying new groups of people to discriminate against. There's a revolving-door. Somebody gets brought in only as somebody else is being booted out.

    So here's my off-kilter example of Sheth's idea of racialization. Let's think of an identifiable social group of people which wasn't discriminated against to any significant degree 40 years ago, because they weren't seen as an identifiable social group, but certainly are discriminated against now. Let's imagine that there's an engineer in his late 30's or early 40's named Bob. Bob's a details-guy. He loves the technical nuts'n'bolts of his job. He doesn't bother going to parties or on on golf-weekends when his employers invite him, because golf and small-talk bore the hell out of him. If you try to start a conversation with Bob that isn't details-driven or oriented toward problem-solving, then he'll roll his eyes.

    The reason why Bob doesn't do small-talk or play golf is because he's mentally hyperactive. He needs mental chewing-gum 24/7. Problem-solving is not simply what Bob does for a living – it's his whole way of being in the world. He enjoys math-problems. Bob analyzes chess-board positions in his sleep. So Bob wasn't the most sociable type of person, but 40 years ago we understood that we needed guys like Bob, because details-guys and problem-solvers like Bob were the people who actually made everything run – the buses, the power-stations, the water-treatment plants, the emergency-services… And ultimately,, we also understood that guys like Bob weren't hurting anybody. If you were sitting with Bob in the canteen at work, and he told you "Please don't show me your holiday photos – they'll bore the fucking life out of me," then it wasn't the most hurtful thing anybody had ever said to you.

    And then along came the 1990's, and people started talking about something called "emotional intelligence," and then somebody said "Bob is a higher-functioning autist."
    A new category of human being had just been created. 40 years ago, there were no "higher-functioning autists"
    – there were just problem-solvers and details-guys and people who enjoyed doing math-puzzles and other brain-teasers. They certainly weren't seen as a threat to anybody.
    And then somebody said "Bob MUST LEARN to conform to SOCIAL NORMS."
    Whose social norms exactly? The hyper-emotionalized, infantilized social norms of 16 year-old girls?

    In Sheth's terminology, the postulation of a new category of people known as "higher-functioning autists" and the classification of that new group of people as "unruly," and therefore as targets for discrimination, ticks all of the boxes in Sheth's model of racialization.
    But why did guys like Bob suddenly become classified as "unruly?" We used to need guys like Bob. What changed?
    Guys like Bob were the only people who didn't sign on with the new hyper-emotionalization (and therefore infantilization) of the discursive culture. Increasingly authoritarian forms of liberalism rely on emotionalization and on "the therapeutic state." Higher-functioning autists prefer issues to tissues, which makes them automatically classifiable as "unruly." In later capitalism, pop-psychology is the mandated state-religion. Therefore anybody who doesn't learn to emote and think like a 16 year-old girl becomes classified as "unruly.."

    So whereas 40 years ago, the consensus was that we needed guys like Bob, because they were good at problem-solving, today guys like Bob are becoming increasingly unemployable. People say that higher-functioning autists "must learn" to conform to "social norms" (as it turns out, extremely new social norms). Neuro-typical people wag their megalomaniac fingers at autists all the time in a way which would have seemed shockingly presumptuous and pushy 40 years ago. This new category of people known as "higher-functioning autists" are the objects of "normalization."

    In many ways, higher-functioning autists are the new homosexuals – people who must be "cured" or "re-trained" or "normalized."

    At this point, I should reiterate that I am NOT attempting to be divisive here, or to press anybody's buttons.
    But this is one of the reasons why, to be honest, I'm a little bit skeptical about the LGBTQ-inclusivity mania of the past few years. As I've said, the inclusivity-game is just a revolving-door. We always identify some new group(s) to be included or recognized as persons ONLY as we simultaneously find new groups to exclude. This is one of the basic rules of liberal hypocrisy.
    But smokers, autists, Muslims, the unvaccinated, and a whole plethora of other groups are now the new homosexuals, the new targets for "normalization." So I just don't take any of that talk about "inclusivity" very seriously.

16. 

    @adjjal

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    Maybe this is a tremendously ignorant question to ask – but what does someone wearing a red wristband signify/used to signify?

17. 

    @colorlast

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    It is a matter of some concern that 'race' is such a difficult issue in our time.
    Imagine visiting another planet with several 'races' – the people there might say that their 'races' are different or various expressions of the potential of the Genus to which they all belong. The modern promotion of 'race' as a concept that is necessarily and exclusively, a socially constructed thing necessarily involving or even driven by ideas of superiority and of inferiority; of domination, slavery and genocide – ‘race’ propagandized – as a sinkhole and as an inevitable destination for human weakness and degeneration and capacity for evil – is seen to be now, a deliberate and a necessary requirement of an incessant and of a relentless and never ending promotion of war and of conflict – ‘racism’ (as a fantasy of superiority/inferiority) is in this; fabricated, presented and claimed to be, an inevitable human ‘fact’ requiring – in this deception, the creation or imposition of unnatural limits to knowledge and to self comprehension and also therefore, required in all this; is the ongoing and the fervid suppression of awareness of any potential, for true and for lasting peace (true recognition of and tolerance of real diversity). I mean – on this other planet – they will be telling us that PEACE is the first requirement of race – so that it (race) might obtain its fullest expression, outcomes, manifestations and destinies according to its original needs – and in that; ALL races must support each other – or they will all inevitably fall. Wise men.
    In our world – 'race' is a dirty word – because peace is continually designed out of our lives, 'race’ in our life, has been deliberately appropriated into infamy and so, intentionally misrepresented, and the true meaning of it denied, and the lie has been historicised in the ongoing diabolical, genocidal and pathological inversion. This has been done as an essential and as a necessary component of the perpetual drive to war. 'Racism' as we know it – as a vulgar creation of marketing – is a necessary artifact of war and it (in how it has been represented as a putative spectrum of superiority/inferiority) functions as a deception designed to support and to promote intolerance of true diversity, authenticity, originality and difference and therefore intolerance of peace. It must be understood that true diversity; requires peace – and that the denial of ‘race’ as a fact of our being, that is born in us and that exists in us prior to any ‘socially constructed’ facts in our being – involves the denial of the possibility that differences in people might need to be accounted for in the way that we live together and conduct our lives; in other words, the ultimate denial of the possibility of PEACE. It has been suggested to us that ‘racism’ (originally, regognition of true diversity in which peace is a necessary component) is only and is exclusively existentially possible or manifest through interracial annihilation and genocide. That is a lie; a creation of marketing. The ongoing denial of ‘race’ as a fact of our being – is a totalitarian, deeply intolerant and unnatural and destructive historical project and marketing imperative driven by lust.
    The modern concept of ‘race’ as an artifact of ‘social construction’ does not promote diversity and acceptance of differences – rather it imposes a totalitarian limit upon, or abolition or denial of true diversity; because the ultimate logical requirement of true diversity is PEACE. This peace must be denied – at all and at any cost; since peace functions always to limit the scope of usury and of capital power in its necessary and in its perpetual drive to expand slavery into a totality of governing achievement wherein the human will and drive to authenticity and to originality and to life apart from the dominance and the supremacy of usury, of marketing and of capital power – must be by necessity, eliminated. The freedom that might flourish in any separateness, in any true individuality or integrity or in the possibility and in the original and the authentic impulse to live in peace, must therefore, be forever destroyed. The denial of ‘race’ as a subtle, vast and essential fact of our being, and the disposal of that reality and truth in successive orgasms of hysterical historical (manufactured and marketed) atrocities intended, among other things, to classify and to permanently define and to designate ‘racism’ as purely a matter of superiority and inferiority – as a baseless, destructive and criminal fantasy of the actors presented to us in ‘history’ (marketing) – is a crime against humanity of the utmost gravity.
    By ‘race’ we are to understand that there is in man, a constellation and a variety of imperatives, urges and needs serving and facilitating a human drive to originality, authenticity, nature, kind, life, affiliation, service, aptitude, consummation, fire, ice, imagination and individuality, which belongs to and is owned by the heart of each and every man wherein he can be what he is; free, according to natural law and order. The supreme Law of Race being – that to destroy another – is to destroy oneself.

18. 

    @SorryIwasntListening

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    Hi, I'm going through your "back catalogue" ……………..heck woman you are fantastic…. love it…

19. 

    @LogicGated

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    Liberal assumptions are just as the name suggests

20. 

    @ungolcost

    November 27, 2025 at 5:08 am

    Thank you for this video Abigail!

Comments are closed.