My new rough video! "We Don't Talk About Donald Trump".

Sir this was a very good video so much in fact it convinced me to sign up for your patreon to give you monies.

What the video does is make the point that it doesn't matter what anyone is trying to do, what matter is what they do. That's a Big Idea and it would he great if more people thought about things that way. Trump is a good example of it, so I'd say you're on to something.

Jessica Loginov

I think you should post it because it's gonna get you FAT views and will heat up some SPICY controversy

Kirby Saxton

Good stuff yes, joeley-poo

this was very good and i think you should release it! I think people, emotionally, know that things are not working as they should and your videos are very good at articulating that & allowing people space to admit that to themselves. I don't know if that makes sense! also is your dog a puppy? she is very cute!!!!!!

Alixe

Loved this.

Miles Slade

I reckon it's a good quick vid, you should release it. Except next time I want 500% More Dog

enby ennui

I think this is a great vid, it's something I thought about too when I saw that clip and you stated it really well. I do think it's relevant to the conversation, and people will like it

Deanna

This video touches on two concepts that I find really fascinating and connects them in a way I hadn't considered before. The first is the underlying concept in so much legal language of a "reasonable person." I totally agree that being a juror forces you to craft a soul for a defendant - I've written essays about this and I love exploring it. I think a lot of specific laws and jury instructions explicitly affirm that. To give an example, crimes like negligence often require the prosecution to prove that "a reasonable person could have foreseen that action A would lead to outcome B, regardless of any intent to produce only a different outcome C." If you're standing on the sidewalk arguing with someone and you push them into the street, you only intended to push them and cause them minimal harm; but if they then get hit by a car and die, you're likely still guilty of manslaughter. Even burden of proof is defined by "could there be doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that this defendant is guilty?" So we are obligated to see defendants as reasonable people and then if their reasonableness means they knew they were causing harm or could cause harm, we say that's Bad. The second thing is super cool and an idea that doesn't get enough attention when talking about Trump. It's hard for me to fully wrap my head around but it was the subject of an American Presidency course I took last year that examined ways political scientists evaluate or rank presidents. It is incredibly common (pervasive, even) to think that a president's moral character or "presidential demeanor" can imply how good of a president they will be by other metrics. We want to think that because it's nice to think that a good person will do good and a bad person will do bad. But even most analyses that assume that don't lead to studies that support that at all. It is ultimately best understood as a tool for getting elected. So I think part of what your video is getting at is that we like to think, at least, that we all have some kind of similar idea of what a reasonable person is - our legal system assumes we share that. But perhaps we don't. Really gets my noggin joggin. Fascinating video - I like all the different graphic style. And much like everybody else, I like your dog.

Really liked this video, I especially thought the ending was very powerful! It provided a perspective which I think is very valuable. It was his power to decide over the death of hundreds of thousands, and it shouldn't have been and we should find ways to talk about that. Its a good video! If you choose not to release it, I'm happy to have seen it here! (Also your dog is extremely cute)

I like the video and think you touch on a lot of valid points. Only issue is minor, but I'm having trouble spelling out that the thesis is. Is it that it doesn't matter so much who a politician is rather it matter what they materially do/stand for. If so I can somewhat sympathize with that and it makes me understand why people fervently support Biden and Trump even though they have credible sexual assaults against them. If Bernie had those I would've been majorly disappointed and upset but I'd still vote for him and his platform, which was much better than anyone else's.

yes because dog

I like this one. I like what you said a lot, I find it important. It’ll work in your favor that it’s brief. I think the sooner you get it out the better, Olly is releasing a vid tonight though so maybe wait that wave out? Idk how that all works

This is goooood, releeaaase it

Juliet Saxton

I really like this one. The "is trump a good person" part actually helps me understand Trump supporters better by contextualizing their perceptive lens. In the same moment you reveal the issues in my perception. You wrap it up cleanly and challenge those perceptive lenses in a unique way that I have not seen before.

Anisa Abigale

you were wondering how to improve your content? More dog

Brodey Fox

So clarifying here, you’re not saying that what I said about how moral claims work isn’t true right? You’re saying that this fact is or might be relevant to our moral investigation

Big Joel

I may be misinterpreting here, but I think I disagree that "whenever you make an ethical claim about a fact, you're also saying the inverse claim is true." I don't think that's *necessarily* the case. You say "When she stakes any of her moral interpretation on Trump lying about his motives, she's also saying that if he hadn't done that, then her assessment would change." I think that's a pretty big stretch tbh. It doesn't take into account... well, what these motives ARE. And that's pretty important too. Just because he's forthright about his motives doesn't mean those motives are moral. Like, if he came out and said "yup, tamping down fears so I can get reelected," I wouldn't consider it a goalpost-move by CNN to be like "uhhhh so that's fucked up," y'know? It's a different angle of attack, sure, but we live in a world where his professed motives could be seen as pretty untruthful. We don't live in a world where he seems forthright about his motives, so it's hard to say what that world would look like. That said, I still think this is a solid video. It's still interesting to think about, and there are other claims made that I'm 100% down with. And also there's a shitload of Totoro so like, word

Zack Viper

I think your final point is very important. The vid is coherent and I think clips that strike personal chords are good to talk about. Share it with the people!

really liked how this vid built up to its conclusion!! also seeing you holding ur dog in the foreground with the paintings of the girl holding the cat in the background was incredible cinematography, truly life imitating art

This video makes me want to stand on a jagged precipice and shriek to the point of fraying my delicate, angelic vocal chords. No but actually, I think it really speaks to the amorphous nature of public figures and how we can often only assess their moral worth based upon the facts that we have chosen as relevant about them. It makes me wish I could completely enter the headspace of an average Trump supporter to try to understand what exactly it is they see in him. While to me it’s as clear as day that he’s a monster, to many people he’s a hero, quite literally a divine savior, and that’s something that for the sake of my own worldview I wish I could get a true glimpse of.

I do feel like there's a lot of people who kind of treat opposition as cartoon villains which I feel makes it harder to change their mind about central issues (especially more complicated issues like economics). I feel like automatically assuming the worst possible motivations makes people like kind of unhinged (even if they are right). As an example when the host immediately starts talking about how Trump cared more about economy and reelection, I feel like explaining how she knows that is kinda necessary so that normal people can see it and think "Wow, she's right" rather than "Wow, she's incredibly biased" (Sorry, this comment is a mess. I don't remember how to format comments on patreon)

Iain Docherty

Hey, psychosis gang. I'll just piggyback this one. Sort of unrelated, I also find it interesting that the insanity defense in court is that the individual is not in control. Or, if it isn't, that Joel characterized it that way. Either way, I believe that saying you are the logical, reasonable part of your thought process is silly and it says dubious things about our autonomy. I think you're the whole thing; sometimes your whole thing is just really strange and out of touch with normal experience. Sometimes it's so dysfunctional that you're unable to effectively communicate or think. But, that's still you. Psychotic people that become violent shouldn't be separated from normal prison populations because they "weren't in control", but because they can't survive in those conditions. The argument suggests they are less deserving of punishment than other potential prisoners, which I think is a big miss - and only hurts the discussion on making prisons about 1.) separation and 2.) reform, not punishment.

Trace Myers

I think you bring up two different potential theses here that would make for really interesting videos/case studies: a. How our assessment of political figures and their motives/morals cannot be completely true bc it is shaded by our own motives/morals (around 7:40). and b. This info about Covid belonged to the American people, not Trump, and he hid it from us, how can we call America a democracy? Is democracy in America inherently flawed bc of this kind of presidential gatekeeping that can happen? etc. etc.......also please include your dog in all future vids!!!

Really helpful vid in giving the background to why countering Trump's 'i didn't want people to panic' is best done through 'but he clearly motivates us to panic intentionally about other things.' Your video shows why we need to deal with facts directly, in as unmediated a way as possible. I really enjoy you tackling overtly political content, really seems to flex your skills, loved the conclusion after the really strong build up. thanks for your work!

What's Therapy

oh I 100% agree. my point there was more about the nature of language right. If you make the claim that a fact is relevant to our moral assessment of a situation, it means that if that fact weren't true, that might change our assessment. So you gave a good example. You picked out a fact that you think is relevant, "the livelihoods of women, queers, and minorities are on the line." I agree that that fact is relevant. But both of us are implying here that if these people's lives weren't in jeopardy, our opinion of the situation might change, right?

Big Joel

Like, is it immoral for the Democrats to take the high road and allow Republicans to block their nominees without consequence? Not in itself, no. But when the livelihoods of women, queers, and minorities are on the line? Yes, it's immoral.

Charlotte Sisman

Also I love your puppy please give them kisses from me

Britta Moline

I think this is an excellent and really moving video. I really want to share it and talk about it, so that's my verdict.

Britta Moline

I dont think a government agent is or should be as free to make moral choices in the same way that you and I are because the consequences of their actions are so much greater.

Charlotte Sisman

just a note @ around 4:00: psychosis is only a risk factor for violence if the patient has been a recent victim of violence. so previous exposure to violence is a higher predictor of violence than psychosis... I only say this bc putting psychosis next to violence can be misleading, and based in common stigma, one which has done me (a psychosis patient) harm. If psychotic patients are a danger (which is not a given), it’s usually to themselves. But I understand the larger point about culpability, and don’t have off the top of my head any suggestions for less stigmatized risk factors that also diminish culpability so... uh... Otherwise great vid. I like the thesis about how we talk around and project onto the man more often than talk about him directly, and I think it affects the way we’re able to discuss his effect on the world. ps cool dog

John Carmack

wait why do you see it as different for a government agent?

Big Joel

My understanding is that you're trying to point out the pointless ness of arguing about trump's motivations when his actions are what's important. I think you make the point really well in the end, and I would stand in front of a truck for that adorable dog of yours, but there was a point around 7 mins when you lost me by saying that by making a claim of something as moral you are also saying the inverse is important, and I think that's obviously true when talking about an independent moral agent but not of a government agent. The point gets a bit confused here. By the time your dog comes back in at 9.30 you are back on track. It could well be that I just dont understand what point you're trying to make though!

Charlotte Sisman

I think it’s good! You’d have to reshoot it or at least re-edit if you wait til after the election.

Garrett Seelinger