Yeah, I watched a short bit of that and then decided that I hate the guy so I couldnt finish it, its straight forward pathologising of opposition, its reductive to say the least to suppose that all opposition to your own ideology is madness and incredibly egotistical and narcissistic to suppose that you are in possession of objective truth pure and simple and others are going to simply have to come around to that point of view.
Its interesting to see that it is being articulated by hardened capitalists now because you could easily change a word here and there and you have the practices which in the USSR resulted in dissident intellectuallys being hospitalised in psychiatric wards indefinitely for failing to grasp scientific socialism or historical materialism.
The point at which I shut off was the point at which he suggested that trauma resulted in individuals constructing ideologies to explain that the world was broken and not they themselves, OK, yet he attributed that trauma to a number of external factors, ie schools, terror, parenting, WTF? Where's the reason and evidence there? Producing arguments which within their own structure, although presented in a didactic and pedantic fashion and inconsistent with themselves? What?
For a long time I've constructed my own theories about attachment style, trauma, emotional literacy and social psychology and socialism as I understand it but I never took it on the road preacher style to teach everyone that if they dissent from my view they are irrational and adhere to an insane ideology.
Maybe it's just 3AM.. but the fact that you don't need a license to have children is a pretty good reason not to require a license to have children. To implement something like that would require you to choose which traits good parents should have. I don't trust anyone not to assume their own social groups contain superior parents.
On the other hand, most parents are inconsiderate, ignorant fools who ignore their children and whose priorities are abhorrent. That part of me very much wishes we would deny procreation to the general populace.
"If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see."
That's what I agree. I still haven't met a healthy person. Well, I would say something like "distorted perception or cognition", not brain damage, but the idea is close enough.
I think his claim that almost everyone alive has been traumatized to the point of brain damage is going to detract from the point of the rest of his message, honestly.
But, yes, there are many, many broken people in the world. I am one of them. Only a small percentage of people I know came from homes where they were treated with unconditional love, acceptance, and respect.
On the other hand, demonizing parents isn't really a good idea always ... all people are neurotic. Everyone. And those parents who emotionally or physically abuse their children were most often emotionally or physically abused themselves, and so on, and so forth.
The only thing that anyone can do is try to work together to try to love and accept other people and not abuse each other. It's hard though because everyone makes mistakes.
I honestly think that's where the Christian philosophy sprung up with the idea of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a pretty socially evolutionary idea in terms of living with other human beings. The problem is that it seems to pretty difficult for most people, whether they are Christian or atheist or whatever.
"Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." - Edward Abbey
It reminded me of Geoffrey Canada's efforts to get children in Harlem out of poverty by first focusing on earliest childhood development. The baby college program teaches parents to discipline their children verbally instead of relying on hitting which the majority of them did.