I don't see how anyone can be a political commentator for a living and not have seriously thought out their positions on a deeper level. You don't have to have to have a PhD in philosophy to do this.
Please tell me this has the recent clip of hasan saying "people say im morally lucky but i guess id rather be morally lucky than morally unlucky..." this debate still haunts him to this day yet he still has no idea what being morally lucky means 💀
@novinceinhosic3531 morally lucky is basically being privileged enough to have happened upon the most ethical moral framework without doing any philosophical work to know why you feel the way you do about right and wrong. It also usually coincides with judging those who may not have an opportunity to be as "moral" as you bc they're just worried about getting by. A small example would be judging someone poor for shopping at a fast fashion brand while you have the privilege of worrying about what fashion you buy. Someone like hasan who imposes on the world should at the very least have a workable moral framework (ex: utilitarian) to go off of as he is essentially teaching a whole gen of viewers how to think about politics
@novinceinhosic3531 privilege doesn't just mean money, nor does it mean if you're poor that you're excused from doing crimes but yeah basically. Close enough bud
I don't even know if you need to invoke privilege. You can happen across correct moral positions entirely by accident (which I suspect is where the term originates from). Though privilege obviously influences this. I just think invoking privilege might confuse the issue since people are naturally going to equivocate different types of privilege and privilege more broadly.
I'll also add (not disagreeing with anything) that I think the reason moral luck is looked down on because it's a poor substitute for knowing right from wrong. It also makes it harder to draw inferences about a subject you don't actually understand. Like they say, a stopped clock is still right twice a day.
@@novinceinhosic3531 Its actually really simple actually. Morally lucky simply means you have the correct moral positions, but have never had to think them through. For example, someone morally lucky would be someone who is only a leftist because they happen to be around other leftists. They have never actually thought about their positions, and if pressed on them would likely only be able to give shallow justifications for them.
I'm a Vaush viewer, and nowadays he actually talks about grounding his politics in an ethical framework and also now regularly criticizes other leftists for not doing this. So in the end it seems like Rem convinced Vaush at least.
I'll put it this way. There's no reason for most people to know the levels of mathematics, physics, and engineering it requires to build a skyscraper. It's nice if they do, but they can go to their office job on the 14th floor and back just fine without it. However, if you want to work as an _architect,_ saying "I'm too busy to know what a foundation is. Who cares what the difference between tensile and compressive strength is? That's just college elitism," no longer flies.
@@Awaken_To_0 the metaphore is misleading since politics is not the same as philosophy. If your work on the 14th floor is not architect work, you don't need to know the basics of architecture. You need to know the basics of your job, which is politics. That is it. If you touch other subjects you simply has to say your opinion. Also, when it comes to values and subjective preferences you are entitled to be wrong as well. So I don't see the problem here at all.
@@lexter8379 when your job is creating and prescribing moral systems to people then you need to be able to understand how those systems operate, why they are good, and that they are sound. That way someone who trusts you and pays your livelihood to keep them informed doesn't end up in a bad situation because what they thought was steady grounding falls out from their feet. Just as an architect needs to understand engineering to make sure the building they are telling people is safe won't collapse and send someone falling 13 floors. Even if everyone doesn't have the time to ground out their moral prescriptions, someone who takes peoples money to explain and assign morals is _obligated_ to do so. Just as a doctor needs to know medicine, an lawyer needs to know the law, and a pastor needs to know the Bible. "I'm too busy," is not an excuse. At that point, like an architect who tries to build a skyscraper out of plywood and floors of particle board, you're a dangerous scam artist.
There's plenty of architects who can't tell you how concrete is made. Very few people other than theoretical physicists can "scientifically ground" all the technical decisions they make.
@@appa609 If you'll look up, you'll see the point sailing riiiiight over your head. Who's talking about making concrete? How is that even relevant? Do you know what an architect does? It's not "Build houses" That would be a construction crew, usually led by a Foreman.
I've not watched Destiny or Hasan much but it seems this conversation had some impact on Vaush (Irish Ladie in this clip) as he has discussed the importance of a solid ethical base to ground political beliefs and the concept of morral luck and how it can lead people down reactionary paths because they have poor ethical fundementals and were simply lucky they were supporting the right people before (Like guessing a maths question but not showing your working, not that ethics is as clean as maths).
@@Blurredborderlines He's a moral anti-realist meaning he doesn't believe there is such a thing as objective morality. It's a rule utilitarian assessment of if someone's axiomatic beliefs or their thought processess could lead to bad outcomes in the future. IE with terfs. They will talk about feminism and stand for some of the common feminist talking points but when pressed on their beliefs you realise that their "Feminism" is often simply rooted in internalised mysogeny and man-hating and the social norms they grew up with. These are people who support some good causes but because of their flawed ethical foundation (Gender essentialism and patriarchal gender roles) they end up allying with the alt-right and other reactionary groups.
@@RedRattt Not believing in objective morality is functionally the same as being a moral relativist, it's an argument over semantics about something you don't even believe in to begin with. I'm saying that Vaush has unironically stated that he doesn't care about being correct he just cares about "winning", he doesn't actually "believe" in anything he claims to by the nature of his own "philosophy" which is just Nihilist copium.
It's the answer to Paarthurnax's question. It is better to overcome evil through great effort, instead of being born good. Through overcoming evil you have had to work and come up with sound reasonings for what you believe. If you are born good, you just think good = good, without necessarily knowing that you have the capacity to be evil.
@@Blurredborderlinesno, he believes in what he says. The thing is that morality is so complex that we have entire lifelong fights about it. Instead of saying "this is the one right thing", it's more like saying "based on everything presented to me, this seems like the closest thing to being morally good, so I'll stick to it and fight for it until presented with something better". The way I see it is, it's basically seeing morality as a subjective thing that you have to use objective measures to defend/support/instill in society. The reason why "winning" is important is because winning will, in his opinion, bring society closer to what seems to be morally good, based on observations of what tends to harm or help people. At the end of the day, concepts of morality are on a sliding scale. A lot of issues end up basically being a trolley problem. What is the objectively correct answer to that problem? You can only argue what you BELIEVE is the correct answer, and you can fight to make sure that outcome happens. Beliefs aren't objective. They're opinions.
As a Vaush viewer, I’m pretty surprised that he didn’t agree, as he himself morally grounds his arguments quite frequently. It’s a standard he has upheld, so I have no idea why he didn’t agree to that position here. I guess it was super early on in his career, so perhaps he changed over time, but he certainly follows this sort of framework analysis.
@@alexavierhurtado7856 It not only highlighted his commitment, it highlighted the importance of having said standard in the first place, Noncompete "The Nazi's were bad because they were factually incorrect" sure as fuck swayed me away from being anything fucking like that guy.
crazy how if you put the timeline back together, it almost means that he started out "morally lucky "with certain political positions and then retroactively fit them into an ethical framework. makes ya think.
Vaush has changed a lot since then. It's obvious they're strawmanning Rem's argument quite heavily, it's less expecting political figures to have a literal PHD in philopshy and more expecting them to have some reasoning behind their policy positions. Vaush in particular agrees with this nowadays, meanwhile Hassan is still very proud of how little he understands the politics he represents.
yeah its really turned out to be a big filter for me in sorting who is worth listening to on the left and who is just basing their opinion on tribalistic cues. I see this a lot with the anti-Ukraine people.
The strawmanning was SO egregious, it was disgusting. All three treated this pre-determined to try and paint Rem as some kind of elitist schmuck while refusing to even attempt to engage with the actual, and quite logical and well-thought out, questions.
@@MaxMckayful well, he kinda is. and wasn't his argument basically that high-profile leftist influences are in the position to be elitist, so might as well put their time into doing it right.
I think the worst part of this debacle is that Rem is actually right. It's just that his position is so untenable in the real world and so unpopular, no political streamer will ever actually entertain it outside of people like Destiny who's already basically at war with all the other big streamers.
How is he both right and have an untenable position? It seems perfectly reasonable to expect figures like Vaush and Hasan to have grounding. Unless "untenable" here more just means that we shouldnt expect(in a colloquial sense) then to ground what they say.
@@frank_calvert Untenable (and I may have chosen the wrong word here, probably should have said unattainable), in that no one will willingly do it to themselves and you can't really effectively hold other people to it. All you get are a bunch of bruised egos and angry streamers. At the end of the day political streamers don't really care if their arguments are grounded or even based in any real logic, it's all a big dick measuring contest of who sounds right, not who actually is.
Not just that; it wasn't until a few years ago that the intelligence community in the US came together and created logical processes for expressing their viewpoints. Settling on %chance metrics. Prior to that they were using vague and safe statements such as "A good chance of..." "Highly Probable..." ; which are completely open to interpretation. That vague language had caused many defense fiascos, including the Iraq war, due to overestimating or underestimating likelihoods of outcomes
Mathematics and science are fixed. Language is fickle, and functionally useless. A strong thinking process that is stable and reliable is the ONLY thing that counts.
This conversation is pretty funny and says a lot about these three men: Hasan is genuinely too stupid to ground out his political beliefs in an ethical framework or to see the utility in doing so. This entire conversation went over his head. Vaush stubbornly & self-righteously makes a consequentialist argument against needing to ground out political beliefs in order to engage in advocacy, but later changes his mind and acknowledges the importance of an underlying philosophy Destiny believes that his principles are everything and can connect every position he advocates for and every action he takes to some underlying principle. He’s also a terrible judge of character, and doesn’t see a problem with Vaush and Hasan not doing so, until both of them eventually stab him in the back because he didn’t go along with left-wing orthodoxy.
Long time Destiny viewer here. Praise to you for making a very concise video about a 3+ hour long stream/debate. I remember watching this live and coming away with a lot of the same takes. It's a shame these three don't make more content together today given the large number of viewers each of them has and how entertaining the interactions tended to be. Great work!
I feel like the other person was asking for MORE than that. Unless we take the ending of the stream as gosspel where Destiny says "you need to have at least my level" (lol) at which point maybe all of them already qualified in the first place.
@@nahuel3433100%, not to mention 6 months is super arbitrary and suggests the guy hadn't thought it through himself. 6 months for some might be nowhere near enough. Moreover, what should be read exactly? Mainstream philosophical canon? That comes with its own problems. (Not sure if these were answered at some point)
@@nahuel3433 Rotfl, not even close. To this day none of those 2 qualify. Maybe vaush but if he does he doesn't apply it as he preach rather than talk, to cuddle his fanbase. Hasanabi has 0 grounding of any of his beliefs
Actually Vaush still thinks it’s fine that normies are morally ignorant to an extent, he expects better from colleagues and conservatives, because he thinks they’re wrong. Being morally lucky is fine though in so far as people just happen to believe what he does, or close enough to it. He sees it as impractical to expect more from the average unless they’re wrong, he doesn’t see it as wrong that people end up agreeing with similar arguments without grounding axioms. He does see it as good for people to do so, tho.
I'm a programmer. I took one philosophy course as an aside. I got 98%. It was my highest grade and the average was 70% or so. The teacher was impressed I was grounding my arguments and utilizing multiple viewpoints to self-analyse. I don't understand how anyone can survive day-to-day without having a logical process...
@rafaelcomfsemph Yeah and everything you think is reality is just feelings and sensations using your knowledge about topics to asethetically elaborate then feel reality.. So regardless of if we are in significant control of our latent processes, the concept of logic still exists and is a standard to be compared against; meaning you can absolutely qualify something as illogical despite how it impacts your personal interests. You can absolutely go against "the elephant".
For anything else you think about Rem, you cannot deny he is an absolute world class shit stirrer. The only thing I know about this man is that if I see his name anywhere near some bullshit I know somebody lost their fucking mind. May be Rem, may be who Rem's talking to, may be two completely random people. No idea. The man just seems to speak absolute insanity into existence.
Destiny is trying to confirmation bias his beliefs by reading wiki info that hasan has already known for years. Hasan has been passionate about this conflict for a long time and knows way more about it than destiny. Just because you disagree with his moral preference doesn't mean the person you agree with is more informed lol
@@supersomebody101 It's hilarious to say something so oblivious that Hasan is more informed on any topic than Destiny. Furthermore there are literally clips of Hasan reading tweets with false information and regurgirading them as facts. Also there are dozen of hours of Destiny reading history about the conflict and forming his oppinion after, which is exacly the opposite of "confirmation bias his beliefs".
i have to agree with Rem. despite my own interest in politics and streaming, i would never pursue becoming an online political voice without some kind of baseline philosophical rigor to my positions. i feel it’s a little embarrassing, and becomes more and more egregious the larger your audience becomes. it’s the same as trying to speak to literally any other subject without having a clue of what you’re really saying.
Do you know how much education you need to truly get to the bottom? I think people should be allowed to have an opinion even if they are not a philosopher. Philosophy is extremely deep and broad. Even if you are educated in it it doesn't mean you know everything. Even one small branch of philosophy could be a life's work.
Internet politics just seems like a distraction tbh. I'm starting to wonder how much watching it might himder me from taking part in the stuff that actually matters
Depends how you consume it. If you don't think critically much about political positions then it could be a good prompt for deeper thought. Like all things, everything in moderation.
@@lorenzomizushal3980Wrong! Destiny has gotten people out to canvas, with one call-out getting over 200+ people out in the street door knocking etc. Next presidential cycle he is planning on getting even more people involved. He even tried to get a Mayor elected in his own city but a bunch on weirdo lefties started harassing the candidate so he had to pull out.
@@lorenzomizushal3980 Is that... even true? They're spreading ideology, both good and bad. You might not think it's connected because it's not a direct pipe-line of "watches Destiny" and idk "trying to fck their twin brother." But they get exposed and influenced by these ideas, and in communities like Hasan they get stuck in an echo chamber making those ideas seem louder and more reasonable to the person participating, and then you have a link between "watches Hasan" and "saying gas the Jews as terrorists kidnap tourists."
@@lorenzomizushal3980a little harsh. I mean they DO some stuff here and there. Destiny at the very least does canvassing and encourages his fans to vote. (Maybe doesn't do enough but still) I don't watch the others in the vid so idk about them.
Maybe I missed something, but I 100% agree with Rem (based on this presentation of his argument). I could see Hasan fighting the assertions made, but I feel Destiny and Vaush would agree today. I don’t understand why either of them would have such a visceral reaction. Maybe something kicked a hornets nest that wasn’t included in the video.
There's a lot of prejudice against academic sociology and philosophy. And SOME of it is extremely well-founded. All talk, no action. Way too densely written. Playground of the privileged. But all of that ignores the actual underlying question and point - is some amount of applied, practical philosophy useful and even arguably downright needed? And you can ask that separate from the prejudiced worst aspects of the qualities of philosophy as a field / pursuit / activity.
I agree with Rem too but Vaush had such a solid criticism. I ended up somewhere in between, philosophy communicators is a very important job that should be explored more.
It seems to me that from watching Rem's bookshelf tours, he is heavily steeped in traditional academic philosophy, which is heavily geared towards analytic philosophy. Though he talks about Foucault occasionally its one of the few continental philosophers Rem references but didn't appear to speak of much, though this may be due to my brief survey of Rem. I can't speak to DesTiny or Hasan, but I know Vaush is thinking about things in terms of sociological and psychoanalytical premises. I think this is emblematic of the divide within the field of philosophy itself, analytic dominates philosophy in academia, but(IMO) it often ignores context and intersubjectivity. However, the continental philosophers are still in academia, but they went to other subjects that we know as sociology, psychology, history, etc...essentially other social sciences. For me personally, Rem is arguing in line with writers who dominate the philosophical canon such as Kant, Descartes, Plato, etc...But is dismissing philosophical writers outside of the canon, or post-Kantian. Writers like Hegel, Schiller, Sartre, Arendt, etc. are the ones who have been influencing much of the post-modern philosophical world, but they are not taught very often even in graduate level programs, and its almost unheard of to study any of those writers in an undergraduate setting (unless you get a tenured professor who sees the current philosophy departments as getting overtaken by business interests). What I mean to say is that many political streamers are arguing from these post-Kantian philosophies, and Rem is arguing from a Pre-Kantian philosophy. I think what Rem is not seeing, is that philosophically grounded arguments are alive and well for political streamers, most of these ideas are not taught in academic philosophy, especially since most of those who write continental philosophy leave academia, the only ones who i can think of that stayed in off the top of my head were Hegel and Heidegger
Having come from the academic side of things towards the political I have to disagree. Standards for public figures ought to be as close to the reasonable estimate of the audience of the public as possible. I come from the Physics and Philosophy side of academics and had a rude awakening to just how unfounded politics is. But that posits the meta discussion of public vs academic speech, individual critique vs systemic, truth vs language. As Vaush points out in one of the best discussions about Destiny's "technically correct" stances behaviour matters in the delivery of truth or rhetoric. In fact over an average of the audience of you split the previously agreed, neutral and disagreed parties a well framed message can have greater persuasive value than a more truthful or correct one. As someone who has ASD and found even idioms as "untruthful" it's taken a long time to get to this position but it is nicely summed but by the phrase "Don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good" And by the meme: "Steven was unaware he was no longer on the internet" In person I would likely argue like Destiny but online I would veer as far from his egocentric "I just want to be correct with no prescriptions" as humanly possible. Vaush may be less consistent, Hasan a full on propagandist. But frankly they at least both focus their goal at "these improvements find the path as I go".
@Onthebrink5also "what have actually helped people" is VERY hard to even find out. How would we ever know if it did? I assume he is changing peoples minds but again idek how anyone would attribute any change to him even if those changes happened because of him (since again hard to point to what he specifically caused and didn't). Again though he does not do enough that much is true.
None of them benefit from agreeing with Rem, online political discourse benefits from gut instincts and irrational herd mentality. The whole Israel v Palestine stuff just proved how morally lucky Hasan was.
Long time Vaush/Shark(original model vaush) viewer, and occasional Destiny/Hasan viewer: I've known this debate existed out there, but I haven't sought it out because I usually avoid lefty/progressive cannibalism debates. Unless the idea/offense being debated is particularly egregious (PF, RGR, Endless). but you have actually given me the motivation to go watch this finally. I am intensely curious because current Vaush loves the "morally lucky" phrase, and morally grounding political beliefs. 2019 Vaush was definitely less.... refined, so I am interested in whether he has changed positions, just sided with Hasan due to lefty solidarity, or Rem's "bar" for supporting one's positions was too severe, like asking people to to prove their actions obey Kant's laws of his Categorical Imperative and/or drilling down into meta-ethics and moral epistemology.
I am a free market advocate. I am drilling down into the depths of philosophy in order to get to the truth finally. I was a liberal my entire life but became a free market guy after hearing free market arguments which appealed to my sense of morality as a liberal. If that sounds impossible, you have not understood free market ideas. That's fine. Point is, there IS a utilitarian argument for free markets that is valid. Anyways, it's taking FOREVER because philosophy is deep and hard. Also I'm learning economics to the same end. To really see whatever truth there is to see. Ive read introduction to philosophy books, which I can't name atm. I'm currently reading the most comprehensive history of philosophy by Copleston. I've read maybe half of Plato. A bit of Aristotle. I don't know which way to go. How broad of a foundation to build. How deep to go this way or that. I just try to figure it out myself. So if anyone has suggestions I'm all ears.
@@kassokilleri2ff My advice is to resist binary thinking. "Capitalism" and "free markets" are not binary switches you flip. They are incredibly complex interactions between incredibly complex systems with lots of different settings. As I said when I studied economics - most people who espouse the efficient-markets hypothesis only read Chapter 1 of the Econ textbook. The other 33 chapters are mostly about when and how that is wrong.
@hawkname1234 I am not thinking in binary whatsoever. I am educating myself using sources from higher education. If that is not legitimate I don't know what is. I am studying economics. Political economy. Political science and philosophy. Philosophy in general such as ethics metaphysics and so on. I'm am not thinking in binaries whatsoever. I believe in absolute Laissez-faire capitalism. Complete separation of state and economics. It is YOU who is unwilling to entertain an idea that you fear. Personally I investigate any and all ideas which can be learned about autodicatically, from sources used in higher learning institutions. Capitalism and free market capitalism are indeed valid concepts and are not simply ideas that only think in overly simplistic terms. If you need, I can reference you legitimate works which talk about these things. The most obvious work always cited is Robert Nozick.
If the philosopher Rem the Bathboi should be credited with anything, it would be the most succinct takedown of Hasan Piker’s political thought. He has not beaten the morally lucky allegations.
He will eventually beat them, not through intellectual merit, but because his reactionary "America bad" stance will carry him to a place where his actions may hurt others. He's already praising China and poisoning the well when it comes to Taiwanese independence, its only a matter of time.
The morally lucky argument seems to assume objective morality. Everyones moral analysis is always grounded by the bias of their moral preferences. Their moral preferences intuitively guide their political stances. All of their positions on israel/palestine was predictable based on their established moral preferences. They are all grounded in a coherent normative framework. If you disagree with their political takes that just means you have a different ethics not that theirs is incoherent
You can judge systems by various metrics. Some systems seem to be better than others. Of course, because morality is just how you feel there's no "perfect morailty", but based on a few axioms almost everyone can agree on ("life is precious", "suffering is bad" and "people should be free") we can create a system that seeks to maximize good and minimize bad. Being born in that system is what I consider being moraly lucky.
I don't think people's political stances will necessarily predict their moral framework, if you haven't thought out your morals then you're prone to contradiction.
Ill be honest. Of Destiny, Hasan and Vaush. Vaush is the only one whom i can respect even if i disagree with. because he actually believes the things hes says. Destiny acts like a drama vulture circling any little controversy now and Hasan just screams "you should like me" into the void during any public point. Lile look at the way his audience treated Ethan, and Hasan took no responsibility.
You realise destiny is a content creator right? Who focuses on politics and current dramas, even if I gave you that he isn’t a vulture at all so u even watch him?
If you've read the Vaush manifesto and still believe this, then you need help. Vaush is an evil person. I actually think Vaush is even more disingenuous than Hasan, because Hasan we can at least blame his lack of intelligence for his behavior. But Vaush is just obsessed with his image and appearing correct, and he's said as much, that it's morally good to lie if it improves your rhetoric and convinces people that you are correct. He tries to change his appearance and voice to become more popular, has done charity streams with the sole intention of trying to get other big streamers to notice him. He's so fake, and so bad.
So to put this in action. A political streamer would have to disclose their or create a moral framework. "I am utilitarian, this is why my politics reflect that view point". Sure politics come from ethics, but you're telling me that a moral framework is necessary, why? What if you do have to create your own, how would you even do that?
Rationality is essential to thinking properly, even though it’s difficult to learn. If you’re not particularly good at it, don’t make a career doing it. Thought leaders ought to be pretty good at it. Anyone stepping into that arena ought to be, because lives are affected by those ideas.
@kalebkendall4786 Right. But could you answer my other questions to bring more clarity to what you said? Just saying people should be rational doesn't really help my understanding. Unless that's just all you wanted to say.
@@DopDipDop I don't really have a good answer, I just think rationality itself is more fundamental than following a moral framework - which are like blueprints on how to think. Great thinkers have put a lot of thought into those frameworks, but they're using the same tools of rationality that you have. Maybe a framework is something you can build up to, but in the meantime just focus on taking consistent and rational positions. As genius as they can be, there's probably a major flaw for every framework out there. I hope that makes sense.
I think it's important to note that we live in a world where the dominant "grounding" is "so what, who cares," money, and yelling louder or hitting harder, and isn't meaningfully questioned or thought about at all. So if you are trying at all, even without an official grounding, you can mess up or take a guess and the outcome can be better than the default. "Good" can also be relative and incorporated into the default "grounding." (ie money is good, therefore it's good to steal. But but what about the other persom rust was stolen from? So what, who cares. Etc.) Having a "grounding" in "good" unfortunately ends up being completely arbitrary and a poor metric for a political framework. While three generally decent people are debating about what's best, the person that doesn't give a shit picked all their pockets and ran circles out them without even participating. That is the world we live in, and until we can figure out a Good way to deal with all those holes out there that stare like that, GOOD will not be what thrives or succeeds, by luck or not.
Great debate, just one critique on the Destiny take at the end. 1 there are hundreds of positions like “women deserve rights” that would take hours of every normie or regular person on the street to justify just one of those positions in this way. This has never and should never be an expectation of anyone who has to work a real job. 2. This is not new. People have always been, on average, ignorant to higher level philosophical arguments . 3. REM said you just need 6 months of studying philosophy to acceptably ground out all your positions in a way that would be satisfactory to anyone leveling the criticism makes me feel like REM is actually retarded. Besides that, political streamers do have more of an obligation to adhere to these standards than most
On 2. You're absolutely right. Philosophy is deep and hard 😅 And even at that, there are endless tunnels and pathways. Which path does one take? Where do you start? Plato? History of philosophy book? Wikipedia? Secondary or thirdary sources on Hegel? So yea his claim of 6 months is absolutely absurd unless he has some kind of program for getting to the bottom of ethics in 6 months. I'd love to have that program honestly.
On 1. It is sad to me that normal people cannot justify why women should have rights. But I'm an Ayn Rand guy. It's very simple why women should have rights. But I guess her philosophy is bad so it doesn't count.
How in the world in this even a debate????? How the hell are people even arguing against Rem's basic stance of "well, maybe the people who position themselves as so-called experts, should be act as--I dunno--experts." If I'm understanding him correctly, his argument is just the people having the political discussions SHOULD be able to explain why their political beliefs are good, and what the hell good even means to them. I don't think you even need a "PhD in Philosophy" to even do that. Like, describe your ideal world, explain why it's ideal, and then explain why the political position / action leads to this ideal world. Like, what even the hell?????? EDIT: Ug. The more I listen to this, the more pissed off I get. Damn. They're all arguing against any attempts to instill critical thinking in their audiences. That's wild. I understand opposing political influencers may get away with less, but that's such a short term solution that just leads to more division and possibly misinformation (I'd argue). EDIT2: Dude. I'm so happy I didn't watch this debate in full. It's so absolutely disgusting how Hassan and Vaush performed in this so-called debate. They can't actually engage with Rem. It's infuriating. It's these type of discussions that remind me "debates"--with all their potential to explore multiple perspectives--are utter trash because no one has an an ounce of professionalism. And, when I say professionalism, I mean that every side gives an opportunity for the other to say their thought, and then engage meaningfully with the thought, WITHOUT HAVING TO RELY ON INSULTS AND BAD ASSUMPTIONS AND GOING OFF ON TANGENTS. I honestly blame a lot of this on the people managing these conversations, so Destiny in this case. Why are they allowed to derail the entire conversation??? Why is there no punishment when they decide to take the whole convo down a path of pure insults? Like, damn. EDIT3: Well, it's nice to see at least Destiny agreed with Rem's stance. Maybe Rem did phrase his thoughts poorly, but SURELY he made many attempts to clarify his position.
I was going to say that based off this video I got a really bad impression of Vaush, but looking at the comments it seems he's a changed man. I can't take people who starts insulting people because they don't have a good argument seriously
I don't think anyone would disagree, that it would be good for propagandists with large audiences being able to ground their beliefs (better). The question is, if it's useful to ask it of them and especially to lay this kind of emphisis on it.
An”opinion/stance/position”is set before any real evaluation,it’s a mixed grill of background information,instinct & pre-tread pathways,only the justifications for that opinion gets moved around,popularity is a helluva drug.
I agree that every public figure having a basic level understanding would be normatively desirable but not with the idea of this being a moral obligation.
Why not? I think any political participant is morally obligated to reason their political positions. Their vote, as with many decisions, affects outcomes for everyone. I concede that a single vote is not very impactful and is about as influential as any other vote. I also understand no one is going to reach absolute reasoning. So obligation to ground political assertions should be proportional to political influence. The typical voter has a relatively light obligation to due diligence while a person that influences voters is proportionally as powerful as the sum of those votes. These high influence political participants bear a high proportion of moral obligation to political reasoning.
it should be a moral obligation to anyone trying to push theyre own morality onto a wider audience, if you perpetrate a set of morals and cant ground them then your leading a pack of sheep as a sheep, in other words you are lost.
Itd be nice if everyone was intelligent and wellstudied and introspective and critical of their beliefs and why they have them, but unfortunately most people are idiots and loud obnoxious people and things that are extremely low information and high disinformation are what gets the most attention
I think Vaush made a change in this department, but in large part I think most efforts for a rigorous meta-ethical system are BS for the simple reason that de-facto any meta-ethical will never be the primary thing in the mind of someone making a morally significant action, "correct" opinions do not translate into actions that neutral peers of similar disposition would consider moral. In the end morality always just comes down to if someone wants to act morally, spending time on a consistent meta-ethics will never be as fruitful as spending time on the material factors that make individuals want to act morally. Does that make for future conflicts? yes it does but attempting for rigorous ethics doesn't prevent it.
also it's kind of from a rejection of absolute morality on my part, my morality is my own and I have neither the capability nor right to try to force adoption of my vision of what a better world would be with anything but than persuasion
@@unktheunk1428 It's not about forcing the groundwork of your morality onto others. It's about getting someone who is politically active and powerful, such as an influencer, to evaluate their moral system to make sure they are using their influence in "good" ways. What is "good" may differ from person to person, but there is the general assumption that most of these people SHOULD want the best outcome for the most amount of people. By having them evaluate themselves, they can stop themselves from getting lost in more vague and complex scenarios and end up accidentally supporting terrorist groups because they completely lost the plot.
@@anubis7457 in my mind this entire original situation would be included in "persuasion", and that comment was more a tangent about my own ethics than commentary on the situation I also want media personalities spending a particularly large portion of their time ensuring their beliefs aren't stupid and counterproductive, I was more going against the particular imposition of academic-level meta ethics
@@Mon000 If I pursued girls as much as I pursue moral insights, I still wouldn't have a girlfriend because they would all rightfully take out restraining orders against me.
One should only need to ground out their political positions by deeper and deeper moral theory when moral disagreement between the parties requires it, however i still think a lot of the policies that leftists like hasan and vaush would advocate for, like universal healthcare for example don't require "grounding out" as most people who are opposed to it are opposed because of empirical disagreements rather than moral ones, there is only a tiny minority of right-libertarian minded people, who would disagree with the state providing universal healthcare, even if it were empirically proven to be successful in health outcomes and in net cost savings for most people. Ultimately if the politics one advocates for really are for the good, then from the position of a political commentator what is morally required is how effective you are in spreading them, and it seems right to me that grounding out your politics in an ethical theory could actually be counter productive, there is actually far more agreement on what is good on a case by case basis, rather than what is the correct moral theory of the good or moral duty or whatever, it is telling that when philosophers engage in questions of practical ethics, they often use arguments that depend on analogies where our intuitions are clear, there is not much use in arguing in practical ethics by saying "the ethical theory i favor says this is the right action!" as it will only be useful for someone who already favors that theory and failed to recognize that the theory requires this action. However i still think it's useful for people overall to learn tools of critical and philosophical thinking, at the very least to make our political debates more honest and productive, so there is a burden on political commentators on empowering their audience to become better thinkers and better debaters, rather than just having the correct political views, this is however separate from "grounding out your politics" which i still think is only relevant in a very restricted set of contexts.
In any area of reduction wich bolth sides can either be reduced to a center point. "The correct thing," or the patrial thing are ultimately the same. Every person here has a justification for there opinion, and to say ground there moral frame work, and then point to a philosophy book is retarred. Not that you shouldn't scrutinize your own belief's its that you will always scrutinize to your own self satisfaction.
Having to draw up a diagram for exactly what your rules for morality are is kind of ridiculous. Morality is largely intuitive unless someone is brainwashed. My moral opinion rarely changes when I scrutinize it, because our brains can work out a lot of the intricacies unconsciously. If I make a moral argument, someone is either going to accept it or reject it. There shouldn't be any obligation of studying philosophy just to engage In political discourse. If I'm wrong. I'm wrong. Being open to having your mind changed by counterarguments is more important and really all that's required to have an honest debate. Philosophy courses are just extra.
I dunno, I think I used to agree, but hearing different people debate different views on the AI porn drama that occurred a while back made me wish those people took the time to ground those views
Idk man, I think through looking over my basic moral beliefs and how I ground those beliefs my political beliefs and overall pragmatic beliefs have changed in the last two years
5:52 Noticed that Vaush said "your standards" its not that he was against grounding your believes or justifying them. Far from it, he spend hours doing so. The problem is that you are presenting Rem as an authority to judge the validate of their opinions. As if philosophy is a simply math problem with one solution.
You don't think there is any luck factor involved in which values you are raised with or whether or not you are given the tools to critically examine them? No circumstances of birth or anything like that?
@@Tleilaxu0 no I think they are entirely lucky, but I think morally lucky implies that there is a right moral framework. There is an implication that Hasan and Vaush are right in their moral takes. There is no such thing as a proveable right moral take. I also don't like the idea that philosophy has some type of authority that someone should abide by.
@tento3555 That's all well and good in theory, but in practice, most people with strong convictions tend to see their ideology as the correct one, and hold a dim view of people who don't agree with them. In extreme cases this manifests as those wokescold types who will even shame and reject people who came to their ideology later in life (see, for example, Thought Slime). The concept of moral luck is a reminder that you are not a superior person just because you fell in with a certain crowd early in life.
You are doing again@@Tleilaxu0 , its not a reminder to anything, no one has true moral value. And this type of rhetoric only cements the strong convictions. It impels that the argument of if someone's morals are a done deal, and now all we need to do is to see if they have gotten there in their own. That's why I put Kant here, because to a kantian the argument of morals it's something that has been dealt with 242 years ago.
I think it's okay to say that hierarchy is intrinsically bad as a leftist, it allows for freedom to be reduced, coercion is intrinsic to it. I obviously think that people also being well fed and having somewhere to live is good. Destiny only cares about the latter; he has said that slavery isn't intrinsically bad, if the slaves could be provided with a good life, which baffled Michael Albert when he said it. They were clashing on fundamental values.
Holy shit, you haven't read the books, ahem, the one I read phd, fuckin yell louder, this is debate, we're all getting better. I don't watch streamers but have heard of Vaush, and seen clips from his stream in other videos. This is mind garbage and probably should not be, I mean not allowed, but, completely and utterly disincentivized. Also, surveillance capitalism bad. Thanks good video
Im a lefty and i literally hate all three of these people. Vausg is the worst, im pretty sure hes a psy Op Destiny is a close Second Hassan is just a dummy but well meaning
@tastethecock5203 he calls himself a socialist but he's a rich Beverly hills tw** who sides with US imperialists on every foreign policy issue of the day and he appeared literally out of nowhere and the algo forces him down my throat. In the UK some left philosophy channel got caught receiving resources and guidance from the Mi6, i wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar program here. If you're in politics and arent being actively suppressed by major corporations and the security state you're doing something wrong. It's called inverted totalitarianism
It's funny watching old videos of Vaush and seeing how soy he was. I can understand now why he's put so much effort into changing his appearance and voice, because damn he was near unwatchable LOL.
I cant believe hasan, vaush, and destiny were ever in the same stream lmao
i mean destiny is the entire reason both exost as popular streamers today and they were both close woth destiny on the past
Oh little do you know lmaoooooo
@@charohazard Yea and I curse him for that every other day.
@@tiromandal6399 why
@@garywebb2432 Yes
I don't see how anyone can be a political commentator for a living and not have seriously thought out their positions on a deeper level. You don't have to have to have a PhD in philosophy to do this.
Please tell me this has the recent clip of hasan saying "people say im morally lucky but i guess id rather be morally lucky than morally unlucky..." this debate still haunts him to this day yet he still has no idea what being morally lucky means 💀
@novinceinhosic3531 morally lucky is basically being privileged enough to have happened upon the most ethical moral framework without doing any philosophical work to know why you feel the way you do about right and wrong. It also usually coincides with judging those who may not have an opportunity to be as "moral" as you bc they're just worried about getting by.
A small example would be judging someone poor for shopping at a fast fashion brand while you have the privilege of worrying about what fashion you buy. Someone like hasan who imposes on the world should at the very least have a workable moral framework (ex: utilitarian) to go off of as he is essentially teaching a whole gen of viewers how to think about politics
@novinceinhosic3531 privilege doesn't just mean money, nor does it mean if you're poor that you're excused from doing crimes but yeah basically. Close enough bud
I don't even know if you need to invoke privilege. You can happen across correct moral positions entirely by accident (which I suspect is where the term originates from). Though privilege obviously influences this. I just think invoking privilege might confuse the issue since people are naturally going to equivocate different types of privilege and privilege more broadly.
I'll also add (not disagreeing with anything) that I think the reason moral luck is looked down on because it's a poor substitute for knowing right from wrong. It also makes it harder to draw inferences about a subject you don't actually understand. Like they say, a stopped clock is still right twice a day.
@@novinceinhosic3531 Its actually really simple actually. Morally lucky simply means you have the correct moral positions, but have never had to think them through.
For example, someone morally lucky would be someone who is only a leftist because they happen to be around other leftists. They have never actually thought about their positions, and if pressed on them would likely only be able to give shallow justifications for them.
I'm a Vaush viewer, and nowadays he actually talks about grounding his politics in an ethical framework and also now regularly criticizes other leftists for not doing this. So in the end it seems like Rem convinced Vaush at least.
I think Vaush took step forward too, Hasan done 0 things to improve, but then you say at least Vaush maaaan Dėstiny is milles ahead
Vaush viewer 😂😂😂
Vaush is a Neo-Nazi
I'll put it this way. There's no reason for most people to know the levels of mathematics, physics, and engineering it requires to build a skyscraper. It's nice if they do, but they can go to their office job on the 14th floor and back just fine without it.
However, if you want to work as an _architect,_ saying "I'm too busy to know what a foundation is. Who cares what the difference between tensile and compressive strength is? That's just college elitism," no longer flies.
@@squiresandspurs219 That's about the size of it.
@@Awaken_To_0 the metaphore is misleading since politics is not the same as philosophy. If your work on the 14th floor is not architect work, you don't need to know the basics of architecture. You need to know the basics of your job, which is politics. That is it. If you touch other subjects you simply has to say your opinion. Also, when it comes to values and subjective preferences you are entitled to be wrong as well. So I don't see the problem here at all.
@@lexter8379 when your job is creating and prescribing moral systems to people then you need to be able to understand how those systems operate, why they are good, and that they are sound. That way someone who trusts you and pays your livelihood to keep them informed doesn't end up in a bad situation because what they thought was steady grounding falls out from their feet.
Just as an architect needs to understand engineering to make sure the building they are telling people is safe won't collapse and send someone falling 13 floors.
Even if everyone doesn't have the time to ground out their moral prescriptions, someone who takes peoples money to explain and assign morals is _obligated_ to do so. Just as a doctor needs to know medicine, an lawyer needs to know the law, and a pastor needs to know the Bible. "I'm too busy," is not an excuse. At that point, like an architect who tries to build a skyscraper out of plywood and floors of particle board, you're a dangerous scam artist.
There's plenty of architects who can't tell you how concrete is made. Very few people other than theoretical physicists can "scientifically ground" all the technical decisions they make.
@@appa609 If you'll look up, you'll see the point sailing riiiiight over your head.
Who's talking about making concrete? How is that even relevant? Do you know what an architect does? It's not "Build houses" That would be a construction crew, usually led by a Foreman.
It’s weird hearing Vaush not purposefully lowering his voice.
I've not watched Destiny or Hasan much but it seems this conversation had some impact on Vaush (Irish Ladie in this clip) as he has discussed the importance of a solid ethical base to ground political beliefs and the concept of morral luck and how it can lead people down reactionary paths because they have poor ethical fundementals and were simply lucky they were supporting the right people before (Like guessing a maths question but not showing your working, not that ethics is as clean as maths).
He's a moral relativist so what does this concept even mean to someone like Vaush?
@@Blurredborderlines He's a moral anti-realist meaning he doesn't believe there is such a thing as objective morality. It's a rule utilitarian assessment of if someone's axiomatic beliefs or their thought processess could lead to bad outcomes in the future. IE with terfs. They will talk about feminism and stand for some of the common feminist talking points but when pressed on their beliefs you realise that their "Feminism" is often simply rooted in internalised mysogeny and man-hating and the social norms they grew up with. These are people who support some good causes but because of their flawed ethical foundation (Gender essentialism and patriarchal gender roles) they end up allying with the alt-right and other reactionary groups.
@@RedRattt Not believing in objective morality is functionally the same as being a moral relativist, it's an argument over semantics about something you don't even believe in to begin with.
I'm saying that Vaush has unironically stated that he doesn't care about being correct he just cares about "winning", he doesn't actually "believe" in anything he claims to by the nature of his own "philosophy" which is just Nihilist copium.
It's the answer to Paarthurnax's question. It is better to overcome evil through great effort, instead of being born good. Through overcoming evil you have had to work and come up with sound reasonings for what you believe. If you are born good, you just think good = good, without necessarily knowing that you have the capacity to be evil.
@@Blurredborderlinesno, he believes in what he says. The thing is that morality is so complex that we have entire lifelong fights about it. Instead of saying "this is the one right thing", it's more like saying "based on everything presented to me, this seems like the closest thing to being morally good, so I'll stick to it and fight for it until presented with something better". The way I see it is, it's basically seeing morality as a subjective thing that you have to use objective measures to defend/support/instill in society.
The reason why "winning" is important is because winning will, in his opinion, bring society closer to what seems to be morally good, based on observations of what tends to harm or help people. At the end of the day, concepts of morality are on a sliding scale. A lot of issues end up basically being a trolley problem. What is the objectively correct answer to that problem? You can only argue what you BELIEVE is the correct answer, and you can fight to make sure that outcome happens. Beliefs aren't objective. They're opinions.
As a Vaush viewer, I’m pretty surprised that he didn’t agree, as he himself morally grounds his arguments quite frequently. It’s a standard he has upheld, so I have no idea why he didn’t agree to that position here. I guess it was super early on in his career, so perhaps he changed over time, but he certainly follows this sort of framework analysis.
Yeah, the modern picture of vaush but destiny calling him "irish-laddie" threw me off a bit.
His debate with Noncompete was highlighted by his commitment to this standard, and was one of his best wins against the tankiesphere
@@alexavierhurtado7856 It not only highlighted his commitment, it highlighted the importance of having said standard in the first place, Noncompete "The Nazi's were bad because they were factually incorrect" sure as fuck swayed me away from being anything fucking like that guy.
crazy how if you put the timeline back together, it almost means that he started out "morally lucky "with certain political positions and then retroactively fit them into an ethical framework. makes ya think.
That's because he didn't use to think this way, he changed after this debate. He was wrong, and as usual he doesn't admit it.
Vaush has changed a lot since then. It's obvious they're strawmanning Rem's argument quite heavily, it's less expecting political figures to have a literal PHD in philopshy and more expecting them to have some reasoning behind their policy positions. Vaush in particular agrees with this nowadays, meanwhile Hassan is still very proud of how little he understands the politics he represents.
yeah its really turned out to be a big filter for me in sorting who is worth listening to on the left and who is just basing their opinion on tribalistic cues. I see this a lot with the anti-Ukraine people.
if by changed you mean he's gotten even more immoral, yes.
The strawmanning was SO egregious, it was disgusting. All three treated this pre-determined to try and paint Rem as some kind of elitist schmuck while refusing to even attempt to engage with the actual, and quite logical and well-thought out, questions.
The first time I heard Vaush I was convinced that he's an undercover Nazi. He never managed to change my mind.
@@MaxMckayful well, he kinda is. and wasn't his argument basically that high-profile leftist influences are in the position to be elitist, so might as well put their time into doing it right.
I think the worst part of this debacle is that Rem is actually right. It's just that his position is so untenable in the real world and so unpopular, no political streamer will ever actually entertain it outside of people like Destiny who's already basically at war with all the other big streamers.
How is he both right and have an untenable position? It seems perfectly reasonable to expect figures like Vaush and Hasan to have grounding. Unless "untenable" here more just means that we shouldnt expect(in a colloquial sense) then to ground what they say.
@@frank_calvert Untenable (and I may have chosen the wrong word here, probably should have said unattainable), in that no one will willingly do it to themselves and you can't really effectively hold other people to it. All you get are a bunch of bruised egos and angry streamers. At the end of the day political streamers don't really care if their arguments are grounded or even based in any real logic, it's all a big dick measuring contest of who sounds right, not who actually is.
@@JurasJankauskassophistry.
Not just that; it wasn't until a few years ago that the intelligence community in the US came together and created logical processes for expressing their viewpoints. Settling on %chance metrics.
Prior to that they were using vague and safe statements such as "A good chance of..." "Highly Probable..." ; which are completely open to interpretation.
That vague language had caused many defense fiascos, including the Iraq war, due to overestimating or underestimating likelihoods of outcomes
Mathematics and science are fixed. Language is fickle, and functionally useless. A strong thinking process that is stable and reliable is the ONLY thing that counts.
This conversation is pretty funny and says a lot about these three men:
Hasan is genuinely too stupid to ground out his political beliefs in an ethical framework or to see the utility in doing so. This entire conversation went over his head.
Vaush stubbornly & self-righteously makes a consequentialist argument against needing to ground out political beliefs in order to engage in advocacy, but later changes his mind and acknowledges the importance of an underlying philosophy
Destiny believes that his principles are everything and can connect every position he advocates for and every action he takes to some underlying principle. He’s also a terrible judge of character, and doesn’t see a problem with Vaush and Hasan not doing so, until both of them eventually stab him in the back because he didn’t go along with left-wing orthodoxy.
Long time Destiny viewer here.
Praise to you for making a very concise video about a 3+ hour long stream/debate. I remember watching this live and coming away with a lot of the same takes. It's a shame these three don't make more content together today given the large number of viewers each of them has and how entertaining the interactions tended to be.
Great work!
That's entirely Vaush and Hasan's problems. Destiny is happy to engage in good faith and they constantly lie about him.
Hamasabi and Vaush should quit the Internet. They actively make the world a worse place.
@@ink9812*not* you forgot that last word
Interesting to see that Vaush went from this to "You can't argue this shit if you don't have your beliefs based in ethics" nowadays.
I feel like the other person was asking for MORE than that.
Unless we take the ending of the stream as gosspel where Destiny says "you need to have at least my level" (lol) at which point maybe all of them already qualified in the first place.
@@nahuel3433100%, not to mention 6 months is super arbitrary and suggests the guy hadn't thought it through himself. 6 months for some might be nowhere near enough. Moreover, what should be read exactly? Mainstream philosophical canon? That comes with its own problems. (Not sure if these were answered at some point)
@@nahuel3433
Rotfl, not even close.
To this day none of those 2 qualify.
Maybe vaush but if he does he doesn't apply it as he preach rather than talk, to cuddle his fanbase.
Hasanabi has 0 grounding of any of his beliefs
Actually Vaush still thinks it’s fine that normies are morally ignorant to an extent, he expects better from colleagues and conservatives, because he thinks they’re wrong. Being morally lucky is fine though in so far as people just happen to believe what he does, or close enough to it. He sees it as impractical to expect more from the average unless they’re wrong, he doesn’t see it as wrong that people end up agreeing with similar arguments without grounding axioms. He does see it as good for people to do so, tho.
"You need to ground your axioms sweetie" 💅💅💅
This but unironically
I'm a programmer. I took one philosophy course as an aside.
I got 98%. It was my highest grade and the average was 70% or so. The teacher was impressed I was grounding my arguments and utilizing multiple viewpoints to self-analyse.
I don't understand how anyone can survive day-to-day without having a logical process...
Love your profile picture, Reaper was one of my favorite games, I don’t see fans of it around often
@rafaelcomfsemphgood to know logic doesnt exist
@@ThePikeOfDestinywhats it about
@rafaelcomfsemph Yeah and everything you think is reality is just feelings and sensations using your knowledge about topics to asethetically elaborate then feel reality.. So regardless of if we are in significant control of our latent processes, the concept of logic still exists and is a standard to be compared against; meaning you can absolutely qualify something as illogical despite how it impacts your personal interests. You can absolutely go against "the elephant".
@@wtfimcrying idk didint finish it, the artstyle always stuck with me tho. Its a singleplayer mobile game
For anything else you think about Rem, you cannot deny he is an absolute world class shit stirrer. The only thing I know about this man is that if I see his name anywhere near some bullshit I know somebody lost their fucking mind. May be Rem, may be who Rem's talking to, may be two completely random people. No idea. The man just seems to speak absolute insanity into existence.
Let no one accuse this Mon0 guy of being bad faith when he picked the most sexy pic to represent Vaush I have ever seen. 5:41
True I don't think Ive ever seen that picture
Didn't that convo happened 3-4 years ago? Hasan is forming his political beliefs from tweets to this day lol
Destiny is trying to confirmation bias his beliefs by reading wiki info that hasan has already known for years. Hasan has been passionate about this conflict for a long time and knows way more about it than destiny. Just because you disagree with his moral preference doesn't mean the person you agree with is more informed lol
@@supersomebody101 they didn't even mention destiny.
@@evowriter Hasan haters are mostly from that pretentious community
@@supersomebody101 yo can you like link a clip or anything that show how "informed" hasan is on israel/palestine before 7.10.23 ?
@@supersomebody101 It's hilarious to say something so oblivious that Hasan is more informed on any topic than Destiny. Furthermore there are literally clips of Hasan reading tweets with false information and regurgirading them as facts. Also there are dozen of hours of Destiny reading history about the conflict and forming his oppinion after, which is exacly the opposite of "confirmation bias his beliefs".
i have to agree with Rem. despite my own interest in politics and streaming, i would never pursue becoming an online political voice without some kind of baseline philosophical rigor to my positions. i feel it’s a little embarrassing, and becomes more and more egregious the larger your audience becomes. it’s the same as trying to speak to literally any other subject without having a clue of what you’re really saying.
It's nice in theory but it would result in bad faith people with hyperbole drowning out good faith people who have facts.
Do you know how much education you need to truly get to the bottom?
I think people should be allowed to have an opinion even if they are not a philosopher.
Philosophy is extremely deep and broad. Even if you are educated in it it doesn't mean you know everything.
Even one small branch of philosophy could be a life's work.
@@kassokilleri2ff If you look really closely the comment actually says "baseline philosophical rigor"
@uslph. Ok define baseline philosophical rigor than? Exactly what must be read and understood?
@@kassokilleri2ff It implies being able to articulate and defend your positions with reasoned arguments rather than echoing popular opinions.
It's interesting because Vaush actually agrees with morally lucky now. Im glad
I think he understands that you don't need to read PhD level stuff, just be able to understand what you believe.
I'd like to believe that this debate is what got him on the train that eventually ended up with him agreeing with it.
Even if it took a while.
Internet politics just seems like a distraction tbh.
I'm starting to wonder how much watching it might himder me from taking part in the stuff that actually matters
Depends how you consume it. If you don't think critically much about political positions then it could be a good prompt for deeper thought. Like all things, everything in moderation.
It's all entertainment. The percentage of people who are actually going to do anything based on watching these clowns can be rounded down to 0%
@@lorenzomizushal3980Wrong! Destiny has gotten people out to canvas, with one call-out getting over 200+ people out in the street door knocking etc. Next presidential cycle he is planning on getting even more people involved. He even tried to get a Mayor elected in his own city but a bunch on weirdo lefties started harassing the candidate so he had to pull out.
@@lorenzomizushal3980 Is that... even true? They're spreading ideology, both good and bad. You might not think it's connected because it's not a direct pipe-line of "watches Destiny" and idk "trying to fck their twin brother."
But they get exposed and influenced by these ideas, and in communities like Hasan they get stuck in an echo chamber making those ideas seem louder and more reasonable to the person participating, and then you have a link between "watches Hasan" and "saying gas the Jews as terrorists kidnap tourists."
@@lorenzomizushal3980a little harsh. I mean they DO some stuff here and there. Destiny at the very least does canvassing and encourages his fans to vote. (Maybe doesn't do enough but still) I don't watch the others in the vid so idk about them.
Maybe I missed something, but I 100% agree with Rem (based on this presentation of his argument). I could see Hasan fighting the assertions made, but I feel Destiny and Vaush would agree today. I don’t understand why either of them would have such a visceral reaction. Maybe something kicked a hornets nest that wasn’t included in the video.
Destiny was memeing I believe. As was Hasan, but he was doing it to shield from valid criticism. This was cut from a 2+ hr video
There's a lot of prejudice against academic sociology and philosophy. And SOME of it is extremely well-founded. All talk, no action. Way too densely written. Playground of the privileged. But all of that ignores the actual underlying question and point - is some amount of applied, practical philosophy useful and even arguably downright needed? And you can ask that separate from the prejudiced worst aspects of the qualities of philosophy as a field / pursuit / activity.
I agree with Rem too but Vaush had such a solid criticism. I ended up somewhere in between, philosophy communicators is a very important job that should be explored more.
The most interesting part of this is being reminded that this debate happened on day 1 of a new factorio playthrough
HOLYSHIT! Thank you for letting many of us know that these three were in a conversation together once! It's a big surprise!
not really
It seems to me that from watching Rem's bookshelf tours, he is heavily steeped in traditional academic philosophy, which is heavily geared towards analytic philosophy. Though he talks about Foucault occasionally its one of the few continental philosophers Rem references but didn't appear to speak of much, though this may be due to my brief survey of Rem. I can't speak to DesTiny or Hasan, but I know Vaush is thinking about things in terms of sociological and psychoanalytical premises. I think this is emblematic of the divide within the field of philosophy itself, analytic dominates philosophy in academia, but(IMO) it often ignores context and intersubjectivity. However, the continental philosophers are still in academia, but they went to other subjects that we know as sociology, psychology, history, etc...essentially other social sciences.
For me personally, Rem is arguing in line with writers who dominate the philosophical canon such as Kant, Descartes, Plato, etc...But is dismissing philosophical writers outside of the canon, or post-Kantian. Writers like Hegel, Schiller, Sartre, Arendt, etc. are the ones who have been influencing much of the post-modern philosophical world, but they are not taught very often even in graduate level programs, and its almost unheard of to study any of those writers in an undergraduate setting (unless you get a tenured professor who sees the current philosophy departments as getting overtaken by business interests). What I mean to say is that many political streamers are arguing from these post-Kantian philosophies, and Rem is arguing from a Pre-Kantian philosophy. I think what Rem is not seeing, is that philosophically grounded arguments are alive and well for political streamers, most of these ideas are not taught in academic philosophy, especially since most of those who write continental philosophy leave academia, the only ones who i can think of that stayed in off the top of my head were Hegel and Heidegger
Interesting
Great video
Having come from the academic side of things towards the political I have to disagree. Standards for public figures ought to be as close to the reasonable estimate of the audience of the public as possible.
I come from the Physics and Philosophy side of academics and had a rude awakening to just how unfounded politics is.
But that posits the meta discussion of public vs academic speech, individual critique vs systemic, truth vs language.
As Vaush points out in one of the best discussions about Destiny's "technically correct" stances behaviour matters in the delivery of truth or rhetoric. In fact over an average of the audience of you split the previously agreed, neutral and disagreed parties a well framed message can have greater persuasive value than a more truthful or correct one.
As someone who has ASD and found even idioms as "untruthful" it's taken a long time to get to this position but it is nicely summed but by the phrase
"Don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good"
And by the meme:
"Steven was unaware he was no longer on the internet"
In person I would likely argue like Destiny but online I would veer as far from his egocentric "I just want to be correct with no prescriptions" as humanly possible. Vaush may be less consistent, Hasan a full on propagandist. But frankly they at least both focus their goal at "these improvements find the path as I go".
Hasn't destiny been the one that has actively tried to make improvements on the world and has always made stern prescriptions on problems?
@Onthebrink5they are mote concerned about trans rights than people starving
@Onthebrink5you went full dummy by saying church just spends donated money to help the poor, that was so funny
@Onthebrink5his canvassing events that he paid for a lot is not him giving anyone a penny? What?
@Onthebrink5also "what have actually helped people" is VERY hard to even find out. How would we ever know if it did? I assume he is changing peoples minds but again idek how anyone would attribute any change to him even if those changes happened because of him (since again hard to point to what he specifically caused and didn't).
Again though he does not do enough that much is true.
"the debate that changed internet politics" yeah...no. no one even knows about this and it has no importance.
This was actually a really well made overview. DggL
None of them benefit from agreeing with Rem, online political discourse benefits from gut instincts and irrational herd mentality.
The whole Israel v Palestine stuff just proved how morally lucky Hasan was.
Long time Vaush/Shark(original model vaush) viewer, and occasional Destiny/Hasan viewer: I've known this debate existed out there, but I haven't sought it out because I usually avoid lefty/progressive cannibalism debates. Unless the idea/offense being debated is particularly egregious (PF, RGR, Endless). but you have actually given me the motivation to go watch this finally.
I am intensely curious because current Vaush loves the "morally lucky" phrase, and morally grounding political beliefs. 2019 Vaush was definitely less.... refined, so I am interested in whether he has changed positions, just sided with Hasan due to lefty solidarity, or Rem's "bar" for supporting one's positions was too severe, like asking people to to prove their actions obey Kant's laws of his Categorical Imperative and/or drilling down into meta-ethics and moral epistemology.
I am a free market advocate. I am drilling down into the depths of philosophy in order to get to the truth finally.
I was a liberal my entire life but became a free market guy after hearing free market arguments which appealed to my sense of morality as a liberal.
If that sounds impossible, you have not understood free market ideas. That's fine. Point is, there IS a utilitarian argument for free markets that is valid.
Anyways, it's taking FOREVER because philosophy is deep and hard.
Also I'm learning economics to the same end. To really see whatever truth there is to see.
Ive read introduction to philosophy books, which I can't name atm.
I'm currently reading the most comprehensive history of philosophy by Copleston.
I've read maybe half of Plato. A bit of Aristotle.
I don't know which way to go. How broad of a foundation to build. How deep to go this way or that.
I just try to figure it out myself.
So if anyone has suggestions I'm all ears.
Cannibalism is inherent to left wing ideology.
Once you run out of rich people, you've got to eat _something._
@@kassokilleri2ff My advice is to resist binary thinking. "Capitalism" and "free markets" are not binary switches you flip. They are incredibly complex interactions between incredibly complex systems with lots of different settings. As I said when I studied economics - most people who espouse the efficient-markets hypothesis only read Chapter 1 of the Econ textbook. The other 33 chapters are mostly about when and how that is wrong.
@hawkname1234 I am not thinking in binary whatsoever.
I am educating myself using sources from higher education. If that is not legitimate I don't know what is.
I am studying economics. Political economy. Political science and philosophy. Philosophy in general such as ethics metaphysics and so on.
I'm am not thinking in binaries whatsoever.
I believe in absolute Laissez-faire capitalism. Complete separation of state and economics.
It is YOU who is unwilling to entertain an idea that you fear.
Personally I investigate any and all ideas which can be learned about autodicatically, from sources used in higher learning institutions.
Capitalism and free market capitalism are indeed valid concepts and are not simply ideas that only think in overly simplistic terms.
If you need, I can reference you legitimate works which talk about these things.
The most obvious work always cited is Robert Nozick.
If the philosopher Rem the Bathboi should be credited with anything, it would be the most succinct takedown of Hasan Piker’s political thought. He has not beaten the morally lucky allegations.
He will eventually beat them, not through intellectual merit, but because his reactionary "America bad" stance will carry him to a place where his actions may hurt others. He's already praising China and poisoning the well when it comes to Taiwanese independence, its only a matter of time.
The morally lucky argument seems to assume objective morality. Everyones moral analysis is always grounded by the bias of their moral preferences. Their moral preferences intuitively guide their political stances. All of their positions on israel/palestine was predictable based on their established moral preferences. They are all grounded in a coherent normative framework. If you disagree with their political takes that just means you have a different ethics not that theirs is incoherent
You can judge systems by various metrics. Some systems seem to be better than others. Of course, because morality is just how you feel there's no "perfect morailty", but based on a few axioms almost everyone can agree on ("life is precious", "suffering is bad" and "people should be free") we can create a system that seeks to maximize good and minimize bad. Being born in that system is what I consider being moraly lucky.
I don't think people's political stances will necessarily predict their moral framework, if you haven't thought out your morals then you're prone to contradiction.
@@toxictost I would like to see an example of a moral contradiction from any of them, especially Hasan. Then I can take this topic seriously
@FaustoOriginal so every modern person is morally lucky with maybe a few exceptions for the mentally impaired
I wonder how much slander in each of the three possible directions we will be able to read here x)
Ill be honest. Of Destiny, Hasan and Vaush.
Vaush is the only one whom i can respect even if i disagree with. because he actually believes the things hes says.
Destiny acts like a drama vulture circling any little controversy now
and Hasan just screams "you should like me" into the void during any public point.
Lile look at the way his audience treated Ethan, and Hasan took no responsibility.
You realise destiny is a content creator right? Who focuses on politics and current dramas, even if I gave you that he isn’t a vulture at all so u even watch him?
ever since tiny got drugged up he can do geopolitical, personal drama and politics at the same time and still do live events
If you've read the Vaush manifesto and still believe this, then you need help. Vaush is an evil person. I actually think Vaush is even more disingenuous than Hasan, because Hasan we can at least blame his lack of intelligence for his behavior. But Vaush is just obsessed with his image and appearing correct, and he's said as much, that it's morally good to lie if it improves your rhetoric and convinces people that you are correct. He tries to change his appearance and voice to become more popular, has done charity streams with the sole intention of trying to get other big streamers to notice him. He's so fake, and so bad.
“Political activists should be able to explain why their positions are good for society.”
“That’s elitist of you I can say whatever I want.”
absolute content thank you
So to put this in action. A political streamer would have to disclose their or create a moral framework.
"I am utilitarian, this is why my politics reflect that view point".
Sure politics come from ethics, but you're telling me that a moral framework is necessary, why? What if you do have to create your own, how would you even do that?
Rationality is essential to thinking properly, even though it’s difficult to learn. If you’re not particularly good at it, don’t make a career doing it. Thought leaders ought to be pretty good at it. Anyone stepping into that arena ought to be, because lives are affected by those ideas.
@kalebkendall4786 Right. But could you answer my other questions to bring more clarity to what you said? Just saying people should be rational doesn't really help my understanding. Unless that's just all you wanted to say.
@@DopDipDop I don't really have a good answer, I just think rationality itself is more fundamental than following a moral framework - which are like blueprints on how to think. Great thinkers have put a lot of thought into those frameworks, but they're using the same tools of rationality that you have. Maybe a framework is something you can build up to, but in the meantime just focus on taking consistent and rational positions. As genius as they can be, there's probably a major flaw for every framework out there. I hope that makes sense.
3:43 genjutsu? like from naruto? wtf is he talking about
I think it's important to note that we live in a world where the dominant "grounding" is "so what, who cares," money, and yelling louder or hitting harder, and isn't meaningfully questioned or thought about at all. So if you are trying at all, even without an official grounding, you can mess up or take a guess and the outcome can be better than the default. "Good" can also be relative and incorporated into the default "grounding." (ie money is good, therefore it's good to steal. But but what about the other persom rust was stolen from? So what, who cares. Etc.) Having a "grounding" in "good" unfortunately ends up being completely arbitrary and a poor metric for a political framework. While three generally decent people are debating about what's best, the person that doesn't give a shit picked all their pockets and ran circles out them without even participating. That is the world we live in, and until we can figure out a Good way to deal with all those holes out there that stare like that, GOOD will not be what thrives or succeeds, by luck or not.
Ah but you have forgotten the most important part about this discourse from 2019
Rem is annoying
Great debate, just one critique on the Destiny take at the end. 1 there are hundreds of positions like “women deserve rights” that would take hours of every normie or regular person on the street to justify just one of those positions in this way. This has never and should never be an expectation of anyone who has to work a real job. 2. This is not new. People have always been, on average, ignorant to higher level philosophical arguments . 3. REM said you just need 6 months of studying philosophy to acceptably ground out all your positions in a way that would be satisfactory to anyone leveling the criticism makes me feel like REM is actually retarded. Besides that, political streamers do have more of an obligation to adhere to these standards than most
On 2. You're absolutely right. Philosophy is deep and hard 😅
And even at that, there are endless tunnels and pathways. Which path does one take? Where do you start? Plato? History of philosophy book? Wikipedia? Secondary or thirdary sources on Hegel?
So yea his claim of 6 months is absolutely absurd unless he has some kind of program for getting to the bottom of ethics in 6 months.
I'd love to have that program honestly.
On 1. It is sad to me that normal people cannot justify why women should have rights.
But I'm an Ayn Rand guy. It's very simple why women should have rights.
But I guess her philosophy is bad so it doesn't count.
How in the world in this even a debate????? How the hell are people even arguing against Rem's basic stance of "well, maybe the people who position themselves as so-called experts, should be act as--I dunno--experts." If I'm understanding him correctly, his argument is just the people having the political discussions SHOULD be able to explain why their political beliefs are good, and what the hell good even means to them. I don't think you even need a "PhD in Philosophy" to even do that. Like, describe your ideal world, explain why it's ideal, and then explain why the political position / action leads to this ideal world. Like, what even the hell??????
EDIT: Ug. The more I listen to this, the more pissed off I get. Damn. They're all arguing against any attempts to instill critical thinking in their audiences. That's wild. I understand opposing political influencers may get away with less, but that's such a short term solution that just leads to more division and possibly misinformation (I'd argue).
EDIT2: Dude. I'm so happy I didn't watch this debate in full. It's so absolutely disgusting how Hassan and Vaush performed in this so-called debate. They can't actually engage with Rem. It's infuriating. It's these type of discussions that remind me "debates"--with all their potential to explore multiple perspectives--are utter trash because no one has an an ounce of professionalism. And, when I say professionalism, I mean that every side gives an opportunity for the other to say their thought, and then engage meaningfully with the thought, WITHOUT HAVING TO RELY ON INSULTS AND BAD ASSUMPTIONS AND GOING OFF ON TANGENTS. I honestly blame a lot of this on the people managing these conversations, so Destiny in this case. Why are they allowed to derail the entire conversation??? Why is there no punishment when they decide to take the whole convo down a path of pure insults? Like, damn.
EDIT3: Well, it's nice to see at least Destiny agreed with Rem's stance. Maybe Rem did phrase his thoughts poorly, but SURELY he made many attempts to clarify his position.
Vaush won this debate
Ew
The debate that changed internet politics? Who cares about these losers lmao
I was going to say that based off this video I got a really bad impression of Vaush, but looking at the comments it seems he's a changed man. I can't take people who starts insulting people because they don't have a good argument seriously
Insulting others because they don't have a good argument = based
Insulting others because you don't have a good argument = cringe
@@kingflynxi9420 so we agree then. I was referring to Vaush (and Hassan) who instead of having coherent thoughts would insult rem instead
I don't think anyone would disagree, that it would be good for propagandists with large audiences being able to ground their beliefs (better). The question is, if it's useful to ask it of them and especially to lay this kind of emphisis on it.
So it was rems fault the power trio broke apart
Sounds like something someone with ungrounded axioms would say.
"The cultural practice of covering women up is bad" R/atheist incoming, genius level philosophical thought.
how many hours does destiny have on fucking factorio
Results matter more, we are talking about how to shape society and peoples lives.
ground your axioms 🗿
Glad to see Vaush has moved on from these positions. He really was just kinda annoying and preachy back then.
An”opinion/stance/position”is set before any real evaluation,it’s a mixed grill of background information,instinct & pre-tread pathways,only the justifications for that opinion gets moved around,popularity is a helluva drug.
These extraordinarily confident people are so full of shit
I agree that every public figure having a basic level understanding would be normatively desirable but not with the idea of this being a moral obligation.
Why not?
I think any political participant is morally obligated to reason their political positions. Their vote, as with many decisions, affects outcomes for everyone. I concede that a single vote is not very impactful and is about as influential as any other vote. I also understand no one is going to reach absolute reasoning. So obligation to ground political assertions should be proportional to political influence.
The typical voter has a relatively light obligation to due diligence while a person that influences voters is proportionally as powerful as the sum of those votes. These high influence political participants bear a high proportion of moral obligation to political reasoning.
it should be a moral obligation to anyone trying to push theyre own morality onto a wider audience, if you perpetrate a set of morals and cant ground them then your leading a pack of sheep as a sheep, in other words you are lost.
@@carlod5818debate bros of all stripes are literally frederick Nietzsche the last men
Itd be nice if everyone was intelligent and wellstudied and introspective and critical of their beliefs and why they have them, but unfortunately most people are idiots and loud obnoxious people and things that are extremely low information and high disinformation are what gets the most attention
If everyone did that there would be no liberals
I think Vaush made a change in this department, but in large part I think most efforts for a rigorous meta-ethical system are BS
for the simple reason that de-facto any meta-ethical will never be the primary thing in the mind of someone making a morally significant action, "correct" opinions do not translate into actions that neutral peers of similar disposition would consider moral. In the end morality always just comes down to if someone wants to act morally, spending time on a consistent meta-ethics will never be as fruitful as spending time on the material factors that make individuals want to act morally. Does that make for future conflicts? yes it does but attempting for rigorous ethics doesn't prevent it.
also it's kind of from a rejection of absolute morality on my part, my morality is my own and I have neither the capability nor right to try to force adoption of my vision of what a better world would be with anything but than persuasion
@@unktheunk1428 It's not about forcing the groundwork of your morality onto others. It's about getting someone who is politically active and powerful, such as an influencer, to evaluate their moral system to make sure they are using their influence in "good" ways.
What is "good" may differ from person to person, but there is the general assumption that most of these people SHOULD want the best outcome for the most amount of people. By having them evaluate themselves, they can stop themselves from getting lost in more vague and complex scenarios and end up accidentally supporting terrorist groups because they completely lost the plot.
@@anubis7457 in my mind this entire original situation would be included in "persuasion", and that comment was more a tangent about my own ethics than commentary on the situation
I also want media personalities spending a particularly large portion of their time ensuring their beliefs aren't stupid and counterproductive, I was more going against the particular imposition of academic-level meta ethics
This video owns
2:08 One nanosecond before you said that sentence.
Somebody's obsesseedd
@@Mon000 If I pursued girls as much as I pursue moral insights, I still wouldn't have a girlfriend because they would all rightfully take out restraining orders against me.
I was playing the zelda breath of the wild during this debate
Dude just spoiled GOT. 😂
I love Vaush and Hasanabi and they hate eachother; Hasan and Vaush yelling at eachother is hilarious! 😂😂😂
One should only need to ground out their political positions by deeper and deeper moral theory when moral disagreement between the parties requires it, however i still think a lot of the policies that leftists like hasan and vaush would advocate for, like universal healthcare for example don't require "grounding out" as most people who are opposed to it are opposed because of empirical disagreements rather than moral ones, there is only a tiny minority of right-libertarian minded people, who would disagree with the state providing universal healthcare, even if it were empirically proven to be successful in health outcomes and in net cost savings for most people.
Ultimately if the politics one advocates for really are for the good, then from the position of a political commentator what is morally required is how effective you are in spreading them, and it seems right to me that grounding out your politics in an ethical theory could actually be counter productive, there is actually far more agreement on what is good on a case by case basis, rather than what is the correct moral theory of the good or moral duty or whatever, it is telling that when philosophers engage in questions of practical ethics, they often use arguments that depend on analogies where our intuitions are clear, there is not much use in arguing in practical ethics by saying "the ethical theory i favor says this is the right action!" as it will only be useful for someone who already favors that theory and failed to recognize that the theory requires this action.
However i still think it's useful for people overall to learn tools of critical and philosophical thinking, at the very least to make our political debates more honest and productive, so there is a burden on political commentators on empowering their audience to become better thinkers and better debaters, rather than just having the correct political views, this is however separate from "grounding out your politics" which i still think is only relevant in a very restricted set of contexts.
In any area of reduction wich bolth sides can either be reduced to a center point. "The correct thing," or the patrial thing are ultimately the same. Every person here has a justification for there opinion, and to say ground there moral frame work, and then point to a philosophy book is retarred. Not that you shouldn't scrutinize your own belief's its that you will always scrutinize to your own self satisfaction.
Having to draw up a diagram for exactly what your rules for morality are is kind of ridiculous. Morality is largely intuitive unless someone is brainwashed. My moral opinion rarely changes when I scrutinize it, because our brains can work out a lot of the intricacies unconsciously. If I make a moral argument, someone is either going to accept it or reject it. There shouldn't be any obligation of studying philosophy just to engage In political discourse. If I'm wrong. I'm wrong. Being open to having your mind changed by counterarguments is more important and really all that's required to have an honest debate. Philosophy courses are just extra.
I dunno, I think I used to agree, but hearing different people debate different views on the AI porn drama that occurred a while back made me wish those people took the time to ground those views
Idk man, I think through looking over my basic moral beliefs and how I ground those beliefs my political beliefs and overall pragmatic beliefs have changed in the last two years
bad take here sorry try again
5:52 Noticed that Vaush said "your standards" its not that he was against grounding your believes or justifying them. Far from it, he spend hours doing so. The problem is that you are presenting Rem as an authority to judge the validate of their opinions. As if philosophy is a simply math problem with one solution.
Vegeta level indeed
The concept "morally lucky" can only be grown out of the brain rot that Kant produces.
You don't think there is any luck factor involved in which values you are raised with or whether or not you are given the tools to critically examine them? No circumstances of birth or anything like that?
@@Tleilaxu0 no I think they are entirely lucky, but I think morally lucky implies that there is a right moral framework. There is an implication that Hasan and Vaush are right in their moral takes. There is no such thing as a proveable right moral take. I also don't like the idea that philosophy has some type of authority that someone should abide by.
@tento3555 That's all well and good in theory, but in practice, most people with strong convictions tend to see their ideology as the correct one, and hold a dim view of people who don't agree with them. In extreme cases this manifests as those wokescold types who will even shame and reject people who came to their ideology later in life (see, for example, Thought Slime).
The concept of moral luck is a reminder that you are not a superior person just because you fell in with a certain crowd early in life.
You are doing again@@Tleilaxu0 , its not a reminder to anything, no one has true moral value. And this type of rhetoric only cements the strong convictions. It impels that the argument of if someone's morals are a done deal, and now all we need to do is to see if they have gotten there in their own. That's why I put Kant here, because to a kantian the argument of morals it's something that has been dealt with 242 years ago.
@@tento3555 this is actual brain rot, both the video and the comments, what the actual fuck are you two arguing over
the holy trinity
I think it's okay to say that hierarchy is intrinsically bad as a leftist, it allows for freedom to be reduced, coercion is intrinsic to it. I obviously think that people also being well fed and having somewhere to live is good. Destiny only cares about the latter; he has said that slavery isn't intrinsically bad, if the slaves could be provided with a good life, which baffled Michael Albert when he said it. They were clashing on fundamental values.
Holy shit, you haven't read the books, ahem, the one I read phd, fuckin yell louder, this is debate, we're all getting better. I don't watch streamers but have heard of Vaush, and seen clips from his stream in other videos. This is mind garbage and probably should not be, I mean not allowed, but, completely and utterly disincentivized. Also, surveillance capitalism bad. Thanks good video
Its funny that they assume they are moral
Philosophy>politics
Rem was right. Hasan has been a wrecking ball to political discourse
These three should be put in a lion enclosure and make the lions not eat for 2 days
No
Imagine being clowned on by these three fools.
Im a lefty and i literally hate all three of these people.
Vausg is the worst, im pretty sure hes a psy Op
Destiny is a close Second
Hassan is just a dummy but well meaning
lol first time seen someone call vaush a fed. His is funny though.
@tastethecock5203 he calls himself a socialist but he's a rich Beverly hills tw** who sides with US imperialists on every foreign policy issue of the day and he appeared literally out of nowhere and the algo forces him down my throat. In the UK some left philosophy channel got caught receiving resources and guidance from the Mi6, i wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar program here.
If you're in politics and arent being actively suppressed by major corporations and the security state you're doing something wrong. It's called inverted totalitarianism
It's funny watching old videos of Vaush and seeing how soy he was. I can understand now why he's put so much effort into changing his appearance and voice, because damn he was near unwatchable LOL.
Because there gay