EDITOR'S NOTE: You can stop asking for the Rem talk now. It took me a long-ass time because Destiny pushed back against some of the claims so I had to research and double-check for context clips. I also combined it with Perspective Philosophy's talk because the subject was similar. Let me know if you're interested in the vegan debate with Perspective Philosophy, it wasn't as bad imo but there's been too much philosophy lately. The videos used and mentioned in this video are here: Perspective Philosophy talks to Vaush - ua-cam.com/video/wx-7xS-smdA/v-deo.html Rem's ultimate skeptic - ua-cam.com/video/Zqh_Wri-MFk/v-deo.html
Everything is subjective is the lens through which Critical Theory is founded. Look at Critical Pedagogy, it's a framework for educators which asserts that no subject can be separated from its politics, requiring teachers to politicize the curriculum and turn their students into political actors. It's really subversive stuff, and deeply Marxist. A lot of the rhetoric on the left comes from this ideology. The BLM org uses a lot of these philosophies when they talk about dismantling the patriarchy and the nuclear family, and one of their co-founders is an avowed Marxist.
Editors killing this so hard I may just never watch a discussion live again. The real-time splicing of clips to illustrate references made in the conversation is amazing, thank you for your hard work!
And he makes no sense. All his critiques are assumptions based on tiny disagreements from an off the cuff conversation and he adds them up into something that sounds significant but mean nothing.
Went back and watched that 10 month old debate with Rem. I don't think Vaush understood terms, but REM is a terribly annoying person out to clip Vaush.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I think this guy is being a bit uncharitable whether he admits it or not. As I was once heard from a PHD Phil, your goal shouldn't be to trap people by using esoteric terms and calling them out on it. You should inform them of the different ways to use the term and find your common ground. Makes it seem like he's more interested in calling Vaush out than finding out something new.
As an autistic person I sympathize with his frustration with Vaushes self contradictions and intellectual dishonesty. It can be highly upsetting if you're autistic. I wouldn't be so quit to attribute malice or even pettiness.
Seems to be that he ought to correct people and he ought to reach out to Destiny to provide a solution. Vaush is wrong but if you are going to let him control your debate then go somewhere else to discuss (express grievances) then you're just being petty for not effectively challenging him. Thus people are embolden to see him as the victor.
If you haven't already you should all rewatch the "morally lucky" debate with Rem, Destiny, Hasan and Vaush. Very funny considering how much has changed since then
Vaush is being practical. Though truth exists, it has little value in a world controlled by people who don't care about truth -and objectivity is often too difficult to determine. If truth had such inheritant value, then why is there so many problems in the world? So much suffering? I love truth, I believe truth has inheritant value within itself. Unfortunately me believing that, doesn't mean much and doesn't do much for improving the world.
All of these people agree with Vaush’s descriptions and prescriptions. They aren’t clout sharking off Destiny they are trying to squeeze into the VDS market. 🤦🏻♀️
They'll talk endless shit for hours on niche details and not even acknowledge this ridiculously simple, reasonable basis of the outlook because it undercuts their shit talking. Deranged.
I don't really think this is fair really, because Vaush is one of the more pragmatic socialists online, despite some of his bad takes. A lot of these folks on the left advocate for inaction and he at least advocates the opposite of that. Destiny and Vaush beefing is fine but it seems like these other guys are being a little opportunistic because my feed is filled with them dogpiling Vaush.
I'm not a huge Vaush fan but it feels like they're intentionally misrepresenting or uncharitably interpreting Vaush's positions. Vaush says calling someone out on immaterial misinformation is counterproductive if they're are working toward good ends, because you knee cap these people who were doing the good, and again, the key word is 'immaterial'. Which is why one of his sticking points in the Breonna case was whether it mattered that she was in the bed or not. I don't really agree but it's not the same as saying 'lying is fine if it's good for your side' Vaush's comments on 'Truth isn't real, it's all power' is about the impossibility of verifying true things through any method other than who preserves said history. It's always power, it's always consensus. The Earth is flat is true because enough people have verified it for it to be our consensual reality, and before then, it was flat, and that was 'true' because enough people believed that. It's a coherent theory of truth whether we subscribe to it or not. And so when Rem is going around saying Vaush is running a cult seems to be tipping the hand a bit about people's own biases and goals in this drama. I feel like I just can't trust either side to accurately represent the other and it's really dispiriting.
for starters, the thing about "lying is fine if..." is not pulled solely from the Breonna Taylor example, it was a conclusion that they came to after an entire conversation that's still up on the channel; I'd go watch it. The conclusion came from the whole debate in which Vaush continued to defend misinformation used on the part of the left, even if it is material (e.g. philosophy tube economic takes). Vaush not only discussed historical facts, but also just empirical, logical statements like "2+2=4," or "the cup is red."
@windex bread yes, because empirical logical statements are subject to the same theory as earth flatness. How much we think (or know) something is wrong has no bearing on the theory of accessing truth. I feel like this is elementary stuff. Also, I think Vaush argued that philosophytubes Econ takes were bad, but it was not worth throwing out all of philosophytube for, that’s different from saying you’re wrong in criticizing the weakness of said Econ takes. Pretty sure his argument was that being wrong can be excused, not “lying is fine”,
@@aliouamravantikashkamandel9086 right, that's fine, I'm just pointing out that the scope of his argument wasn't solely limited to just "winners write history." My issue with that is that even though its technically right (you can't empirically "know.") and even as you said elementary, it seems like a lazy, cop-out argument. Of course if you reduce everything to antirealism youre always going to be right but to what end? My philosophy tube example was a bad one, I should have said that Vaush explicitly defended the use of misinformation as long as he agreed with the end it promoted (or the end was a good one, to most people that's the same thing) and that seems a little fucked up
@windex bread “It might be technically true but it’s not practical” doesn’t feel like a super meaningful push back (also a little ironic against vaush considering his other argument). Like, it’s fine to not like the theory or subscribe to it, but let’s not try to make it out as stupid or bad faith when these arguments come up in literal in-the-weeds philosophical debates about the nature of truth. I also just think you’re being reductive on the second point, perhaps because you’re ascribing malice to the idea of “spreading misinformation”. Your philosophytube example was not a bad example, it is THE example. Are there levels of misinformation that would be too severe to approve in the service of one’s goals? I think vaush would say yes. Are we going to have different ideas of what is “immaterial” misinformation? Sure. But saying “vaush is cool with spreading misinformation if it helps his cause” is technically true, but if you were being fair, you’d add the context. You’d add ‘Misinformation that is immaterial or harmless’ (which is STILL problematic imo because of how subjective those terms are), or you’d say ‘not necessarily the same as lying’, if you were really trying to be fair. And so then it seems to be that we come back to people doing exactly the thing they’re accusing vaush of, spreading misinformation because it supports the narrative they’re more interested in. I think his views are a little problematic, but not because of this weird straw manned inflammatory read on them that Rem and Destiny (to a slightly lesser extent) seem to be really pushing
@@DrFeltcher yes. It bothers me. A lot. I like Destiny but the number of times Vaush is misunderstood is astounding. And then to be called a cult member? Really? Rem’s views on Vaush is insane and he doesn’t even know it.
@@floridamainn104 What did Vaush do to make fun of him? Do you have a clip 9r video where he does that? Or tell me when/where? Not saying he didn't do that just wasn't aware.
"Whether or not the holocaust happens depends on feelings" is such a disingenuous way of framing Vaush' position lol. "You can make empirical statement about the world, but If someone has a different definition of truth then you're not necersarily going to be able to convince them of an objective fact" is not "Whether or not the holocaust happened depends on how you feel about it" Rem has to be the most amusing member of the extended destiny universe
It's a gross over-simplification, likely for rhetorical effect, it may be disingenuous but it is not entirely inaccurate. Vaush claims definitions of truth are determined by subjective morality. If what is considered "objective fact" hinges on differing definitions of truth rooted in subjective morality, and if subjective morality boils down to "feelings", then it is accurate to say that objective facts such as the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the holocaust depends on feelings.
@@suddenuprising All philosophy breaks down once you reach axioms/first principles. Pretending that Vaush admitting (claiming?) that all axioms come from subjective experience is hardly some crazy gotcha and it's disingenuous as fuck for Rem to be pretending such.
@@radred609 "Pretending that Vaush admitting (claiming?) that all axioms come from subjective experience is hardly some crazy gotcha" The "gotcha" doesn't consist in that philosophical claim, rather it consists in the conclusions Vaush reaches based upon that claim. It may be a disingenuous rhetorical tactic or it may be that the format of the conversation didn't allow for a more in-depth level headed analysis due to the fast paced adversarial nature of the discussion.
This editor has got to be the best editor I’ve ever seen a content creator have. This was really well done and even if it takes longer to make, screw the impatient people. This was gold. Fn Gold.
This is unironically the same shit destiny complains about where he says a point that makes him sound bad or racist or etc and everyone dogpiles him about it and he complains about people not taking into account his historical positions and historical good and pretends hes just as bad as the alt right.
The truth that destiny applies to his value of personal property seems like a whole different can of worms than applying a subjective truth of your own view of history to every piece of information that exists to fit your own narrative on a whim
I was just about to say this. Doesn’t he complain about this shit being done to him all the time. Also I think this beef arc is fucking stupid. The debate was an entire mess from almost start to finish. What’s even more annoying is that they’re both milking this shit (destiny a little more). Idk who this other guy is but he really didn’t bring much to the conversation just buzz words and it’s clear he doesn’t like Vaush. Idk both Vaush and Destiny really irked me with their bs drama.
I'd agree with you if Vaush did not talk about this so much. Maybe there's a possibility that when he talks about the truth he talks actually about what people percieve as truth and not the actual truth and thus we're all misunderstanfing him, but it's extremely small by now, and would not excuse the way he treats the truth, to act as if we're just clip-chimping Vaush after how much he went on to defend these positions is disingenuous.
@@costincostin4004 personal perceived truth should absolutely be taken into account for one's actions in a moment or series of moments. HOWEVER, it is irresponsible to allow someone to use their personal truth over and over again as justification for their position if it can be disproven through analysis of real world data and conventional wisdom that the majority of reasonable people can consider true. This also seems to be the concept behind a trial by jury. Maybe I'm wrong, tho. Any thoughts?
@@sokbro3198 >personal perceived truth should absolutely be taken into account for one's actions in a moment or series of moments I agree, people can make mistakes and come to wrong conclusions that would justify wrong actions so they should be viewed a bit differently than someone who acts with the same intent but with knowledge that would recommend against that intent. >it is irresponsible to allow someone to use their personal truth over and over again as justification for their position if it can be disproven through analysis of real world data That's how I think about it and this seems to be the pushback against Vaush's views, the fact that he could make his own truth, do whatever it says and still be morally justified. >conventional wisdom that the majority of reasonable people can consider true. This also seems to be the concept behind a trial by jury. I'm not so sure about this, I recognise it's value, but I'd rather not use it over other, more objective, methods because depending on how you describe conventional wisdom and reasonable people you could use them to do a lot of harm to society.
I think Vaush agreeing with the "cup is red if it is in fact red" statement at 20:00 shows that there was simply a misunderstanding later on with the holocaust analogy, where Vaush is just saying that whether the holocaust was morally wrong or not isn't a matter of fact but a matter of perspective. I really like Destiny and his content, but it seems so obvious to me that Vaush is being misrepresented here that I have to say that Destiny platforming this message contradicts his stance on spreading misinformation.
@@mushroomheaification yes that was what Rem was talking about, but I think Vaush either didn't actually understand what Rem was saying or when Rem said "truth" Vaush was interpreting it as something like "the truth of morality". This is why Vaush kept on responding about morality like he did at 9:44 for example.
While I don’t completely agree with Vaush’s argument it is undeniable that Rem has a bone to pick and thus came on to misrepresent his positions for an hour and a half. Vaush’s point about truth was very clearly that the intersubjective perspective of truth is determined by the majority power share holder or argument. While a specific action obviously either happened or did not happen, people’s perceptions of that action are dependent on the environment in which they live. I’ve just started my first philosophy class in college and I was able to understand that so Rem’s misunderstanding has to be purposeful. He can’t be this confused.
Yep, Vaush's position isn't that there is no such thing as an empirical basis, hell, his position isn't even that there is no such thing as truth from an empirical basis. Rather, his position is that he has to agree to disagree with people who derive truth from something other than an empirical basis. I think this entire conversation would be (rhetorically) much more streamlined and less torturous for everyone involved if they employed the same language to epistemology that they employ to morality. Basically, separate epistemology into meta-epistemology and downstream epistemology, just like moral philosophy can be separated into metaethics and ethics, with someone being able to be a metaethical antirealist ("you cannot derive an ought from an is, therefore no set of fundamental principles can be 100% objective") while also being an ethical realist ("two rational agents with identical priors cannot agree to disagree, therefore if two people who share the same values and value hierarchy reach a different solution to a particular ethical question, at *least* one of them *must* be wrong").
@@tudornaconecinii3609 "math is a power grab." Totally not a rejection of empiricism. "Im okay with misinformation as long as it advances socialism." Totally not a peddler of misinformation. "I believe that acting consistently with your own moral framework is superogatory and it isnt a bad thing to actively profit off of a system you know is wrong as long as you believe in the opposite." Definitely not a charlatan who believes in contradictory logic.
Honestly this video bugs me, because literally both vaush and destiny are simultaneously correct on this issue, it literally just depends on your view of the subject and the context you're viewing it from How can neither of them see this
@@SISTEMAQ it would take forever to explain my point, i guess you either see what i mean or dont really. i suppose if i had to sum it up in a really fast way, its like they are just both arguing moral positions which there is no real 100% objective answer to? again this is missing out soo much as an answer
@@GheyForGames but the view of vaush is wrong. if a leftist makes a business and doesn't do the business sharing, then yes, they are the same as the current business owners, but, they're also taking away a spot from a potential leftist who does want to share the business equally making it morally wrong. they could choose to business share if they want, so choosing not to while saying people should is bad. shrug
@@slavajuri from my understanding vasuh's argument is that, 100% of current business owners don't share their company with their employees or like dont pay them more during rush hour or w/e their moral way of doing it is. so since 100% of business owners are communists, if a leftist owns a business, and does it the communist way, they're morally neutral since they're just doing what everyone else does. what if we flip it? what if 100% of business owners shared their profit/stocks w/e it is that destiny was saying, then i think that vaush would argue, if a lefist owns a business and decides to not share their business with their employees, they would be morally* bad. agree or disagree? if you agree. what happens if 99.99% of owners do it the communist way, but 0.001% do it the sharing way, isnt any lefist now taking a potential spot, or at least not being as moral as the business sharer if they do i the communist way? therefore being morally negative? what if 49% of people business share, but 51% don't is it still morally neutral because the MAJORITY aren't business sharing? what about 50/50? what if 50.01% are business sharing, and 49.99% don't is it all of a sudden, because 2 extra business owners swapped over, morally negative now? or is it morally neutral in all? vaush's argument is re tar ded, (if a majority/all people do it, then if you do it too it's not morally bad) so if we could find one person who business shares would vaush then label the lefists who choose to not share evil? no he would probably still decide "well since 99.99% do it, he's allowed to" his argument just falls apart if one person decides to business share, or maybe his argument really is well if 50.01% decide to, now it's morally wrong, - that argument wouldn't fall apart, but it would be retarded
@@mysticflow467 Thanks for the reply. I'll correct what I believe are misspellings in the process of replying myself, please correct me if I'm wrong. > what if 100% of business owners shared their profit/stocks w/e it is that destiny was saying, then i think that vaush would argue, if a lefist owns a business and decides to not share their business with their employees, they would be *morally* bad. agree or disagree? I will agree that Vaush may say that. > what happens if 99.99% of owners do it the communist way, but 0.001% do it the sharing way, isnt any lefist now taking a potential spot, or at least not being as moral as the business sharer if they do i the communist way? therefore being morally negative? I would disagree with the assertion that any leftist would be "taking a potential spot," because the spots are nearly limitless. That was my original basic point. If a person with a different moral framework dislikes Vaush's stance and finds it destructive, they have the same opportunity to compete in that marketplace that he does. This applies to basically any business. > (if a majority/all people do it, then if you do it too it's not morally bad) > so if we could find one person who business shares would vaush then label the lefists whjo choose to not share evil? no he would probably still decide "well since 99.99% do it, he's allowed to" > or maybe his argument really is well if 50.01% decide to, now it's morally wrong, - that argument wouldn't fall apart, but it would be retarded Right, but I don't think that's his position. I've seen Vaush waver on this several times, but if I consider the stances of other leftists who held the same type of view (Michael Brooks, Peter Coffin), I think the gist is pretty simple. "Individual actors should not be held morally accountable for behaving in (legal) ways in which the current world systems incentivize them to behave (with caveats for violence, etc.). Thus, any action encouraged by democratic consensus taken by the individual should reflect primarily not on the individual, but on the consensus and its consequences." He phrases it differently (worse) than I do, but if you view his argument through the lens I've written, I believe it accounts for every externality you raise. The individual and their actions don't much matter, morally. Not to these people anyway (supposedly). Of course, it's still something you'd expect an 18 year old college student to think with no further context, but I really doubt Vaush has considered his philosophical stances well enough to have a clear, consistent underpinning for everything he believes.
I find these Philosophy debates highly amusing. Vaush is obvioulsy not good on this particular topic, but he doesnt have to be.( Contrary to what Rem and every online Philospher says). The Argument "everything is about power", while not very sophisticated is just the pragmatic, empirical thruth we (you, I, everybody) live and expierence everyday around us. That is why vaush holds that postion, politics is power. Thats what he cares about. Also Rem and Perspective Philsophy thinking vaushs philophical stance will lead to some disaster or is essentially the same as fascism is the funniest thing. Do these guys not see who is in governments and how policies are made? This is still socialist "gatekeeping". Yeah, you want to do good, but your Axioms are not sophisticated enough, so i`m sorry but you cant do advocacy for a better world! "Its Dangerous! You are beeing irresponsible!" God the fucking smug Arrogance of these guys...
Idk if it’s just gatekeeping, but I agree that Vaush just isn’t prepared to have this deep level of philosophical conversation. But there is truly some concern that resonates with me here. Definitely not an hour long “catastrophic” video worth of talking about him though. But I do find it very concerning that Vaush doesn’t value consistency and it sounds like he believes that an objective truth doesn’t matter to him if it doesn’t help his goals. By these standards he essentially believes that he can lie, or adopt any truth that suits his goals, which he believes to be benevolent. Of course, there are natural consequences that follow. One would be that he must give that same discretion to everyone else, so he should not expect anyone to be truthful if it doesn’t aid their goals. You could use this very argument to support any form of misinformation, simply if the people doing the misinformation believe it is for a good cause. Besides that, it necessarily becomes impossible to discern what is truthful from others, because they will either lie or leave out any information that they think harms their goals. If we openly accept that it’s okay for people to do that, all discourse breaks down There are so many issues with this mindset and some of them are addressed philosophically in this discussion, but there are much more pragmatic issues with it. Anyone who is claiming vaush is “just being misinterpreted” is missing a lot here. There is valid reason for **some** of this criticism.
@@croixtucker1757 I don't think he's bad faith, moreso that the difference is pretty meaningless for most people and I feel people never ask about the distinction when debating. Do you know whether this was brought up?
@@yannickgullentops6857 Whether truth is real, or just depends on what you believe, is very improtant to any discussion, it's not brought up often becasue most people already believe in an objective truth and work to uncover it in the discussion.
@@costincostin4004 trueish, but I'm asking about whether the distinction between Does their exist an objective truth And can we know an objective truth. I'm mostly making the point that I don't consider it to be that charitable to assume a person would mean "what we can know to be truth" when just saying truth.
There is a false premise in the discussion about being a capital owning socialst. Being a capital owner does not perpetuate "the system". The system does not depend on it's actors. It only deptends on the existence of some actors, with each individual one being entirely replaceable. The system is perpetuated by institutions that ensure it's function. These institutions can be changed or abolished in better ways than not participating in them. Inb4 "This is analogous to slavery"
What about recycling? Should there be no self-obligation for environmental activists to recycle since there are alternatives that large corporations and governments could implement that would make any one person’s decision to recycle negligible?
@@FBZOMBlES That's only true if not owning the slaughterhouse decreases demand for meat or if it pushes legislation for animal rights. Otherwise I don't see the difference, rationally speaking.
@@FBZOMBlES it would decrease supply not demand so it probably helps (if you’re a vegan and I’m not) to not start a slaughterhouse, hire butchers and fishmongers etc
I think where we lose the lead here is that the underlying question is "what's the point of everything?" and in Vaush's mind, the point is to make people's lives better, and since "better" is subjective, it basically just comes down to a way of living that we think people will like. And I think what's getting lost in the weeds here is that Vaush is reacting AS IF Destiny/PP believe truth supersedes that. He's arguing against "we should aim for truth for truth's sake," and if that's not what we're talking about, I don't think anyone has told him that. I think if you assume that maximizing utility is the ethical top priority, then Vaush would *absolutely* agree that consistency, especially consistency with empirical reality, are some of the most significant ways to get there. They just aren't the goal in themselves, so if there were an edge-case where betraying consistency *perpetually* produced better outcomes, we ought to do it. Or in other words, truth is good, but not inherently good.
This is honestly a really interesting nuanced view on the topic. I would like to counter with saying that from my viewpoint I would assert that truth and the knowledge of it is inherently good. The definitions of these words, "good" and "truth" can confuse this whole discussion, but using the way it's typically defined, the existence and knowledge of truth seems to produce good outcomes by its nature. But this is just my thought process and I could be wrong.
If I understand, you made the assertion that the moral value of "making everyone's lives better" supersedes "truth". Why do you believe that? Also asserted, "truth is good, but not inherently so". Can you give an example?
@@user-gc1wj8tt2p Yes but if they were right about the people they killed then it was indeed "good", it's only because they were full of shit that people consider them evil.
Isn't this happening because destiny and vaush spoke for 3 hours and didnt get anywhere. When the topic of frustration seems to be "i cant figure out vaush's beliefs after talking to him for hours" What will more talking achieve
@@wren4077 No this is happening bc Vaush gotcha'd him on the practicing what you preach thing. That + vaush getting unbanned on twitch = the flood gates opening.
@@onetrueliberal7862 Destiny is very intelligent, but he also loves to win at all costs, and in this case, as in many cases where he backs himself into corners, he is wrong. That's why we're seeing endless content going over all these points with no word from Vaush in response.
@@ephre Vaush did 2 response videos to the debate on his channel already and in one of those he gaslighted the fk out of his audience. If Vaush really wanted his positions to be clear he should talk to a philosophy expert and show us. But he won't as he knows he is talking out his ass on every topic except maybe sociology.
Vaush is just in over his head on most positions, he's just been masking it well, by being a good rhetorician and having a cult of personality, dismissing all criticism as "Vaush Derangement Syndrome"
Fr. Most universities offer a philosophy course that will skim over some of this stuff. If you really wanna get into it look for an epistemology course specifically.
I think it's very amusing to listen to a philosopher decry antirealism when, essentially, every philosophy major is necessarily an antirealist, because if they were not, they would instead have chosen a field of study that was useful.
You know, that is kinda true. I was looking up philosophy because of all this and it did say that one of the things they argue about the most is the nature of existence.
I don’t think Vaush’s anti-realist perspective is that upsetting. It seemed to me like his position was: while something can be empirically “true” or substantiated, it doesn’t actually have much of a relationship with an individual’s reality. Rem got way too heated over this.
This is what I also believed Vaush’s perspective was and it makes sense since we have tens of millions of people in the USA alone that would see a verifiable fact and just say “nah” because it doesn’t fit their reality and just ignore it or don’t believe it.
I think Rem is just seeing Vaush for what he is: an extreme opportunist. Vaush is explaining how he justifies that opportunism. Your restatement of Vaush's position makes no sense. Vaush isn't talking about an individual's reality. He's talking about truth as such. And he's abundantly, aggressively, repeatedly emphatic about that. Your restatement basically boils down to: "Some things are true. But sometimes people are wrong about them." There are light years between that Motte and Bailey.
8:53 wait thats really stupid rem can't be serious here Okay lets break this down: Is vaush saying "Whether the Holocaust happened depends on your feels"? no He is saying "Every truth statement is reliant on a definition of truth, and mediation between these systems seems either difficult or probably impossible" This combined with his view on the relationship of ethics and epistemology (the process of building an epistemology is already reliant on ethics) leads to a fairly reasonable (and philosophically coherent) conclusion: Different fundamental axioms can never be mediated, useful discourse can only happen between people who share some or all axioms. *This is a view you can disagree with, but its a) far more common (at least within the institute i study at) and b) not even close to rems shitheaded misinterpretation*
Its a far more reasonable and coherent interpretation than the one offered by rem Just less convenient if you go in with the assumption that vaush is an idiot who should not be taken seriously and has no internally consistent worldview, which, as i think is very obvious when you read this comment section, is how destinys community wants to see him Just listen to what he is saying and try to ask yourself what position he is expressing with the assumption that he is saying interesting and logical, potentially even insightful things (this is like day one of critical thinking class btw)
@@brisca1668 Honestly I think you're being way too charitable to Vaush. I've watched enough material to come to the conclusion that Vaush is almost purely driven by opportunism, has no real principles and will say anything to push whatever end goal he's trying to (or pretending to) achieve. Listening to him argue and debate, I don't get the impression that I'm dealing with a person interested in getting to the truth of the matter or engaging the opposition in good faith but someone who has an end goal and will try to get there by any means necessary, including muddying the waters and obfuscation, even misinformation (by his own admission). His laughable debate with that philosophy PhD is a primary example. This is not to say I don't like some of his takes. When the truth happens to be on his side (specially when he's debating alt right and Neonazi retards), he tends to be rhetorically quite effective.
Dude theyre holding a person to pure theory. This isn't about fair. They want vaush gone dude; this isn't about fair or whether vaush has intentions. They just don't like vaush my guy. The second he does or did something that could be characterized as a gaffe, and especially if it could be construed as *intentional/a dogwhistle* they will *descend* upon it.
@@Xenomorph6793 I have no idea what you're saying or what your point is. If you're just saying they hate vaush so they talk shit you're just fanboying.
@@Xenomorph6793 I disagree, they're bringing up valid points about the position he holds on truth here. If I believe that he is something he isn't then in his view unless he convinces me otherwise then I'm ALWAYS right, but the point of his argument being nonsense, is that it wouldn't matter if he "convinced me" of anything he couldn't prove he convinced me of anything unless I said he did, everyone BUT him is the arbiter of truth in his view. sure he can believe he convinced me, but he can't prove anything, it's only belief of something, never proving anything.
I buy sweatshop-derived & environment-destroying goods because someone else would have done it anyway. I think Vaush's argument is that it's morally neutral to adhere to societal norms. Didn't seem that complicated.
“It’s morally neutral to adhere to societal norms” is no longer true if you dedicate half your life to arguing that society and its current norms are unethical and the other half sleeping. But go on king 👑
@@bigboy2217 sure... Tell me, you 100% sure Destiny or any other streamer doesn't buy stuff that was unethically produced, like with child labor or other practices? I think that is a dumbass argument, it is only used in the same way Jordan Peterson uses his "clean your room before you save the world", as it only serves to stop people from advocating for change.
@@bigboy2217 Super curious; How does arguing that 'current norms are unethical' change those current norms? They're still the norms. If you do what's 'normal' in society, isn't it definitionally 'morally neutral' within that society? That's what he was talking about, if I recall correctly. He likely holds himself to higher standards, & presumably sees dedicating his life to advocating for socialism as a moral good. From a rhetorical standpoint, if advocating for socialism, it's poison to dictate that every participant in society is immoral. Aim your arguments at the system, not at hapless normies caught in it.
Lol. It fits perfectly since many of them end with m. Dualismon; ethicsmon; epistemologymon; monismon; nihilismon; Qualiamon; Empiricismon, Realismon; Rationalismon; Deontologismon; Utilitarianismon; Consequentialismon.
@ultimateblaze23 the guy is a grifter. He was insulting Destiny before when he was talking with Vaush and then did the complete reverse and insulted Vaush for like 10 mins in his talk with Destiny
Perhaps I'm a little confused: Aren't our goals/desires what leads us, not "Truth"? When Destiny says his goal is to disseminate "The Truth", at about 14:00, this can't be the case as the facts and things we call true are related to our subjective experience within the world. Destiny focuses on the facts of Breonna Taylor because they are politically relevant, not for some objective goal of "Truth". Thus, what we call "reality" and "the Truth" are indeed tied to our culture and time. And since the dominant societies are the ones that succeed, then what we call "the Truth" is indeed related to power... As a Pragmatist who believes in the scientific method and coming to consistent, predictable, and useful knowledge, I didn't think this was off-base. I don't think my epistemological opinion allows for anything approaching Nazism/Fascism, but maybe I'm incorrect or missing something?
@@thinknot462 How does it contradict? If I create a model of the earth's atmosphere and climate that is highly accurate, and someone somehow created a model of the climate and atmosphere of a planet in a different galaxy, we would only care and utilize the first model as it pertains to our world and saving lives. Despite both models holding the same "objective truth value", we would only use one. Thus it seems the model with the most use, with the most power, is the one that gets used and then further developed.
@@DDogg43777 I mean sure its fair that the model that has more of an immediate relation to us will be more relevant than the other model (I don't know if i would call it power). You admit that in this scenario they both hold objective truth so I'm failing to see again what your point is?
@@thinknot462 What is power if not something that benefits us? In my example I demonstrated that only the useful model gets used. What if the model of the Earth's climate was 80% accurate, but the model of the planet in the different galaxy was 90% accurate? Despite the second model being MORE accurate (and perhaps more "objectively true"... whatever that means), it seems we would still use the first model. So it seems the goal of "objective truth" falls quite short.
@@DDogg43777 Im sorry but this example is very bad, you cant compare the two models in that way when they are describing two different independent things entirely. Whether one is more or less accurate has nothing to do with the other in this example. A more apt example would be two models both trying to describe the same thing. In this case if one of the models has been tried and tested and the conclusion is reached that it is more accurate than the alternative model, it would be reasonable to deduce that it is closer to the truth than the other model and thus is more useful. I have agreed with you that the more useful model will be more relevant and get used, but as we see in this example, the apparent conclusion would be that the most useful one is the one closest to the objective truth. Also, In regards to power, i thought they were referring to it as literal power to enforce certain information/ideas as truth.
IM NOT a vaush fan (he does indeed make shit up), but... In this argument he still didn't provide a reason to why his philosophy is wrong, all what I've heard him say is that "you can use this philosophy to justify any action", which is 100% true, but that doesn't mean that its not right... Please for anybody who also thinks that there is no objective wordly truth (as in no morals or reason to life (aka opposite of religion)) explain to me how come a logical conclusion that "truth is relative" can be considered as an "unfair portrail of truth". Tell me if I'm wrong but from what I've understood vaush is saying that because there is no reason to life, all you have is your self and your beliefs (which seems logically cohesive to me) and the counter argument is that, because this argument could justify constant conflict and horrible things, its bad... but this to me just seems that this person understands that there is NO truth, but still yet tries to find that which would seem like truth just for the sake of justifying non-agresion.
From what I remember, moral realist argument is circular (it's true because it's moral, and the other way around), but they use some philosophical mumbojumbo to justify why it's not actually circular or why it's ok that it's circular idk
He goes beyond "morality is relative" to "facts about reality are relative". This is a position almost nobody holds and for obvious reasons. People say Rem "misrepresented him" but he maintained this stance when he talked to Perspective Philosophy
@@gianni50725 I don't think he argues that reality is relative, he just doubles down on that which our minds may perceive (be it because of mental illness, differences in perceiving reality or just different opinion), I say this because I didn't hear him at the very least state that "worldly matter warps around a persons will", which from the ten or so videos I've watchedfrom him, wouldn't be like him.... Now, because we are the sole things that perceive reality in its more complex form, we are the ones who interact with that reality, and as I've said an insane person will interact with the world that is relative/specific to him (that does NOT mean that the physical reality morphs around him, to fit into his reality bubble) The holocaust example he portrayed was more or less ab example of a person who lives in his warped reality (which again doesn't mean that its true, it just means that the quota that would needed to be meet for him to change his opinion, wasn't yet meet ) and his only option would be to show him all the possible facts about why his reality is closer to factual reality rather than his, and if he with his warped nazi mind still thinks that holocaust still didn't happen, then only option would be to try to meet his (not what you maybe require to be sanguine with what you were told) thing that would make him specifically believe (which in extreme versions would be litteraly teleporting a nazi to ww2).... and about the " he believes tha its ok to use anything to change your beliefs to his, like lying", I will use the same nazi example here, because it is "sometimes" impossible to meet the hardcore nazi quota of truth to show it to them that they are wrong, the only conclusion that could be gathered is that you need to lie (which could be considered as fine, considering the fact that they already believe in what YOU BELIEVE that they believe is falsehoods, so it is fine to twist reality more, just to bring them closer to what YOU, yet again believe is the actual ""factual" reality", which in actuality could also be a lie) His statement that "this way you could justify anybody believes" is correct, but that does not make it invalid, for instance how do you know that you are not the nazi in the conversation who believes in the warped version of "factual reality"? To put it stupidly short it just means that everybody could be right and you can easily be wrong.
Listening to Rem's condemnations, they sound like they're coming from a position of moral authority. There's a rush to judgment, and it's not even clear that what he's criticizing is even wrong, let alone "bad." It's hard not to hear this as some sort of televangelism.
That is rem's whole thing. If you watch his other debates he will whine like crazy that other people aren't grounding their arguments, or that they don't have solutions, then fall back on 'we are talking about you though' when it is pointed out the he has no solution.
I also feel, based on the supporting clips shown, that he is misrepresenting Vaush’s comments and positions. Given Destinies hard stance against misinformation, this seems like a contradiction as they arguably spreading misinformation about Vaush, his positions and the discussion they clip.
@@hermithouse to be fair, it's not fair to call it misinformation when destiny's platform is giving you what you need to see rem is full of shit Honestly I think this is just a hands off condemnation of rem like: see by yourself how he is stupid
Vaush lost me when he started saying gross things like that winning was more important than having good principles. it's the same kind of shit Andrew Brietbart used to say that made me loathe him.
Yea, I've never really paid much attention to him but I've heard him say multiple times that conversations with those you disagree with are ultimately pointless. And that the objective is to gain control over the levers of power, and than with violence force them to conform to your new reality. (given that to him there is no fact of the matter and its all a construct) I mean either the man cannot express himself very well, and in fact doesn't hold that view but has managed to give the impression that he does.. Or he has a strong authoritarian side to him.
I don't understand why epistemic anti-realism is so crazy. Isn't it the logical conclusion if you accept that you can't disprove solipsism? Hasn't Destiny himself said that to determine truth we need to make axiomatic assumptions? It doesn't seem like Vaush actually thinks that the past/reality changes, just that we can't determine objective truth.
I'm so fucking confused dude, they're sitting there being flabbergasted that Vaush thinks that morality is ultimately a subjective thing that is shaped by our feelings. But how in the fuck did they establish that we objectively ought to care for human well-being, which is the starting point of most moral systems? Like, isn't that THE issue? And they're acting like they've solved it? I'm convinced that I'm misunderstanding something because I refuse to believe that they both think that there is some ultimate objective moral standard that moral systems can adhere to.
@@SzczurzaJucha The most rational explanation they could give is that, from a rule utilitarian pespective, its better to claim that epsitemic reality exists. Ofcs thats literally an example of someone choosing their epistemic system to suit subjective preference, which is why no one in this entire video ever makes an argument against epistemic anti-realism
This is why “objective truth” is a loaded phrase. If we can’t determine “objective truth” than the past/reality may or may not change... it just lets you play both sides of the fence. (The past is, reality is... oh but you have no way to determine that sorry. Insert my “truth”) Just such a typical mode of operation now. “Don’t worry that nothing is true and that you can’t really know anything, I know it’s scary don’t fear. I have a bunch of indisputable truths for you. “
*epistemic anti realism is self refuting.* *Saying "truth is subjective" is a contradiction, as what is true is mind independent (meaning not subjective)* *Saying "there is no objective truth" is self refuting, as one can ask for the truth value of that statement.* *Also wtf is an "axiomatic assumption"...? Axioms are true mind independent. For example, all inference rules in propositional calculus are axioms, aprioi true. Even if you make such "assumptions", you are (attempting) establishing objective truth by doing so (so negating epistemic anti realism). Alot of contradictions in this comment.*
@Totally Serious Person The problem is human well being is subjective to us. Therefore morality is subjective. I take the Dillahunty approach. The foundation of morality is subjective( well being) but there are ways we can evaluate whether something is causing harm to others.
8:28 I wouldn't personally try and deduce any of Vaush's position based on a conversation like that. He's just hammering 10 points all at once. With topics like these, it's incredibly easy to misunderstand one another or speak past eachother, so i don't see why PP needs to rapidfire his points and conclusions like that.
I think you misunderstand the goal of this segment, this isn't attempting to flesh out Vaush's positions, this is just a rhetorical attempt to decredibilize him so that the debate is won. Once you realize that it's much easier.
Well, everything he said after that falls in line with what he said here... so either Vaush doesn’t understand what Rem,PP or Destiny are talking about (because all of these 3 know exactly what they talk about), which would raise the question why he would insist so much on his position oor #2 he actually believes this stuff. Either way seems bad. And Im saying this as someone who watches a lot of Vaush’s content.
@@Giemma3 But i'm not convinced that 'everything he said after that falls in line with what he said here[...]' is the thing :/ Personally, it sounds to me like Vaush is just agnostic about the nature of the world, which is totally fair. 19:40 His power->truth segment does come out bad though, i would definately ask him to clarify. PP just kinda checks out byebye i win :/
It's not that complicated! Vaush thinks more like an activist & Destiny thinks more like a philosopher. Philosophers are valuable for theory, activists actually have to get shit done.
The part where Rem says the thing that makes him the most mad about Vaush's views (which he asserts are literally destructive and dangerous to humanity at large) is that he hasn't done the reading is one of those great accidentally honest moments.
Lamb J. I think it’s way too much to imply he’s a nazi for suggesting that the framework of society dictates to a massive extent little t truth. I don’t understand why Perspective Phikosophy does the same but at least recognizes it as a way to move forward in the conversation. There’s a huge divide between the banter of debate and it’s consequences and real politic and they are doing the same thing countless others have done to Destiny.
@@ericdecker2914 I agree, that would be way too far; Vaush obviously isn’t a nazi. But nobody made that assertion. Rather, they suggested that Vaush’s takes on the nature of truth and morality align with those of a fascist. The idea that truth doesn’t exist outside of its relation to power is commonly held by fascists. The ‘might makes right’ argument logically follows from the sorts of moral and epistemic claims that Vaush made in his conversations. PP, Rem, and Destiny were skeptical on whether Vaush actually believed these things or not.
It’s funny because I remember when REM ran to daddy Vaush to moderate between him and Destiny in their debate about Native Americans. REM wanted Vaush to side with him against Destiny on morality. Basically painting Destiny as some kind of sociopath. It’s funny to see how he’s doing the same thing again, but this time he’s trying to paint Vaush out to be some kind of fascist. I’m not necessarily defending Vaush either, just pointing out reoccurring behavior I’ve seen in REM.
This is like two separate realities talking past each other. Neither side understands the other and cannot effectively communicate, regardless of who's "correct".
No, it's just that you people get your philosophical understanding from a guy who's unbelievably half read on philosophy, and you're so bought into his narrative that you cant listen to two educated philosophers tell you why hes full of shit. Make no mistake. There is no talking past. There's a bumbling cult leader and the people exposing him for what he is.
@@lholliday198 I don't watch Destiny or Vaush for philosophy. I also don't know or claim to know a lot about philosophy. The two philosophy majors are obviously well educated, however historically speaking well educated people can also be wrong. They just bring what they have learned to the conversation. All I'm saying is that both parties in this argument have been wrong about the opposing side's view. You can go back over these videos and hear both Destiny and Vaush say "I think X was arguing for Y" and look back over these videos and see they're wrong. They legitimately do not yet understand each other and are currently unable to talk to each other about this in an effective way. No one wins this argument and we the audience are the biggest losers. I wish arguments amongst the Left were based on "lets refine our arguments and make each other better" as opposed to purity checking someone's values, even though you can only guess someone's values based on their actions. There is nothing to be gained out of this kind of argument. I wouldn't want to have a conversation with either of these people.
@@lholliday198 I also wanna point out your comment is an example what I'm saying. Just because I'm saying that I think this argument is wasteful on Destiny's video, I must be a "Vaush cultist" or whatever. You don't wanna think about what I'm suggesting, you just want to believe I'm wrong. I could very well be wrong, but now neither of us improve anything because of this unique lefty unwillingness to for one or both parties to effectively communicate.
@@demonfaeshae maybe dont run defense for the dude if you, by your own admission, dont know what they're talking about? You obviously dont know what you're talking about, so dont think out loud. Makes it looks like you're defending a cult leader.
@@lholliday198 I'm not running defense and have only said I don't know much about philosophy. I'm pretty sure I have a good idea what Destiny and Vaush are saying on this argument because they're publicly talking about it. I just think they're both wrong and are trying to bludgeon each other with how wrong they are. I also don't think either Destiny or Vaush are "cult leaders," but that could just be the normal hyperbole both sides do.
@@zm5668 Yes philosohpy is made by the ones with abs. Socrates, Plato.... Zizek ? He would prefer not to do crunches. But yeah Vaush is the death of logic, a black hole no one gets out of. His a nus.
@@Versace_sheets Because if someone is wrong about one thing that does not mean they are wrong about all things. I though this was elementary to everyone but you just proved me wrong.
There is sort of an ethically consistent (and not totally nihilistic) way to integrate a leeway for misinformation into your moral system. It is called meta-honesty. Basically the basis behind meta-honesty is that if you agree with the idea that truth is innately valuable (there is some value to truth external to strict empirical consequence) but that it doesn't have infinite value (the value to truth external to strict empirical consequence doesn't simply always outweigh the negatives of said strict empirical consequences by default) then it is fine to lie about anything in specific that you are willing to publicly say you will lie about in general. It is beneficial to have this leeway because it gives you the ability to protect your counterfactual selves which you are indirectly giving up by taking truth as a moral absolute, because in that case, the only alternative you have to truth is not volunteering information, which doesn't work because it raises suspicion. (The classic example is if the Nazis come to your house and ask if you are hiding Jews, you're gonna be setting up way more red flags by saying "I can neither confirm nor deny." instead of saying "No.", which from a consequentialist point of view means the first reply is simply performative.) The nice thing about engaging with someone who adopts meta-honesty instead of whatever Vaush is doing is that you know with crisp certainty what things you can have genuine good faith conversations about, and at the very *least*, the mindspace of possible genuine good faith conversations covers all of "talking about ideas in general".
@@tudornaconecinii3609 There is no good faith in debating for both parties while using meta-honesty. Meta-Honesty is the attempt to be honest about in which situations one will not be honest. There is no justified reason not to be honest in a debate, especially when speaking to an audience. (Unless what you say can put you or others in harms way) If you did, it would become a lie to further your opinions, which deters any good faith conversations to have with a person and the audience. Unless dirty pool will be played where the willingness to covertly bend truths so as your own political agendas can gain positive publicity; to be done so as you believe it to be a just cause, I cannot see any good faith conversations to be had using meta-honesty to exchange advantageous ideas. There will always be a missing variables where the end solution will be different from others.
@@XX89948 '(Unless what you say can put you or others in harms way)' While I know you put that in parentheses because it sounds like a very limited edge-case exception, this is actually THE main thing meta-honesty is trying to give you leeway to avoid. Which is why the classic example is the one with hiding Jews from the Nazis. Now, to be *fair*, it's not "doing meta-honesty wrong" to use it for purposes other than avoiding harm towards you (or your counterfactual selves) or others, but why would anyone want to debate you if you're using it for anything else?
'If you're a socialist, you've deemed the system to be morally deficit' Is that really true though? I mean there might be a moral component to it but is it really not possible to be a socialist on the basis that you don't think Capitalism is a sustainable long term system? This is tantamount to saying the only reason one can support green energy is if you think fossil fuels are 'morally deficit'. That might be a component to the arguement but it would be a bit dishonest to assert the moral argument to be the definitive reason for supporting green energy. This is pretty weak shit my dude.
I think it's true, because socialists aren't just out there making 'is' statements, but are making 'ought'. Every time you are making a normative claim beyond conditional one, it's a moral statement. Like that bit on "Capitalism might not be sustainable", if there was no moral component, then it would be entirely be selfish one (could one be selfish while being completely amoral (devoid of all moral critique and thought)? If you think so then I see where you are coming from.
@@gaizokubanou That's a fair point but the same is true for basically every cause. If you're pro green energy you believe we ought to transition toward green energy which is in itself a moral statement. By extension would Destiny think it's incorrect for somone who supports green energy to sit on the board of a large oil company? I guess it wouldn't be such a straightforward answer from his point of view because he's a smart guy who can probably acknowledge that having a green energy advocate on an oil company's board could have the effect of pushing the company in a direction that's more amiable to the cause of green energy. So, if we can apply that reasoning to green energy advocacy why can't we apply it to socialists operating within capitalism?
LOL did Vaush pull the "you're not quitting, you're fired" when he kicked Rem off his stream after Rem had already said he was leaving? And literally right after he called Rem a snowflake. Not a great look.
As a fan of Destiny and Vaush, I really would like to see a constructive conversation about this. One in which Vaush is allowed the room, if need be, to reconsider his positions. Not to excuse Vaush, but because I, as an observer, would like to see a genuine conversation about this. I think an antagonistic tone can sometimes be useful, however, I'm also wary that sometimes it compels people to double down in a way that doesn't facilitate any kind of learning or change.
vaush will always double down on shit and antagonism is part of this debte platform. it is a major issue and contributes to the ego these creators end up needing to have to thrive
I think he was also trying to say that if people believe in something, the empirical truth of the matter is irrelevant, because everyone believing it is true is functionally the same as it actually being true.
@@AppleBaron I think it's a dumb point if he was using it as a justification for ignoring empirical truths that can be proven (which it seems like he might have been, but not 100% sure). However as a descriptive statement for issues which we do not have the capacity to prove or disprove, it's pretty on the mark.
@@AppleBaron I mean is it? Our ability to determine the truth is what makes it true. And that ability is obviously limited. That's why I always ask for evidence for things, with the caveat that that evidence can change based on new info. "Truth" is subjective to a degree.
This whole thing seems a bit opportunistic. Every time Destiny and Vaush debate there always seems to be a group of people who hate Vaush that pop into Destiny's community afterwards to try and legitimize themselves. Last time it was Sargon and Kraut, this time it's these guys... it's really strange.
@@YoBoySk33n No I'm just saying I've seen a lot of weird dishonesty when it comes to Vaush from both the left and the right. I don't think either of them would side with Nazis.
Here's the thing though: Vaush is correct about all philosophy being downstream from an emotional response. This has been well documented by psychologists. Rem can dislike that objective fact all he likes, but his feelings have absolutely no impact on reality. He should take a class in an evidence-based study of the mind instead of 300-level naval gazing, because his objections sound like those of a child arguing about anime canon.
You are begging the question. It was not estabilished why "all philosophy being downstream from an emotional response" should be accepted. Also you self contradict when saying "Rem can dislike that objective fact all he likes, but his feelings have absolutely no impact on reality" because if there are no objective facts, only feelings, Rem can dislike it all he wants because that's just how he feels.
I'm pretty sure Vaush agrees that his version of what truth is, is objectively verifiable and aligns with the version of the truth of 99% of ppl including Rem and Destiny. He just thinks that there's no objective reason to believe in this version, and if someone thinks that the truth is some random statement like "all things are pink", neither Vaush nor anybody else has any way of proving the pink person *objectively* wrong. Also this is a very niche topic and I don't think it has anything to do with his consistency takes, or anything else. Kinda like how Destiny is a hard determinist (hey, me too), but still acts as if we have free will.
I do agree with destiny's analogies though, and do think that if you have more power you ought to use at least some of it for good aside from the usual streaming and what not.
How does Vaush agree that his version of what truth is is objectively verifiable AND think that there's "no objective reason to believe in this version"? Seems like a blatant contradiction. And how is anybody supposed to take anything he says at face value if they know that he, himself, doesn't think he can ever objectively prove his interlocutors' statements wrong. Even if they're as easily disproved as "all things are pink."
I find this guy's argument to be silly. He was actually arguing that when people say "History is written by the victor" literally means that the person saying that thinks that all of history is gone because of this. "History is written by the victors" just means that what is taught in society and schools is in the favor of the powers that be; it doesn't mean that history is completely void.....
By "this guy" do you mean Rem and "Him" to be Vaush? If so I think I agree, I think Vaush probably lost whatever the higher level philosophy debate was, but it seems like Rem went for exclusively philosophical gotchas.
The thing that got missed here is that Vaush spent the whole conversation fishing for arguments from the other guy because he knows the other guy is a 5Head philosophy nerd. Vaush was deliberately saying outlandish stuff because he wants to hear a good argument against it without having to do any of the heavy lifting of reading himself. He's basically using this conversation as a crash course in philosophy, which is why he's saying all sorts of things that don't seem to make any sense.
This purity test for socialism is the most mindless nonsense I've seen. You can promote socialism AND operate in a capitalist system. Also, it's not a finish line. There are many degrees of socialism. I'm not even DEFENDING socialism, but this philosophical masturbation is annoying as fuck.
Destiny is really milking it Like God damn he just can't stop talking about Vaush Vaush made a stream and 2 vids about it and you got mad but you literally had 3 streams and like 6 videos about vaush within a week I love you but you're being such a baby about it
The discussion around what was said in the previous discussion between vaush and destiny is really important. I don't see why you're whining about this when you can skip those videos?, pretty ironic calling Steven a baby, are you just here for the blood-sports bs or do you actually watch these videos to learn something?, because a lot of people don't by the looks of it.
@@BizarrePower Buidling and starting a career are not the same thing and you know the problem isn't the videos themselves but the hypcorisy of complaining that Vaush is milking the content while milking it himself.
I agree that history isn't always written by the victors, but what history is written and taken into account or treated as important is decided by the victors/people in power. As a female history student I was like "where's all the chicks?" because they were not present, at all unless they were queens or "deviants". There are a lot of historians now who are "revising history" (not changing the stories but expanding them to include more than white men and stereotypes about everyone else) because we currently have a very incomplete perspective on a lot of the past. IE women who did amazing things aren't talked about, indigenous people and people of colour are spoken of from the white perspective and their experiences aren't treated as equally important. So I would say that although "history is written by the victors" is kind of erroneous, it's not completely inaccurate. Could be improved by changing it to "what history is important to tell and the perspective it is told from is decided by those in power". #nitpicking
I'm sorry but as a long time Destiny fan most of these takes are bullshit. They had a conversation about philosophy that was mostly filled with hypotheticals and this dude who's obviously well versed in philosophy rhetoric ran laps around Vaush and painted him however he pleased to. That's literally what this community amounts to now, it's not truth or caring about facts, it's about who can make someone look dumber.
This is a really painful convo, especially when Rem has literally done this to Destiny before on the exact same topic. In all the context clips Vaush is saying stuff like, 'if you have a different theory of truth, then what is true will be different for you'. They're all really lukewarm takes and Rem and Destiny are just circle jerking this whole video about it when the disagreements between Destiny and Vaush are probably all just nuanced miscommunication over very minor differences in perspective.
It's not that complicated! Vaush thinks more like an activist & Destiny thinks more like a philosopher. Philosophers are valuable for theory, activists actually have to get shit done.
Their perspective might not make him "feel good" therefore that will make the statements false also he holds power over them and that makes him automatically right either way. Then if someone makes his opinions look silly that will cause a net harm to socialism, therefore it is evil.
Destiny really needs to try and understand literature and quotations on a level beyond very basic semantics, his understanding of the quote 'history is written by the victors' is very dumb. Historians are a subset of victors, i doubt Destiny has read much Nazi history, so he can balance the holocaust.
If you haven't read 12 000 pages of (insert philosopher ) you can't undertand anything about anything. In my minds eye I'm seeing the fart smelling people in south park, they should make that an episode.
I wish I could explain (specially to destiny) how both sides are seeing each other, it just reminds me of me and a friend going down a long argument just because we dont understand some ways we each see certain things. Be it autism or something, I think there are some things that have been misconstrued, and in my opinion it comes from both sides having their stance and vaush being bad at expressing some of his ideas at times, and destiny not being able to read his intention. *"autism" comment not in an ableist manner, just explaining how and why it was lost in here, and perhaps even in my own experience with me and my friend
I agree. Mostly when I hear interpretations of Vaush it feels like misunderstanding, which is also partly Vaushs fault. But these are small nuances that are easily misunderstood. After listening to parts of this convo though I am wonderim if Rem is deliberately missunderstanding them.
Honestly when he said that its ok to disseminate misinformation as long as it furthers his ends, that's when I unsubbed. Dude is literally no better than Crowder if he actually believes that
@@freefallingband did....did you watch the debate? He literally disavowed that...what he did say was that minor details that don't really affect anything is more or less fine. If you're talking about that "I want more Left Grifters" he literally followed that with "a grifter doesn't necessarily mean someone who lies...just someone who doesn't actually believe what they are saying and/or just pushing left content for money" and they can Most Definitely do that without Lying
@@alewis17 sorry brother, saying disseminating misinformation as long as you're leaving out "minor details that don't affect anything" is a pretty strange stance to say if you also believe that truth doesn't mean anything. What would be a minor detail for him could do major harm to public discourse as a whole, ie whether Brianna taylor was sleeping or not when she was killed
I’m a Vaush fan, so take this with a grain of salt. I think the clips/editing are great but seem to show the claims made against Vaush are false. Vaush doesn’t say, in the clip, that he believes and supports these things. He is arguing from the perspective of someone arguing with that type of person and how to deal with it. Can you convince that type of person and how. So the clip does not show what is being claimed against Vaush. O didn’t watch that debate so maybe I’ve missed something here, but based solely on the claims of this video and the accompanying clip, the claim is wrong.
You didn't miss anything. I watched that debate live and was honestly stunned at how thoroughly Rem was misinterpreting what Vaush was saying. He's repeating that same misinterpretation here. Your interpretation is completely correct.
Vaush is the Mark McGuire of debatelords. Has the skill to hit 40 homers a year but chooses to take steroids to hit 60+. I enjoy some of his content, but that “debate” with Destiny was a huge yikes.
Vaush's dismissal of epistemics is disheartening. If everything is just made up on a whim, on what authority can he criticize reactionary politics, anti-intellectualism etc.? Aren't they just as justified in their beliefs as he is? On his views - they certainly are. Hopefully he'll bring in Perpective Philosophy for another discussion and fully address this.
Hey editor great work, one question though would you be able to put the date of the streams in the description? It would be super helpful when looking for the full vod to watch
EDITOR'S NOTE: You can stop asking for the Rem talk now. It took me a long-ass time because Destiny pushed back against some of the claims so I had to research and double-check for context clips. I also combined it with Perspective Philosophy's talk because the subject was similar.
Let me know if you're interested in the vegan debate with Perspective Philosophy, it wasn't as bad imo but there's been too much philosophy lately.
The videos used and mentioned in this video are here:
Perspective Philosophy talks to Vaush - ua-cam.com/video/wx-7xS-smdA/v-deo.html
Rem's ultimate skeptic - ua-cam.com/video/Zqh_Wri-MFk/v-deo.html
Pls upload the vegan debate with PP and just cut the final part that was kinda cringe
I like vegan and any philosophy debates like that
Listen man, I don't pay you to talk. I don't pay you at all!
Vegan talk is fascinating.
Everything is subjective is the lens through which Critical Theory is founded. Look at Critical Pedagogy, it's a framework for educators which asserts that no subject can be separated from its politics, requiring teachers to politicize the curriculum and turn their students into political actors.
It's really subversive stuff, and deeply Marxist. A lot of the rhetoric on the left comes from this ideology. The BLM org uses a lot of these philosophies when they talk about dismantling the patriarchy and the nuclear family, and one of their co-founders is an avowed Marxist.
Editors killing this so hard I may just never watch a discussion live again. The real-time splicing of clips to illustrate references made in the conversation is amazing, thank you for your hard work!
The flashbacks to clips where everything happened is GODSTINY for context.
dude his Editor deserves the means of production
Really is nice seeing this guy debunked in realtime
@@Goriaas they split the video revenue evenly. It's not necessarily a coop but its MUCH more fair than many of these so called socialists.
@@lholliday198 Hey I was meming but I do believe that destiny is a fair employer and NOT a scumbag explolitative one
Destiny is a girl's name.
If I don't make this joke, someone else will.
Don’t forget that he loves black people
Still morally wrong cause its a shit joke
@@a735Alexis BETA
@@a735Alexis Not morally wrong just morally neutral as someone else would have made the joke anyway. 😉
BETA
If you hold down "shift" while using "R" to rotate miners you can get a lot more utility out of them.
Don't you Levi criticism.
@@swaggitypigfig8413 Captain???🥴🥺
I'm going to bet this is the only comment about the gameplay.
define utility
@@adud6764 no it's morally neutral because if Destiny didn't then someone else would hold down shift while using "R" to rotate miners.
To be fair, Rem is insufferable.
True. And he opportunistically shows up to kick Vaush when he's down just to get back into Destiny's good graces.
Plus he's white
And he makes no sense. All his critiques are assumptions based on tiny disagreements from an off the cuff conversation and he adds them up into something that sounds significant but mean nothing.
To be fair, yes he is.
It's kind of funny to watch Destiny "Jesus, man" him because he's just being THAT unwarrantedly antagonistic to Vaush.
Went back and watched that 10 month old debate with Rem. I don't think Vaush understood terms, but REM is a terribly annoying person out to clip Vaush.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I think this guy is being a bit uncharitable whether he admits it or not. As I was once heard from a PHD Phil, your goal shouldn't be to trap people by using esoteric terms and calling them out on it. You should inform them of the different ways to use the term and find your common ground. Makes it seem like he's more interested in calling Vaush out than finding out something new.
As an autistic person I sympathize with his frustration with Vaushes self contradictions and intellectual dishonesty. It can be highly upsetting if you're autistic. I wouldn't be so quit to attribute malice or even pettiness.
To be fair, if Vaush wasn't such a pseudo-intellectual tit, it'd be way less easy to clip him.
Why in the fuck would it matter that the video was 10 months old?
Idk why but rem always comes off incredibly pretentious
Seems to be that he ought to correct people and he ought to reach out to Destiny to provide a solution.
Vaush is wrong but if you are going to let him control your debate then go somewhere else to discuss (express grievances) then you're just being petty for not effectively challenging him.
Thus people are embolden to see him as the victor.
August, you are the best editor destiny has ever had and ever will have. I hope you’re not overworking yourself, though.
@ghost robles Unironically more socialist than Hasan.
If you haven't already you should all rewatch the "morally lucky" debate with Rem, Destiny, Hasan and Vaush. Very funny considering how much has changed since then
thanks!
THIIIISS
It's crazy to finally see the arc continue
Link?
What I'd give to see them all together again
it's actually a great rewatch considering everything that's happened in the Destiny Universe
Vaush is being practical. Though truth exists, it has little value in a world controlled by people who don't care about truth -and objectivity is often too difficult to determine.
If truth had such inheritant value, then why is there so many problems in the world? So much suffering?
I love truth, I believe truth has inheritant value within itself. Unfortunately me believing that, doesn't mean much and doesn't do much for improving the world.
This
Thank you
All of these people agree with Vaush’s descriptions and prescriptions. They aren’t clout sharking off Destiny they are trying to squeeze into the VDS market. 🤦🏻♀️
TRUE
They'll talk endless shit for hours on niche details and not even acknowledge this ridiculously simple, reasonable basis of the outlook because it undercuts their shit talking. Deranged.
I don't really think this is fair really, because Vaush is one of the more pragmatic socialists online, despite some of his bad takes. A lot of these folks on the left advocate for inaction and he at least advocates the opposite of that. Destiny and Vaush beefing is fine but it seems like these other guys are being a little opportunistic because my feed is filled with them dogpiling Vaush.
By fair, I want to clarify - Destiny is always very fair in his arguments. I mean the others involved.
@SomeNorthernNationalist HELLO!
@@rinneganofrage7206 remember when a whole bunch were arguing that we shouldn't be voting? :(
Factuals
@@rinneganofrage7206 no problem, ive seen plenty of online leftists doing it. brianna joy grey, chapo boys, a few others but I dont remember names
This editor is really good, get a new one
I'm not a huge Vaush fan but it feels like they're intentionally misrepresenting or uncharitably interpreting Vaush's positions.
Vaush says calling someone out on immaterial misinformation is counterproductive if they're are working toward good ends, because you knee cap these people who were doing the good, and again, the key word is 'immaterial'. Which is why one of his sticking points in the Breonna case was whether it mattered that she was in the bed or not. I don't really agree but it's not the same as saying 'lying is fine if it's good for your side'
Vaush's comments on 'Truth isn't real, it's all power' is about the impossibility of verifying true things through any method other than who preserves said history. It's always power, it's always consensus. The Earth is flat is true because enough people have verified it for it to be our consensual reality, and before then, it was flat, and that was 'true' because enough people believed that. It's a coherent theory of truth whether we subscribe to it or not.
And so when Rem is going around saying Vaush is running a cult seems to be tipping the hand a bit about people's own biases and goals in this drama. I feel like I just can't trust either side to accurately represent the other and it's really dispiriting.
for starters, the thing about "lying is fine if..." is not pulled solely from the Breonna Taylor example, it was a conclusion that they came to after an entire conversation that's still up on the channel; I'd go watch it. The conclusion came from the whole debate in which Vaush continued to defend misinformation used on the part of the left, even if it is material (e.g. philosophy tube economic takes). Vaush not only discussed historical facts, but also just empirical, logical statements like "2+2=4," or "the cup is red."
@windex bread yes, because empirical logical statements are subject to the same theory as earth flatness. How much we think (or know) something is wrong has no bearing on the theory of accessing truth. I feel like this is elementary stuff.
Also, I think Vaush argued that philosophytubes Econ takes were bad, but it was not worth throwing out all of philosophytube for, that’s different from saying you’re wrong in criticizing the weakness of said Econ takes. Pretty sure his argument was that being wrong can be excused, not “lying is fine”,
@@aliouamravantikashkamandel9086 right, that's fine, I'm just pointing out that the scope of his argument wasn't solely limited to just "winners write history." My issue with that is that even though its technically right (you can't empirically "know.") and even as you said elementary, it seems like a lazy, cop-out argument. Of course if you reduce everything to antirealism youre always going to be right but to what end?
My philosophy tube example was a bad one, I should have said that Vaush explicitly defended the use of misinformation as long as he agreed with the end it promoted (or the end was a good one, to most people that's the same thing) and that seems a little fucked up
@windex bread “It might be technically true but it’s not practical” doesn’t feel like a super meaningful push back (also a little ironic against vaush considering his other argument). Like, it’s fine to not like the theory or subscribe to it, but let’s not try to make it out as stupid or bad faith when these arguments come up in literal in-the-weeds philosophical debates about the nature of truth.
I also just think you’re being reductive on the second point, perhaps because you’re ascribing malice to the idea of “spreading misinformation”. Your philosophytube example was not a bad example, it is THE example. Are there levels of misinformation that would be too severe to approve in the service of one’s goals? I think vaush would say yes. Are we going to have different ideas of what is “immaterial” misinformation? Sure. But saying “vaush is cool with spreading misinformation if it helps his cause” is technically true, but if you were being fair, you’d add the context. You’d add ‘Misinformation that is immaterial or harmless’ (which is STILL problematic imo because of how subjective those terms are), or you’d say ‘not necessarily the same as lying’, if you were really trying to be fair.
And so then it seems to be that we come back to people doing exactly the thing they’re accusing vaush of, spreading misinformation because it supports the narrative they’re more interested in. I think his views are a little problematic, but not because of this weird straw manned inflammatory read on them that Rem and Destiny (to a slightly lesser extent) seem to be really pushing
Editor should be offered a spot in Destiny’s open relationship.
It’s not gay because destiny is a girl’s name
Yikes
I think rem has it out for Vaush
Yes. So does this community. I like both Vaush and Destiny, but this community really hates Vaush most of the time and I just don't understand why.
@@DrFeltcher yes. It bothers me. A lot. I like Destiny but the number of times Vaush is misunderstood is astounding. And then to be called a cult member? Really? Rem’s views on Vaush is insane and he doesn’t even know it.
Okay glad I'm not the only one here thinking this lol.
@@popermen694 Are you talking about Vaush or Jordan Peterson lol
@@floridamainn104 What did Vaush do to make fun of him? Do you have a clip 9r video where he does that? Or tell me when/where?
Not saying he didn't do that just wasn't aware.
"Whether or not the holocaust happens depends on feelings" is such a disingenuous way of framing Vaush' position lol.
"You can make empirical statement about the world, but If someone has a different definition of truth then you're not necersarily going to be able to convince them of an objective fact" is not "Whether or not the holocaust happened depends on how you feel about it"
Rem has to be the most amusing member of the extended destiny universe
Literally this
It's a gross over-simplification, likely for rhetorical effect, it may be disingenuous but it is not entirely inaccurate.
Vaush claims definitions of truth are determined by subjective morality. If what is considered "objective fact" hinges on differing definitions of truth rooted in subjective morality, and if subjective morality boils down to "feelings", then it is accurate to say that objective facts such as the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the holocaust depends on feelings.
@@suddenuprising All philosophy breaks down once you reach axioms/first principles. Pretending that Vaush admitting (claiming?) that all axioms come from subjective experience is hardly some crazy gotcha and it's disingenuous as fuck for Rem to be pretending such.
@@radred609
"Pretending that Vaush admitting (claiming?) that all axioms come from subjective experience is hardly some crazy gotcha"
The "gotcha" doesn't consist in that philosophical claim, rather it consists in the conclusions Vaush reaches based upon that claim. It may be a disingenuous rhetorical tactic or it may be that the format of the conversation didn't allow for a more in-depth level headed analysis due to the fast paced adversarial nature of the discussion.
@@suddenuprising and what conclusions are they?
Vaush is consistently inconsistent.
This editor has got to be the best editor I’ve ever seen a content creator have. This was really well done and even if it takes longer to make, screw the impatient people. This was gold. Fn Gold.
This is unironically the same shit destiny complains about where he says a point that makes him sound bad or racist or etc and everyone dogpiles him about it and he complains about people not taking into account his historical positions and historical good and pretends hes just as bad as the alt right.
The truth that destiny applies to his value of personal property seems like a whole different can of worms than applying a subjective truth of your own view of history to every piece of information that exists to fit your own narrative on a whim
I was just about to say this. Doesn’t he complain about this shit being done to him all the time. Also I think this beef arc is fucking stupid. The debate was an entire mess from almost start to finish. What’s even more annoying is that they’re both milking this shit (destiny a little more). Idk who this other guy is but he really didn’t bring much to the conversation just buzz words and it’s clear he doesn’t like Vaush. Idk both Vaush and Destiny really irked me with their bs drama.
I'd agree with you if Vaush did not talk about this so much. Maybe there's a possibility that when he talks about the truth he talks actually about what people percieve as truth and not the actual truth and thus we're all misunderstanfing him, but it's extremely small by now, and would not excuse the way he treats the truth, to act as if we're just clip-chimping Vaush after how much he went on to defend these positions is disingenuous.
@@costincostin4004 personal perceived truth should absolutely be taken into account for one's actions in a moment or series of moments. HOWEVER, it is irresponsible to allow someone to use their personal truth over and over again as justification for their position if it can be disproven through analysis of real world data and conventional wisdom that the majority of reasonable people can consider true.
This also seems to be the concept behind a trial by jury.
Maybe I'm wrong, tho. Any thoughts?
@@sokbro3198 >personal perceived truth should absolutely be taken into account for one's actions in a moment or series of moments
I agree, people can make mistakes and come to wrong conclusions that would justify wrong actions so they should be viewed a bit differently than someone who acts with the same intent but with knowledge that would recommend against that intent.
>it is irresponsible to allow someone to use their personal truth over and over again as justification for their position if it can be disproven through analysis of real world data
That's how I think about it and this seems to be the pushback against Vaush's views, the fact that he could make his own truth, do whatever it says and still be morally justified.
>conventional wisdom that the majority of reasonable people can consider true. This also seems to be the concept behind a trial by jury.
I'm not so sure about this, I recognise it's value, but I'd rather not use it over other, more objective, methods because depending on how you describe conventional wisdom and reasonable people you could use them to do a lot of harm to society.
Destiny and Vaush need to just make out already...
This is a distinct possibility
They're gonna hatefuck. Vaush isn't going to like it, but he'll do it because it's furthering his goals.
Id watch that debate
I think Vaush agreeing with the "cup is red if it is in fact red" statement at 20:00 shows that there was simply a misunderstanding later on with the holocaust analogy, where Vaush is just saying that whether the holocaust was morally wrong or not isn't a matter of fact but a matter of perspective.
I really like Destiny and his content, but it seems so obvious to me that Vaush is being misrepresented here that I have to say that Destiny platforming this message contradicts his stance on spreading misinformation.
Pretty much. What else is new.
But in the clip didn't rem clarify that they weren't talking about the morality but the event occurring at all?
@@mushroomheaification yes that was what Rem was talking about, but I think Vaush either didn't actually understand what Rem was saying or when Rem said "truth" Vaush was interpreting it as something like "the truth of morality". This is why Vaush kept on responding about morality like he did at 9:44 for example.
@@Naskinlahtaaja i suppose its one of those "don't blame something on malevolence when you can explain it with ignorance" situations
Eh I think Vaush misspoke and doubled down on it. Rem did clarify he didn’t mean morality and Vaush maintained his position.
I've gone from watching destiny once a month to almost every single day. I think your new editor is pretty good.
If you're not careful you'll get brainrot.
@@suddenuprising politics online no matter how good seems to be brain rot in large doses and decent mental cardio in small doses
While I don’t completely agree with Vaush’s argument it is undeniable that Rem has a bone to pick and thus came on to misrepresent his positions for an hour and a half. Vaush’s point about truth was very clearly that the intersubjective perspective of truth is determined by the majority power share holder or argument. While a specific action obviously either happened or did not happen, people’s perceptions of that action are dependent on the environment in which they live. I’ve just started my first philosophy class in college and I was able to understand that so Rem’s misunderstanding has to be purposeful. He can’t be this confused.
Yep, Vaush's position isn't that there is no such thing as an empirical basis, hell, his position isn't even that there is no such thing as truth from an empirical basis. Rather, his position is that he has to agree to disagree with people who derive truth from something other than an empirical basis.
I think this entire conversation would be (rhetorically) much more streamlined and less torturous for everyone involved if they employed the same language to epistemology that they employ to morality. Basically, separate epistemology into meta-epistemology and downstream epistemology, just like moral philosophy can be separated into metaethics and ethics, with someone being able to be a metaethical antirealist ("you cannot derive an ought from an is, therefore no set of fundamental principles can be 100% objective") while also being an ethical realist ("two rational agents with identical priors cannot agree to disagree, therefore if two people who share the same values and value hierarchy reach a different solution to a particular ethical question, at *least* one of them *must* be wrong").
@@tudornaconecinii3609 "math is a power grab." Totally not a rejection of empiricism.
"Im okay with misinformation as long as it advances socialism." Totally not a peddler of misinformation.
"I believe that acting consistently with your own moral framework is superogatory and it isnt a bad thing to actively profit off of a system you know is wrong as long as you believe in the opposite." Definitely not a charlatan who believes in contradictory logic.
@@angusmarch1066Yep. I don't understand how people can claim Vaush was misrepresented here. He was unequivocally making these dog shit arguments.
We all part of a God Nathans dream. Accept the fact we all in matrix, let's goooooo.
Oooooo
Nathan is Azathoth confirmed.
@ghost robles We do believe this
Rem did spend an entire year attacking vaush this amount of shit talk back is fair but he literally thinks everything is ableism
Honestly this video bugs me, because literally both vaush and destiny are simultaneously correct on this issue, it literally just depends on your view of the subject and the context you're viewing it from
How can neither of them see this
@@SISTEMAQ it would take forever to explain my point, i guess you either see what i mean or dont really. i suppose if i had to sum it up in a really fast way, its like they are just both arguing moral positions which there is no real 100% objective answer to? again this is missing out soo much as an answer
@@GheyForGames but the view of vaush is wrong. if a leftist makes a business and doesn't do the business sharing, then yes, they are the same as the current business owners, but, they're also taking away a spot from a potential leftist who does want to share the business equally making it morally wrong. they could choose to business share if they want, so choosing not to while saying people should is bad. shrug
@@mysticflow467 is there some kind of arbitrary limit on the number of business owners that exist?
@@slavajuri from my understanding vasuh's argument is that, 100% of current business owners don't share their company with their employees or like dont pay them more during rush hour or w/e their moral way of doing it is. so since 100% of business owners are communists, if a leftist owns a business, and does it the communist way, they're morally neutral since they're just doing what everyone else does.
what if we flip it? what if 100% of business owners shared their profit/stocks w/e it is that destiny was saying, then i think that vaush would argue, if a lefist owns a business and decides to not share their business with their employees, they would be morally* bad. agree or disagree?
if you agree.
what happens if 99.99% of owners do it the communist way, but 0.001% do it the sharing way, isnt any lefist now taking a potential spot, or at least not being as moral as the business sharer if they do i the communist way? therefore being morally negative?
what if 49% of people business share, but 51% don't is it still morally neutral because the MAJORITY aren't business sharing?
what about 50/50?
what if 50.01% are business sharing, and 49.99% don't is it all of a sudden, because 2 extra business owners swapped over, morally negative now? or is it morally neutral in all?
vaush's argument is re tar ded, (if a majority/all people do it, then if you do it too it's not morally bad)
so if we could find one person who business shares would vaush then label the lefists who choose to not share evil? no he would probably still decide "well since 99.99% do it, he's allowed to" his argument just falls apart if one person decides to business share, or maybe his argument really is well if 50.01% decide to, now it's morally wrong, - that argument wouldn't fall apart, but it would be retarded
@@mysticflow467 Thanks for the reply. I'll correct what I believe are misspellings in the process of replying myself, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> what if 100% of business owners shared their profit/stocks w/e it is that destiny was saying, then i think that vaush would argue, if a lefist owns a business and decides to not share their business with their employees, they would be *morally* bad. agree or disagree?
I will agree that Vaush may say that.
> what happens if 99.99% of owners do it the communist way, but 0.001% do it the sharing way, isnt any lefist now taking a potential spot, or at least not being as moral as the business sharer if they do i the communist way? therefore being morally negative?
I would disagree with the assertion that any leftist would be "taking a potential spot," because the spots are nearly limitless. That was my original basic point. If a person with a different moral framework dislikes Vaush's stance and finds it destructive, they have the same opportunity to compete in that marketplace that he does. This applies to basically any business.
> (if a majority/all people do it, then if you do it too it's not morally bad)
> so if we could find one person who business shares would vaush then label the lefists whjo choose to not share evil? no he would probably still decide "well since 99.99% do it, he's allowed to"
> or maybe his argument really is well if 50.01% decide to, now it's morally wrong, - that argument wouldn't fall apart, but it would be retarded
Right, but I don't think that's his position. I've seen Vaush waver on this several times, but if I consider the stances of other leftists who held the same type of view (Michael Brooks, Peter Coffin), I think the gist is pretty simple. "Individual actors should not be held morally accountable for behaving in (legal) ways in which the current world systems incentivize them to behave (with caveats for violence, etc.). Thus, any action encouraged by democratic consensus taken by the individual should reflect primarily not on the individual, but on the consensus and its consequences." He phrases it differently (worse) than I do, but if you view his argument through the lens I've written, I believe it accounts for every externality you raise. The individual and their actions don't much matter, morally. Not to these people anyway (supposedly).
Of course, it's still something you'd expect an 18 year old college student to think with no further context, but I really doubt Vaush has considered his philosophical stances well enough to have a clear, consistent underpinning for everything he believes.
I find these Philosophy debates highly amusing. Vaush is obvioulsy not good on this particular topic, but he doesnt have to be.( Contrary to what Rem and every online Philospher says).
The Argument "everything is about power", while not very sophisticated is just the pragmatic, empirical thruth we (you, I, everybody) live and expierence everyday around us. That is why vaush holds that postion, politics is power. Thats what he cares about.
Also Rem and Perspective Philsophy thinking vaushs philophical stance will lead to some disaster or is essentially the same as fascism is the funniest thing. Do these guys not see who is in governments and how policies are made?
This is still socialist "gatekeeping". Yeah, you want to do good, but your Axioms are not sophisticated enough, so i`m sorry but you cant do advocacy for a better world! "Its Dangerous! You are beeing irresponsible!"
God the fucking smug Arrogance of these guys...
I know right. This whole thing is so stupid.
Idk if it’s just gatekeeping, but I agree that Vaush just isn’t prepared to have this deep level of philosophical conversation.
But there is truly some concern that resonates with me here. Definitely not an hour long “catastrophic” video worth of talking about him though. But I do find it very concerning that Vaush doesn’t value consistency and it sounds like he believes that an objective truth doesn’t matter to him if it doesn’t help his goals. By these standards he essentially believes that he can lie, or adopt any truth that suits his goals, which he believes to be benevolent. Of course, there are natural consequences that follow. One would be that he must give that same discretion to everyone else, so he should not expect anyone to be truthful if it doesn’t aid their goals. You could use this very argument to support any form of misinformation, simply if the people doing the misinformation believe it is for a good cause. Besides that, it necessarily becomes impossible to discern what is truthful from others, because they will either lie or leave out any information that they think harms their goals. If we openly accept that it’s okay for people to do that, all discourse breaks down
There are so many issues with this mindset and some of them are addressed philosophically in this discussion, but there are much more pragmatic issues with it. Anyone who is claiming vaush is “just being misinterpreted” is missing a lot here. There is valid reason for **some** of this criticism.
@@Tyler-lr6fq Almost like he should be kept far away from power, like all Statist Socialists before him lol
I feel like people are conflating what is truth and what we can know to be truth.
Yes, I seem to be going back and forth on that rn. Not sure if Vaush is bad faith or their both not entirely understanding eachother.
@@croixtucker1757 I don't think he's bad faith, moreso that the difference is pretty meaningless for most people and I feel people never ask about the distinction when debating.
Do you know whether this was brought up?
@@yannickgullentops6857 Whether truth is real, or just depends on what you believe, is very improtant to any discussion, it's not brought up often becasue most people already believe in an objective truth and work to uncover it in the discussion.
@@costincostin4004 trueish, but I'm asking about whether the distinction between
Does their exist an objective truth
And can we know an objective truth.
I'm mostly making the point that I don't consider it to be that charitable to assume a person would mean "what we can know to be truth" when just saying truth.
It is literally the theory of truth.
There is a false premise in the discussion about being a capital owning socialst. Being a capital owner does not perpetuate "the system". The system does not depend on it's actors. It only deptends on the existence of some actors, with each individual one being entirely replaceable.
The system is perpetuated by institutions that ensure it's function. These institutions can be changed or abolished in better ways than not participating in them.
Inb4 "This is analogous to slavery"
@@FBZOMBlES "I make analogy therefore I'm not a dumbfuck, oh wait...i am"
What about recycling? Should there be no self-obligation for environmental activists to recycle since there are alternatives that large corporations and governments could implement that would make any one person’s decision to recycle negligible?
@@FBZOMBlES
That'd be like saying Vaush is okay with Jeff Bezoz.
@@FBZOMBlES That's only true if not owning the slaughterhouse decreases demand for meat or if it pushes legislation for animal rights. Otherwise I don't see the difference, rationally speaking.
@@FBZOMBlES it would decrease supply not demand so it probably helps (if you’re a vegan and I’m not) to not start a slaughterhouse, hire butchers and fishmongers etc
I think where we lose the lead here is that the underlying question is "what's the point of everything?" and in Vaush's mind, the point is to make people's lives better, and since "better" is subjective, it basically just comes down to a way of living that we think people will like.
And I think what's getting lost in the weeds here is that Vaush is reacting AS IF Destiny/PP believe truth supersedes that. He's arguing against "we should aim for truth for truth's sake," and if that's not what we're talking about, I don't think anyone has told him that. I think if you assume that maximizing utility is the ethical top priority, then Vaush would *absolutely* agree that consistency, especially consistency with empirical reality, are some of the most significant ways to get there. They just aren't the goal in themselves, so if there were an edge-case where betraying consistency *perpetually* produced better outcomes, we ought to do it. Or in other words, truth is good, but not inherently good.
This is honestly a really interesting nuanced view on the topic. I would like to counter with saying that from my viewpoint I would assert that truth and the knowledge of it is inherently good. The definitions of these words, "good" and "truth" can confuse this whole discussion, but using the way it's typically defined, the existence and knowledge of truth seems to produce good outcomes by its nature. But this is just my thought process and I could be wrong.
If I understand, you made the assertion that the moral value of "making everyone's lives better" supersedes "truth". Why do you believe that?
Also asserted, "truth is good, but not inherently so". Can you give an example?
@@user-gc1wj8tt2p Yes but if they were right about the people they killed then it was indeed "good", it's only because they were full of shit that people consider them evil.
Funny, that's what Jordan Peterson says about truth as well
Is this channel just dedicated to talking about vaush??
If you wait a minute they'll also talk about Hasan
Might as well just talk to Vaush instead of talking about him for 20 hours ?
Isn't this happening because destiny and vaush spoke for 3 hours and didnt get anywhere.
When the topic of frustration seems to be "i cant figure out vaush's beliefs after talking to him for hours"
What will more talking achieve
@@wren4077 No this is happening bc Vaush gotcha'd him on the practicing what you preach thing. That + vaush getting unbanned on twitch = the flood gates opening.
Didn't vaush say he was no longer interested in speaking to steven
The Dawn Has Been Greeted
not the first time he’s said that
@@wren4077 and then proceeded to respond back and forth through other people
This is not an accurate portrayal of Vaush's positions.
Vaush's godlike intelligence is too much for normal human beings like Destiny to comprehend. Just give us plebs a break already.
@Totally Serious Person do you know what Aesthetic means?
@@onetrueliberal7862 Destiny is very intelligent, but he also loves to win at all costs, and in this case, as in many cases where he backs himself into corners, he is wrong. That's why we're seeing endless content going over all these points with no word from Vaush in response.
@@ephre Vaush did 2 response videos to the debate on his channel already and in one of those he gaslighted the fk out of his audience. If Vaush really wanted his positions to be clear he should talk to a philosophy expert and show us. But he won't as he knows he is talking out his ass on every topic except maybe sociology.
Vaush is just in over his head on most positions, he's just been masking it well, by being a good rhetorician and having a cult of personality, dismissing all criticism as "Vaush Derangement Syndrome"
I don’t know how destiny understands Rem without listening to an audio book and reading 3 philosophy papers to understand his positions.
Fr. Most universities offer a philosophy course that will skim over some of this stuff. If you really wanna get into it look for an epistemology course specifically.
I think it's very amusing to listen to a philosopher decry antirealism when, essentially, every philosophy major is necessarily an antirealist, because if they were not, they would instead have chosen a field of study that was useful.
Based
You know, that is kinda true. I was looking up philosophy because of all this and it did say that one of the things they argue about the most is the nature of existence.
That is by far the most intelligent form of "daddy got crucified by someone smarter than him" comment i have yet to see.
@@joesmith4965 I think it was a joke?
@@ezekielthedragon7558 It's only funny because it's a little bit true.
I don’t think Vaush’s anti-realist perspective is that upsetting. It seemed to me like his position was: while something can be empirically “true” or substantiated, it doesn’t actually have much of a relationship with an individual’s reality. Rem got way too heated over this.
This is what I also believed Vaush’s perspective was and it makes sense since we have tens of millions of people in the USA alone that would see a verifiable fact and just say “nah” because it doesn’t fit their reality and just ignore it or don’t believe it.
I think Rem is just seeing Vaush for what he is: an extreme opportunist. Vaush is explaining how he justifies that opportunism.
Your restatement of Vaush's position makes no sense. Vaush isn't talking about an individual's reality. He's talking about truth as such. And he's abundantly, aggressively, repeatedly emphatic about that. Your restatement basically boils down to: "Some things are true. But sometimes people are wrong about them." There are light years between that Motte and Bailey.
8:53 wait thats really stupid rem can't be serious here
Okay lets break this down: Is vaush saying "Whether the Holocaust happened depends on your feels"? no
He is saying "Every truth statement is reliant on a definition of truth, and mediation between these systems seems either difficult or probably impossible"
This combined with his view on the relationship of ethics and epistemology (the process of building an epistemology is already reliant on ethics) leads to a fairly reasonable (and philosophically coherent) conclusion: Different fundamental axioms can never be mediated, useful discourse can only happen between people who share some or all axioms.
*This is a view you can disagree with, but its a) far more common (at least within the institute i study at) and b) not even close to rems shitheaded misinterpretation*
Sir this is Wendy’s
Are we seriously pretending that Vaush even knows what epistemology is?
I would really like to know how you pulled all of that out of Vaush's statements.
Its a far more reasonable and coherent interpretation than the one offered by rem
Just less convenient if you go in with the assumption that vaush is an idiot who should not be taken seriously and has no internally consistent worldview, which, as i think is very obvious when you read this comment section, is how destinys community wants to see him
Just listen to what he is saying and try to ask yourself what position he is expressing with the assumption that he is saying interesting and logical, potentially even insightful things (this is like day one of critical thinking class btw)
@@brisca1668 Honestly I think you're being way too charitable to Vaush. I've watched enough material to come to the conclusion that Vaush is almost purely driven by opportunism, has no real principles and will say anything to push whatever end goal he's trying to (or pretending to) achieve. Listening to him argue and debate, I don't get the impression that I'm dealing with a person interested in getting to the truth of the matter or engaging the opposition in good faith but someone who has an end goal and will try to get there by any means necessary, including muddying the waters and obfuscation, even misinformation (by his own admission). His laughable debate with that philosophy PhD is a primary example.
This is not to say I don't like some of his takes. When the truth happens to be on his side (specially when he's debating alt right and Neonazi retards), he tends to be rhetorically quite effective.
to be fair, Rem was quite insufferable in that debate with Vaush lmao
Dude theyre holding a person to pure theory. This isn't about fair. They want vaush gone dude; this isn't about fair or whether vaush has intentions. They just don't like vaush my guy. The second he does or did something that could be characterized as a gaffe, and especially if it could be construed as *intentional/a dogwhistle* they will *descend* upon it.
@@Xenomorph6793 I have no idea what you're saying or what your point is. If you're just saying they hate vaush so they talk shit you're just fanboying.
@@Xenomorph6793 I disagree, they're bringing up valid points about the position he holds on truth here. If I believe that he is something he isn't then in his view unless he convinces me otherwise then I'm ALWAYS right, but the point of his argument being nonsense, is that it wouldn't matter if he "convinced me" of anything he couldn't prove he convinced me of anything unless I said he did, everyone BUT him is the arbiter of truth in his view. sure he can believe he convinced me, but he can't prove anything, it's only belief of something, never proving anything.
@@Xenomorph6793 This isn’t a “gaffe.” This is freshman-level nihilism.
@@unconcernedcitizen4092 ow.
I buy sweatshop-derived & environment-destroying goods because someone else would have done it anyway.
I think Vaush's argument is that it's morally neutral to adhere to societal norms. Didn't seem that complicated.
It isn't that complicated, but it is easier to make content if we pretend Vaush is being unreasonable.
“It’s morally neutral to adhere to societal norms” is no longer true if you dedicate half your life to arguing that society and its current norms are unethical and the other half sleeping. But go on king 👑
@@bigboy2217 sure... Tell me, you 100% sure Destiny or any other streamer doesn't buy stuff that was unethically produced, like with child labor or other practices? I think that is a dumbass argument, it is only used in the same way Jordan Peterson uses his "clean your room before you save the world", as it only serves to stop people from advocating for change.
@@bigboy2217 Super curious; How does arguing that 'current norms are unethical' change those current norms? They're still the norms. If you do what's 'normal' in society, isn't it definitionally 'morally neutral' within that society? That's what he was talking about, if I recall correctly.
He likely holds himself to higher standards, & presumably sees dedicating his life to advocating for socialism as a moral good.
From a rhetorical standpoint, if advocating for socialism, it's poison to dictate that every participant in society is immoral. Aim your arguments at the system, not at hapless normies caught in it.
Petition for philosophers to add "mon" at the end of their words so they sound like cool digimons.
Metaepistemologymon
Lol. It fits perfectly since many of them end with m.
Dualismon; ethicsmon; epistemologymon; monismon; nihilismon; Qualiamon; Empiricismon, Realismon; Rationalismon; Deontologismon; Utilitarianismon; Consequentialismon.
Nomon.
Morally luckymon
@@markusoreos.233 antirealismon
It also makes the person sound like they have a Jamaican accent.
FRIENDSHIP WITH VAUSH ENDED, NOW PERSPECTIVE PHILOSPHY IS MY NEW BEST FRIEND
literally me LOL. It's like I've been eating gas station burritos when the local mexican restaurant was across the road this whole time.
Cringe
Oldie, but classic =)
Trust me PP hates Destiny he won't be a regular
@ultimateblaze23 the guy is a grifter. He was insulting Destiny before when he was talking with Vaush and then did the complete reverse and insulted Vaush for like 10 mins in his talk with Destiny
Perhaps I'm a little confused: Aren't our goals/desires what leads us, not "Truth"? When Destiny says his goal is to disseminate "The Truth", at about 14:00, this can't be the case as the facts and things we call true are related to our subjective experience within the world. Destiny focuses on the facts of Breonna Taylor because they are politically relevant, not for some objective goal of "Truth".
Thus, what we call "reality" and "the Truth" are indeed tied to our culture and time. And since the dominant societies are the ones that succeed, then what we call "the Truth" is indeed related to power...
As a Pragmatist who believes in the scientific method and coming to consistent, predictable, and useful knowledge, I didn't think this was off-base. I don't think my epistemological opinion allows for anything approaching Nazism/Fascism, but maybe I'm incorrect or missing something?
Im not really sure what your point is here?
"Truth" being related to power seems to contradict your belief in consistent and predictable knowledge.
@@thinknot462
How does it contradict?
If I create a model of the earth's atmosphere and climate that is highly accurate, and someone somehow created a model of the climate and atmosphere of a planet in a different galaxy, we would only care and utilize the first model as it pertains to our world and saving lives. Despite both models holding the same "objective truth value", we would only use one.
Thus it seems the model with the most use, with the most power, is the one that gets used and then further developed.
@@DDogg43777 I mean sure its fair that the model that has more of an immediate relation to us will be more relevant than the other model (I don't know if i would call it power). You admit that in this scenario they both hold objective truth so I'm failing to see again what your point is?
@@thinknot462
What is power if not something that benefits us? In my example I demonstrated that only the useful model gets used. What if the model of the Earth's climate was 80% accurate, but the model of the planet in the different galaxy was 90% accurate? Despite the second model being MORE accurate (and perhaps more "objectively true"... whatever that means), it seems we would still use the first model.
So it seems the goal of "objective truth" falls quite short.
@@DDogg43777 Im sorry but this example is very bad, you cant compare the two models in that way when they are describing two different independent things entirely. Whether one is more or less accurate has nothing to do with the other in this example. A more apt example would be two models both trying to describe the same thing. In this case if one of the models has been tried and tested and the conclusion is reached that it is more accurate than the alternative model, it would be reasonable to deduce that it is closer to the truth than the other model and thus is more useful.
I have agreed with you that the more useful model will be more relevant and get used, but as we see in this example, the apparent conclusion would be that the most useful one is the one closest to the objective truth.
Also, In regards to power, i thought they were referring to it as literal power to enforce certain information/ideas as truth.
IM NOT a vaush fan (he does indeed make shit up), but...
In this argument he still didn't provide a reason to why his philosophy is wrong, all what I've heard him say is that "you can use this philosophy to justify any action", which is 100% true, but that doesn't mean that its not right...
Please for anybody who also thinks that there is no objective wordly truth (as in no morals or reason to life (aka opposite of religion)) explain to me how come a logical conclusion that "truth is relative" can be considered as an "unfair portrail of truth".
Tell me if I'm wrong but from what I've understood vaush is saying that because there is no reason to life, all you have is your self and your beliefs (which seems logically cohesive to me) and the counter argument is that, because this argument could justify constant conflict and horrible things, its bad... but this to me just seems that this person understands that there is NO truth, but still yet tries to find that which would seem like truth just for the sake of justifying non-agresion.
From what I remember, moral realist argument is circular (it's true because it's moral, and the other way around), but they use some philosophical mumbojumbo to justify why it's not actually circular or why it's ok that it's circular idk
He goes beyond "morality is relative" to "facts about reality are relative". This is a position almost nobody holds and for obvious reasons. People say Rem "misrepresented him" but he maintained this stance when he talked to Perspective Philosophy
@@gianni50725 I don't think he argues that reality is relative, he just doubles down on that which our minds may perceive (be it because of mental illness, differences in perceiving reality or just different opinion), I say this because I didn't hear him at the very least state that "worldly matter warps around a persons will", which from the ten or so videos I've watchedfrom him, wouldn't be like him....
Now, because we are the sole things that perceive reality in its more complex form, we are the ones who interact with that reality, and as I've said an insane person will interact with the world that is relative/specific to him (that does NOT mean that the physical reality morphs around him, to fit into his reality bubble)
The holocaust example he portrayed was more or less ab example of a person who lives in his warped reality (which again doesn't mean that its true, it just means that the quota that would needed to be meet for him to change his opinion, wasn't yet meet ) and his only option would be to show him all the possible facts about why his reality is closer to factual reality rather than his, and if he with his warped nazi mind still thinks that holocaust still didn't happen, then only option would be to try to meet his (not what you maybe require to be sanguine with what you were told) thing that would make him specifically believe (which in extreme versions would be litteraly teleporting a nazi to ww2).... and about the " he believes tha its ok to use anything to change your beliefs to his, like lying", I will use the same nazi example here, because it is "sometimes" impossible to meet the hardcore nazi quota of truth to show it to them that they are wrong, the only conclusion that could be gathered is that you need to lie (which could be considered as fine, considering the fact that they already believe in what YOU BELIEVE that they believe is falsehoods, so it is fine to twist reality more, just to bring them closer to what YOU, yet again believe is the actual ""factual" reality", which in actuality could also be a lie)
His statement that "this way you could justify anybody believes" is correct, but that does not make it invalid, for instance how do you know that you are not the nazi in the conversation who believes in the warped version of "factual reality"?
To put it stupidly short it just means that everybody could be right and you can easily be wrong.
Listening to Rem's condemnations, they sound like they're coming from a position of moral authority. There's a rush to judgment, and it's not even clear that what he's criticizing is even wrong, let alone "bad." It's hard not to hear this as some sort of televangelism.
That is rem's whole thing. If you watch his other debates he will whine like crazy that other people aren't grounding their arguments, or that they don't have solutions, then fall back on 'we are talking about you though' when it is pointed out the he has no solution.
I also feel, based on the supporting clips shown, that he is misrepresenting Vaush’s comments and positions. Given Destinies hard stance against misinformation, this seems like a contradiction as they arguably spreading misinformation about Vaush, his positions and the discussion they clip.
@@SISTEMAQ because the clip doesn’t seem to support the claim of what was said. That’s how.
@@hermithouse to be fair, it's not fair to call it misinformation when destiny's platform is giving you what you need to see rem is full of shit
Honestly I think this is just a hands off condemnation of rem like: see by yourself how he is stupid
destiny it is 4 am
Fun fact it is also 4PM
It was only 2 here
Its 9pm here
The upload was timed perfect for me. Just in time as I am leaving work
and I don't get notifications I watch the videos when I get around to them
No offense, but Rem and Vaush talk about totally different things. At least in the edited videos here.
I think there's just so much animosity between them that they're unwilling to act in good faith toward each other.
@@redrickoshea Yes, it at least feels like that.
Vaush is worthy of criticism, but rem is so bad
Vaush lost me when he started saying gross things like that winning was more important than having good principles. it's the same kind of shit Andrew Brietbart used to say that made me loathe him.
Yea, I've never really paid much attention to him but I've heard him say multiple times that conversations with those you disagree with are ultimately pointless. And that the objective is to gain control over the levers of power, and than with violence force them to conform to your new reality. (given that to him there is no fact of the matter and its all a construct)
I mean either the man cannot express himself very well, and in fact doesn't hold that view but has managed to give the impression that he does.. Or he has a strong authoritarian side to him.
I don't understand why epistemic anti-realism is so crazy. Isn't it the logical conclusion if you accept that you can't disprove solipsism?
Hasn't Destiny himself said that to determine truth we need to make axiomatic assumptions?
It doesn't seem like Vaush actually thinks that the past/reality changes, just that we can't determine objective truth.
I'm so fucking confused dude, they're sitting there being flabbergasted that Vaush thinks that morality is ultimately a subjective thing that is shaped by our feelings. But how in the fuck did they establish that we objectively ought to care for human well-being, which is the starting point of most moral systems? Like, isn't that THE issue? And they're acting like they've solved it? I'm convinced that I'm misunderstanding something because I refuse to believe that they both think that there is some ultimate objective moral standard that moral systems can adhere to.
@@SzczurzaJucha The most rational explanation they could give is that, from a rule utilitarian pespective, its better to claim that epsitemic reality exists. Ofcs thats literally an example of someone choosing their epistemic system to suit subjective preference, which is why no one in this entire video ever makes an argument against epistemic anti-realism
This is why “objective truth” is a loaded phrase. If we can’t determine “objective truth” than the past/reality may or may not change... it just lets you play both sides of the fence. (The past is, reality is... oh but you have no way to determine that sorry. Insert my “truth”)
Just such a typical mode of operation now. “Don’t worry that nothing is true and that you can’t really know anything, I know it’s scary don’t fear. I have a bunch of indisputable truths for you. “
*epistemic anti realism is self refuting.*
*Saying "truth is subjective" is a contradiction, as what is true is mind independent (meaning not subjective)*
*Saying "there is no objective truth" is self refuting, as one can ask for the truth value of that statement.*
*Also wtf is an "axiomatic assumption"...? Axioms are true mind independent. For example, all inference rules in propositional calculus are axioms, aprioi true. Even if you make such "assumptions", you are (attempting) establishing objective truth by doing so (so negating epistemic anti realism). Alot of contradictions in this comment.*
@Totally Serious Person The problem is human well being is subjective to us. Therefore morality is subjective. I take the Dillahunty approach. The foundation of morality is subjective( well being) but there are ways we can evaluate whether something is causing harm to others.
8:28
I wouldn't personally try and deduce any of Vaush's position based on a conversation like that. He's just hammering 10 points all at once. With topics like these, it's incredibly easy to misunderstand one another or speak past eachother, so i don't see why PP needs to rapidfire his points and conclusions like that.
I think you misunderstand the goal of this segment, this isn't attempting to flesh out Vaush's positions, this is just a rhetorical attempt to decredibilize him so that the debate is won. Once you realize that it's much easier.
Well, everything he said after that falls in line with what he said here... so either Vaush doesn’t understand what Rem,PP or Destiny are talking about (because all of these 3 know exactly what they talk about), which would raise the question why he would insist so much on his position oor #2 he actually believes this stuff. Either way seems bad.
And Im saying this as someone who watches a lot of Vaush’s content.
@@Giemma3 Unimportant.
@@Giemma3 But i'm not convinced that 'everything he said after that falls in line with what he said here[...]' is the thing :/
Personally, it sounds to me like Vaush is just agnostic about the nature of the world, which is totally fair.
19:40 His power->truth segment does come out bad though, i would definately ask him to clarify. PP just kinda checks out byebye i win :/
@@OsefKincaid I would hope not :/
Imagine the privilege of not yet accepting that you can, in fact, get disappeared.
Be nice to see another vaush debate where you both don't just go "wait wait wait" and "hold up hol up" the entire time.
It's not that complicated!
Vaush thinks more like an activist & Destiny thinks more like a philosopher.
Philosophers are valuable for theory, activists actually have to get shit done.
The part where Rem says the thing that makes him the most mad about Vaush's views (which he asserts are literally destructive and dangerous to humanity at large) is that he hasn't done the reading is one of those great accidentally honest moments.
I think his critique was more about Vaush engaging in anti-intellectual tendencies and arguments (in his view).
Lamb J. Too bad he blatantly misunderstands the argument and assumes more than you could pack into a semi-truck.
@@ericdecker2914 Ok. I’m not defending the totality of rem’s argument tho, just a specific point. Which argument do you think he misunderstood?
Lamb J. I think it’s way too much to imply he’s a nazi for suggesting that the framework of society dictates to a massive extent little t truth. I don’t understand why Perspective Phikosophy does the same but at least recognizes it as a way to move forward in the conversation. There’s a huge divide between the banter of debate and it’s consequences and real politic and they are doing the same thing countless others have done to Destiny.
@@ericdecker2914 I agree, that would be way too far; Vaush obviously isn’t a nazi. But nobody made that assertion. Rather, they suggested that Vaush’s takes on the nature of truth and morality align with those of a fascist. The idea that truth doesn’t exist outside of its relation to power is commonly held by fascists. The ‘might makes right’ argument logically follows from the sorts of moral and epistemic claims that Vaush made in his conversations. PP, Rem, and Destiny were skeptical on whether Vaush actually believed these things or not.
Continental Philosopher Rem is back to save humanity? Pog
The Anti-Hasan, no charisma but able to not be morally lucky, and ground his positions
It’s funny because I remember when REM ran to daddy Vaush to moderate between him and Destiny in their debate about Native Americans. REM wanted Vaush to side with him against Destiny on morality. Basically painting Destiny as some kind of sociopath. It’s funny to see how he’s doing the same thing again, but this time he’s trying to paint Vaush out to be some kind of fascist. I’m not necessarily defending Vaush either, just pointing out reoccurring behavior I’ve seen in REM.
@@Re-Todd_Howard hate thread Harry. This comment has been up for 55mins bro sub optimal
@@smiff513 Rem is wrong...plus he’s white.
But has he grounded his axioms???
Saw this debate live, but I really appreciate the sources integrated into this video! Thanks, editor!
This is like two separate realities talking past each other. Neither side understands the other and cannot effectively communicate, regardless of who's "correct".
No, it's just that you people get your philosophical understanding from a guy who's unbelievably half read on philosophy, and you're so bought into his narrative that you cant listen to two educated philosophers tell you why hes full of shit.
Make no mistake. There is no talking past. There's a bumbling cult leader and the people exposing him for what he is.
@@lholliday198 I don't watch Destiny or Vaush for philosophy. I also don't know or claim to know a lot about philosophy. The two philosophy majors are obviously well educated, however historically speaking well educated people can also be wrong. They just bring what they have learned to the conversation.
All I'm saying is that both parties in this argument have been wrong about the opposing side's view. You can go back over these videos and hear both Destiny and Vaush say "I think X was arguing for Y" and look back over these videos and see they're wrong. They legitimately do not yet understand each other and are currently unable to talk to each other about this in an effective way. No one wins this argument and we the audience are the biggest losers.
I wish arguments amongst the Left were based on "lets refine our arguments and make each other better" as opposed to purity checking someone's values, even though you can only guess someone's values based on their actions. There is nothing to be gained out of this kind of argument. I wouldn't want to have a conversation with either of these people.
@@lholliday198 I also wanna point out your comment is an example what I'm saying. Just because I'm saying that I think this argument is wasteful on Destiny's video, I must be a "Vaush cultist" or whatever. You don't wanna think about what I'm suggesting, you just want to believe I'm wrong. I could very well be wrong, but now neither of us improve anything because of this unique lefty unwillingness to for one or both parties to effectively communicate.
@@demonfaeshae maybe dont run defense for the dude if you, by your own admission, dont know what they're talking about? You obviously dont know what you're talking about, so dont think out loud. Makes it looks like you're defending a cult leader.
@@lholliday198 I'm not running defense and have only said I don't know much about philosophy. I'm pretty sure I have a good idea what Destiny and Vaush are saying on this argument because they're publicly talking about it. I just think they're both wrong and are trying to bludgeon each other with how wrong they are.
I also don't think either Destiny or Vaush are "cult leaders," but that could just be the normal hyperbole both sides do.
Perspective Philosophy is a LAD
Lol calling vaush a fascist behind his back but not to his face. How Chad like.
@@zm5668 Yes philosohpy is made by the ones with abs. Socrates, Plato.... Zizek ? He would prefer not to do crunches. But yeah Vaush is the death of logic, a black hole no one gets out of. His a nus.
@@thornspitfire3977 You know strength doesn't necessarily mean physical strength...right? Like you aren't actually that dumb are you?
@@zm5668 body shaming makes you a bad person, why should I care what you have to say about anything.
@@Versace_sheets Because if someone is wrong about one thing that does not mean they are wrong about all things. I though this was elementary to everyone but you just proved me wrong.
Isn’t this the guy who said you have to engage in years of ethical philosophy before you can even engage in online activism?
@@zm5668 does he explain what he means by "speaking about ethics?" Does he mean making claims about what is right and wrong?
Is Vaush’s take on misinformation similar to Plato’s “The Noble Lie”?
Hey good catch. Yeah pretty much
There is sort of an ethically consistent (and not totally nihilistic) way to integrate a leeway for misinformation into your moral system. It is called meta-honesty. Basically the basis behind meta-honesty is that if you agree with the idea that truth is innately valuable (there is some value to truth external to strict empirical consequence) but that it doesn't have infinite value (the value to truth external to strict empirical consequence doesn't simply always outweigh the negatives of said strict empirical consequences by default) then it is fine to lie about anything in specific that you are willing to publicly say you will lie about in general. It is beneficial to have this leeway because it gives you the ability to protect your counterfactual selves which you are indirectly giving up by taking truth as a moral absolute, because in that case, the only alternative you have to truth is not volunteering information, which doesn't work because it raises suspicion. (The classic example is if the Nazis come to your house and ask if you are hiding Jews, you're gonna be setting up way more red flags by saying "I can neither confirm nor deny." instead of saying "No.", which from a consequentialist point of view means the first reply is simply performative.)
The nice thing about engaging with someone who adopts meta-honesty instead of whatever Vaush is doing is that you know with crisp certainty what things you can have genuine good faith conversations about, and at the very *least*, the mindspace of possible genuine good faith conversations covers all of "talking about ideas in general".
Vaush talks about his position on misinformation in more detail here: ua-cam.com/video/ost469TYzNo/v-deo.html
@@tudornaconecinii3609 There is no good faith in debating for both parties while using meta-honesty.
Meta-Honesty is the attempt to be honest about in which situations one will not be honest.
There is no justified reason not to be honest in a debate, especially when speaking to an audience. (Unless what you say can put you or others in harms way) If you did, it would become a lie to further your opinions, which deters any good faith conversations to have with a person and the audience.
Unless dirty pool will be played where the willingness to covertly bend truths so as your own political agendas can gain positive publicity; to be done so as you believe it to be a just cause, I cannot see any good faith conversations to be had using meta-honesty to exchange advantageous ideas. There will always be a missing variables where the end solution will be different from others.
@@XX89948 '(Unless what you say can put you or others in harms way)'
While I know you put that in parentheses because it sounds like a very limited edge-case exception, this is actually THE main thing meta-honesty is trying to give you leeway to avoid. Which is why the classic example is the one with hiding Jews from the Nazis.
Now, to be *fair*, it's not "doing meta-honesty wrong" to use it for purposes other than avoiding harm towards you (or your counterfactual selves) or others, but why would anyone want to debate you if you're using it for anything else?
'If you're a socialist, you've deemed the system to be morally deficit'
Is that really true though? I mean there might be a moral component to it but is it really not possible to be a socialist on the basis that you don't think Capitalism is a sustainable long term system?
This is tantamount to saying the only reason one can support green energy is if you think fossil fuels are 'morally deficit'. That might be a component to the arguement but it would be a bit dishonest to assert the moral argument to be the definitive reason for supporting green energy. This is pretty weak shit my dude.
I think it's true, because socialists aren't just out there making 'is' statements, but are making 'ought'.
Every time you are making a normative claim beyond conditional one, it's a moral statement.
Like that bit on "Capitalism might not be sustainable", if there was no moral component, then it would be entirely be selfish one (could one be selfish while being completely amoral (devoid of all moral critique and thought)? If you think so then I see where you are coming from.
@@gaizokubanou That's a fair point but the same is true for basically every cause. If you're pro green energy you believe we ought to transition toward green energy which is in itself a moral statement.
By extension would Destiny think it's incorrect for somone who supports green energy to sit on the board of a large oil company? I guess it wouldn't be such a straightforward answer from his point of view because he's a smart guy who can probably acknowledge that having a green energy advocate on an oil company's board could have the effect of pushing the company in a direction that's more amiable to the cause of green energy. So, if we can apply that reasoning to green energy advocacy why can't we apply it to socialists operating within capitalism?
LOL did Vaush pull the "you're not quitting, you're fired" when he kicked Rem off his stream after Rem had already said he was leaving? And literally right after he called Rem a snowflake. Not a great look.
neither are rape cage analogies
As a fan of Destiny and Vaush, I really would like to see a constructive conversation about this. One in which Vaush is allowed the room, if need be, to reconsider his positions. Not to excuse Vaush, but because I, as an observer, would like to see a genuine conversation about this. I think an antagonistic tone can sometimes be useful, however, I'm also wary that sometimes it compels people to double down in a way that doesn't facilitate any kind of learning or change.
I would imagine that an antagonistic tone would make people double down a majority of the time, not just sometimes.
I would rather they just drop this sh*t altogether. Getting real bored of the philosophy stuff.
@@haruhirogrimgar6047 Hey. Don't you realize the real problems of the world are that people aren't logically consistent? 🤪
vaush will always double down on shit and antagonism is part of this debte platform. it is a major issue and contributes to the ego these creators end up needing to have to thrive
I believe they both have good intentions. Even if thier main goal is to make the world a better place. Humility goes a long way though.
"Pass the salt"
"you mean sodium chloride!?"
"Okay asshole just pass the fuckin salt"
"That depends on your definition of salt"
"Just end me"
8:30 Vaush said that there are objective truths about the world in the video. Vaush thinks morality is subjective and not the state of the world.
I think he was also trying to say that if people believe in something, the empirical truth of the matter is irrelevant, because everyone believing it is true is functionally the same as it actually being true.
@@redrickoshea Yes! That's how I understood his argument in the clips too.
@@redrickoshea Which is pretty dumb point.
@@AppleBaron I think it's a dumb point if he was using it as a justification for ignoring empirical truths that can be proven (which it seems like he might have been, but not 100% sure). However as a descriptive statement for issues which we do not have the capacity to prove or disprove, it's pretty on the mark.
@@AppleBaron I mean is it? Our ability to determine the truth is what makes it true. And that ability is obviously limited. That's why I always ask for evidence for things, with the caveat that that evidence can change based on new info. "Truth" is subjective to a degree.
This whole thing seems a bit opportunistic. Every time Destiny and Vaush debate there always seems to be a group of people who hate Vaush that pop into Destiny's community afterwards to try and legitimize themselves. Last time it was Sargon and Kraut, this time it's these guys... it's really strange.
They're both socialists tho
Is it necessarily bad because it is opportunistic though?
@@YoBoySk33n No I'm just saying I've seen a lot of weird dishonesty when it comes to Vaush from both the left and the right. I don't think either of them would side with Nazis.
@@YoBoySk33n I deleted it because I didn't want to imply that
@@YoBoySk33n how is kraut a nazi?
Here's the thing though: Vaush is correct about all philosophy being downstream from an emotional response. This has been well documented by psychologists. Rem can dislike that objective fact all he likes, but his feelings have absolutely no impact on reality. He should take a class in an evidence-based study of the mind instead of 300-level naval gazing, because his objections sound like those of a child arguing about anime canon.
The problem is that alot of philosophers have this weird thing where they act like they aren't active participants in the things they're discussing
This really should be obvious. Philosophy is all about perspective which is, well, feelings. This whole thing is just dumb.
Fucking thank you
This entire video is pointless bitching
You are begging the question. It was not estabilished why "all philosophy being downstream from an emotional response" should be accepted.
Also you self contradict when saying "Rem can dislike that objective fact all he likes, but his feelings have absolutely no impact on reality" because if there are no objective facts, only feelings, Rem can dislike it all he wants because that's just how he feels.
@@thornspitfire3977 It was established, learn to read. And then go take a Psych class.
"People called me pretentious"
"I don't like the idea of philosophy as entertainment"
I'm pretty sure Vaush agrees that his version of what truth is, is objectively verifiable and aligns with the version of the truth of 99% of ppl including Rem and Destiny.
He just thinks that there's no objective reason to believe in this version, and if someone thinks that the truth is some random statement like "all things are pink", neither Vaush nor anybody else has any way of proving the pink person *objectively* wrong.
Also this is a very niche topic and I don't think it has anything to do with his consistency takes, or anything else. Kinda like how Destiny is a hard determinist (hey, me too), but still acts as if we have free will.
I do agree with destiny's analogies though, and do think that if you have more power you ought to use at least some of it for good aside from the usual streaming and what not.
How does Vaush agree that his version of what truth is is objectively verifiable AND think that there's "no objective reason to believe in this version"? Seems like a blatant contradiction.
And how is anybody supposed to take anything he says at face value if they know that he, himself, doesn't think he can ever objectively prove his interlocutors' statements wrong. Even if they're as easily disproved as "all things are pink."
How is the basis of Vaush's entire framework a niche topic?
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 cause 90% of the time you can discuss his positions without getting to that foundation
16:35 "A hegemonic organization used to force an ideology, [similar to fascism]"
That's describing literally every political formation in existence.
No, becase that would make my side guilty of it.
I find this guy's argument to be silly. He was actually arguing that when people say "History is written by the victor" literally means that the person saying that thinks that all of history is gone because of this. "History is written by the victors" just means that what is taught in society and schools is in the favor of the powers that be; it doesn't mean that history is completely void.....
By "this guy" do you mean Rem and "Him" to be Vaush? If so I think I agree, I think Vaush probably lost whatever the higher level philosophy debate was, but it seems like Rem went for exclusively philosophical gotchas.
@@RedRaistlin Yes I meant Rem when I said “This guy.”
Nothing in history should be treated as religion though, always get out of the comfort zone existential dread be damned!!
‘Socialists advocate ass-sitting’- better title
Big brain strong huh?
epistemic anti-realist = post modernism. Destiny's gonna be making Jordan Peterson implications before you know it
Nuke the destiny is a girl’s name comments ABATHUR
It's because Destiny is a woman's name! Show some respect.
Hey, show some respect for her transition.
but destiny IS a girl's name, facts over feeling my guy
Idk if its just me but this video and title feel a little propagandist to me
insert obligatory "right in my feeeed" joke so i can get the updoots that provide my feeble brain the dopamine i desperately crave
Me but unironically
but dopamine is a girl's name
lmao Rem got Vaush down to the NoBullshit argument of "that's dumb"
Difference is in the rhetoric skill levels. I think.
There are probly other differences too but I'm too lazy or stupid to sus em out.
rem is a weasel tbh
@@justnaabye9686 but is he wrong?
Truly the best hill to die on
@@Turinnn1 it seems time always favors Rem
The thing that got missed here is that Vaush spent the whole conversation fishing for arguments from the other guy because he knows the other guy is a 5Head philosophy nerd. Vaush was deliberately saying outlandish stuff because he wants to hear a good argument against it without having to do any of the heavy lifting of reading himself. He's basically using this conversation as a crash course in philosophy, which is why he's saying all sorts of things that don't seem to make any sense.
This purity test for socialism is the most mindless nonsense I've seen. You can promote socialism AND operate in a capitalist system. Also, it's not a finish line. There are many degrees of socialism.
I'm not even DEFENDING socialism, but this philosophical masturbation is annoying as fuck.
I agree. It kind of depends on how seriously committed you are to your ideology.
Destiny is really milking it
Like God damn he just can't stop talking about Vaush
Vaush made a stream and 2 vids about it and you got mad but you literally had 3 streams and like 6 videos about vaush within a week
I love you but you're being such a baby about it
The discussion around what was said in the previous discussion between vaush and destiny is really important.
I don't see why you're whining about this when you can skip those videos?, pretty ironic calling Steven a baby, are you just here for the blood-sports bs or do you actually watch these videos to learn something?, because a lot of people don't by the looks of it.
@@BizarrePower that's not an argument against destiny milking it tho? "vaush also did this pitiful thing" ok?
@@BizarrePower Buidling and starting a career are not the same thing and you know the problem isn't the videos themselves but the hypcorisy of complaining that Vaush is milking the content while milking it himself.
Can't you see? You're the Blue Oni to Vaush's Red Oni!
Really weird running into you on Destiny’s comments of all places. Good to see you
@@TreWatsonMusic OSSU! I'm actually on the way out lol I need to spend more time on your channel.
I agree that history isn't always written by the victors, but what history is written and taken into account or treated as important is decided by the victors/people in power. As a female history student I was like "where's all the chicks?" because they were not present, at all unless they were queens or "deviants". There are a lot of historians now who are "revising history" (not changing the stories but expanding them to include more than white men and stereotypes about everyone else) because we currently have a very incomplete perspective on a lot of the past. IE women who did amazing things aren't talked about, indigenous people and people of colour are spoken of from the white perspective and their experiences aren't treated as equally important. So I would say that although "history is written by the victors" is kind of erroneous, it's not completely inaccurate. Could be improved by changing it to "what history is important to tell and the perspective it is told from is decided by those in power". #nitpicking
This is like the 10th video on vaush, this is starting to seem like a lot of insecure damage control
I'm sorry but as a long time Destiny fan most of these takes are bullshit. They had a conversation about philosophy that was mostly filled with hypotheticals and this dude who's obviously well versed in philosophy rhetoric ran laps around Vaush and painted him however he pleased to. That's literally what this community amounts to now, it's not truth or caring about facts, it's about who can make someone look dumber.
This is a really painful convo, especially when Rem has literally done this to Destiny before on the exact same topic. In all the context clips Vaush is saying stuff like, 'if you have a different theory of truth, then what is true will be different for you'. They're all really lukewarm takes and Rem and Destiny are just circle jerking this whole video about it when the disagreements between Destiny and Vaush are probably all just nuanced miscommunication over very minor differences in perspective.
How do you justify statements like "Math is a power grab"?
I really appreciate the editor for putting in all that work for context clips, but holy fuck do I appreciate the "skip rem talking" timestamp more.
Vaush needs to have a learn philosophy arc where he brings on philosophy experts to help him finally base his arguments in something.
Why are you guys so anal about Vaush?
It's not that complicated!
Vaush thinks more like an activist & Destiny thinks more like a philosopher.
Philosophers are valuable for theory, activists actually have to get shit done.
@@bvishal2kn knowing what we know now destiny is a better activist than vaush.
Their perspective might not make him "feel good" therefore that will make the statements false also he holds power over them and that makes him automatically right either way. Then if someone makes his opinions look silly that will cause a net harm to socialism, therefore it is evil.
@@bvishal2kn Vaush has not done anything
Destiny really needs to try and understand literature and quotations on a level beyond very basic semantics, his understanding of the quote 'history is written by the victors' is very dumb. Historians are a subset of victors, i doubt Destiny has read much Nazi history, so he can balance the holocaust.
If you haven't read 12 000 pages of (insert philosopher ) you can't undertand anything about anything. In my minds eye I'm seeing the fart smelling people in south park, they should make that an episode.
Make sure you're paying your editor well, hes putting in a lot of effort for these videos
I believe destiny does a 50/50 split on youtube video revenue
I wish I could explain (specially to destiny) how both sides are seeing each other, it just reminds me of me and a friend going down a long argument just because we dont understand some ways we each see certain things. Be it autism or something, I think there are some things that have been misconstrued, and in my opinion it comes from both sides having their stance and vaush being bad at expressing some of his ideas at times, and destiny not being able to read his intention. *"autism" comment not in an ableist manner, just explaining how and why it was lost in here, and perhaps even in my own experience with me and my friend
Vaush only cares about winning
I agree. Mostly when I hear interpretations of Vaush it feels like misunderstanding, which is also partly Vaushs fault. But these are small nuances that are easily misunderstood. After listening to parts of this convo though I am wonderim if Rem is deliberately missunderstanding them.
@@ions7581 Do yourself a favor and go to Vaush's channel and look up his video on triggering reactionaries. He does this for everybody now
@@BenReillySpydr1962 VDS
@@BenReillySpydr1962 Does what to everybody?
Steven pays his editor well, and it shows.
It almost makes you feel bad for Hasan's editor. Almost.
Thank you editor, very cool
It's legitimately scary that people think like this.
Philosophy dudorinos nitpicking Vaushes videos for inconsistencies :/
I wasn't ever crazy about Vaush but the more I watch him speak the less I respect him.
Wow that holocaust thing really changed my mind on vaush.
You kicked my ass in hypixel pit today
@@cascadiagreen6517 amazin
Honestly when he said that its ok to disseminate misinformation as long as it furthers his ends, that's when I unsubbed. Dude is literally no better than Crowder if he actually believes that
@@freefallingband did....did you watch the debate? He literally disavowed that...what he did say was that minor details that don't really affect anything is more or less fine. If you're talking about that "I want more Left Grifters" he literally followed that with "a grifter doesn't necessarily mean someone who lies...just someone who doesn't actually believe what they are saying and/or just pushing left content for money" and they can Most Definitely do that without Lying
@@alewis17 sorry brother, saying disseminating misinformation as long as you're leaving out "minor details that don't affect anything" is a pretty strange stance to say if you also believe that truth doesn't mean anything. What would be a minor detail for him could do major harm to public discourse as a whole, ie whether Brianna taylor was sleeping or not when she was killed
I’m a Vaush fan, so take this with a grain of salt. I think the clips/editing are great but seem to show the claims made against Vaush are false. Vaush doesn’t say, in the clip, that he believes and supports these things. He is arguing from the perspective of someone arguing with that type of person and how to deal with it. Can you convince that type of person and how. So the clip does not show what is being claimed against Vaush. O didn’t watch that debate so maybe I’ve missed something here, but based solely on the claims of this video and the accompanying clip, the claim is wrong.
You didn't miss anything. I watched that debate live and was honestly stunned at how thoroughly Rem was misinterpreting what Vaush was saying. He's repeating that same misinterpretation here. Your interpretation is completely correct.
@@ImperfectV01D which is problematic considering Destiny’s strong and hyperbolic stance against spreading misinformation. Hope Destiny addresses this.
Vaush is the Mark McGuire of debatelords. Has the skill to hit 40 homers a year but chooses to take steroids to hit 60+.
I enjoy some of his content, but that “debate” with Destiny was a huge yikes.
OMG YES THIS IS AMAZING
He tries way too hard sometimes and is too lazy to become more knowledgeable
Feb 2021 and you're just realizing Vash is a cynical sociopath and a nihilist. yikes
Vaush's dismissal of epistemics is disheartening. If everything is just made up on a whim, on what authority can he criticize reactionary politics, anti-intellectualism etc.? Aren't they just as justified in their beliefs as he is? On his views - they certainly are. Hopefully he'll bring in Perpective Philosophy for another discussion and fully address this.
@@homelessengineer5498 human weak monke stronk
@@loreaver3882 Return to Monke.
Hey editor great work, one question though would you be able to put the date of the streams in the description? It would be super helpful when looking for the full vod to watch