I clicked on here thinking you'd be soliciting answers.
Actually I am. I don't agree with everything this guy says. I think he nails the fundamentals, such as the expectation that we all should have equally good outcomes and that this is even possible, but without critical analysis of how we're supposed to achieve that.
Liberalism used to at least have a vision of some future utopia, and today it's based on nothing more than, "If it's America, it's evil. If it's successful, it's evil (unless it's in the entertainment industry). If it's Western Civilization, it's evil. If it's Christian (or Judaism), it's evil. If it's white straight male, it's evil. If it's fossil fuel energy, it's evil," and so on, because these ideas are now woven into the culture so tightly the younger generations don't even question it, like the fish doesn't question the water.
I was a liberal as a young person when the vision was there. I still am on many social issues. But when it came to wealth redistribution and economic collectivism, I questioned the logic of how this would actually work in the real world. No liberal could give me a convincing description of how it could end in anything but failure. To this day they can't. I always had trouble understanding why they cling to those beliefs despite this, but this video somewhat explains why.
So maybe I'm soliciting thoughts on that. If you're a liberal and you believe for example, money should be taken from those who earn it and given to those who don't, how do you reconcile that with the natural human tendency to then stop working if what you earn is taken from you, and to stop working if support is just given to you? The whole of society's productivity declines because incentive is taken away. How do you NOT see that? The answer in this video is, because you're brainwashed from the age of 5 to not think too hard about it. I guess I'm wondering if you agree with that, or if not, what's your alternative explanation?