JP and JC

JP and JC refer to Jordan Peterson and Jesus Christ, whose videos occupy an outsized portion of the YouTube search results on a variety of important subjects.

The worst topics in this regard include belief systems, meaning of life, tradition, temptation, and morality. You really have to dig to find anything on these subjects from a secular or progressive perspective.

While both do have good advice from time to time, videos from these sources will not be provided on this wiki. We won't do that to your algorithm, lest you end up in the manosphere.

Regarding Objective Morality

Since metaculture has the application of science to questions of morality as one of its core tenets, addressing what is meant by "objective morality" and how one might determine it is a useful exercise.

The first video below has a long response to Sam Harris's Moral Landscape and rejecting the notion of "objective" morality. It is unfortunate that he and JP have been linked by their various appearances together, and that Harris's criticisms of Islam have been used to support racist politics and policies. He has otherwise been a leading voice regarding the scientific approach to spiritual subjects like morality and meditation, offering a version of atheism that is significantly more open-minded than your Hitchens or Dawkins. The idea that science can be applied to questions of morality should be strongly considered.

The utilitarian ethics of metaculture avoids these criticisms by recognizing the subjective nature of self-reporting happiness and measuring it on the aggregate instead of the individual level. We can know statistically whether one society or culture is happier than another, and whether changes to various policies or beliefs have an impact on that measure. It doesn't claim an objective morality, but rather one that can be improved over time with study and comparison. If an "objective" morality exists it can only be approached and never reached, and each moral grey area must be considered individually--no simple rules apply universally (see Gödel).

It also takes a perspective that fundamentally opposes war and the use of power to enforce ideology, and that all religions and cultures should be embraced. The argument could be made that certain passages in the Quran form a generating equation that create a pattern of violence, and significant text could be dedicated to supporting that argument. However, it is inherently divisive and against the spirit of universalism that metaculture is striving for. But even if there was strong evidence to support such a view (not saying there is), there would be absolutely no implication that discrimination or violence could ever be an acceptable response to it.

So, instead of the perspective that "Western culture is objectively better than others because we invented science and democracy" it's more like "Science allows people of all cultures to discover their shared humanity and speak about it with a common language. Let's use this to adopt a universal system of ethics so we don't kill each other, and we can solve global problems like climate change together." It's looking at the same set of facts from a different perspective.