None of us are perfect.
I have mentioned that you and I could agree with each other on a lot of things.
But this continual drive to create in groups and out groups is undoubtedly in direct conflict with the other work you claim to do in this video.
According to Marshal Rosenberg, when we shame a person for a behavior, we make it impossible for them to change.
When we attempt to shame or belittle others, its always an act of violence.
Are you sure about that? This sounds like a tactic one could use to avoid all forms of confrontation. If one bends their language so far that nothing substantive can be said because some people will be shamed as a result, is that not also violence by omission (because you failed to correct a bad behavior that bit them badly in the future)? I think one must understand that shame is a useful emotion if it is truly on correct moral ground. That is far more important, than protecting the egos of statist psychopaths.
I can also think of one biblical quote that disagrees...
"For the LORD disciplines those he loves, and he punishes each one he accepts as his child." - Hebrews 12:6
Yes, that one is kind of obvious and I hesitated about including it for that reason. But I remembered it because I studied the bible long before I became a voluntarist.
However, that quote still tells you that even those who promote such things know better. Larken already talked about changing the perspectives of those we disagree with in that video, but I would say that there are times when you just have to be blunt with the truth.
Yes, but notice that I said that one has to be on correct moral ground to use shame righteously. That makes all the difference in the world. The reason shame works negatively to "govern, manipulate and enslave others" is because they are already slaves to ego. It doesn't always work in one direction only.
If that's how one feels after speaking truth, then it's not coming from a righteous place. I've seen shame come from a different place than that and work positively on occasion. I remember Stephan Molyneux has said something similar saying that using moral arguments is far more effective than using logical arguments.
Again, please don't take the fact that he is now a Trump statist as reason to not see the truth. This would be a form of argument known as "ad-hominem". The truth will often times show up where you least expect it.
Of course, but this isn't quite correct:
It's not about whether one feels righteous but whether one really is. Someone doing all the things you say above obviously isn't.
You have to make sure that you are on solid ethical ground and shame ideally isn't caused by accusation (as in public shaming), but by the realization of wrongdoing which can happen in multiple ways when the truth is exposed.
So according to you, if someone was all the way and openly a Nazi, it would be divisive, and would constitute violence, to say that that's bad? Um, no. 100% dead wrong. Advocating statism is advocating ACTUAL violence. Someone saying something you don't like isn't violence. Yes, there very much IS an "in group" and an "out group" when it comes to whether people condone the violent subjugation of mankind. ALL statists do, and ALL statists should be condemned--whether gently or bluntly--for doing so. (Once again, you seem to just fish for things to argue about under my posts, even if they make little or no sense.)
No, condemning evil is not "tapping into hate." Duh.