HOW CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING SO STUPID? Vaush's Debate Opponent Asks For Help
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- Destiny helps TJump understand why he performed badly against Vaush and how to debate Breadtubers...
▼Follow Destiny▼
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/...
►DISCORD - discordapp.com...
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
TJump
► / tjump
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com...
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
#Destiny
Ignore intro text...
Don’t tell me what to do
I wouldn't have noticed if you didn't post this comment
I saw 👀
I will not 🗿
You are speaking to Americans so the more appropriate language would be, "feel free to ignore the intro text".
LOVE how Destiny and Vaush are now debating by proxy forever linked in the debatosphere
They're the only debaters that have a unique intro/theme/stage that is only selectable if they're the p1 & p2 picks. Like in one of them there fightin games.
only gay niggas say debatosphere
@@Robeebert trueee
I mean tbf destiny made vaush. Wether vaush like it or not they are stuck together.
@@drunkencowboyagni nobody argued that
What concerns me is that many of these online debate streamers are so good at debating that the ideas being debated become secondary issues and the primary focus is how to outwit your opponent.
This only concerns me because people watching actually base their morality off these debates, to a degree (my brother is one of these people, he spends most of his time on the computer watching these streamers). So, if someone is just debating to win, and not necessarily to get to the bottom of whatever the moral or ethical issue is, then the audience could be deceived. This is not an issue for the debater, as he knows what he is doing and is just trying to win the argument.
I think we can all agree that everyone has an ego, some more than others, and people will try to protect their ego in these debates, instead of conceding a point that may lead to further enlightenment on an issue.
Does anyone else think this is an issue or is it just me? Honest question. I may just be overthinking. Or I may just be thinking this whenever my bias is not confirmed in the debate.
Yeah, that sounds like a genuine and poignant critique to me. I would suggest, however, that while everyone may have an ego, that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone’s ego presents itself under the same circumstances. For instance, I think, even as a pretty blatant conservative/libertarian myself, that Destiny is legitimately consistent in his interest to improve his moral system and has good faith conversations with those who are willing to do the same, and even with some who aren’t, which is interesting and I imagine somewhat frustrating.
@@masterhand20 Yea I agree. My fear is more related to the way other streamers debate. Destiny does seem very good at being impartial.
yeh i go out my way to do this but i can stil only realy manage if i have avoided adding any emotion into it initially otherwise i dont wanna backdown at al.
The best way to make your own opinion is to learn and question what you learn and your own beliefs. For most people it's VERY hard to do the latter. So they need to hear someone else countering the ideas they hear. Which is fine, it becomes bad only when people who defend ideas are bad at it and are outspoken by people who just talk will (Ben Shapiro) and there's nothing we can do about it. Still, seeing two sides arguing is better than just listening to the one side, I think
I stopped watching most debate streamers. Gotta say the latest videos from destiny makes me want to stop watching him as well. Not because of destiny himself, but the panels he is on are exactly as you described. The sneako, fuentes, mrgirl "debates" might be good content because they are edgy and loud and whatever, but not much is being discussed honestly.
Id rather listen to Sam Harris or read a book and leave the whole debate streamer content behind.
Big ups to destiny for always talking to and helping small creators
make me big now ;(
I've seen TJump on so many Modern Day Debates that I didn't even realize he was a small creator. Hope he gets boosted!
@@youtubebansdonothing4795 😳
@@TJump dude, one of my favorite videos of all time is you vs. JRobin: Immovable Object vs. Immovable Object on Tom Rabbitt's channel.
It was incredible how you maintained that energy for nearly an hour and a half.
Is TJump really small? I think he's somewhat well known in the UA-camr "debate sphere" (or at least with people who watch Modern Day Debates regularly).
am I crazy or is the car analogy more like if you keep telling your friends you have a truck and are totally down to help them if they ever have to move and then you show up with a prius that you just call a truck?
Tbf "just call a truck" is different from a whole political movement that wants to expand the definition of woman. If in your analogy there was social movement to call a Prius a truck, then it would be equivalent
@@absta1995
But then that’s where the differentiation of calling what we define as a truck today a “super-truck” which Vaush would dislike.
There isn’t an ounce of utility in calling a Prius a truck.
@@ThySheepie I’d say it would make Prius drivers feel better about the vehicle they occupy.
@K J doubt it. Prius drivers drive Priuses because they aren't trucks.
Thanks for having me on!
Regardless if it is true that Vaush's debate opponent ask for help from Destiny. We can not forget that Destiny is a girl's name.
Always has been.
Don’t you comment this on every video?
@@SadEyes1412 i domt but ty.
i'm unironically gigastraight
Same brother
If only Tjump shared his UA-cam window instead of whatever the fuck he chose cause the feedback is awful
i did on my stream lol
36:14 I physically face-palmed
How can you listen to Vaush and think he's genuine in the words he's using?
He's genuine until you cross the southern border. Then he's called aqua
@@bronn6219 This quote was made so much funnier by the fact that water in Spanish is "agua".
*HE MISSPOKE*
@@e.d.5766 vaush misspoke? 🤔
@@randybobandy9828 vaush aqua’d
@@bronn6219 Partner, in my town it's called agua
I mean I've never heard of "superstraight", and he's right, as someone who doesn't sit around thinking about how I want to identify, I don't "identify" as superstraight, but hearing its definition, I definitely would BE a "superstraight" person.
What Vaush seems to be missing, and this is why the self-identification thing is dumb, is you don't ADOPT a categorization. You either fall into a category or you don't based on how that category is defined. You can't just "identify" your way in or out of a category if you don't fit its criteria just so that you can wear the categorization aesthetically.
Being that this is the case, all self-identification is kind of stupid. All we can do is have some consensus about how a category is defined such that we know what we're talking about when we use a word. So it's useful to know that when I say man, I mean a male, because most straight women on this planet - when you "set them up with a guy" - are expecting that you know that means that you're setting them up with a male. If man means a male OR a female who identifies as a man because you can identify as fitting any category at will, then the word isn't useful anymore. It doesn't mean you hate trans people.
I feel like this problem was already very easily solved by calling men men, women women, trans men trans men, and trans women trans women. Yet the pushback on this insists that if you think there's a useful difference between a trans or non-trans person that's worth keeping that dividing line in the language/categorization, you're transphobic.
I feel like all the terms that get invented for 99% of people - made by the lgbt community - are intended to sound condescending or derogatory: "cis" sounds like you're calling me a "sissy" and that's fighting words. "Super straight" sounds dumb and only a VERY SECURE person would go around calling themselves that.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor Superstraight wasn’t made up by the LGBTQ community, it’s a term coined by the right-wing.
Also, why are you so anglocentric? “Cis” is literally just a Latin prefix meaning “on this side of something“. It doesn’t sound derogatory at all.
@@alle_sind_eins161 BETA is just the 2nd letter of the Greek alphabet, but it certainly seems that is used in a derogatory fashion all the time. Cis may not mean anything derogatory but it is certainly used that way, hence why the phrase "cis white male" is an insult that has been memed so much.
@@alle_sind_eins161 Huh....? Do you know what "sounds" means? As in "is perceived as" or "is interpreted as" ??
Cis SOUNDS like sissy. This is the FIRST I'VE EVER HEARD that it _wasn't_ chosen for that specific purpose.
I've only ever heard "super straight" used by lefties, mostly as a derogatory term/synonym for "transphobe"
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor Do you want people to stop using latin to protect your feelings?
When Marie curie was studying some rocks and found out that some of the rock was emitting radiation she didn't create radium. She created a word to describe the substance called radium that has different properties than the rock surrounding it. Vaush is like a newborn saying that there's no difference between himself and the world besides him gaining a tenuous grasp on the English language
but did you know across the border it's called "agua?!"
Nothing u said disagreed with vaush.
How is what you are saying disagreeing with vaush’s point?
@@mood1676 Vaush won’t acknowledge that Radium (the substance) is actually “real”. He’ll argue that you chose the criteria for what constitutes radium and that therefore radium could have been anything else and can always be made anything else. It just depends on what is good at the time, according to Vaush.
@@synlion not true, he made a video elaborating on this point recently, i think the thumbnail is of the periodic table.
Listening to this weird debate terminology is so utterly ridiculous. It's a shame that 90% of these "debates" are just people arguing over obscure debate-pro hypotheticals and proto-intellectual terminology rather than just discussing the issues using plain fucking english. It's like talking to a different species of human.
True
I love how destiny had the audacity to claim that Vaush hates him more😂 bro is obsessed with Vaush
I am noticing a pattern of Destint doing a whole lot of Vaush reactions but not the other way around...
I wanna see Vaush's first reaction to this video before he pretends to react to it later
i sent it to him and asked him to talk about, but he was scared
I feel as though Vaush came out on top in this conversation, Tjump definitely needed to zero in.
Being able to argue as the counter side is the vaccine of debate.
Vaush keeps doing the same thing and falls back onto silly language games.
Random guy: "hey vaush whats 1 + 1?"
Vaush: "well what you describe as 1 is just what someone made up the meaning for, so therefore.."
He just keeps on doing it over and over in many debates. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
It's not "silly language games" when this is a debate about language lol
I seriously don't see how anyone and much less Destiny thinks TJump is making good arguments. It seemed like TJump was arguing against his own position when he admitted that "super straight" was akin to the attack helicopter meme.
Destiny can get pretty stupid when there's Vaush content presented to him. He gets weirdly obsessed.
I’m the stinkiest DGGEr I’m a stinky warthog rollin in the mud hehe :) hope nobody tickles me!
OK
What the hell is going on at d.gg?
Sir, we respect women here. Lol
Dang Vaush is such a good debater he beat Destiny an entire year later in a retroactive debate analyzation. GG Vaush
UA-cam debating is like watching 👀 Two Pigeons playing Chess. The loser will just flap his wings knock over all the pieces and claim victory ✌ by default 😩
Agua
@@off6848 Agua is the new Obamna
@@GoneAngel imo, Obamna is funnier. Aqua is only funny in context
@@hugosilva400 Obamna is also only funny in context. It just so happens most people are aware of that context.
He can always break something down, but he's never going to have the goal of putting something together in its place, ever.
Super pseudo-intellectual shit that most people grew out of at 20. Dude is such a detriment to- man, not even just his (and my) Ideals- the dude is a detriment to the *concept* of thought.
Like, if you thought kids that grew up on Nostalgia Critic being all yell-y and bad faith is annoying, wait until the kids that watch Vaush are older. They'll basically be incapable of growing. They can just take the idea of growing apart. Ugh.
When you understand the concept of "growth" is socially constructed, you'll realize that growth can mean whatever you want it to. 😎 *CSI "yeeeeah!"*
Thats what happens when you establish that as your brand and make video content creation as your main source of income. You become creatively stunted.
Then don't say trans -->"woman" if it not true.
Huh?
@@testcase6997 The meaning of the comment. Hence "huh?"
@@taylorsouthall739 I agree. What the fuck is this comment saying exactly? Is this some kind of coder language here?
@@seventeenseventythirteen7465 I can't even discern if the comment is trans inclusive or exclusive.
Tjump: "Black people are not humans, because humans have light skin, this statement refers to reality and is therefore *not bigoted*"
Destiny: yep!
Wait wtf? Did he actually say those words in that order or is this a simplification of something he said? I wasn't paying attention all that much.
@@seventeenseventythirteen7465 Nope, I'm just poking fun at Tjump and Destiny falling all over themselves to defend him.
And I must warn you: If that makes you angry or you (rightly and fairly) disagree, I'll take a page from Tjump's book and say the word "science" at you. Which naturally makes me correct.
@@Chopstewie Well shit, now that you mention science, I kind of want to believe you. I don't think anyone in history has misused that word to push their own agenda, especially in nefarious ways. I mean, why would they? It's the scientific oath to say "science" only when it's 100% science truth and not just normal truth.
This Tjump guy must be some kind of computer genius or something.
Also, I kept thinking everyone here was trying to say Trump but getting around some kind of censor by saying Tjump instead. It confused me for a bit. IT wasn't scientifically sound.
@@Daniel-ih4zh Well shoot sparky, lay it on me :)
The only real thing you need to know about people like Vaush is that when they're debating you all they're trying to do is get to the point where they can call you a bigot in some way and as long as they feel they could make that stick they have won. They don't want a legitimate good faith argument(we know how much Vaush likes to harp about this) about the scientific logical or rational basis of anything. Some creationists are really good at debating and using manipulative tactics to seem convincing, it doesn't make them right and the same goes here. They're just the new age creationists.
Yeah, either bigot, homophobe, misogynist, anti semite, racist or fascist. He just needs one wow word to stick and his gremlins will do the rest.
Exactly, it's not about convincing anyone from a neutral or opposing viewpoint, it's about reaffirming people who already blindly agree with the ideology. You can show a communist 10 thousand things that contradict their worldview, all they need is one person who affirms it and that's going to be what sticks.
There is no way to win against Vaush, you just subjecting yourself to sewage.
Maybe because he debates bigots? And lmao what massive cops to say Vaush argued like a fucking creationist. If you think that a creationist has any good debate skills than the issue is your intelligence not Vaush’s ability. That goes tenfold if you looked at TJump saying he doesn’t believe trans women are actually women and said “oh he’s totally not transphobic Vaush is just calling him a bigot”. Mans came into this defending “super straight” bullshit. Vaush literally said you can’t define what a woman is any more than you can describe what a chair is because both of them are socially constructed. This is a pretty basic understanding of sociology. You can call out dumbass wokescolds all you want but pretending everyone on the left is emotional and can’t make good arguments is lazy, weak, and spite driven. I mean ffs the opening argument TJump says that super straight was never about being transphobic but actually it was to point out the hypocrisy of the left because they’re unwilling to accept this sexuality and when Vaush literally restated his argument Destiny just word vomited some bs about him saying unrelated arguments that other people made or some dumb shit. Even TJump acknowledged Vaush repeated his argument, he just claims Vaush restated it and then dismissed it. Destiny would never pretend like TJump’s opponent had any form of a point if he wasn’t Vaush. And that’s why you had to say this dumb shit instead of actually breaking down the video your watching.
Edit: I’m gonna keep showing how full sod shit Destiny is in this video lmao. Vaush says that you can’t say “super straight is a critique of the left just accepting any identity” or whatever and when people critique that you then say “well it’s not a critique it’s an actual sexuality”. It’s either or.
Destiny than counters by saying “oh so you’re saying if it’s a critique you don’t have to engage?” Just a straight up strawman lmao. And before you start soying I actually like Destiny calling out the left. I just think he desperately wants to pretend Vaush is like Hasan Piker or something when Vaush gets as much if not more hate from the left than Destiny does for basically the same takes.
@@YouJGSousa though I wade knee deep through the valley of brain-slime I shall fear no tankie, for this slime rolls down the side of MY mountain. The Lord is our Guide
This is confusing. I don't want to date trans people....but its not part of my identity. I accept trans people's existence, want the best for them, and think its a valid identity. But I've never even heard of the idea that not wanting to date trans people is also an identity? what next. not wanting to play golf as an identity?
Can't say I'm a huge fan of TJump but be fares better in a non-debate setting where he has a better opportunity to flesh out his positions
Yeah I think most people fare better in a non-debate setting.
So he's better at dialectic that rethoric.
That's great.
I'm a Tjump fan, as much of an impatient asshole as he can be. It's always good seeing him on DGG
Tjump for President!
thanks
"How do we make them up": By categorizing observable traits and physical properties.
I think Vaush's position that words have "socially constructed" meaning is being distorted, here. He just says that we can (and should) adjust words if it is useful. He also explains that this isn't just an option, but something that has been happening forever.
Vaush is basically arguing for a moral prescription and saying that we can and should adjust the meaning of the word woman to include trans woman. He argues that would be the morally right thing to do, because it would reduce harm to trans people, while any negative effects would be negligible. He argues further, that creating categories like superstraight (or whatever it was) is designed to be an attack on a minority group and has no other real purpose than to do harm to said minority group and should therefore be dismissed/destroyed.
This is not post modern and it is not religious. It's an attempt at creating and instilling moral values, based on the objective reality of the world. It is not circular, because it derives from observable circumstances. The only real arguments against it would be that you disagree that it would be a (morally) worthwhile change - and then you have to justify that.
But we have to worl with reality too right, we can accept trans women are women on a societal daily life practical basis but we still need to be compatible with the fact that some people are born one way and some the other. I think for outside people statements like "trans women are exactly the same as women full stop" are just a little too unreasonable
@@seth2402 See the thing is.... no one is ever saying "Trans women are biologically the exact same in every way.". You're not going to find someone saying that and if you do they're an outlier of outliers.
Yes, we can acknowledge that there are biological differences, but I don't see why we keep needing to every time it's brought up. Can we not just say "trans women are women..." then add a "... but biologically speaking they aren't technically the exact same.". Can we just stop it at the sociological level unless it's needed to talk about it biologically?
Why do people always want to talk about biology when trans people are brought up? Yes, we get it, trans people will never be a 1 to 1 comparison to the gender they identify as, I'm certain that the trans people themselves completely understand that. What I don't get is the constant need to bring that up when it's not necessary.
@@Daniel-ih4zh Because we do that constantly with every word and phrase? I can no longer talk about bundles of sticks or cigarettes without being homophobic.
Words change, definitions change. Why do we always have to dig our heels in the sand and say "NO! I want this one to not change because I feel like it shouldn't." why do your feelings on it trump the utility of it for others?
What harm is being done when we change up the meaning of the word "woman" (and "man" for that matter since no one remembers trans men exist)
@@Daniel-ih4zh I always have to ask this. Why are you so invested in this? What harm does it cause you to see trans women (and trans men, still no one remembers they exist for some reason.) being identified as women?
Is this some debate pervertry where you just feel the need to argue something that causes no general harm to you but can be hurtful towards trans people.
What is the point in not just accepting it and living your life? It makes sense for trans people to argue this since it's their whole life and identity that they have to constantly defend. But why are there people like Matt Walsh dedicated to making that life as bad as possible just to be a contrarian towards a progressive move that only causes more positive outcomes.
In what sense does it matter? In what scenario will needing to classify a biological woman and a trans woman as different? They already know they aren't biologically women so why constantly need to bring it up and remind them?
@@Daniel-ih4zh Because it's doing harm to other people and I don't like seeing people needlessly suffer because people want to stick to antiquated ideas just to harass and belittle people that they will never have to come in contact with?
I feel like my reason for reducing harm that comes to a marginalized group of people that are just trying to live their lives is a more noble and reasonable goal than to just say "I'm looking at science and stuff and they're just a bunch of dudes pretending to be women, I'm an attack helicopter lol.", that's kind of far more stupid and pointless an endeavor than just trying to be nice to others that normally get shit from people like you simply for existing.
That a decent answer? Because you could answer the question I asked without answering it with just another question.
so destiny just isn't pro trans anymore cause hating vaush is more important?
How is he not pro trans ?
or perhaps trans identities need to be defended with vigor and the current advocates are problematic to the identity?
Black and white mindset right here
@@kye4216 tjump clearly doesn't think tranwomen are women since he says he defines woman biologically and destiny doesn't give any arguments for the position that transwomen should be included. He just says vaush has bad arguments for transwomen being women and agreeing with tjump through the whole video, not giving any reason to affirm transidentities since then he would be agreeing with vaush. Also at the end tjump is asking who he could debate about the trans stuff and first destiny says that you cant debate anyone on breadtube since they are all bad faith etc and then doesn't say that he could debate it even though he usually is always up to debate people who he considers good faith which he clearly sees tjump as since he is going over videos with him.
It's just weird that he doesn't give any push back to a person that clearly disagrees with him but he can't since then he would be agreeing with vaush.
yes, literally. u got it. he's also doing it to goad a reaction from leftists. he's just a reactionary troll.
Didn't Tjump say in a debate with vaush that tallness was a real thing and not a social concept of who is tall or not
It’s a dimensional metric description. You describe a metric of length juxtaposition to the average length of other people
@@devaxionrl8189 height itself is objective but who is "tall" isn't. We can find out who is taller but we can't find out who is tall
@@ImRichYourPoor this is debateable. Words meaning is derived from how it is used. If 6ft is tall for most people, that makes 6ft people objectively tall. The whole tall “from my perspective” thing can be used, but then you have to explain how your position modified the common use of “tall”. It isn’t a word that implies subjectivity.
Tall is actually defined by being taller than the average woman, it's based on women's standards. If you're six feet tall, but your girlfriend is also six feet, then she won't consider you all that tall, would she? Of course there are men who care about being shorter than other men, but the vast majority of men don't care about height
@@ImRichYourPoor yes it is... tall is in reference to the average height of something.
Honest question from an outsider, what is the difference between being straight and super straight?
It means you're so straight you don't watch porn with or anything resembling a penis in it.
In fact you have a hard time grabbing/looking at your own dick because you're so super straight.
It’s my understanding that the argument is straight is meaning you are attracted to the opposite sex and trans people who also identify as that sex. Super straight would be excluding any trans people from that equation.
@@bigben3089 Thank you for the response. Clears it up some for me.
I already saw this on the Destiny News Orbiter channel. Getting slow on the draw August?
Species are actually a bit of a blurry and contentious construct in biology. There is certainly a definition of species that refers to what niche they fill out in the ecosystem or what behavioral patterns they engage in. There might be ground squirrels and tree squirrels that could breed but might be considered different species because they never interact and thus will genetically diverge. Likewise you could define women or humans from a behavioral perspective or from a reproductive perspective. We could argue that different races are different species if they have sufficiently different behavioral norms and limited interaction within their environment.
I had a convo with someone about sexuality awhile back that has really stuck with me since, primarily because of how toxic it was, but also because of how insane this person's takes were. It was with a known name in the politics streamosphere, and essentially I was trying to make the case that I think that our modern concept of gender has outpaced our concept of sexuality. In short, I don't think terms like "gay" or "straight" work very well in hyper progressive spaces where gender is a more or less meaningless identifier. I made the case that I don't think people are attracted to gender identities, but rather to traits that we often times associate heavily with gender.
My really spicy take that didn't even come up in that convo is the more I learn about sexuality, and think about this sort of dilemma that progressives seemingly want to ignore or try to redefine their way out of is that there's a push to use sexuality as a way to affirm gender identity instead of being a useful indicator of preference in partners.
The conversation was more or less a useless exercise in tedium, that was more just me being called the f-slur for 2ish hours, but it was kind of enlightening in the sense that revealed how little these people have thought about these topics, and are more just repeating the arguments that feel the best.
I kind of blame Vaush to some degree for peddling useless concepts like gender abolitionism. We need to be able up have the harder more complex conversations without immediately thinking that if a straight guy who prefers cis-women is transphobic.
Toxic? That's a woman word!
Couldn’t agree with this more. We aren’t attracted to labels or the way people self-identify (gender identity), we’re attracted to the way people behave based on how they see themselves (gender expression). And at best the labels correlate heavily with the behaviour, but not 100%. Sucks that whoever you were talking to couldn’t see such a simple picture.
@@z14key the way I chose to describe my sexual preference is that I am very attracted to femininity, or feminine aspects, though not exclusively. But that necessarily includes people like fem-boys, so I'm not straight necessarily. but some people just really aren't attracted to a penis, and even if a person with a penis identified as a woman, that doesn't change the lived reality of the person experiencing the attraction (or in that case lack thereof). Their response literally was "a hole is a hole" and they just kind of kept repeating that like it meant anything.
but yeah, it was just a really awful conversation, and frankly it really turned me off from having them in the future. it was intellectually exhausting to say the least, and I think repeated exposure to people like that might warp my perception of people on the left, which I want to avoid.
“Traits that we heavily associate with gender” I feel like this is the definition of gender but replace the last word with sex. I feel like you are conflating the two a bit but im not sure
It's difficult to have a conversation on this topic when it seems like the parameters for gender identification and its concepts are ever changing and at such a rapid pace. Adding to the confusion, it also seems like nobody (on opposing sides) can agree on much, perhaps agreeing on the fundamentals such as 'what is a woman' would be a good place to start. Memes aside, the parameters of gender identification vary dramatically depending on the part of the world you live in, and to me personally the western most progressive ideals seem subjective... I mean how could you scientifically define gender? 'my gender is whatever I want it to be' meme also doesn't help people willing to learn about this topic, they're just left scratching their heads. Slightly off topic, but yeah ✌️
(Aug 11)
Word of the Day: Alleviate
Alleviate means "to make something less painful, difficult, or severe" or "to partially remove or correct."
From Merriam-Webster
How does Destiny not understand the deconstructivist point?
TJump is absolutely wrong here, the category of species does not exist in reality, Vaush is 100% correct, even if the rest is nonsense. Why is Destiny not shitting on TJump for this, I felt like in the past he had a good understanding of how categories function. TJump is absolutely a realist in this sense, which I thought Destiny was not?
Even if categories are constructed by utility and level of abstract understanding we can gain about the world, doesn't make them real.
There is no ontology of species, that's the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
Because Vaush and you are wrong. You do not understand that Vaush is not just saying the cathegory of species does not exist. He is also saying the actual thing that the cathegory describes does not exist. If you actually listened what was said in this video you would know this. Destiny said literally said that the cathegory by itself does not exist but the underlying fact of the matter still exists. What the hell are you smoking?
This becomes even more clear when Vaush debates the aqua professor. There Vaush clearly states that we cannot say that water is still H_2O as in water does not have the properties described by these cathegories because they are social constructs. He is wrong. The properties of water still exists in the real world whatever the cathegory we choose to make for it or even choose to totally disregard it.
Our understanding of the world is limited thus we have to break it to smaller pieces to understand it better. That is literally what we are doing when we are create cathegories for things.
Regardless it has a very bad argument to take, his “oh I was just exploring” excuse is nonsense . He f’ed up. Period.
He should have just shut it down with “those guys being wrong doesn’t mean I’m wrong”. It’s that simple, why complicate.
"Why isn't he shitting on this person who came.to him for an earnest discussion"
Yeah I thought destiny was a postmodernist and it feels like he's turning into a realist to spite vaush
@@loadsatis7527 Then you have no idea what Destinys positions are.
Idk how to feel about TJump, he keeps saying that his debate oponents all arrive to their conclusions from their ideology and post-hoc rationalize it, but whenever I listen to him he really seems to be like he's trying to fish for premises to justify his conclusions in the same way breadtubers do.
The way I try to look at these things is without regard for either persons ideology. If their argument makes sense that’s really the only thing that matters. I don’t think you’ll find anyone who doesn’t insert their ideology in their arguments to at least some degree. It’s just people like Vaush do it almost 100% of the time and have no regard for if it is logically consistent or not. As long as it furthers his worldview he will make the argument and never waiver. I try to separate the person from the argument as much as possible, which admittedly is very difficult at times when you truly don’t like the person making it.
Fish for premises? TJump is about as well thought as it gets. He has his entire epistemic framework written out down to it's base axiom, he has a rigid moral system that he has debated many times, and his premise here is dead simple which he argued from the ground up - that it isn't inherently transhobic to have different definitions and categories to other people, even if they are less socially acceptable or discriminate in some way.
The fact that he's willing to talk to Destiny, looking for advice on how to do better in a debate has to say something, right? I mean that's more than what Vaush would do. Vaush would just act smug and act like he always knows better
"oponents all arrive to their conclusions from their ideology", i dont think ive ever said that?
everybody starts with their conclusion and rationalizes it
you brain intuitively decides what to believe, and when you ask why, it serves you a rationalization. The reason to believe always comes second.
21:00 in regards to the Fountain (1917) the critique is the concept itself. Duchamp (the artist) and many others at the time were creating a new art - conceptual art. This is art in which the concept of the piece takes centre stage, rather than form, material or other aesthetics. This can be applied to super straight - what’s important about it is not the sexual orientation, it’s what it’s critiquing.
As someone who's getting into debating; these videos help a shit ton
Watch the jontron its a classic
Yeah, teach you to not debate people like Vaush. This is a pointless bad faith conversation
@@YouJGSousa cope
@@garywebb2432 pepega clap...
@@garywebb2432 cope what? Even destiny says at the end that you shouldn’t expect good faith conversations from Breadtubers.
Using linguistics, especially from dipshits, as an argument in most situations is the easy way out of arguments as most people are not that nuanced enough to understand the philosophy of language.
Wait until people discover Quine
@@off6848 I have a book on philosophy of language. What specifically about Quine are you referring to?
@@rsia08 Holism. But really Quines whole ambition was tackling exactly what trickery is going on in Vaush debates
Wait until people rather discover Hilary Putnam and Saul Kripke
When they were talking about can you make including definitions that aren't racist or transphobic, I had a thought come to mind because of vaush's comparison of black people being not categorized as human. I would say you could, and the reason is the categorization of black people in the past was putting so done about someone else in terms of rights or power. If rights are given equally and power is given equally to the included group even if they want to be included would not be seen as negatively discrimitory. Just like someone being upset that they don't meet qualities for a certain club where the members only get an identifying title and calling the person discriminatory, when a person within that club does not get different power or is seen as higher or lesser. So if tjump wants to categorize women as biological, that would not be transphobic, because the way of categorization doesn't lead to a rpiscription of power or rights
This is retarded. Defining humans by their rights and not the creatures or animals that we all are is basically useless.
So I thought about Vaush’s statement of “the meme of trans people thinking that it’s transphobic to not date trans people, is an incredible minority within a minority.”. I think the issue becomes that it’s not just trans people who believe that it’s transphobic to not to date trans people, it’s also left wing people who are either virtue signalling or genuinely believe this. So when you see posts on Twitter around this topic getting thousands of upvotes etc. it makes it seem like it’s a larger group of the trans community that believe this then there actually is. So it might be true that it’s an incredible minority of trans people who believe this, it’s just other people who aren’t trans also believe this and reflects back on the trans people themselves. It’s the same thing of when a bunch of white Antifa kids go around burning black neighbourhoods in the name of black people, but black people don’t actually agree or want them to do this.
then you should say “Twitter leftists”.
How is that a big concern? Just don't date ppl you don't wanna date and you'll be fine. Tweets don't look over your shoulder when you're swiping on Tinder
@@HardStickman It's not..... What part of my comment displayed this as a "Big concern"? I was literally just going over a point of the debate......
There are people who think it's transphobic for a trans person to not want to date another trans person. Who really cares what a bunch of mor0ns think is transphobic?
"I think Jangles is the most honest."
Anyone coming here from Sitch and Adam: Uhhhhh...
Anyone anywhere would go: Uhhhhhh....
yeah, the " a good example of colorblindness is jim crow laws" jangels.
Actually, it's agua.
the echo is driving me crazy
so destiny doesn't think trans women are women anymore?
Trans women are trans women. They weren’t born a biological female and have the physiology of a man
They never were
bro he never did
Destiny becomes based
I'm pretty sure he did in the past. He argued almost the same line that Vaush is arguing here against Sargon. That woman is a category and that expanding it can bring some utility.
I guess now that he's trans-medicalist, he just thinks that trans women are in a different category but can still be called women if they actually have gender disphoria and a biologically engrained sense of identity opposite to the sex they were born with.
So far I'm liking TJump but I'm so distracted by the way he looks in the debate just because he looks so damn much like Markiplier did in his early videos blended together with ActMan
God this was hauntingly similar to the aqua debate. The abuse of the words arbitrary, subjective/objective and ontological is insanely cringe. And that it's all done with a veneer of snide superiority and quasi intelligent sentence structure makes it all so painful
59 minutes later, and I still don't know what destiny thinks of "superstreght"?
This was a good convo/analysis! I remember watching the original debate when it came out, and it was my first time seeing Tjump. He always struck me as slightly populistic, but nevertheless a good faith interlocutor and with fair and reasoned perspectives. I would be interested in you two doing more collaborative content moving forward... Either as oppositional or as tag-teams
He's real good at taking down theists
I’m assuming he is a racist based on his debate position.
TJump is on like half of all Modern Day Debate uploads
thanks
@@youtubebansdonothing4795 who, me?
Female is a term that exclude against trans women , So is being a Heterosexuals Male Transphobic ?? I would not
I like to think of the best arguments for opinions I disagree with, which makes it a bit frustrating when people take stances so bizarre that its hard to come up with a justification for it. Why dude?
Lmfao. That sounds like the kind of mistake I used to make. You can't assume people will act honestly and keep your sanity. It's better to practice being able to quickly find the principles the other person's argument rest on, and expect many of them to be emotional or vaguely reminiscent of ideas they do not fully understand.
Nothing was really said here.
I've never been too big a fan of TJumps political analyses but his discussions regarding philosophy (especially epistemology/ontology) are almost always extremely insightful
thanks
@@TJump your honesty and curiosity set you apart from a LOT of streamers 🙏🏽 we disagree on politics but your attitude and approach to conversation should be more widespread in the debatesphere imho
@@TJump Loved your Hovind debate. Him trying to counter the "non-kent" argument was priceless.
TJump's political style is what you get if you analyze everything objectively, and dispassionately. It's totally valid, but there is high risk. A dispassionate take always comes with a risk of coming off in the worse way possible. People on average are not used to that, and interpret everything through emotion. It's why Vaush went sort of nuts in that debate.
@@spacedoohicky especially in political conversations I think.
I hate that we police what people are allowed to not want to be with
Kiki is cold, sharp, and spiky, while booba is warm, dull, and rounded. These things are true across all cultures. Language itself is not a social construct as much as bees hollow out a tree to build a protected nest- the hollow is already there, life grows into niches.
Destiny I don't agree with your politics but I like the way you follow logic and that makes you ok. Keep doing what you're doing, it's important.
That doesn't mean that he's right, reason or logic can lead one to opposite view points. Trad anti abortion and liberal progressive pro choice being the example, both are about rights.
@@teresazbikowska7094
All I said is I like the way he works through things logically.
The left used to be like this more but it's increasingly extremely rare, most of them are unhinged npcs now.
@@teresazbikowska7094 Is that not literally the point he's making?
@@teresazbikowska7094 not really since there's still to this day no pro choice argument based on rights that doesn't also include the creation of the right the argument relies upon. That's post hoc rationalization not following a logic trail
@@christopherwigfall6518 not sure how bodily autonomy is some ad hoc recently made up idea lol
16 minutes in and it's Spitestiny being Spitestiny. He's making an argument dude. He said "super" implies that there's an elevated form of straight which involved inclusion. How the mighty rise and then fall as soon as they review a Vaush debate, and then immediately become big brained right after when critiquing anyone else.
@@testcase6997 It's ridiculous. And it's also hilarious that Destiny doesn't respond to that specific point that I noticed and pointed out, but he says Vaush doesn't respond to any argument.
@@obscenedougie vaush literally argues the meaning of human. You are obviously vaush pilled
@@chay770 what does that have to do with anything I said in my comment. I’m not just a vaush stan I watch just about every political commentator and I really enjoy Destiny. You have to lie to yourself to believe he analyses vaush in the same way he analyses anyone else. He reaches so hard
“Destiny helps TJump understand why he performed so badly against Vaush.”
The title of the video under discussion: Vaush DESTROYED by TJump
lol
TJump repeatedly argues that the *intent* behind a definition determines whether it's exclusionary, for example at 53:00. But doesn't this therefore imply that the people identifying as superstraight *are* being transphobic, because they're intentionally creating the definition for the purposes of excluding transwomen from the category to which they're attracted?
The problem is that the broadening of the definition of the category 'woman' is, of course, up for debate, and the category is entirely subjective. The underlying traits that make up the most common traditional definition are objective (generally) but the category itself is entirely subjective. Vaush's method of ultimate post-modern denial of meaning is entirely unhelpful but TJump was probably not correct.
The conversation about the definition, and whether or not it should include trans women, is an important one to have in society. Denial of the ability to even have that discussion is entirely the wrong method to take. All it does is make people disengage and firmly take route in their instinctive positions.
Gender is just a linguistic thing.
It's only in 60th they start using it relative to sexuality.
"The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s".
Some languages are Gendered & include Feminine & Masculine words.
In some languages there is no word for Gender, & they would say that some words just have Sex.
@@bestdjaf7499 That's not entirely relevant though. Man and Women are far older terms that have relevance outside of gender.
They have relevance to a person's sex (not sexuality) but it's not exclusive to that. The terms also have relevance to social perception and have done so for centuries and possibly millennia.
Sure, there are new gender identities today but the argument that is being had is where these new genders land in relation to the long-used terms of man or woman.
I'm not sure who you're quoting or particularly what the relevance is. Regardless of the age of a concept, it's relevance to our social environment is what matters.
@@neighbourhoodmusician
I am pointing out it's just linguistic byproduct.
The word Gender is coming from french.
French is Gendered Language.
(Well in some/majority of languages we would say that French/Spanish is Sexualised languages, & the words have sex, b/c we don't have a word Gender).
The word Gender refers to language.
Like Latino vs. Latina. It describes sex.
But sex also has a biological meaning, therefore they start saying that some words are Masculine or Feminine.
But it has nothing to do with sexuality.
And my quote is from Wikipedia:
"The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.
The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.
The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s."
@@bestdjaf7499 My response is - So what? What actual effect does that have on its modern relevance?
@@neighbourhoodmusician
You just made up a word.
That's why now Trans Women are Women.
Well, we now have Dear/Rabbit... Genders.
So now the words have no meaning.
Well, we can start calling everything with two legs, humans.
And then say that monkeys therefore are humans.
Transwomen are women but trans women to be specific. No one argues that they are biological females/women so idk why these arguements still go on. Like how are we not on the same page in 2022? Idk
Because of issues like "women sports" or "women grants". Should it include trans women, non transitioned self identified women? If not, are you saying that they are not women? Despite the fact that we defined trans women after we created women sports and now you can't change to "biological women sports" without being a bigot.
I actually think this was a rare Vaush W.
"we describe species through best guess and induction" then "this isn't complicated I don't want to go into a debate" "I don't care about your deluded perception on social construction".
TJump came across as too emotional, and unreasonable. And he's wrong. The definition of species isn't fully agreed on, and while the term species exists because it is useful in distinguishing between different living things, there is no base fact that informs what a species is. Best case, you could argue "if two animals are of the same species, that is a shorthand way of stating that they can interbreed to produce viable offspring". But, even though there is a root fact of the matter about whether two individuals can reproduce producing viable offspring, there is a lot of ambiguity in that definition (by which objective rules do we assign species to ring-species and similar edge cases), and if the intent of the term species is just to categorize organisms at some level, we could have chosen other ways to define it.
Furthermore, to assert that we can, by technological innovation and, once again, induction, determine what a woman is is frankly ludicrous. While species is used in science, and so is required to be reasonably nailed down definitionally, woman is a term that does not have such requirements. Realistically, beyond people on the fringes who want to define woman by self-ID, or by chromosomes, woman will be a definition that just describes people that other people describe as women. Sure, it's not philosophically rigorous, and it's at root circular, and I understand why this is a bad thing for a definition, but we do this all the time when defining things. It's like saying there's an ontological truth we can find, that defines the threshold between which light appears green. There's just no way to find a root truth behind such a question. And even if we did somehow develop a method to find the "ontological bounds of green" in the electromagnetic spectrum, it would have been a pointless exercise anyway, because even if that were achieved, green would still be used as just a proxy for a common experience, as it is now. Which wouldn't always be in agreement with our "fact of the matter" green.
On the other hand, we can pretty rigidly define some things. There is a fact of the matter we can point to when discussing atoms or electrons. Likewise, with math, given the definitions we build at the bottom, everything above these definitions can be proven axiomatically in a way we can be certain of. But just as it's ridiculous to search for "ontological green" it's ridiculous to search for the "ontological woman".
Finally it just seems like TJump wanted to be commended on debating Vaush. And Destiny just uncritically agreed with him. And I understand why, Vaush really does have terrible arguments frequently.
also, the "Is feminism a religion" comments were really giving off 2013 "skepto-sphere sargon of akkad" vibes.
Viable and fertile offspring is the general rule for separating species. For example, a donkey and a horse can produce viable offspring (a mule), but they are not fertile (except in extraordinarily rare circumstances). So we split them up into two different species. With that said, it’s only a general rule, we break it all the time. Wolves and coyotes are classified as different species but hybridize all the time.
@@gamingwhilebroken2355 Yeah sorry I forgot the fertile bit. But yeah, I think the ambiguity around your example, and around ring species really illustrate that even though it is a scientific construct, ultimately there isn't really a base truth of the matter that defines all species properly, and there probably won't ever be.
@@JosephF. While i would disagree with your asserting that "there is no base truth of the matter", but let's take it as truth that all our categories are made up and based on general subjective experiences. That is still where the rubber meets the road on this topic. By this logic it's just as legitimate to call a mule a horse as it is to call a trans person by their self ID. The argument basically becomes "because categories are so flimsy, they're meaningless to the point of not being able to exclude anything", and add to that the moral component of the issue that "if you don't agree that all mules are horses, you're a bigot".
It's completely sidestepping any engagement with the distinction and simply justifying itself with "'cus feelings/harm".
To take it back to reality; there is obviously a distinction between women and those that are not women, but wish to ID as women.
If there wasn't sexual reassignment surgeries wouldn't exist. There would be no point, because they would already be "as woman as possible", but they're not. Not by their own standards and not by anyone perceiving them, and so they're willing to undergo extreme measures to try and approximate womanhood.
Back to the mule analogy, and to tie it in with the super straight debate, if you were in the market to buy a horse and someone sold you a mule, would you really not have any legitimate reason to object to their lack of distinction between the two categories? Sure you yourself might be completely indifferent to the distinction, but that doesn't mean there is none. I see Vaush use his Bi / pan ID so often to completely sidestep this issue again and again. It's like saying that because I don't care if the waiter in the restaurant brings me a glass of red or white wine, because i enjoy both equally, then there is no distinction between red or white wine (and if you think differently, you're bigot).
You assert that "woman is someone that other people describe as a woman", but this definition is one that can only be justified if you truly believe there is no underlying fact of the matter, which you apparently do. But what if we do the world wide polls, and it turns out 95% of people wouldn't describe trans women as women, does that change your perception, then? Is there some critical threshold needed for a description to be legitimate, or will you argue this no matter how many people disagree with you? What if 99% of the world would describe the moon as cheese, does that legitimize that view? Or 50% of people describe you as a retard? How far can you take this "there is no objectivity" rationale?
@@gamingwhilebroken2355 this definition is good for any single moment in time but once we look at it over a larger time period this definition starts to break down. In that case we might need to find alternative ways of defining species, which I think helps Vaush’s argument rather than TJump’s
It seems ludicrous to me to state that the only valid way to define a term is using a circular definition and that to hold any other standard for such a definition is ipso facto bigoted.
I thought it was the wrestler Disco Inferno for a second
Destiny gave really bad pointers in this video. Even ended the video with the dumbest statement imaginable. "When he is asking you these bizarre hypotheticals and stuff you got to ... demonstrate negative outcomes and stuff because they're not dealing in the world of like logic.... They're dealing with what's morally good or bad." Here is why this statement is dumb:
1: Most of the attributed hypotheticals Vaush brought up in the debate actually happened and are not hypothetical. For example the classification of black people as a sub or inferior species actually happened in the scientific community and is not a hypothetical. It is a real world relevant comparison.
2: Hypothesis, and by extension hypotheticals, are part of the scientific method and has been the basis for reasoning (logical thinking) for millennia.
3. People are wrong for making a morally good argument is an opinion and not a fact.
4. Making a morally good argument is not counter to making a rational argument. In fact most moral arguments are indeed rational. For example it is a good idea to adopt a position that will cause the least amount of harm to the greatest amount of people. Holding a social constructions that harms a minority when changing that construction harms no-one is a rational thing to do. So despite the argument that other people have different definition of what a woman is or not, that definition is not permanent and all the dictionaries in the world routinely update definitions of words as society changes. So if your temporary definition of what a woman is, harms people, Vaush would be rational in opposing that definition.
One of the big problems here is that the concept of "species" is very poorly defined and often contradictory. He cherry picked a poorly defined category to make a point about all catagories.
flaws are more visible when going to extremes .to understand the concept of words social value its useful bring up our worst and least defined words, so that we can break them up into their social applications.
He's asking someone who also lost to Vaush in a debate for tips on how to beat Vaush in a debate.
He lost once or twice but 9 times out of 10 is more accurate and correct and has beaten vaush back every other time they debated? yea. Hes good
@@simonjaz1279 vaush intellectually outpaced him lolz
@@CrisTheFist lol sureee. Maybe once. But I promise vsush is actually special needs. To think he wins a majority of the time and is correct is also stupid. Cope harder man. Vaush sux.
Was dumb in my view for Vaush to say that if someone is only attracted to their own racial group that they're "racist" - who gives a fuck who someone else is attracted to? Also, stop policing people's preferences. It's not cool.
Destiny, I appreciated this video. It was cool to get a debate breakdown. Thanks.
He's basically arguing that everything is arbitrary but we need categories and definitions or we can't communicate. If you deny species exist then how do we categorize any being?
You're just fully misunderstanding his argument. He didn't say any of that.
@@Daniel-ih4zh as social constructs made with the goal of achieving the maximum amount of utility, which can and should be just replaced if you have an alternative that achieves more utility, yes he did say that, which isn't what the original commentor understood about it.
@@Daniel-ih4zh
"i.e. to you these things are arbitrary. "
They can be anything but the more utility they carry the better they are. We could theoretically have meaningless definitions but they wouldn't be useful and I would advocate for changing them.
"And what do you mean "replace a social construct?" The meaning is derived from what it denotes and that's the only thing that matters. You can't "replace", you just formulate a completely new one with the same set of sounds attached to denote it."
Social construct A has the purpose Ap. That can be replaced with social construct B with purpose Bp, when Ap≈Bp.
"It's like saying what we call purple is a social construct, some people are sad that they're not the colour purple and so they aim to change the underlying meaning of purple so that white skin now is now denoted by purple."
Your ability to come up an example of bad argument from utility doesn't mean the concept of arguing definitions from utility is flawed. I've heard people do this same thing with ethics. "Consequencialism is flawed because killing people makes Bob happy which means that it is now ethical for Bob to kill people". That's just you using the framework to create a bad argument. Doesn't disprove the framework.
"Underlying realities exist and people should have a problem with that, not with a label we attach to it."
With words like woman there are 3 steps. The word (socially constructed), which refers to a concept/idea (socially constructed) which refers to things in reality (empirically provablef). The concept serves a purpose, and can be changed with a different concept as long as it serves the same purpose.
I'll give you an example. Let's hypothetically say that for a long time we have defined woman strictly by XX chromosomes. Chromosomes are a part of reality. This definition serves a specific purpose within carrying out meaning. An alternative definition would be to define woman strictly by their genitals. Genitals are also a part of reality. This definition would fulfill the niche of the previous definition, even if it's not exactly the same. There are edge cases who would no longer be considered women under the alternative definition, but the definition still serves roughly the same purpse.
I don't understand why so many people are arguing against the concept of changing definitions. I wish the online debate was centered on whether or not it is a better definition to include trans women in the concept of women. I wouldn't actually even argue that since I'm not as confident on my arguments regarding that.
This is legit soy
21:10 Exactly. You need to threat it as if it is genuine because otherwise you need to be a mindreader in any other circumstance.
The answer to Vaush saying "human is a social construct" and then asking "would it be racist to categorize humans in a way that excludes black people" is to say that "racism is a social construct".
He refuses to accept that any form of categorization is legitimate on the basis of them being "social constructs", so the answer to that kind of stupidity is to reciprocate. Make him explain why the terms he likes to claim are "bad" such as racism and transphobia are legitimate when they're socially constructed categorizations of ideological principals and, by his own logic, don't legitimately exist.
If you want to claim that racism and transphobia are legitimately definable things and those things are bad, then you must accept that things like woman and human are also legitimately definable things and not just hand-wave them away with the "bUt tHaT's jUsT A soCiAl cOnStrUcT!" bullshit.
He isnt wrong. It is a social construct
A "social construct" is not something that's not real, its a thing that's made real by human society. Vaush never denied that any categories were real, he just argued the some ways of categorizing are more useful than others. His entire premise is that the current social construct of gender is real and is also harmful and should be changed to be less harmful.
To say it is socially constructed is not saying the term is meaningless, it’s saying that the definition is not concrete and based solely in scientific analysis. Like destiny said the question “what is a woman” is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
@@mood1676 you watch too many shit debates. “What is a woman” question even if it is philosophical, will always collide with scientific facts because it involves science. One cannot be purely philosophical
@@chay770 that is true for all things, fundamentally you cannot derive a the answer to that question with science alone. It requires a philosophical standpoint to choose what scientific parameters to consider though. And yea I watch a lot of shit debates like this and good ones as well.
VOWSH will call you ontologically evil for daring to question xenogenders.
I'm actually an ontologically evil lesbian xenogendered unicorn
Naw man. I usually can't stand Vaush these days, but his opening statement made total sense to me. He's just saying that the "super-straight" logic leads to the conclusion that "trans women aren't real women":
Premise 1: Straightness, for a man, is defined by his attraction to "real women".
Premise 2: A super-straight man is attracted only to cis women.
Premise 3: A super-straight man is more straight than a straight (but non-super-straight) man.
Premise 3 and premise 1 together imply that a super-straight man is made *more* straight by excluding trans women. If trans women were "real women", such an exclusion would make him less straight, not more. Thus, the members excluded cannot be "real women".
Conclusion: Trans women are not real women.
What about this was so hard to understand?
Of course, he went into full obfuscation mode later, but…
By definition trans women aren’t real women, otherwise we wouldn’t need the qualifier “trans” before it.
Real is synonymous with biological. It doesn’t mean they can’t be women socially, and societally. But if you say they are ‘real’ it invalidates issues that cis women deal with, for example, pregnancy, pms, ovarian cysts, HPV, etc.
Here's an understandable logical parse:
IF woman = person who identifies as a woman
THEN super-straight = person who identifies as a super-straight
It's still a dumb point because the whole point of super straight was to basically be "I want to date cis straight women" but in a way that would normally be accepted in the whole sexuality discourse but because it excluded trans women from their preferences it was labeled transphobic
@@meteorwalkergg not quite because that's like saying i identify as a super white but im not a racists... However once you look at the mindset behind what super white means is to be above certain specific races... But not all races so it will 'valance out' in their heads.
Hence why you are skipping the original intent of what it is to be super straight and implications it carries
@@StopDaViolence it was made specifically to make a point about how they don't view Trans women as women. you can say you won't date a Trans woman, and that's fine. only fringe always online Twitter people will actually call that transphobic. the whole super straight thing is specifically coined up to be transphobic, and to attempt (and fail) to point out a hypocrisy of the "left" not accepting a sexual orientation. but the left wouldn't accept super mega straights who only date white women, so it's just a bad look.
I swear I remember Vaush once arguing that he would favor socialism Even if it produced worse life outcomes than capitalism. He claimed it was because he held democracy or freedom as more important than the outcome. It seems as if his whole ethical system from meta ethics to normative ethics is inconsistent with itself.
video link?
These comment sections are always so fun to watch. It just seems like hating vaush makes up 90% of these peoples daily thoughts lol. Being a dual d/v viewer is such a funky island.
thats true but was there anything esle to comment on? He didnt really make an argument for his position
@@TJump Well for instance, at the beginning he posed that the fact that it is called "Super" straight is a bit of a transphobic dog whistle because it implies only being attracted to "real" women. Now I'm no pro debater, but that + forms an argument no? Even if not in our nice premises -> conclusion format, a justified amount of charitability can lead us to say that what he said at the start is in fact an argument. I'm currently making my way through the video now though because it's been forever since I saw this debate.
To be fair, most people in the world would hate Vaush upon meeting him
@@theimmortal4718 Eh he's a funny guy. Just a different brand of autism and debate brain as destiny imo.
@@patrickbrazdasilva3624 how are transwomen women when we don't know what a woman is?
And yeah I am not interested in transwoman cuz they are males.
How is this transphobic?
30:33 destiny helps argue to defend the proposition that saying trans women are not women is Not transphobic
Dude, 27:00, Vaush literally already made that argument, lol. You weren't listening I guess. I have to be honest; I'm neutral, but because you're so willing to dismiss Vaush and say he's so stupid or so biased without explaining why in many circumstances, it makes it seem like his ideas are strong. You sometimes say "anyone who doesn't see this is stupid." So basically anyone who doesn't agree with your ideas without you saying them is stupid. You don't do this in only objective matters. You dismiss him emotionally, and it makes him look good.
My brain literally started to melt at 13:15.
The one thing that people have to understand to help prevent wasting people's time in debates: 1. Reality exists, which is an objective fact. Anything that exists in reality is objectively true, and it is going to be in vain to debate otherwise 2. Our interpretation of things in our reality is arbitrary. This can include language, but the more we use "objective" language (using words that both parties understand), the better the debate will go. This is why it's so important to accept language as close to objective as possible in order to progress the argument along. Without this, then communication, thus learning and progression, cannot happen.
That's why debates always go so "stupidly" with Vaush, cause he gos against exactly what you describe. One of his biggest things is to just claim everything and anything is arbitrary and subjective, and that definitions and categories are socially constructed fantasies. Almost every vaush "debate" I've watched in the last year or so, he just does this to the point where he "tries" to ruin the debate, lol
The question becomes which objective reality you want the words to correspond to. This tends to either be arbitrary or for utility, and depends on individual words and context pairings. Having a word point to someone’s feelings doesn’t make the definition more subjective (only defining it in terms of the subjectivity, which some do, does), if we are only talking about the objective existence of that subjectivity and how it objectively affects the world, we can get a lot further I think. I think this is the correct way to evaluate these seemingly subjectives definitions from feeling on objective grounds. Socially constructed gender roles exist and are a product in many ways of our biooogy. Now, someone can not have that biology and still identify with the gender as it exists, as well. Treating this as a phenomena that objectively occurs helps us get around the subjectivity, because we are talking about the objective existence of these subjective experiences (people like vaush shy away from this for obvious reasons). In such a case, it is still valuable to debate if it is appropriate for woman to point to people with this identification or not, with the understanding that the identification is with something that came into being heavily influenced by the biology. We can even discuss context appropriateness-maybe we don’t care in certain contexts as much but use trans woman to mean woman in the relevant social contexts (in which the relevance is usually just around whether they’re treated like a woman or not in everyday interaction). Arguing the utility of such definitional changes seems rather futile, though (it’s easy to think either “surely we can make it work”, or “a change in what such a fundamental category refers to even in limited contexts has xyz ramifications.” The utility hear becomes impossible to calculate and compare, I think, and so people tend to be arguing out of their instinctive evaluation of the above utility comparison.
@@pookz3067 Or talk like a normal human being and have an argument like a human being
@@SadEyes1412 in what parts have I not talked like a normal human being? I am trying to explain what I find to be normal for me and my social groups. That you don’t find it to be normal isn’t justification I shouldn’t be talking like I am now. If you have any arguments against the discussion I’m trying to have, I’d be happy to hear it.
@@SadEyes1412 unless you are proposing that the objective fact of the existences of subjective experiences that greatly affect objective reality is not a useful part of the debate in the video? In that case all of politics becomes a useless endeavor.
Is it hard to put "Tjump" in the title instead of Vaush's opponent? wtf dude
Destiny and tjump saying vaush is saying nothing, tjump never says anything ever, it's just semantics arguments, never any prescriptions outside of keep it as it is. He seems like a polite guy and all but what a waste of arguing for nothing
My argument was "people use biological sex and gender synonymously and have most thier lives because it has more utility for them, there is nothing transphobic about that"
@@TJump I haven't watched all of your conversations with Vaush or Destiny but I have seen a few from each through osmosis of watching/listening to them frequently. On your morality solution I have seen with Destiny a while back I can see the utility your points about "choice" argument as much as I can agree with contractualism or Kant's attempts for a better morality but with your talks to Vaush, my main criticism is that you do have prescriptions but you operate in the vague arena and never have to own an opinion or view as much as just lead the horse to water.
This is always the best option since no position can ever be attacked if you never state one but my question is, if we all agree with your assertions on this or the gender=sex points you had what do we do next? This is my problem with arguments about semantics, even if we vote on the term to use for trans people, agree trans women arent women, etc what is that next step and would you really be satiated and move on to another subject or would you still have a bone to pick with trans people or the debates that go on concerning us?
I didnt agree with Vaush's demeanor to your views or arguments but what were we really going to take away that could be applied even if he didn't derail it all. Most people would take away nothing or at best walk away with 10 different views on what you said which is fine if that is the intent. My intent or my view these days above all, is for my arguments to be understood so that I dont blow my chance if I ever get the chance to provide something that is helpful to others, at least they will get what I mean. I mean you no ill will and hope your channel strives and grows even if I disagree with your views or approaches.
Ah the Destiny debate coach arch 👌🏽
I enjoyed the video but I think I may have missed the point of there debate. To me it seems like the point is that super straight is a legitimate identity and should be seen as such if we are the space of accepting all identities. But I’m new to debate and I’m not sure if nuance is allowed. Super straight was literally made as a critique of trans peoples sexuality. So I think it should lose legitimacy right there. What rational human being is going around saying their super straight. If you don’t date trans people who cares. No one is forcing you to do so. I think that’s what the fat guy is getting at. Also what is the critique that the first guy is even trying to legitimize. I may have missed it and I’m only halfway through the video but they both seem lost. Like this conversation isn’t really going anywhere for the both of them. Regardless watching this was funny to say the least. This whole topic is weird to begin with. That’s why I brought up nuance earlier because this situation is so hypothetical and inherently prejudiced towards trans people. What would make a straight male who isn’t attracted to trans people make an identity just for the sake of being an antithesis to trans people.
Tjump wasn’t trying to say that he believes super straight is a legitimate sexual identity necessarily, but was trying to point out that if someone truly does identify as super straight, their identity is just as valid as anyone else’s. He was trying to showcase the hypocrisy of saying your identity is valid unless I think it’s bad, then it’s not valid. Vaush’s position was that super straight was not a valid identity because it’s transphobic and the only point of identifying that way is to be transphobic. I agree that no one actually identifies as super straight, but not because there aren’t people that fit that description. The only reason they don’t truly identify as super straight is because they themselves think personal self identity is silly, not because they don’t actually fit that identity. Just because it was invented as a critique of a way of thinking doesn’t make it not worthy of defending your argument against it. Something being a purposely constructed critique doesn’t mean it can’t be used to legitimately showcase a real flaw in your logic. That’s the whole point of a critique. Unfortunately the debate quickly devolved into a what is a woman debate and went no where fast.
@@bigben3089 bingo
@@bigben3089 Super straight is just a rebrand of the "I identify as an attack helicopter" joke. It's not a real sexuality, it's intent was to mock trans people as not being the gender they identify as by excluding them entirely for their personal "sexuality". No one takes identifying as an inanimate object seriously, but the people that said "Lol I'm a toaster" still thought it was a good idea to say "You're not identifying me as a toaster, you're a hypocrite and a bigot for not gendering me as burnt toast!" as if it's a huge dunk and own on all the trans advocates.
And it's not even a critique, it's a 4Chan level troll to say trans people aren't valid and never will be valid. Then they use it to say "Oh you don't accept my identity as super straight? Well who's the real bigot now?", it's all a troll. No one is actually super straight, it's like the fucking OK sign bullshit. Made up by most likely people who frequent /pol and dislike trans people to an unhealthy extent if they're willing to go out and make up "super straight".
@@bigben3089 thank you lol I swear I was missing it but I wasn’t at the same time. Yeah I think the critique is fair in itself obviously but it’s also kind of silly to debate over in general. For debate sake it’s right but for it’s utility not really. I stopped watching after a while the whole what is a woman thing is beyond me and not worth it imo.
@@bigben3089 that's cool but I don't get why thinking that trans women aren't women isn't transphobic
58:17 Jangle is not a chill or cool dude. He is bad faith.
The sad part here is that Vaush has decent points that they don’t acknowledge… “How are you going to define human in a way that doesn’t include black people that isn’t racist?” Is a relevant question that Tjump didn’t deal with well at all even trying to grapple with it.
Easy, "a white" (a human that doesn't include black people) or any other word.
If you mean defining the word human in a way that doesn't include black people without being racist, I would say that that's only racist because of the a priori definition that we have of human.
If "human" had no meaning and we just invented it to include every other race except black people it would only be racist if it was an exception and we supposedly didn't also invented a word for each other exclusion (a word for humans excluding white people; excluding asians; etc).
We would also have a word that included all the races.
In the end, I think people forget that words are created to have an utility and to define something in the real world, how you use the words is what gives it the bad connotation. If a society existed that had a word for human that didn't include black people and no other words to describe a connection of similarity between black people and people in general, I would say that society is racist because it didn't found usefulness in creating a word for human that included black people not that the word itself is racist.
It’s not really the same thing tho. Melanin in your skin is irrelevant to you being human or not but being born male is obviously relevant to if you are a woman.
A more accurate comparison would be a white personal getting surgery to make their skin darker and saying there black.
Vaush equivocating "human" and "person" is the most annoying shit
‘Moral Kenobi-ism’ is how I’d describe Vaush’s position; basically shouting out to everyone that he has the moral high-ground based solely on his own arbitrary, dishonest, bullshit reasoning.
Funny comment, but you realize that you didn’t say anything, right?
That just amounts to saying “Vaush thinks the opinions he holds are correct LOL and he justifies that using reasoning that he also thinks is valid LOL”
Like… you just said he’s wrong, but thinks he’s right.
"These are not the *socially constructed categories* you're looking for" ~wavy hand movement~
@@RockPile_ Appreciate the response, Sparky! Sorry you see it that way, but in my defense, I posted this while I was at work and didn’t have time to go into as much detail as I otherwise would’ve liked to. At least I didn’t post just another generic comment like “Destiny is a girls name.”
…which it is.
Dawg everyone does that. Pro-birth people do that shit all the time. Racist people do that all the time. Communists do that all the time. Fascists do that all the time.
Everyone has their own morals and think they're at the top of them. And we can use our own moral ideas to say that his are totally bullshit and make no sense. If you're racist and think that other races are inferior and that's just a moral philosophy of yours, then someone calling you a racist would just be them sitting on a moral high horse because clearly your correct in your moral belief that others are beneath you.
I started seeing cis women and trans women as sub groups of women. I don’t think you’d need to have a super straight sexuality. I don’t think every preference needs a sexuality. Having a preference for blonde people wouldn’t make me blonde sexual.
Should have made the argument that the Super Straight identity actually gives backing to “transwomen are real women”. It solidifies the notion that transwomen are real women and that super straight identities are only attracted to cis women/ cis opposite sex.
You could even expand this to a supposed “super gay/super lesbian” that both would only be attracted to cis men/cis women respectively.
When Vaush attempts to push back on this with “you’re just trying to expand on this othering trans people” by replying with “you are essentially attempting to force a cis lesbian to have sex with a transwoman?”
“Well yeah cause that would be transphobic”
“So you would agree that a transwoman that hasn’t had SRS is still a woman, correct?”
He will agree every time because Vaush would never want to be called transphobic.
“So you’re insisting that a cis lesbian should have sex with a penis or otherwise she’s transphobic?”
They either have to concede these points or admit to hypocrisy among “factual identities”.
Vaush wouldn't say that cis lesbians have to have sex with transwomen, though. He's said that having genital preferences isn't transphobic because they're practically very different. His argument would be that it'd be transphobic to reject a transwoman for being trans even if surgery and hormones have made them indistinguishable from cis women.
@@Anthropomorphic that’s essentially saying that straight people should be held to a different standard than gay/lesbians if speaking in terms of dating trans before SRS because is it not the same situation?
If in terms of post SRS straight people generally want to seek relationships that can bare children. Of course there’s the cases where that may not be the case, but that exists in every scenario listed.
Is it still transphobic to not want to date a trans person because you’d want children of your own?
@@Anthropomorphic why should I be okay with a mutilated penis?
Why?
Why is my aversion to an intact penis valid acc to vaish but my aversion to an inverted penis not valid?
@@IJustZapEm He thinks genital preferences are fine regardless of whether you're straight, gay, or whatever. He's also said that it's fine to only date people you'd be able to have kids with. What's he's specifically singled out as transphobic is the refusal to date a trans person for no other reason than them being trans - as well as the idea that trans women aren't real women, of course.
great stuff!
Is it actually racist to only be attracted to people of my ethnicity and the opposite sex?
Am I racist for wanting my potential future kids to resemble me somewhat?
I mean I honestly wouldn't really care if that was true, but was really surprised hearing someone claim that
Your kids will resemble you even if you date outside your race, but no you are not racist to have a preference. Lets say you now make a sexuality around that preference that alludes that women outside that race are less of women or that those who don’t agree with you are leas straight. Now you have the basis around superstraight
I mean... yes. This feels obvious to me. It's at the very least psychological racism. This necessarily implies you have more positive attitudes about people of your race than people of other races. It's also arguably an instance of racism in a more sociological sense where racism is defined by having negative effects on a class of people. If for example there is a race of people who are regularly seen as the least attractive race, this kind of bias would affect not only their dating pool, but also put them on the losing end of "lookism" or "pretty privilege".
@@mood1676
I mean, just to clarify, I am still attracted to women outside my race but I ultimately would only want to get married and have kids with women from my ethnicity (and country technically, so I guess there are more subconscious factors factoring in here).
It just made me think that it seems inherently racist to want my kids to be of the same ethnicity as me, but I don't know if I just thought so because this is the first time I had heard itvoiced like that, especially considering that it was voiced by someone like Vaush
@@hypercortical7772
You might be right...
Could you explain what you meant with your last 2 sentences?
@@hypercortical7772
Ps: I am familar with lookism and how some people are biologically less priveleged on the dating market due to their ethnic traits, but I don't understand the connection to my case
what is the game Destiny is playing?
The main problem with telling that transwomen are women is that as a society we have created laws. Laws are based on words, words that have a specific meaning.
We agreed that women have to be treated differently than men in certain cases. Allowing transwomen to be "women" would create a loophole in regard to the law. Thus allowing biological men to be treated like women from the law point of view.
This is why we have the toilet, prison and sports problems with transwomen.
Should transwomen allow to go to female toilet, female prison, and play in female sport?
That is why choosing to include or not transwomen in the definition of women is critical.
This is the root problem of this debate.
I think ppl who think trans women are not women think trans women are not biological women. However, that’s not the argument. But woman as in feminine presentation are both trans women and cis women. Hence, both are women.
Yeah we belong in woman spaces... Not sure why there is any issue on this that is not based on disinformation and strawmen
Loophole implies the intention is not genuine. Which i get is possible but then the issue is how many hoops does a transperson have jump through to be considered genuine vs what can be manipulated by offenders of the law.
Not whether or not they are women. It needs to be recognized That this is how the argument is viewed from the other side.
@@Sesshounamaru7 the "women spaces" mentioned only exist due to biological male/female differences, and referring to them as "spaces" doesn't change that.
Pretty simple, TJump preformed badly Bc he was wrong on this issue. Like Trans women are women, it’s seriously that easy. Igneous rock and Sedimentary rocks are still both rocks in the same way that cis women and trans women are both still women. Just a category, nothing crazy.
This guy is accusing Vaush of using emotion but when he was debating him he was humiliating himself 😂😂😂
Yeah TJump likes to think he's all stoic and logical, but he just isn't. He wants to be Destiny, but it's just not who he is.
Idk, I'm more of a center right person tempermentally and I could explain all of the progressive people's questions about what they call gender using biology that most people don't cite in debate and they would still just flat out say refuse to acknowledge any of it.
I actually hate people that say "humans are a social construct"
NO... humans are fucking real, we have GIVEN a name to what we are, that is the social construct, but we are a genetic fact that is unique.
Something being a social construct doesn't mean it's not real. I am not a "genetic fact" lol. If the word human refers to a genetic fact, the what specific genetic fact are you referring to? Who decides that the word "human" is specifically tied to this fact? Inevitably this is a social construct too.