This Ship of Theseus concept is also reminiscent of an old Soviet “Radio Yerevan” joke: Q: “Is it true that Grigori Grigorievich Grigoriev won a car in the All Union Championship in Moscow?” A: “In principle, yes, but first off, it was not Grigori Grigorievich Grigoriev, but Vassili Vassilievich Vassiliev, second, it was not the All- Union Championship in Moscow, but the collective farm sports festival in Smolensk, third, it was not a car, it was a bicycle, and finally, he did not win it, it was stolen. But in principle you are right.”
Philosophy Tube i love just leaving videos like this one on in the background while I do stuff and just listening to them. This guy and some other philosophy youtuber who also does politics but I can’t remember his name.
Going through my regular rewatch of the series. "Trans women are forcing lesbians to sleep with them" at 10:17, ouch. Leftist youtuber Shaun is currently in a battle with the BBC over an article on their site on that very topic.
In this video the person saying it is portrayed as the "4chan skinhead/Nazi" whereas today thats a fairly mainstream GC talking point. Kinda crazy how that has been mainstreamed
@@campi832 Nazis have always been mainstream in the US, since literally before Hitler took over the party. So much so that Nazi operations were based largely on things America already did. The only difference is, they started to use less of the rhetoric that Hitler stole when it became taboo to side with "the enemy".
@@dontmisunderstand6041 I'm aware... but they weren't arguing that trans women are creeping on lesbians back in 1935, where they? if you reread what I said, you'll see that I was noting that this specific argument (which innuendo studios here associates with Nazis/4chan) is used by the British anti trans crowd these days. this specific example of anti trans rhetoric was fringe a couple of years ago and is mainstream now... that's all I said
@@dontmisunderstand6041 where did I do that? I just pointed out that a certain argument has become mainstream over several years. I did this 1 year ago. you came in and started with an unrelated tangent about the Nazis. I didn't say anything about volume or message. I'll stop replying now bc I can see that you have 100+ comments on this channel and I can also see, that you're just picking arguments and saying whatever keeps it going. I don't see you as arguing in good faith ergo good bye
The SWERF example reminds me of another example in social-studies research. There is an infamous study that claimed that children raised in households with gay parents were less likely to be "successful" later on in life, and more likely to face childhood adversity. At face value the data seems to be great. The study brags that it had the largest sample size of any study on gay parents. Everything seemed to confirm the suspicion of conservative commentators, until one looks at the study's definition of "gay parents": having ANY sexual relationship with someone of the same gender EVER. Turns out that parents that have sexual relationships with more people also tend to be in less stable circumstances (i.e., divorced and dating, etc), which in turn makes it more likely that the child is raised in an unstable circumstance. Like the porn example, they redefine a word without giving the reader much indication (or justification) for their own definition, knowing that the reader will assume they are operating on the standard definition of the word. It's deceptive, but not unique to social media and the internet.
agreed, but social media is making the problem worse because we are consuming these kind of studies in single sentences as we scroll, and its just there in our brains which once we believe something is really difficult to change.
They actually had several measures of success that were okay like rates of high school graduation, unemployment, etc. But many of those measures were really measures of poverty, which as it turns out, being part of a minority can make it more difficult to have a steady income.
You're wrong, but rather than argue with a bad faith actor like yourself, I'll just thank you for reminding me this video exists. I'll watch it again now!
@@yogeybogeybear3542 you should watch his video on controlling the conversation because oof. You can't even disprove it. Also adding in so you don't think I'm conceding, you are gish galloping so hard it hurts my brain thinking about how hard it would be to explain how wrong you are.
This reminds me of a famous tweet: "Twitter is the only place where well articulated sentences still get misinterpreted. You can say 'I like pancakes' and somebody will say 'So you hate waffles?'"
@Maximal depends on the time interval and place, like on average it might be mainly black, but during summer on the north pole it sure is hella orange.
3:03 - This feels like less of the classical "gradually repairing amd upgrading a ship" and more like "gradually turning a ship into a tank." The tank may be Theseus' tank, but it's not his ship anymore.
Man, I don't remember enough of the context to find the article again, but ages ago I read a headline that said something like "Athlete runs over disabled volunteer" and when you read the article, he knocked into her while running to celebrate with his teammates on the field. No one was actually hurt and no fricking car was involved like the language implied.
Even 5 years later this video is so so relevant. The right's recent use of the word "groomer" to refer to queer people has been Theseus'd HARD and it's so incredibly frustrating. The transition from "Queer people exist in the world" to "Exposure to queer people will influence kids" to "Queer people are purposefully being around kids to 'recruit' them into the ranks" to "Queer people are 'grooming' children" is so insidious. But it's also completely mind-boggling that anyone would fall for it? It's truly hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks like this, because it feels like even thinking about this concept for more than two seconds makes it totally fall apart? I'm just kinda at a loss as to how to proceed in these situations. How do you reason with somebody who thinks like this???
The idea is that nobody, or at least, not enough people to matter, is born anything other than 100% cis/het male or 100% cis/het female. And no amount of evidence otherwise will dissuade them! 🤦♀️
You don't reason with people like that, because they want you to take the bait. See his other video "Never Play Defense" for context on that one. You could also make just a catholic priest joke about them projecting and watch their rage shortcircuit any ability to continue the argument with you, that's always fun lol
I did the same thing with a computer that I upgraded again and again. Ten years after I started, there wasn't a single screw left from the original. I had upgraded a VW Bug into racecar. I realized that it was the same computer because I thought of it as the same computer. "Same computer" was a category that I believed in, not anything in physical reality.
When I first watched this I thought there was no way statements could be misrepresented so badly. Fast forward to yesterday when I was proven wrong after twitter cancelled a UA-camr/author named Linsey Ellis all because she said that the movie Raya and the last dragon was similar to Avatar the last Airbender. Somehow a simple comparison of two asian things turned into her being called a rasist and supporter of anti-asian hate crimes. Don't ask me how that happened because I'm also confused
@@dontmisunderstand6041 wdym? it was made in America, yeah, but the entire worldbuilding of ATLA is based on various Asian cultures and Asian philosophy.
@@mushr--m That's some real weeaboo logic there. And no I don't mean the "I like anime" kind of weeaboo, I mean the actual meaning of the word, a delusional psychotic lying about their own identity. Being interested in a group of people or culture doesn't make you part of it. "Inspired by eastern philosophy and culture" is nowhere near the same thing as "being asian". They're not even related ideas.
"The Ship of Theseus is a kind of elaborate euphemism: what language they use reveals what they think we care about; what language they won't use reveals what they can and can't say. It's a temperature check for where we are as a society - what things do horrible people feel they can get away with and what things do they have to disguise; but no disguise is perfect, and if you do the fact-checking it will show you where they're weak. People will try to contort the truth... but the truth leaves an essence behind." Big brain takeaway
Perhaps it can be applied to this channel, which describes many phenomena attributed to the "enemy" in euphemistic and evasive ways from on high, hoping that no one questions what is being omitted and euphemized, or why?
"THE LEFT is antisemitic" was Theseus'd from "THE LEFT hates Israel," which was Theseus'd from "THE LEFT supports Palestine," which was Theseus'd from "the left wants the Israeli government to stop bombing Palestinian civilians."
Alternatively "The left hates the Israeli government and nationalism" -> "the left wants Israel not to exist" -> "the left hates Israeli Jews" -> "the left hates Jews"
I'm sorry but this is a horrible example, many leftists are anti religious in general and use the coat of the I/P conflict TO be anti semitic. Even non zionist jews experience antisemitism from the left, I say this as a leftist jew myself. Do you not consider the idea that a Jewish person who has never even stepped foot in a country should answer for its actions to be antisemitic? Have you ever spoken to a Jewish person about their experiences or do you think any jew who IS a zionist deserves the antisemitism they face? Therefore we HAVE to ask
I've never seen the Ship of Theseus applied to statements & arguments until today and I have to remark how utterly important this is as a concept. People do be making crazy sounding claims, statements & arguments when really they meant something very different. This is an continual problem through all of history.
Honestly it's the perfect explanation for why the right can tell blatant lies and still have people believe them. It's the "true from a certain point of view" shit Ben Kenobi pulled in Episode 6. And the big problem is misinformation like this floods social media and certain news outlets at such a breakneck pace these days that the only people who bother to factcheck these claims are the people who already suspect them to be untrue.
This reminds me of what happened with Lindsay Ellis, and it’s an unfortunate example of the left fighting itself. She said Raya The Last Dragon, along with a bunch of other YA fantasy stories, borrowed a lot from Avatar. That became “Lindsay Ellis is saying all Asian-inspired works are the same.” Which became, “she hates Asian people.”
Virtue signaling progressivists are going to be really sorry when one day they turn around and realize their whole country is run by conserva- oh. We're already there.
This tactic is basically "how to cancel an online leftist 101" and it's been used against sooo many. A great example was the conversion of "Contrapoints voiced a line in a video alongside another voice performer who has said transmed shit" to "Contrapoints is a transmed".
She has an entire video on her page called canceling for anyone who doesn’t know where she goes over the whole buck angel transmed situation and it’s phenomenal. Love Natalie
And since when is being a trumed a leftist death sentence? I mean yeah they’re wrong, but they aren’t hateful, and they can still be convinced to the other side And even if Natalie was a “trumed” (which she blatantly is not) it still wouldn’t make any sense to cancel her because she has done more for trans people as a group than a thousand angry Twitter cat girls
contrapoints still fucking sucks and her opinions aren't valuable just because she's trans (also having a transmedicalist on your show and not seeing the issue with that is the same as approving of transmedicalist rhetoric)
Do you mean buck angel? He was on her show and she invited him on. It wasn't her "voicing a part alongside another person in another video". And people didn't say that she was a truscum because she had him on, they started calling her that after she defended her discussion to include a well known horribly transmysoginistic man.
"An antifa shooter killed people" got Theseus'd from "antifa killed a man," which got Theseus'd from "an antifascist killed a Nazi," which got Theseus'd from "an antifascist shot a Nazi who was following him while carrying weapons. Then bystanders tried to help the Nazi, but were kept away by the police, resulting in him dying."
@S C but that's not on the fault of porn specifically, and more so the fault of how we, as a society, put men's pleasure over women's. if we change porn to be for women, not much will change, because our attitudes didn't.
You can support somebody's politics without liking them as a person, and you can like somebody as a person without supporting their politics. It seems like today, so many people can't detach the person from the politics, and that's a big problem.
Name Name I see what you mean, but more often than not endorsing or supporting certain politics shows what type of person you are and what values you hold, regardless of if you outwardly portray those characteristics or not
@@sudonim7552 While that's true in some cases, it's false in many others, as DontPreOrder and Random Things have said, somebody's politics can show you their values and thus who they are as a person. Aside from that, many people choose to make their politics central to their personality, obviously making them part of the problem in the case of liking somebody as a person. My reasoning in saying that being that attaching your character and identity to your politics goes out of your way to make yourself less likeable to people who don't agree with you politically. Sorry for the wall of text.
"When the left does this, it does it to itself" For real. I confessed to an anarchist collective I used to be a part of that I used to be very slightly libertarian. In the mind of one particular comrade, this somehow translated into 'Pyreleaf is transphobic and a Nazi.' I was never either of those things; as a young man, I started off conservative because my parents were conservative, I drifted centrist and bounced back and forth between authleft and libright as I tried to understand the world around me, and eventually settled on anarcho-communism. The fact that I used to believe things I now know are wrong doesn't make me a bad person, it just means I spent my youth trying to figure things out. Even so, that ONE asshole got me booted from my collective, tried to slander me to anyone who would listen, and harassed me constantly for a year. It only stopped when I finally started speaking out about what he was up to and found other people he'd done the same shit to.
You got booted out of an anarchist collective for having a healthy skepticism of government power? Sounds more like you got booted out of a fledgling cult, consider yourself lucky.
@@jbard9892 I mean libertarian in the American sense - as in, anarcho-capitalist, which I've since come to understand is stupid contradictory nonsense. But yes, in retrospect, it was very cultish. That being said, my getting kicked out ended up being so controversial that it caused the whole thing to fracture, the leader got himself arrested and jumped bail multiple times, and I helped form a new org out of the remnants. Now we feed homeless people and hand out water/medicine/etc. at protests for BLM and the like, and I'm working on starting a leftist gun club, so it was all for the better.
The Smol Gay Cinnamon Roll it's very much a work in progress. I kind of need to actually *own* a working firearm and know how to use it first, so I started building my own AR15 several months ago. It's taken a while thanks to COVID, but I only need to order a few more parts yet before it's done - and when it is, I'll have some valuable knowledge to share with my people.
There's also a very weird version of this, where people are juuuuuust vague enough with their callouts that you can assume the absolute worst, and then refuse to clarify. A game dev I like got cancelled for a series of tweets she made 2011-2014 and had long since apologized for, but people discussing this talked about it not by discussing what she had actually DONE, but by saying she had "made a mistake" or "wasn't a good person". When that sort of language is what's used, people are naturally going to assume you've done things worthy of jail time, because this is the Internet and someone you look up to could be revealed as a serial predator and no one would bat an eye. I had an ex do the same thing: he had a friend who had talked about him behind his back, and he just posted repeatedly that you shouldn't follow them if you wanted to follow him. He never explained that the action itself was nasty, but not abusive; he let people come to their own conclusions because he knew that people would assume the worst and think that guy was some sort of war criminal rather than a gossip. Funnily enough, this was sort of how he kept me from leaving him for a while.
One of the best things I've learned in a pure Epistimology course was that: "all debate is firstly deconstructionism". You have to first know what your aponenet *means* before you can attack their opinions. There has to be clarity before debate so you dont get "thats not what I meant" moments.
And as you have been shown, the right doesn't deconstruct, it bluntly destroys. They don't need to understand us to destroy us, and while some of them see it as a bonus, many never bother. As someone raised Christian conservative, it cannot be reformed. As some who was a liberal for a bit, reforms are hitting diminishing returns. And as a progressive, our most effective tools are the ones both liberals and conservatives have told us are off the table. It's time to risk.
re names: the first time I heard the word doxxing, it was in the context of TERFs doxxing trans women's dead names. so that's another scenario where leaking a name can be doxxing, besides anonymity
the stuff about terfs and their use of language to disguise "good" things (correct pronoun usage, social transitioning, etc.) as "bad" things (child abuse, forced transitioning, etc.) really resonated with me. I've always had some concept of it happening, but I never had it so clearly explained. Thank you!
Hello! "Terf" here. I suggest you look into the actual arguments we're making before dismissing them. Not what people claim we're saying, but what we're actually saying.
Why? Is it not predicated on transphobia (a disbelief/hatred of the existence of trans people)? Because if it is there is absolutely no reason to look into what you are saying.
@@radradish8866 I’ve talked to terfs online as there’s rly no fuckin shortage of y’all. I’m sorry to report I’ve never seen a terf NOT spew total fuckin bullshit about gender essentialism
I have a counter for this play: "That's a lie." Let them play defence. (only applies if you've already looked into the details and determined that their short punchy claim is indeed wrong)
“It’s okay to punch nazis” is itself a Ship of Theseus though, since the people who use the statement intend for it to apply to many who aren’t Nazis. Why don’t you say, “It’s okay to punch white nationalists” or “it’s okay to punch proud boys”, etc.? Because that would be controversial. So that controversial idea is being smuggled into a reference to a defunct ww2 adversary that perpetrated the holocaust.
Questioning the effectiveness and long term effects of mass immigration makes you far-right, which makes you a racist, which makes you a nazi. This thing goes both ways
Good video, I just wanted to add that this tactic, specifically the dummy words aspect, is commonly referred it as "dog whistles," referring to how the true message hiding behind the carefully chosen code words is usually intended to be heard and understood by certain people (usually the person's in-group and the group they're attacking) but not the general public.
I disagree that the dummy, intermediate words in the Theseus progression of a claim are dog whistles. A dog whistle is intended to be heard and understood by the people the speaker is appealing to (his in-group), but the people he is attacking usually miss the significance of the dog whistle completely. The dummy words in a Theseus’d claim are meant to make an unpersuasive/uninteresting part of the claim persuasive/outrageous to the people being misled by the claim. They respond to the words, but they’re responding to a misrepresentation of the truth.
Great video as always. This is something that's super common in discourse on Tumblr. People will use the word "pedophile" to mean someone who wrote or read about a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old getting together, or "abuser/abuse apologist" for someone who ships any two characters whose dynamic the accuser isn't fond of. It's so exhausting, and it makes it genuinely hard to stay safe from actual abusers & pedos, because the words get thrown around so casually and frequently as substitutions for something much less serious.
@@ytpanda398 an older guy in the trans community made some less than stellar tweets and has some older opinions about being trans and isn't up to date with younger people's concepts of being trans, his name is Buck Angel. Contrapoints unaware of that and needing some voice dialogue done had him help her with a video. So because he had some views younger trans people don't agree with and Contrapoints used him for twoish lines of dialogue lots of people started attacking her claiming she had the same views and was an awful person.
@@yotubeification Outing people has never been considered okay? Why would you bother explaining the complaint in a way that gives almost no information?
@@jonaswomack4493 I explained the situation pretty concisely I thought. Buck Angel has some problems. Contrapoints wasn't 100% aware of that and made a very minor collaboration with him. Everyone then shifted Buck Angel's bad views and actions onto contrapoints which is pretty unfair. Especially when it was just voice over work for a few lines in a video. People make mistakes all the time. No one is perfect. But bullying and harassing them for it is not the way to go that's what makes people go super defensive and makes the world more reactionary.
duke86fan well it is no longer the ship of Theseus as soon as anything is changed. Be it Theseus or otherwise. As in as soon as the argument or statement has been ever so slightly changed it's no longer the same.
But there's a difference between something having changed, i.e. something being different than it was before, and something not existing anymore and having been replaced with something else entirely.
Eh, guys, I'm not sure if going face-first into this argument, which seems to muddle the actual philosophical argument (which is about object permanence, agglomerative unity, purposefulness and ownership identity) and the specific rhetorical usage (which is about factual specificity and intent) that Innuendo has applied it to here is the best approach.
i've found that if the euphemisms are addressing a part of your identity, you pick up on them MUCH faster, too, which can be a blind spot. like, if someone on tumblr is talking about "cishets" that's usually referring to ace or aro or even bi people
@@benedictdwyer2608 I commend your concern, but they didn't actually mean it. The little "/s" at the end stands for sarcasm, due to a lack of tone differentially in text form. They're implying that the example person Chloe (OP of comment) mentioned would speak that way of nonbinary people, and it does not have any bearing on their own view of enbies. Thank you for being watchful of that, though, it's nice to see people who take non-traditional genders seriously.
I've heard something similar called "the noncentral fallacy" or "the worst argument in the world." It sucks, but it's part of the wider difficulty of simple deceptions being much easier to purvey than complex truths.
Thank you for the signpost. My search for more information on the noncentral fallacy led me to this article: lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world
Dorian sapiens Interesting read and I think this will be valuable to me. One mild jabby note though: Charles Manson was not a murderer. He got others to do his work for him. A better example would have been Ricky Ramirez or even Dexter fucking Morgan, ffs.
I caught that, too. After mentally quibbling with the author for a moment, I wrote it off on the basis that mental archetypes don't have to be (and often aren't) historically accurate.
Dorian sapiens That's also a good point. I simply think we should be more careful with the archetypical models we use for examples, /as authors/ of content. I guess in a way, the headcanon model can be wrong but by the time you publish an article, you should have time to make sure you don't accidentally slander someone for an image that's unintentionally confusing to people who know better than you. I dunno. Like I said, otherwise it was a really helpful read. It puts this video into a lot of context, and helps me to see the actual structure of the fallacy alongside the examples and mechanisms shown in this video. I feel like I'm ragging on the article too much for what amounts to a semantic trap, but I also think it's worth it to shore up flimsy, lazy writing like that to avoid openings for the very strategy being discussed. It's quite ironic that, in the author's effort to cite a renowned Murderer, they cited a fellow more renowned for having not directly killed anyone himself. They've accidentally committed the very same fallacy they are discussing. I think that's a problem worth catching an edit.
I ran an experiment one time. I was starting to get into an argument online with some guy--I couldn't tell you exactly what it was about, but it was about politics and conservatives feeling offended. This guy was conservative, and so I decided to use a conservative's language against him. So I put a splash of "triggered" in there, and his demeanor COMPLETELY flipped into almost completely backing down. Now, I only tried this once, but I think about it a lot and how it doesn't matter what you say in an argument, what matters is HOW you say it.
No, I totally agree. I never use any of those words (except "triggered," but I use it in a proper setting where it means what it actually means). I just used it once as an experiment.
While I think using "triggered" for this tactic is really the best idea over all, I do think the tactic itself has merit. Lately there's been a lot of movement towards doing this with the term "snowflake". Turning it back on them when there's a definite "can dish it out but can't take it" sort of mentality in display. When they get all upset just because, I dunno, a woman is writing a video game or something.
Moozy Foozy funny because I act triggered to lefties online so they look very stupid arguing with a raging lunatic who's foul use of language will put holes in your soul and leave you feeling extreme cognitive dissonance
I believe the guy you had that argument with is telling his alt-right buddies how he "owned" an "SJW" so hard they used "triggered" as a negative themselves. It is always easy to portray oneself as the winner of online arguments. On second thought: I think what you tell us about did not happen at all.
6:57 "This isn't technically a lie, but it's meant to form a picture in your mind of something that didn't happen." This can basically sum up the state of UA-cam clickbait right now.
Jesus. everytime I watch one of these videos, I feel like I'm being equipped with a new cool weapon and ushered off to war. take my goddamn monthly money.
+I Control My Fate What i'm wondering is how people came to believe that their idea of "tolerance" is some high and unquestionable virtue. Why shouldn't I refuse to tolerate that which degrades and may ultimately destroy my society as we know it?
It's very similar to a slightly different tactic I see, where someone throws out the talking point equivalent of a live grenade, and then when called out on it, backpedals to a very literal, very reserved version of what they said, insisting "All I said was X!" It seems legitimate enough superficially, because the exact words they said can be interpreted in an innocent way. But the information left behind, is the well-awareness the person who made the statement knew how charged their statement was and what the euphemisms stood for. And generally, when you return to the conversation they were responding to with their statement, then if they meant it so literally and reservedly, then it would have been completely meaningless to say and they would likely never have bothered. The neutered, inoffensive interpretation tends to be completely obvious and redundant at best, and not even remotely relevant at worst.
@@mine5441 Oddly enough, criticizing people for redefining "racism" is something I did in my Maverick Christian UA-cam channel (Vlog Episode 11 talks about that among other things) and I specifically had the political left in mind for doing that, in addition to pointing out a couple instances of non-redefined racism on the left.
@@wadetisthammer3612 Yeah I've talked with many people from both sides and I feel like its unfair to call this a tactic of the Alt-Right since most of their attempts are done off of faulty studies and things taken out of context, most of the time when I see this its being done some someone on the Radical left attempting to make their opponent look bad so they can take the moral high ground
A rhetorical ship of Theseus, huh? That's a neat idea! Also, I guess you have a lot of material left, but could I suggest you to look at one particular reactionary strategy? I call it aggressive apathy. Basically whenever people complain about any issue for an extended length of time, other people will come and tell them things like "We already heard that, don't you have anything else to talk about?" or "You're still using the same arguments over and over... Time to move on." Basically they try to put the blame on things not getting better on those trying to improve them! I find it extremely sneaky and egregious, especially since a lot of people who aren't necessarily reactionary will see these "arguments" and get the feel like they shouldn't dwell on the subject because it would make them uncool and behind the times and thus, reactionaries dodge the conversation. Once you start looking, you find this strategy everywhere : gun violence, climate change, Trump's incompetence, racism, sexism, homophobia, capitalism... Whenever you bring up these issues, someone will inevitably tell you that "People have already talked about that." as if that was enough... I think that bullshit is worth an episode.
This is related, I think, to Ian's video, "Control the Conversation." I think it's a very similar tactic to the one described in that video, where the right's goal is to move the argument into a framework where the points being made are no longer the most important part. It gets the real facts and the salient points buried under a pile of minutiae that aren't really related to the topic at hand. I think it'd be great if Ian covered the tactic you've brought up. The more we understand the tactics the right uses and how best to counter them, the better off things will be for everyone. I think a similar counter-strategy to the one in that other video might work well, though: Stand your ground. Don't get lost in the weeds. Stick to the point you're trying to make, not the points others are trying to get you to make. I think Ian's example argument at the end of that other video illustrates the kind of rhetoric we should be adopting when people come to argue in bad faith, and that template may be the single biggest take-away for me from this whole series: "This guy assaults women, and that has nothing to do with language."
That happens a lot in video game developer/publisher/industry debates so it's probably up Inuenndo's street. The thing is with that one is that whilst I suspect some people use it as a dirty tactic when debating, a lot of people actually mean it. They get angry because they get bored of the topic.
There's a good reason that the "we've heard your argument, now be quiet" happens in the gun control debate--most of the arguments have been conclusively countered and addressed so many times that there's nothing new to be had. Further, most gun-control talking points are based on outright falsehoods or ignore plain facts, and people get defensive when you point out that assault rifles have been effectively banned since the '30s, "assault weapon" is a purely aesthetic classification and always has been, there's no such thing as a "gun show loop hole," nor an exemption for firearm manufacturers from being sued, the AR-15 is literally the opposite of "high powered", truly banning "high capacity magazines" is impossible because they're so hard to define and easy to make, gun bans have never caused a measurable drop in homicide rates when enacted, even the most left-biases and pessimistic estimates of defensive gun use show that guns prevent more crime than it causes, semiautomatics are completely different from fully automatics, and they're no more dangerous than single-action firearms. All the "conversations" that spring up devolve into lectures about basic facts of guns and gun laws as they stand or about why "we have to do *something*!" without anything constructive presented.
As a trans person, I really appreciate you saying "correct pronouns" when referring to a trans child; calling them "preferred pronouns" has always rubbed me the wrong way. Like, no, misgendering us ain't an option bud!
Agreed but also when you’re talking about non-binary folk there’s no one “correct” pronoun and the person may change their pronouns. Some go by they, some go be he or she or some other pronoun.
@@tdns01 Genderfluid/multigender/ etc people switch up pronouns, yeah! I'm also nonbinary, but I absolutely do have correct pronouns that haven't changed! Ofc, different for everyone!
@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts If you bothered to do any research at all before acting up, you'd know that there are no surgeries done on children. The most that can be done is hormone blockers, which extends the time before puberty, so theyll have more time to choose which puberty they want to go through. And I'm not going to argue about whether or not there are actually trans kids; it's your problem if you don't want to believe in reality.
Death yes, they always end before he explains that all the stuff he is talking about comes from and is targeted to both sides. I wonder why that could be?
Xenath Cytrin Uh well no he does that in this video at 7:50 and i recall he has a preface at the start of this series that is something along those lines; you could at least watch the video before commenting.
"The main difference is that when the right does this it does it to the left, and when the left does this it does it to itself." As someone on the right this is ridiculous and is evident of how he sees us, as a unified, collective front that never fights with itself. It also shows us what the thinks of himself, he is always on the receiving end of anything, never on the end dishing it out, perpetually the victim and us the abuser. He does not even register the problems of those he disagrees with, or that they might not be complete evil and may actually believe themselves as in the right as he thinks he is.
I’ve just been amazed how much this is Jordan Peterson’s entire career. And I keep hoping this series has a solution at the end. Because it just seems like it’s a train designed to not stop and destroy everything.
@@ard1805 simply put, he is manipulating the narrative to push society to scary places. He's a nazi but an academic nazi. He can really put a pretty bow on a steaming pile of shit.
I'd disagree - I don't think JP is guilty of this trick in specific or is a nazi. To me JP's M.O seems to be selling descriptive claims in the context of claiming to have prescriptions and stopping just one step from final and disgusting conclusion If someone says that tradition is the best way of life and society should go that route and then say that traditionally women don't have any political power and stay at homes then those 2 combined go into conclusion that limiting societal freedom of women is desirable for such person, right? Well, JP talks a lot about (1) and (2) but he rarely explicitly says the conclusion coming from his various premises. That leaves a lot of plausible deniability, which to me is his main tool, alongside word salad. Hence even though smth can be unavoidable conclusion of things he says he "can" still say "I didn't say it". I think plausible deniability itself deserves its separate episode.
@PumpkinKitsune as nazi language I presume you're talking about rebranding of cultural bolshevism and scaremongering with degeneracy as means for *very* strict traditionalism. But I genuinely don't know about which nazi figures you're talking about. Can you be more specific?
Not even close. His career was as a PhD holding psychologist and professor at UofT. Everything he's done since ceasing teaching and clinical psychology has been self help turned political by people who can't parse academic language.
The joke is the meme about "it takes a high iq to understand the jokes in rick and morty", hence college being about raising intelligence.. you get the idea.
As usual, I don't have much to add or comment on, besides that you've given me a whole bunch to think about and you're just generally killing it with this series. Keep it up.
It's kind of fascinating how everyone has their own individual language which is made up of the languages from every community they see themselves being part of.
One of the worst cases of this I’ve seen was an accusation by someone saying they’d hooked up with a UA-camr when they were underage. By underage, of course, they meant they met in a bar while the accuser was 20 instead of 21.
Indeed. Though it's for the paranoid what a big jar of whiskey is for the alcoholic XD I can already see myself triple guessing whatever I write or read... Maybe I'll just abstain from any political social media discussion instead. Less headache.
Kat Licks, "It's not" what? It's not *good*? Analyzing statements to understand the intentionally hidden meaning is "masturbatory" and "very often projecting"? If that's what you're saying, then I think you underestimate what's going on.
Thank you for your videos. They help to understand people on the other side of a conversation; I'd always just assumed, starting one, that at least some concepts are shared. It is usually well into the talk that you realize talks with some people are better left alone if you're not equipped with knowledge about their vocabulary and mindset.
This alt-right playbook tactic you discussed in this video being called "The Ship of Theseus play" is a bit of a misnomer, because the Ship of Theseus is functionally indistinguishable from the original even after replacing all the boards. This tactic is not leaving the original statement functionally intact. I would just call this tactic *"Lying by Substitution,"* which is a more specific form of "Lying by Omission." The context of the fact claim is deliberately omitted so that the claim can be used to mislead readers into attacking a public figure. The means by which the context is omitted is by making a truthful statement and then carefully substituting distant synonyms for the relevant pieces of that statement in order to weaponize it against the public figure. But it is interesting how the synonyms used to weaponize the statement can tell us something about what the alt-right thinks of leftist rhetoric, and the left about ourselves regarding what things are socially acceptable and what things are not. It is also interesting that there are people who want to think of themselves as progressive but don't want to accept some of the core progressive values (e.g. sex work should be legal) and so are willing to accept these lies by substitution as truth to validate their beliefs ("sex work should be illegal") without having to facing the fact that these beliefs make them anti-progressive ("but I'm not anti-sex and I'm not anti-worker").
you know, often youtube promotes videos to me that I've already seen and I don't care for that at all, but this is one of the exceptions where it's good to watch from time to time
id say this falls into the Never Play Defense catagory, as it is a quippy sentence that you need to explain gender as a social construct seperate from sex, the utility of definitions and the idea of gender performativity, while they can just use an intuitive argument, that although falls apart upon questioning, will not be questioned as their retorts devolve into accusations of pedophilia.
You two are thinking way too much into it. It’s not ‘alt-right’ to ask a male who thinks he’s a female ‘what is a woman?’. If someone actually has a problem with that question or thinks gender is a social construct, they are the definition of insane. Not necessarily bad individuals. Rather they have no tangible grasp on actual reality and believe whatever they hear from people with inadequate qualifications as doctors.
@@dracowolfe305 im not saying the question isnt a question that should be asked, and i often answer it myself (although in DMs, putting it in a public context invites antagonism on both sides), and its an important one to ask to become an ally for trans people, rather than someone who just tolerates them. my point is that the question to then immediate accusation of grooming is a rhetorical trick; and a very effective one at that. but im not saying that the question came from a lab or something, nor did i say its exclusively alt right (although the pedophile and grooming allegations usually fall into that bracket)
@@seanoreilly849 there is a point to be made that when someone is asked that question and defends the position of ‘gender fluidity’, as completely wrong as the idea is, they are disparaged. However, it must be asked if it is morally acceptable to teach children a false theory and advocate for transitioning surgery (especially before they are old enough to actually give consent). One is not ‘changing their gender’ when they have surgery, rather they are castrating themselves and implanting non-biological material onto or into their body to appear similar to the opposite gender. You can’t actually change your gender because you are your gender. Castration is a serious issue and therefore it is certainly appropriate to ask those who defend the position for ‘reassignment surgery’ if it is morally acceptable to advocate for it. So it is certainly appropriate to condemn those who believe children have consent in this regard - people forget that children believe in Santa Claus and Star Wars so they obviously don’t. For context - in Europe (especially in liberal democracies), where I am from, it is illegal to perform this type of surgery against someone under the age of 18.
@@dracowolfe305 look, as much as id love to teach a fellow euro about gender as a thing outside of sex, and how trans peoples gender identity can be as valid as cis people's. im very ill today, dont want you to think im pussyfooting around this, its just my heads spinning today.
Reminded me of one joke. - I heard you won a million dollars in the lottery. - I didn’t win, but lost, and not a million, but a thousand, and not in the lottery, but in a casino.
1:55 "financially incentivized" to do uncomfortable things you wouldn't otherwise do the definition of employment. If you'd do it without getting paid they wouldn't pay you. So by this definition all emplyment is coercive.
Why wouldn’t they pay you? Even if you enjoyed doing it, you should still be paid. Even if I love my job, “the love of work” will not put food in my mouth. Also, enjoying work and feeling comfortable are not the same thing. Even if I enjoyed programming and making games, and somehow enjoyed Blizzard’s games, I would not feel comfortable in World Of Employee Harassment. Even if someone doesn’t enjoy their work, they shouldn’t have feel unsafe or come out of work feeling sick if it can be otherwise avoided.
Looking forward to a museum heist video where they steal the ship of Theseus, one plank at a time. The final conclusion at the end is that there are now two ships of theseus.
"The documents for the bypass have been on public display for several months." "Oh yes, I checked that out. By Public Display, you mean in a nondescript public notary office with a tiny cue card on the front door that requires you to go around the back to go down into the basement through the door that says, 'beware of tiger', which is lieu of a staircase has a rickety step ladder just slightly off from the door. No current working electricity--so you have to bring down a torch--and walk past various cages with dead canaries in them, to a room with a door jammed into the frame, open a large rusted filing cabinet, and at remove the bottom drawer to find the plans underneath all the draws of the filing cabinent--with a maximum reading time of five minutes." "Yes... they were on public display the whole time. You only have yourself to blame for our bull-dozer going through your house, really." ... does this mean that the reason the British Monarchy has not returned to take America back is because America has been a British Comedy several hundred years in the making? I mean... the current President and all the stuff happening in politics...
People work 40 hours a week or more, have relationships, families, friends, chores, car matienence, bills etc. You can't blame individuals for a failing of the system to protect them. They can't know everything and they can't spend very much time researching. It's the reason a lot of people don't like to talk about politics, it makes them uncomfortable because it makes them aware of what they don't know.
@@ttlovepie101 Duly noted. Now what are you gonna do about it? Are you just going to accept this? Or will you adapt to the situation and find a way to educate yourself still?
Love the video. Especially love the Gargoyles reference at 9:32. Such an underrated show. Thou, it doesn't hold up as well viewing it as an adult. Still a good show.
I watched Gargoyles a again a couple years back, and I thought it held up incredibly well. It definitely had some issues, though nothing that I hadn't also noted watching as a kid. Maybe I was just savvy back then. It's still the only Disney Afternoon show I'd actually recommend to another adult.
Innuendo, I LOVE you for being pro-sex work! Thank you! A lot of people think it's possible to be a feminist or fight for rights while being anti-sex worker or 'gender critical," and it's just not the case. It leaves vulnerable people out in the cold.
@@SpectrumDT It's fancy-talk for "terf" or "transgender-exclusionary radical feminist." Basically "gender critical" feminists try to assert that trans women are invading cis women's spaces. They often use ignorant and bad arguments predicated on faulty science to try and defend conclusions that frame trans women as predatory. Simple statistical research on the high rate of assault and murder against trans women, the low rate of aggression towards cis women (especially compared to assaults made by cis men) and other factors demonstrate how bad and fake the conclusions are. I realise I'm presenting this with prejudice and bias in my tone, but I have no patience for harmful pseudoscience, especially when it attacks such a vulnerable population. Hope that helps! Be careful on the internet, and watch out for "gender critical" dog whistle terms like "biological gender".
I don't understand why people are anti-sexwork. First of all, Sex workers make a hell of a lot of money doing it. Second, it is their body, so they can choose what to do with it. Am I correct on my assessment, or did I get something wrong?
@@Tigershark_3082 the first part is one of the main things so many ARE angry about. They see sex work as morally wrong and terrible, not real work, and especially older men DESPISE not being the “breadwinner” as a man. Combine that with how popular onlyfans got, how much publicity any rich models would get, and it’s a recipe for the same old “it’s not a real job and they are making as much/more money than me, thats bullshit I DESERVE more than that (whatever insult)” Same kinda stuff happened when we saw younger kids/adults winning huge prizes for video games, or when UA-camrs were making millions. People were upset and like “it’s not a *Real* job even tho those people are putting in the same kind of hours into their work
@@Tigershark_3082 also it just comes down to the fact that, “sex sells” and mainly women are the ones who sell best. Some men just treat it like it’s another way women, (words of a UA-camr that has become mainstream) “live life on recruit difficulty” because they can apparently do whatever they want with no repercussions in their head.
I’ve probably watched your videos a dozen times, just whenever I need to remember that it isn’t just me that’s incredibly frustrated by all of this. I’ve shared your videos with like-minded friends, as well as friends who, while duped by alt-right talking points (and usually get their news wholesale from their Facebook news feed) who are still receptive to non-“pill” viewpoints (who won’t destroy your comments section). Just want to say thank you- you’ve helped me deprogram a few people.
A bit of off-topic pedantry: while the question is a thought experiment, the Ship of Theseus was an actual thing. To what extent Theseus was a real person is up for debate, but for centuries the Athenian people maintained the ship and sailed it to Delos annually to make sacrifices to Apollo in thanks for the success of Theseus's journey. It wasn't until nearly 2 millenia later that Thomas Hobbes raised the question of whether it was still the same ship by the end.
Also, my personal opinion on the original ship of Theseus argument is the opposite of my opinion on the political version- taken literally, I believe it’s the same boat as long as there’s a coherent beginning-to-current progression
Minor Nitpick: at ~5:45 you said in regards to "cutting off people from their community" you referred to this as a common "abusive boyfriend tactic". Whilst true, it is more accurate to say this of an emotionally abusive relationships and specifying only men isn't entirely accurate. I just say this as someone who has been on the receiving end of it. Nevertheless, good video.
That sucks man. I hope you recovered. That's honestly one of the things that scares me the most about trying to find a relationship, but most people usually aren't abusive like that and having someone who can be there for you is very much worth it IMO.
Yeah, abusive parents do it too. Probably all emotional abusers do to some extent, but I suppose "the abusive boyfriend tactic" conveys the idea most efficiently.
This is a unique application of one of Zeno's paradoxes to contemporaneity. I've mainly seen it in terms of ethical questions of cloning, but extending it to the realm of information-sharing is a fascinating augmentation. Are we no more than the assembled amount of information that is used by others to describe us? Thanks for raising these questions.
While I'm no expert on reality, as someone who has delved into the realm of madness many a time, I can say to some extent, the gaps are useful. That is, while we are both defined by what we are not as much as we are, as humans we have imperfect information, and thus what is in one group may be mislabeled, or is found to be in neither category. While we are indeed the sum of you ur parts, there is a part of us that is self directed. This isn't to say we are fully in/out of control of ourselves, but that it's a delicate balance between these things, AND there are also other things outside of this balance as well. TLDR: we aren't the only thing in existence, so debating whether or not there is human free will mistakes the grounds of debate. Further, we can mistake the will of animate/ inanimate objects, so what is to say we can't do the same for ourselves? I'm on team free will, but I understand that consciousness is a fleeting emergent property that doesn't fully describe either life or death, and there is more to death than what we know, and thus more to life as well.
In my humble opinion, it's really cool that you acknowledge that our side is prone to this, too. It tells of your integrity. The argument that popped up in my mind was this: "x/y (I think it was 3/4?) women are raped in college", where the definition of rape was as far as "did consentiously sleep with a guy and regretted it later".
This Ship of Theseus concept is also reminiscent of an old Soviet “Radio Yerevan” joke:
Q: “Is it true that Grigori Grigorievich Grigoriev won a car in the All Union Championship in Moscow?”
A: “In principle, yes, but first off, it was not Grigori Grigorievich Grigoriev, but Vassili Vassilievich Vassiliev, second, it was not the All- Union Championship in Moscow, but the collective farm sports festival in Smolensk, third, it was not a car, it was a bicycle, and finally, he did not win it, it was stolen. But in principle you are right.”
Pavel the Fabulous that’s dumb because it’s not right in principle
@@ussishkingang7194 woosh?
Nick Prouvost I don’t think you got what I meant when I said it’s not right in principle
+Ussishkin Gang
That's the point.
@@delve_ It must suck for people who have to go through life without a sense of humor, eh?
coming back and rewtaching this... for absolutely no reason
Philosophy Tube i love just leaving videos like this one on in the background while I do stuff and just listening to them. This guy and some other philosophy youtuber who also does politics but I can’t remember his name.
@@ravenfrancis1476I assume you watched the same video I did and yet you managed to call contrapoints all that stuff. wow...just wow
Dirigible Oh no, how dare I objectively describe someone’s beliefs and hold her accountable?
@@ravenfrancis1476 whew, you aren't bright, huh?
PIGPUNCHER Never said I was. I’m just following the knowledge of much smarter individuals.
Going through my regular rewatch of the series. "Trans women are forcing lesbians to sleep with them" at 10:17, ouch. Leftist youtuber Shaun is currently in a battle with the BBC over an article on their site on that very topic.
In this video the person saying it is portrayed as the "4chan skinhead/Nazi" whereas today thats a fairly mainstream GC talking point. Kinda crazy how that has been mainstreamed
@@campi832 Nazis have always been mainstream in the US, since literally before Hitler took over the party. So much so that Nazi operations were based largely on things America already did. The only difference is, they started to use less of the rhetoric that Hitler stole when it became taboo to side with "the enemy".
@@dontmisunderstand6041 I'm aware... but they weren't arguing that trans women are creeping on lesbians back in 1935, where they?
if you reread what I said, you'll see that I was noting that this specific argument (which innuendo studios here associates with Nazis/4chan) is used by the British anti trans crowd these days. this specific example of anti trans rhetoric was fringe a couple of years ago and is mainstream now... that's all I said
@@campi832 Pro-trans rhetoric was also fringe a couple years ago. Don't mistake a difference in volume for a difference in message.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 where did I do that? I just pointed out that a certain argument has become mainstream over several years. I did this 1 year ago.
you came in and started with an unrelated tangent about the Nazis.
I didn't say anything about volume or message.
I'll stop replying now bc I can see that you have 100+ comments on this channel and I can also see, that you're just picking arguments and saying whatever keeps it going. I don't see you as arguing in good faith ergo good bye
The SWERF example reminds me of another example in social-studies research. There is an infamous study that claimed that children raised in households with gay parents were less likely to be "successful" later on in life, and more likely to face childhood adversity. At face value the data seems to be great. The study brags that it had the largest sample size of any study on gay parents. Everything seemed to confirm the suspicion of conservative commentators, until one looks at the study's definition of "gay parents": having ANY sexual relationship with someone of the same gender EVER. Turns out that parents that have sexual relationships with more people also tend to be in less stable circumstances (i.e., divorced and dating, etc), which in turn makes it more likely that the child is raised in an unstable circumstance. Like the porn example, they redefine a word without giving the reader much indication (or justification) for their own definition, knowing that the reader will assume they are operating on the standard definition of the word. It's deceptive, but not unique to social media and the internet.
Bradley Robinson So it’s not Lesbians but “College Lesbians” who make worse moms on average.
I love it.
Bradley Robinson+ I bet that the study didn't give a definition of 'successful' either.
agreed, but social media is making the problem worse because we are consuming these kind of studies in single sentences as we scroll, and its just there in our brains which once we believe something is really difficult to change.
Absolutely!
They actually had several measures of success that were okay like rates of high school graduation, unemployment, etc. But many of those measures were really measures of poverty, which as it turns out, being part of a minority can make it more difficult to have a steady income.
You're doing god's work. And by "you" i mean your team. and by "doing god's work" i mean "explaining fallacious rhetoric in a way I approve of".
Love this!
Nice
God? that you? 😊
Lying to people and being hypocritical is doing god’s work?
@@luisandrade2254 explain how you arrived there.
Reviving 3 years later because of the Right's new use of the word 'groomer' is 1000% this.
I also saw that part
You're wrong, but rather than argue with a bad faith actor like yourself, I'll just thank you for reminding me this video exists. I'll watch it again now!
@@yogeybogeybear3542 you should watch his video on controlling the conversation because oof. You can't even disprove it. Also adding in so you don't think I'm conceding, you are gish galloping so hard it hurts my brain thinking about how hard it would be to explain how wrong you are.
@@yogeybogeybear3542 See: "The Alt-Right Playbook: Never Play Defense" and "The Alt-Right Playbook: Control the Conversation"
@@yogeybogeybear3542 You are the exact person these vids talk about, haha
This reminds me of a famous tweet: "Twitter is the only place where well articulated sentences still get misinterpreted. You can say 'I like pancakes' and somebody will say 'So you hate waffles?'"
Me: "The sky is blue."
Internet: "The sky only *appears* blue because of light defracting in the atmosphere."
i wish i could show this video to every well-meaning progressive on twitter.
The statement "black lives matter" is often misinterpreted in exactly the way you describe, on or off Twitter.
@Maximal depends on the time interval and place, like on average it might be mainly black, but during summer on the north pole it sure is hella orange.
Off topic and you made this comment a while ago but I like the pfp
3:03 - This feels like less of the classical "gradually repairing amd upgrading a ship" and more like "gradually turning a ship into a tank."
The tank may be Theseus' tank, but it's not his ship anymore.
*and
Man, I don't remember enough of the context to find the article again, but ages ago I read a headline that said something like "Athlete runs over disabled volunteer" and when you read the article, he knocked into her while running to celebrate with his teammates on the field. No one was actually hurt and no fricking car was involved like the language implied.
How hard is it to say "trampled"? Still gets the point across without being too misleading.
Even 5 years later this video is so so relevant. The right's recent use of the word "groomer" to refer to queer people has been Theseus'd HARD and it's so incredibly frustrating. The transition from "Queer people exist in the world" to "Exposure to queer people will influence kids" to "Queer people are purposefully being around kids to 'recruit' them into the ranks" to "Queer people are 'grooming' children" is so insidious. But it's also completely mind-boggling that anyone would fall for it? It's truly hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks like this, because it feels like even thinking about this concept for more than two seconds makes it totally fall apart? I'm just kinda at a loss as to how to proceed in these situations. How do you reason with somebody who thinks like this???
The idea is that nobody, or at least, not enough people to matter, is born anything other than 100% cis/het male or 100% cis/het female. And no amount of evidence otherwise will dissuade them! 🤦♀️
You don't reason with people like that, because they want you to take the bait. See his other video "Never Play Defense" for context on that one.
You could also make just a catholic priest joke about them projecting and watch their rage shortcircuit any ability to continue the argument with you, that's always fun lol
Conservatives project grooming onto LGBT folks because Conservatives groom children to act straight.
I have a pair of pants that I've had for about 8 years and I adding patches and replacing bits that tear or fall apart. Theseus' pants! :D
that is dedication.
okkaaayyy... Good for you I guess.
Good to know
I did the same thing with a computer that I upgraded again and again. Ten years after I started, there wasn't a single screw left from the original. I had upgraded a VW Bug into racecar.
I realized that it was the same computer because I thought of it as the same computer. "Same computer" was a category that I believed in, not anything in physical reality.
When I first watched this I thought there was no way statements could be misrepresented so badly. Fast forward to yesterday when I was proven wrong after twitter cancelled a UA-camr/author named Linsey Ellis all because she said that the movie Raya and the last dragon was similar to Avatar the last Airbender. Somehow a simple comparison of two asian things turned into her being called a rasist and supporter of anti-asian hate crimes. Don't ask me how that happened because I'm also confused
I'm still pissed about that.
American culture. You are good if you hate evil and evil is define by the mob.
Avatar the Last Airbender isn't even asian.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 wdym? it was made in America, yeah, but the entire worldbuilding of ATLA is based on various Asian cultures and Asian philosophy.
@@mushr--m That's some real weeaboo logic there. And no I don't mean the "I like anime" kind of weeaboo, I mean the actual meaning of the word, a delusional psychotic lying about their own identity. Being interested in a group of people or culture doesn't make you part of it.
"Inspired by eastern philosophy and culture" is nowhere near the same thing as "being asian". They're not even related ideas.
"The Ship of Theseus is a kind of elaborate euphemism: what language they use reveals what they think we care about; what language they won't use reveals what they can and can't say. It's a temperature check for where we are as a society - what things do horrible people feel they can get away with and what things do they have to disguise; but no disguise is perfect, and if you do the fact-checking it will show you where they're weak. People will try to contort the truth... but the truth leaves an essence behind."
Big brain takeaway
Perhaps it can be applied to this channel, which describes many phenomena attributed to the "enemy" in euphemistic and evasive ways from on high, hoping that no one questions what is being omitted and euphemized, or why?
@@rockstopsthetraffic he isn't hiding anything, he openly said that the "enemy" is the alt right, capitalism, sexism, etc. There is no euphemisms
@@rockstopsthetraffic nice try lmao
@@educprof2160 And what are you justified in doing to your enemy?
@@meatpuppet5036 educating them - since education seems what they are lacking most...
"THE LEFT is antisemitic" was Theseus'd from "THE LEFT hates Israel," which was Theseus'd from "THE LEFT supports Palestine," which was Theseus'd from "the left wants the Israeli government to stop bombing Palestinian civilians."
And the furthest ends of the right hate both. Most of them somehow support Palestine.
Alternatively
"The left hates the Israeli government and nationalism" -> "the left wants Israel not to exist" -> "the left hates Israeli Jews" -> "the left hates Jews"
There really are a lot of antisemites on the left though. Anti-Israeli too except it's not even disguised then.
>The LEFT hates israel
Yes. I hate Israel because it's an ethnostate, the alt right hates Israel because it's a _Jewish_ ethnostate.
I'm sorry but this is a horrible example, many leftists are anti religious in general and use the coat of the I/P conflict TO be anti semitic. Even non zionist jews experience antisemitism from the left, I say this as a leftist jew myself. Do you not consider the idea that a Jewish person who has never even stepped foot in a country should answer for its actions to be antisemitic? Have you ever spoken to a Jewish person about their experiences or do you think any jew who IS a zionist deserves the antisemitism they face? Therefore we HAVE to ask
I've never seen the Ship of Theseus applied to statements & arguments until today and I have to remark how utterly important this is as a concept. People do be making crazy sounding claims, statements & arguments when really they meant something very different. This is an continual problem through all of history.
Honestly it's the perfect explanation for why the right can tell blatant lies and still have people believe them. It's the "true from a certain point of view" shit Ben Kenobi pulled in Episode 6.
And the big problem is misinformation like this floods social media and certain news outlets at such a breakneck pace these days that the only people who bother to factcheck these claims are the people who already suspect them to be untrue.
This reminds me of what happened with Lindsay Ellis, and it’s an unfortunate example of the left fighting itself.
She said Raya The Last Dragon, along with a bunch of other YA fantasy stories, borrowed a lot from Avatar.
That became “Lindsay Ellis is saying all Asian-inspired works are the same.”
Which became, “she hates Asian people.”
Can't believe Lindsay single-handedly brought about the destruction of the entire continent of Asia, SMH my head 😞
@@imveryangryitsnotbutterOh I was thinking about J. K. Rowling. Lindsey Ellis is another great example. Thanks for pointing it out.
@@imveryangryitsnotbutter I thought the onion said kim jong-un did that
Except JK Rowling does hate trans people, is a transphobe, and has donated to anti trans organizations and people. So no. @@c.d.dailey8013
Virtue signaling progressivists are going to be really sorry when one day they turn around and realize their whole country is run by conserva- oh. We're already there.
This tactic is basically "how to cancel an online leftist 101" and it's been used against sooo many. A great example was the conversion of "Contrapoints voiced a line in a video alongside another voice performer who has said transmed shit" to "Contrapoints is a transmed".
She has an entire video on her page called canceling for anyone who doesn’t know where she goes over the whole buck angel transmed situation and it’s phenomenal. Love Natalie
Oh my god that is the perfect example of that
And then every breadtuber who ever associated with Nat got harassed too
And since when is being a trumed a leftist death sentence? I mean yeah they’re wrong, but they aren’t hateful, and they can still be convinced to the other side
And even if Natalie was a “trumed” (which she blatantly is not) it still wouldn’t make any sense to cancel her because she has done more for trans people as a group than a thousand angry Twitter cat girls
contrapoints still fucking sucks and her opinions aren't valuable just because she's trans (also having a transmedicalist on your show and not seeing the issue with that is the same as approving of transmedicalist rhetoric)
Do you mean buck angel? He was on her show and she invited him on. It wasn't her "voicing a part alongside another person in another video". And people didn't say that she was a truscum because she had him on, they started calling her that after she defended her discussion to include a well known horribly transmysoginistic man.
"An antifa shooter killed people" got Theseus'd from "antifa killed a man," which got Theseus'd from "an antifascist killed a Nazi," which got Theseus'd from "an antifascist shot a Nazi who was following him while carrying weapons. Then bystanders tried to help the Nazi, but were kept away by the police, resulting in him dying."
And you can prove they're a nazi right?
You're not just making that claim on reflex?
@@meatpuppet5036 They were a Nazi.
@@meatpuppet5036 Everyone they don't agree with is a Nazi, its how they justify their actions.
@@bobdole27 wow, they started using your tactics now?
@@kostajovanovic3711 What do you mean "my" tactics, are are you referring to the politician that I named my account afterwards?
Theseus dies in Infinity War
SPOILERS....
But his ship's OK?
no, half of him died
no, every atom of him was just replaced with other atoms
@@bassman9261995 so is it still theseus?
I mean, "misogynist hellscape of unregulated capitalism" describes 95% of all US business and industries, but the point still stands
ouch. fair point.
Destruction 100
@S C but that's not on the fault of porn specifically, and more so the fault of how we, as a society, put men's pleasure over women's. if we change porn to be for women, not much will change, because our attitudes didn't.
As well as the internet itself...
@S C ...so if the women aren't being abused, then what is the actual issue?
Me 12 minutes ago: What does the Ship of Theseus have to do with the Alt-Right?
Me now: Aaaaand subscribed.
I also feel this way.
"Some with good politics isn't necessarily a good person"
LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!!!!!!!!!!!
You can support somebody's politics without liking them as a person, and you can like somebody as a person without supporting their politics. It seems like today, so many people can't detach the person from the politics, and that's a big problem.
Name Name
I see what you mean, but more often than not endorsing or supporting certain politics shows what type of person you are and what values you hold, regardless of if you outwardly portray those characteristics or not
@@dontpreorder2783 THIS (from the far future)
Someone who has good politics has higher probability to also be a good person
@@sudonim7552 While that's true in some cases, it's false in many others, as DontPreOrder and Random Things have said, somebody's politics can show you their values and thus who they are as a person. Aside from that, many people choose to make their politics central to their personality, obviously making them part of the problem in the case of liking somebody as a person. My reasoning in saying that being that attaching your character and identity to your politics goes out of your way to make yourself less likeable to people who don't agree with you politically.
Sorry for the wall of text.
And someone with bad politics isn't necessarily a bad person, right?
"When the left does this, it does it to itself"
For real. I confessed to an anarchist collective I used to be a part of that I used to be very slightly libertarian. In the mind of one particular comrade, this somehow translated into 'Pyreleaf is transphobic and a Nazi.' I was never either of those things; as a young man, I started off conservative because my parents were conservative, I drifted centrist and bounced back and forth between authleft and libright as I tried to understand the world around me, and eventually settled on anarcho-communism. The fact that I used to believe things I now know are wrong doesn't make me a bad person, it just means I spent my youth trying to figure things out.
Even so, that ONE asshole got me booted from my collective, tried to slander me to anyone who would listen, and harassed me constantly for a year. It only stopped when I finally started speaking out about what he was up to and found other people he'd done the same shit to.
I know this is months ago, but man... that's brutal.
You got booted out of an anarchist collective for having a healthy skepticism of government power? Sounds more like you got booted out of a fledgling cult, consider yourself lucky.
@@jbard9892 I mean libertarian in the American sense - as in, anarcho-capitalist, which I've since come to understand is stupid contradictory nonsense. But yes, in retrospect, it was very cultish. That being said, my getting kicked out ended up being so controversial that it caused the whole thing to fracture, the leader got himself arrested and jumped bail multiple times, and I helped form a new org out of the remnants. Now we feed homeless people and hand out water/medicine/etc. at protests for BLM and the like, and I'm working on starting a leftist gun club, so it was all for the better.
@@Pyreleaf leftist gun club sounds pretty cool
The Smol Gay Cinnamon Roll it's very much a work in progress. I kind of need to actually *own* a working firearm and know how to use it first, so I started building my own AR15 several months ago. It's taken a while thanks to COVID, but I only need to order a few more parts yet before it's done - and when it is, I'll have some valuable knowledge to share with my people.
There's also a very weird version of this, where people are juuuuuust vague enough with their callouts that you can assume the absolute worst, and then refuse to clarify. A game dev I like got cancelled for a series of tweets she made 2011-2014 and had long since apologized for, but people discussing this talked about it not by discussing what she had actually DONE, but by saying she had "made a mistake" or "wasn't a good person". When that sort of language is what's used, people are naturally going to assume you've done things worthy of jail time, because this is the Internet and someone you look up to could be revealed as a serial predator and no one would bat an eye.
I had an ex do the same thing: he had a friend who had talked about him behind his back, and he just posted repeatedly that you shouldn't follow them if you wanted to follow him. He never explained that the action itself was nasty, but not abusive; he let people come to their own conclusions because he knew that people would assume the worst and think that guy was some sort of war criminal rather than a gossip. Funnily enough, this was sort of how he kept me from leaving him for a while.
extremely good content.
The start of an legend
Wtf, a Hasanabi comment with only 12 likes and 1 reply?
Never expected to see a 4 year old comment from Hasan with 17 likes lol
This is the beginning of a very epic tale
Damn this is unexpected.
One of the best things I've learned in a pure Epistimology course was that: "all debate is firstly deconstructionism". You have to first know what your aponenet *means* before you can attack their opinions. There has to be clarity before debate so you dont get "thats not what I meant" moments.
aponenet
@@LeBonkJordan someone’s never been in a debate club
@@Black_pearl_adrift who said I was trying to debate? (also yes I have not been in debate club)
@@LeBonkJordan it’s just a common debate club term 😭
And as you have been shown, the right doesn't deconstruct, it bluntly destroys. They don't need to understand us to destroy us, and while some of them see it as a bonus, many never bother. As someone raised Christian conservative, it cannot be reformed. As some who was a liberal for a bit, reforms are hitting diminishing returns. And as a progressive, our most effective tools are the ones both liberals and conservatives have told us are off the table. It's time to risk.
re names: the first time I heard the word doxxing, it was in the context of TERFs doxxing trans women's dead names. so that's another scenario where leaking a name can be doxxing, besides anonymity
the stuff about terfs and their use of language to disguise "good" things (correct pronoun usage, social transitioning, etc.) as "bad" things (child abuse, forced transitioning, etc.) really resonated with me. I've always had some concept of it happening, but I never had it so clearly explained. Thank you!
Hello! "Terf" here. I suggest you look into the actual arguments we're making before dismissing them. Not what people claim we're saying, but what we're actually saying.
Why? Is it not predicated on transphobia (a disbelief/hatred of the existence of trans people)? Because if it is there is absolutely no reason to look into what you are saying.
@@radradish8866 Silence, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist
@@radradish8866 I’ve talked to terfs online as there’s rly no fuckin shortage of y’all. I’m sorry to report I’ve never seen a terf NOT spew total fuckin bullshit about gender essentialism
@@radradish8866 then why don't you tell us what you're actually saying🥰
You know why I'm here, and I know why you're here.
Wanda vision
I'm here cause I stumbled upon the channel, we aren't all sheep you know. But I had watched that wandavision scene prior just isnt the reason.
@Punished John Kelly
why you think left people peraching tollerance and love seems apathetic and evil?
@@phantomwithaf5135
what happened in wanda vision? how is this video related to that series? Just curious :3
@Diann Verburg are you a bot?
I have a counter for this play:
"That's a lie."
Let them play defence.
(only applies if you've already looked into the details and determined that their short punchy claim is indeed wrong)
I got a better one: "Source or GTFO"
@@imveryangryitsnotbutter For these things it's always a contest of who convinces the audience that the other side has to provide sources
@@husky0098
The burden of proof is always on the side that makes a claim, not the side that negates it.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the most common Ship of Theseus:
"It's ok to punch Nazis"
Becomes
"You want to punch everyone you disagree with"
"It's _funny_ to punch Nazis", however, is _objectively_ true. ;)
“It’s okay to punch nazis” is itself a Ship of Theseus though, since the people who use the statement intend for it to apply to many who aren’t Nazis. Why don’t you say, “It’s okay to punch white nationalists” or “it’s okay to punch proud boys”, etc.? Because that would be controversial. So that controversial idea is being smuggled into a reference to a defunct ww2 adversary that perpetrated the holocaust.
@@VenetianSnus I would, indeed, punch those people.
VenetianSnus
Well... it's actually ok to punch extreme nationalists
Questioning the effectiveness and long term effects of mass immigration makes you far-right, which makes you a racist, which makes you a nazi.
This thing goes both ways
Good video, I just wanted to add that this tactic, specifically the dummy words aspect, is commonly referred it as "dog whistles," referring to how the true message hiding behind the carefully chosen code words is usually intended to be heard and understood by certain people (usually the person's in-group and the group they're attacking) but not the general public.
I disagree that the dummy, intermediate words in the Theseus progression of a claim are dog whistles. A dog whistle is intended to be heard and understood by the people the speaker is appealing to (his in-group), but the people he is attacking usually miss the significance of the dog whistle completely. The dummy words in a Theseus’d claim are meant to make an unpersuasive/uninteresting part of the claim persuasive/outrageous to the people being misled by the claim. They respond to the words, but they’re responding to a misrepresentation of the truth.
You are familiar with the thought experiment the Ship of Theseus in the field of identity metaphysics?
"naturally"
I request elaboration.
I'd like to hear more about this!
Great video as always. This is something that's super common in discourse on Tumblr. People will use the word "pedophile" to mean someone who wrote or read about a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old getting together, or "abuser/abuse apologist" for someone who ships any two characters whose dynamic the accuser isn't fond of. It's so exhausting, and it makes it genuinely hard to stay safe from actual abusers & pedos, because the words get thrown around so casually and frequently as substitutions for something much less serious.
technically that wouldnt even be pedophilia but still sounds somewhat uhhh legally dubious in real life
@@S.D.323Yes and that's why we're talking about fiction...not real life. Unless you think anyone who likes Hannibal condones cannibalism IRL.
@@S.D.323 That's not even a significant age gap
This is very informative, thanks for keeping up such super great work
This really accurately describes the current Contrapoints situation
Used to watch contrapoints; haven't in a while. What happened?
@@ytpanda398 an older guy in the trans community made some less than stellar tweets and has some older opinions about being trans and isn't up to date with younger people's concepts of being trans, his name is Buck Angel. Contrapoints unaware of that and needing some voice dialogue done had him help her with a video. So because he had some views younger trans people don't agree with and Contrapoints used him for twoish lines of dialogue lots of people started attacking her claiming she had the same views and was an awful person.
@@yotubeification Ah thanks, that makes sense.
@@yotubeification Outing people has never been considered okay? Why would you bother explaining the complaint in a way that gives almost no information?
@@jonaswomack4493 I explained the situation pretty concisely I thought. Buck Angel has some problems. Contrapoints wasn't 100% aware of that and made a very minor collaboration with him. Everyone then shifted Buck Angel's bad views and actions onto contrapoints which is pretty unfair. Especially when it was just voice over work for a few lines in a video.
People make mistakes all the time. No one is perfect. But bullying and harassing them for it is not the way to go that's what makes people go super defensive and makes the world more reactionary.
The ship is no longer the same ship when it's no longer controlled by Theseus
When the argument no longer means what it is supposed to mean
duke86fan well it is no longer the ship of Theseus as soon as anything is changed. Be it Theseus or otherwise.
As in as soon as the argument or statement has been ever so slightly changed it's no longer the same.
But there's a difference between something having changed, i.e. something being different than it was before, and something not existing anymore and having been replaced with something else entirely.
Eh, guys, I'm not sure if going face-first into this argument, which seems to muddle the actual philosophical argument (which is about object permanence, agglomerative unity, purposefulness and ownership identity) and the specific rhetorical usage (which is about factual specificity and intent) that Innuendo has applied it to here is the best approach.
but I like philosophy, face first or otherwise.
I assume that all the parts are near identical and the reason of use is the same
It's no longer the same boat when the intent is changed
Spoiler: Theseus kills Dumbledore
Theseus is a HYDRA Agent.
I wouldn’t put it past Theseus
@@NobodyC13 I mean you got the marvel part right
@@josep4t I thought the game was leaving years old spoilers.
That sounds about right
i've found that if the euphemisms are addressing a part of your identity, you pick up on them MUCH faster, too, which can be a blind spot. like, if someone on tumblr is talking about "cishets" that's usually referring to ace or aro or even bi people
Yeah and also sometimes enbies (because they're all cis people trying to be special /s)
@@adriancerny6366 well, that’s sort of enbyphobic
@@benedictdwyer2608 they were being sarcastic
@@benedictdwyer2608 I commend your concern, but they didn't actually mean it. The little "/s" at the end stands for sarcasm, due to a lack of tone differentially in text form. They're implying that the example person Chloe (OP of comment) mentioned would speak that way of nonbinary people, and it does not have any bearing on their own view of enbies. Thank you for being watchful of that, though, it's nice to see people who take non-traditional genders seriously.
I've heard something similar called "the noncentral fallacy" or "the worst argument in the world." It sucks, but it's part of the wider difficulty of simple deceptions being much easier to purvey than complex truths.
Thank you for the signpost. My search for more information on the noncentral fallacy led me to this article:
lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world
Dorian sapiens Interesting read and I think this will be valuable to me. One mild jabby note though:
Charles Manson was not a murderer. He got others to do his work for him. A better example would have been Ricky Ramirez or even Dexter fucking Morgan, ffs.
I caught that, too. After mentally quibbling with the author for a moment, I wrote it off on the basis that mental archetypes don't have to be (and often aren't) historically accurate.
Dorian sapiens That's also a good point. I simply think we should be more careful with the archetypical models we use for examples, /as authors/ of content.
I guess in a way, the headcanon model can be wrong but by the time you publish an article, you should have time to make sure you don't accidentally slander someone for an image that's unintentionally confusing to people who know better than you. I dunno.
Like I said, otherwise it was a really helpful read. It puts this video into a lot of context, and helps me to see the actual structure of the fallacy alongside the examples and mechanisms shown in this video. I feel like I'm ragging on the article too much for what amounts to a semantic trap, but I also think it's worth it to shore up flimsy, lazy writing like that to avoid openings for the very strategy being discussed. It's quite ironic that, in the author's effort to cite a renowned Murderer, they cited a fellow more renowned for having not directly killed anyone himself. They've accidentally committed the very same fallacy they are discussing. I think that's a problem worth catching an edit.
_They've accidentally committed the very same fallacy they are discussing_
Well, when you put it that way! :)
I ran an experiment one time. I was starting to get into an argument online with some guy--I couldn't tell you exactly what it was about, but it was about politics and conservatives feeling offended. This guy was conservative, and so I decided to use a conservative's language against him. So I put a splash of "triggered" in there, and his demeanor COMPLETELY flipped into almost completely backing down. Now, I only tried this once, but I think about it a lot and how it doesn't matter what you say in an argument, what matters is HOW you say it.
It also depends on how they see the person who says the argument.
No, I totally agree. I never use any of those words (except "triggered," but I use it in a proper setting where it means what it actually means). I just used it once as an experiment.
While I think using "triggered" for this tactic is really the best idea over all, I do think the tactic itself has merit. Lately there's been a lot of movement towards doing this with the term "snowflake". Turning it back on them when there's a definite "can dish it out but can't take it" sort of mentality in display. When they get all upset just because, I dunno, a woman is writing a video game or something.
Moozy Foozy funny because I act triggered to lefties online so they look very stupid arguing with a raging lunatic who's foul use of language will put holes in your soul and leave you feeling extreme cognitive dissonance
I believe the guy you had that argument with is telling his alt-right buddies how he "owned" an "SJW" so hard they used "triggered" as a negative themselves. It is always easy to portray oneself as the winner of online arguments.
On second thought: I think what you tell us about did not happen at all.
6:57
"This isn't technically a lie, but it's meant to form a picture in your mind of something that didn't happen."
This can basically sum up the state of UA-cam clickbait right now.
Jesus. everytime I watch one of these videos, I feel like I'm being equipped with a new cool weapon and ushered off to war. take my goddamn monthly money.
What weapon is that? Calling us racist misogynist bigots some more?
I'm so curious about Augustus's bizarre reading of this video.
+AugustusPugin whilst ironically signling their own bigotry...
+I Control My Fate
What i'm wondering is how people came to believe that their idea of "tolerance" is some high and unquestionable virtue. Why shouldn't I refuse to tolerate that which degrades and may ultimately destroy my society as we know it?
...and it won't be long, Christopher. :/
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed these attempted "victories by redefinition."
That's an interesting way to put it.
It's very similar to a slightly different tactic I see, where someone throws out the talking point equivalent of a live grenade, and then when called out on it, backpedals to a very literal, very reserved version of what they said, insisting "All I said was X!"
It seems legitimate enough superficially, because the exact words they said can be interpreted in an innocent way. But the information left behind, is the well-awareness the person who made the statement knew how charged their statement was and what the euphemisms stood for. And generally, when you return to the conversation they were responding to with their statement, then if they meant it so literally and reservedly, then it would have been completely meaningless to say and they would likely never have bothered. The neutered, inoffensive interpretation tends to be completely obvious and redundant at best, and not even remotely relevant at worst.
lol, when you say attempted victories by redefinition, do you mean the attempt to redefine racism involving some sort of bullshit power structure?
@@mine5441
Oddly enough, criticizing people for redefining "racism" is something I did in my Maverick Christian UA-cam channel (Vlog Episode 11 talks about that among other things) and I specifically had the political left in mind for doing that, in addition to pointing out a couple instances of non-redefined racism on the left.
@@wadetisthammer3612 Yeah I've talked with many people from both sides and I feel like its unfair to call this a tactic of the Alt-Right since most of their attempts are done off of faulty studies and things taken out of context, most of the time when I see this its being done some someone on the Radical left attempting to make their opponent look bad so they can take the moral high ground
“None are the true ship, both are the true ship”
Great, now I'm crying again
@@pedrocarnelos703 Why?
Schrodingers boat
@@Nai-qk4vp Wandavision
A rhetorical ship of Theseus, huh? That's a neat idea!
Also, I guess you have a lot of material left, but could I suggest you to look at one particular reactionary strategy? I call it aggressive apathy. Basically whenever people complain about any issue for an extended length of time, other people will come and tell them things like "We already heard that, don't you have anything else to talk about?" or "You're still using the same arguments over and over... Time to move on." Basically they try to put the blame on things not getting better on those trying to improve them!
I find it extremely sneaky and egregious, especially since a lot of people who aren't necessarily reactionary will see these "arguments" and get the feel like they shouldn't dwell on the subject because it would make them uncool and behind the times and thus, reactionaries dodge the conversation. Once you start looking, you find this strategy everywhere : gun violence, climate change, Trump's incompetence, racism, sexism, homophobia, capitalism... Whenever you bring up these issues, someone will inevitably tell you that "People have already talked about that." as if that was enough... I think that bullshit is worth an episode.
This is related, I think, to Ian's video, "Control the Conversation." I think it's a very similar tactic to the one described in that video, where the right's goal is to move the argument into a framework where the points being made are no longer the most important part. It gets the real facts and the salient points buried under a pile of minutiae that aren't really related to the topic at hand.
I think it'd be great if Ian covered the tactic you've brought up. The more we understand the tactics the right uses and how best to counter them, the better off things will be for everyone. I think a similar counter-strategy to the one in that other video might work well, though: Stand your ground. Don't get lost in the weeds. Stick to the point you're trying to make, not the points others are trying to get you to make.
I think Ian's example argument at the end of that other video illustrates the kind of rhetoric we should be adopting when people come to argue in bad faith, and that template may be the single biggest take-away for me from this whole series: "This guy assaults women, and that has nothing to do with language."
That happens a lot in video game developer/publisher/industry debates so it's probably up Inuenndo's street. The thing is with that one is that whilst I suspect some people use it as a dirty tactic when debating, a lot of people actually mean it. They get angry because they get bored of the topic.
Crispman 777 I would agree with you, save cases where B walks into A's conversation with C to silence A because A talks about X too much.
Nauhbonh Irfut
What? I'm confused.
There's a good reason that the "we've heard your argument, now be quiet" happens in the gun control debate--most of the arguments have been conclusively countered and addressed so many times that there's nothing new to be had.
Further, most gun-control talking points are based on outright falsehoods or ignore plain facts, and people get defensive when you point out that assault rifles have been effectively banned since the '30s, "assault weapon" is a purely aesthetic classification and always has been, there's no such thing as a "gun show loop hole," nor an exemption for firearm manufacturers from being sued, the AR-15 is literally the opposite of "high powered", truly banning "high capacity magazines" is impossible because they're so hard to define and easy to make, gun bans have never caused a measurable drop in homicide rates when enacted, even the most left-biases and pessimistic estimates of defensive gun use show that guns prevent more crime than it causes, semiautomatics are completely different from fully automatics, and they're no more dangerous than single-action firearms.
All the "conversations" that spring up devolve into lectures about basic facts of guns and gun laws as they stand or about why "we have to do *something*!" without anything constructive presented.
The Vision watched this in preparation for the fight with himself
“When words loose their meaning ; people loose their freedom”- Confucius.
“All porn is coercive! So you do some digging”
And delete a browsing history or two, but yes some digging was involved
Orwellian writing in a nutshell, never thought that it would be so similar to the Ship of Theseus thought experiment. Nice job
As a trans person, I really appreciate you saying "correct pronouns" when referring to a trans child; calling them "preferred pronouns" has always rubbed me the wrong way. Like, no, misgendering us ain't an option bud!
Definitely. I've always hated the term "preferred pronouns" like saying a gay man only "prefers" men. Like there isn't another option.
@@Fantasia-em5rs EXTREMELY valid
Agreed but also when you’re talking about non-binary folk there’s no one “correct” pronoun and the person may change their pronouns. Some go by they, some go be he or she or some other pronoun.
@@tdns01 Genderfluid/multigender/ etc people switch up pronouns, yeah! I'm also nonbinary, but I absolutely do have correct pronouns that haven't changed! Ofc, different for everyone!
@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts If you bothered to do any research at all before acting up, you'd know that there are no surgeries done on children. The most that can be done is hormone blockers, which extends the time before puberty, so theyll have more time to choose which puberty they want to go through. And I'm not going to argue about whether or not there are actually trans kids; it's your problem if you don't want to believe in reality.
These videos are always over too soon
Death yes, they always end before he explains that all the stuff he is talking about comes from and is targeted to both sides.
I wonder why that could be?
Xenath Cytrin Uh well no he does that in this video at 7:50
and i recall he has a preface at the start of this series that is something along those lines; you could at least watch the video before commenting.
"The main difference is that when the right does this it does it to the left, and when the left does this it does it to itself."
As someone on the right this is ridiculous and is evident of how he sees us, as a unified, collective front that never fights with itself.
It also shows us what the thinks of himself, he is always on the receiving end of anything, never on the end dishing it out, perpetually the victim and us the abuser.
He does not even register the problems of those he disagrees with, or that they might not be complete evil and may actually believe themselves as in the right as he thinks he is.
@@xenathcytrin202 can you give an example of the left phrasing things in the language of the right in order to convince them?
@@Feteronii no, because that isnt my aurguement, I am saying that they use the same ideas, mainly us vs them stuff
I’ve just been amazed how much this is Jordan Peterson’s entire career. And I keep hoping this series has a solution at the end.
Because it just seems like it’s a train designed to not stop and destroy everything.
Can you explain that a bit?
I always hear people say stuff like this about peterson.
@@ard1805 simply put, he is manipulating the narrative to push society to scary places. He's a nazi but an academic nazi. He can really put a pretty bow on a steaming pile of shit.
I'd disagree - I don't think JP is guilty of this trick in specific or is a nazi. To me JP's M.O seems to be selling descriptive claims in the context of claiming to have prescriptions and stopping just one step from final and disgusting conclusion
If someone says that tradition is the best way of life and society should go that route and then say that traditionally women don't have any political power and stay at homes then those 2 combined go into conclusion that limiting societal freedom of women is desirable for such person, right? Well, JP talks a lot about (1) and (2) but he rarely explicitly says the conclusion coming from his various premises.
That leaves a lot of plausible deniability, which to me is his main tool, alongside word salad. Hence even though smth can be unavoidable conclusion of things he says he "can" still say "I didn't say it".
I think plausible deniability itself deserves its separate episode.
@PumpkinKitsune as nazi language I presume you're talking about rebranding of cultural bolshevism and scaremongering with degeneracy as means for *very* strict traditionalism.
But I genuinely don't know about which nazi figures you're talking about. Can you be more specific?
Not even close. His career was as a PhD holding psychologist and professor at UofT. Everything he's done since ceasing teaching and clinical psychology has been self help turned political by people who can't parse academic language.
your channel is so useful, like its so easy to understand and really puts these concepts into perspective
It's like the Rick And Morty meme, "But With Extra Steps."
Ohh la la, somebody's get gonna laid in college
I don't get the joke. But, sidenote, I take college online.
Eek barba durkle, somebody's gonna get laid in college
The joke is the meme about "it takes a high iq to understand the jokes in rick and morty", hence college being about raising intelligence.. you get the idea.
John Wilkinson nope
THANK YOU! I've been looking for a word for this... so many clickbait headlines rely on this tactic.
Innuendo is one of a few youtubers whose work I re-watch every few years to help keep my ideas straight.
As usual, I don't have much to add or comment on, besides that you've given me a whole bunch to think about and you're just generally killing it with this series. Keep it up.
It's kind of fascinating how everyone has their own individual language which is made up of the languages from every community they see themselves being part of.
One of the worst cases of this I’ve seen was an accusation by someone saying they’d hooked up with a UA-camr when they were underage. By underage, of course, they meant they met in a bar while the accuser was 20 instead of 21.
I’m here after Wandavision
the doxxing example at the beginning was feeling far too relevant after Taylor Lorenz' article about the 'Libs of TikTok' account
Your video series is pure gold. Thanks alot!
Online communities, organizing, etc is 99% discourse, content like this is incredibly important.
Happy mayday
this series is very good. thank you.
Lol.
Lal.
Indeed. Though it's for the paranoid what a big jar of whiskey is for the alcoholic XD I can already see myself triple guessing whatever I write or read... Maybe I'll just abstain from any political social media discussion instead. Less headache.
It's not. It's masturbatory and very often projecting.
Kat Licks, "It's not" what? It's not *good*? Analyzing statements to understand the intentionally hidden meaning is "masturbatory" and "very often projecting"? If that's what you're saying, then I think you underestimate what's going on.
Thank you for your videos. They help to understand people on the other side of a conversation; I'd always just assumed, starting one, that at least some concepts are shared. It is usually well into the talk that you realize talks with some people are better left alone if you're not equipped with knowledge about their vocabulary and mindset.
This is so good, so well thought and put together, that it gives me hope. ❤
This series has been strengthening me since the election
9:33 +100 Internets to you, good sir, for awesome Gargoyles reference!
I absolutely love this channel.
I've been binging videos throughout my days since I found it the other day.
Keep up the quality work.
This alt-right playbook tactic you discussed in this video being called "The Ship of Theseus play" is a bit of a misnomer, because the Ship of Theseus is functionally indistinguishable from the original even after replacing all the boards. This tactic is not leaving the original statement functionally intact. I would just call this tactic *"Lying by Substitution,"* which is a more specific form of "Lying by Omission." The context of the fact claim is deliberately omitted so that the claim can be used to mislead readers into attacking a public figure. The means by which the context is omitted is by making a truthful statement and then carefully substituting distant synonyms for the relevant pieces of that statement in order to weaponize it against the public figure.
But it is interesting how the synonyms used to weaponize the statement can tell us something about what the alt-right thinks of leftist rhetoric, and the left about ourselves regarding what things are socially acceptable and what things are not.
It is also interesting that there are people who want to think of themselves as progressive but don't want to accept some of the core progressive values (e.g. sex work should be legal) and so are willing to accept these lies by substitution as truth to validate their beliefs ("sex work should be illegal") without having to facing the fact that these beliefs make them anti-progressive ("but I'm not anti-sex and I'm not anti-worker").
The telephone game, but if the telephone game had bad actors knowingly changing the words
you know, often youtube promotes videos to me that I've already seen and I don't care for that at all, but this is one of the exceptions where it's good to watch from time to time
This works as a footnote to Contrapoints’ video ‘Canceling’
Brace yourselves. WandaVision viewers fast approaching.
Thank you for making these videos. It's gotten me to think of things I wouldn't think of otherwise, and look inward to my own philosophies.
Most recently the alt right is using: "What is a woman, why can no one define a woman for me?"
id say this falls into the Never Play Defense catagory, as it is a quippy sentence that you need to explain gender as a social construct seperate from sex, the utility of definitions and the idea of gender performativity, while they can just use an intuitive argument, that although falls apart upon questioning, will not be questioned as their retorts devolve into accusations of pedophilia.
You two are thinking way too much into it. It’s not ‘alt-right’ to ask a male who thinks he’s a female ‘what is a woman?’. If someone actually has a problem with that question or thinks gender is a social construct, they are the definition of insane. Not necessarily bad individuals. Rather they have no tangible grasp on actual reality and believe whatever they hear from people with inadequate qualifications as doctors.
@@dracowolfe305 im not saying the question isnt a question that should be asked, and i often answer it myself (although in DMs, putting it in a public context invites antagonism on both sides), and its an important one to ask to become an ally for trans people, rather than someone who just tolerates them.
my point is that the question to then immediate accusation of grooming is a rhetorical trick; and a very effective one at that. but im not saying that the question came from a lab or something, nor did i say its exclusively alt right (although the pedophile and grooming allegations usually fall into that bracket)
@@seanoreilly849 there is a point to be made that when someone is asked that question and defends the position of ‘gender fluidity’, as completely wrong as the idea is, they are disparaged. However, it must be asked if it is morally acceptable to teach children a false theory and advocate for transitioning surgery (especially before they are old enough to actually give consent). One is not ‘changing their gender’ when they have surgery, rather they are castrating themselves and implanting non-biological material onto or into their body to appear similar to the opposite gender. You can’t actually change your gender because you are your gender. Castration is a serious issue and therefore it is certainly appropriate to ask those who defend the position for ‘reassignment surgery’ if it is morally acceptable to advocate for it. So it is certainly appropriate to condemn those who believe children have consent in this regard - people forget that children believe in Santa Claus and Star Wars so they obviously don’t.
For context - in Europe (especially in liberal democracies), where I am from, it is illegal to perform this type of surgery against someone under the age of 18.
@@dracowolfe305 look, as much as id love to teach a fellow euro about gender as a thing outside of sex, and how trans peoples gender identity can be as valid as cis people's. im very ill today, dont want you to think im pussyfooting around this, its just my heads spinning today.
Wandavision fans boosting a political video is something I never thought I would see lol
Reminded me of one joke.
- I heard you won a million dollars in the lottery.
- I didn’t win, but lost, and not a million, but a thousand, and not in the lottery, but in a casino.
1:55 "financially incentivized" to do uncomfortable things you wouldn't otherwise do the definition of employment. If you'd do it without getting paid they wouldn't pay you. So by this definition all emplyment is coercive.
Why wouldn’t they pay you?
Even if you enjoyed doing it, you should still be paid. Even if I love my job, “the love of work” will not put food in my mouth.
Also, enjoying work and feeling comfortable are not the same thing. Even if I enjoyed programming and making games, and somehow enjoyed Blizzard’s games, I would not feel comfortable in World Of Employee Harassment.
Even if someone doesn’t enjoy their work, they shouldn’t have feel unsafe or come out of work feeling sick if it can be otherwise avoided.
Liberals will acknowledge this and not see it as an implicit argument against capitalism
Epic video...wait this is a series?! Subbed.
Looking forward to a museum heist video where they steal the ship of Theseus, one plank at a time. The final conclusion at the end is that there are now two ships of theseus.
Soooo... how about that WandaVision finale?
I request elaboration
"The documents for the bypass have been on public display for several months."
"Oh yes, I checked that out. By Public Display, you mean in a nondescript public notary office with a tiny cue card on the front door that requires you to go around the back to go down into the basement through the door that says, 'beware of tiger', which is lieu of a staircase has a rickety step ladder just slightly off from the door. No current working electricity--so you have to bring down a torch--and walk past various cages with dead canaries in them, to a room with a door jammed into the frame, open a large rusted filing cabinet, and at remove the bottom drawer to find the plans underneath all the draws of the filing cabinent--with a maximum reading time of five minutes."
"Yes... they were on public display the whole time. You only have yourself to blame for our bull-dozer going through your house, really."
... does this mean that the reason the British Monarchy has not returned to take America back is because America has been a British Comedy several hundred years in the making?
I mean... the current President and all the stuff happening in politics...
Ah, a person of culture.
Thank you for this video. This shit is so exhausting and it’s nice to have it formally laid out in a coherent picture.
First off: love this stuff. Second off: WOO GARGOYLES!!!
I wish more people would double check info they receive, building a case is important when making or breaking down an argument
People work 40 hours a week or more, have relationships, families, friends, chores, car matienence, bills etc. You can't blame individuals for a failing of the system to protect them. They can't know everything and they can't spend very much time researching.
It's the reason a lot of people don't like to talk about politics, it makes them uncomfortable because it makes them aware of what they don't know.
@@ttlovepie101 Duly noted.
Now what are you gonna do about it? Are you just going to accept this? Or will you adapt to the situation and find a way to educate yourself still?
i sneezed just in the beginning of the video and all I heard was: let's say for the sake of argument that there was this guy - feces
You talked about a ship, but you showed us a boat....!
😂😜😝😉
GorillaGuerilla stop.
GorillaGuerilla using emojis just makes you look idiotic..
Yeah, there definitely weren't any ships. I didn't see a single gay anime couple in that entire video.
when does a ship become a boat!?!?!
What's the bong hit to emoji conversion rate?
😂🤩😜🤑😱🕵️♀️🧖♂️👨👧👦 👥🤰🏿🎋🐄🥑🎗🎰🏩⚰️⚜️🕑🎌♾
Love the video. Especially love the Gargoyles reference at 9:32. Such an underrated show. Thou, it doesn't hold up as well viewing it as an adult. Still a good show.
In Gargoyles defense, it holds up better than alot of kids shows. 😋😊
Mike Baker
Oh very true. The 80s Thundercats, for example, doesn't hold up at all. It is God awful.
SomeRandomGeek ...the reboot was not bad. At least they shut up that pet sidekick thing.
I watched Gargoyles a again a couple years back, and I thought it held up incredibly well.
It definitely had some issues, though nothing that I hadn't also noted watching as a kid. Maybe I was just savvy back then. It's still the only Disney Afternoon show I'd actually recommend to another adult.
This video never uses the term "dog-whistle" but it's still a pretty good explanation of how they work
Innuendo, I LOVE you for being pro-sex work! Thank you! A lot of people think it's possible to be a feminist or fight for rights while being anti-sex worker or 'gender critical," and it's just not the case. It leaves vulnerable people out in the cold.
What does "gender critical" mean?
@@SpectrumDT It's fancy-talk for "terf" or "transgender-exclusionary radical feminist." Basically "gender critical" feminists try to assert that trans women are invading cis women's spaces. They often use ignorant and bad arguments predicated on faulty science to try and defend conclusions that frame trans women as predatory. Simple statistical research on the high rate of assault and murder against trans women, the low rate of aggression towards cis women (especially compared to assaults made by cis men) and other factors demonstrate how bad and fake the conclusions are. I realise I'm presenting this with prejudice and bias in my tone, but I have no patience for harmful pseudoscience, especially when it attacks such a vulnerable population. Hope that helps! Be careful on the internet, and watch out for "gender critical" dog whistle terms like "biological gender".
I don't understand why people are anti-sexwork. First of all, Sex workers make a hell of a lot of money doing it. Second, it is their body, so they can choose what to do with it.
Am I correct on my assessment, or did I get something wrong?
@@Tigershark_3082 the first part is one of the main things so many ARE angry about. They see sex work as morally wrong and terrible, not real work, and especially older men DESPISE not being the “breadwinner” as a man. Combine that with how popular onlyfans got, how much publicity any rich models would get, and it’s a recipe for the same old “it’s not a real job and they are making as much/more money than me, thats bullshit I DESERVE more than that (whatever insult)”
Same kinda stuff happened when we saw younger kids/adults winning huge prizes for video games, or when UA-camrs were making millions. People were upset and like “it’s not a *Real* job even tho those people are putting in the same kind of hours into their work
@@Tigershark_3082 also it just comes down to the fact that, “sex sells” and mainly women are the ones who sell best. Some men just treat it like it’s another way women, (words of a UA-camr that has become mainstream) “live life on recruit difficulty” because they can apparently do whatever they want with no repercussions in their head.
"Public Figure X" sounds like a superhero name lol
I’ve probably watched your videos a dozen times, just whenever I need to remember that it isn’t just me that’s incredibly frustrated by all of this. I’ve shared your videos with like-minded friends, as well as friends who, while duped by alt-right talking points (and usually get their news wholesale from their Facebook news feed) who are still receptive to non-“pill” viewpoints (who won’t destroy your comments section).
Just want to say thank you- you’ve helped me deprogram a few people.
A bit of off-topic pedantry: while the question is a thought experiment, the Ship of Theseus was an actual thing. To what extent Theseus was a real person is up for debate, but for centuries the Athenian people maintained the ship and sailed it to Delos annually to make sacrifices to Apollo in thanks for the success of Theseus's journey.
It wasn't until nearly 2 millenia later that Thomas Hobbes raised the question of whether it was still the same ship by the end.
Also, my personal opinion on the original ship of Theseus argument is the opposite of my opinion on the political version- taken literally, I believe it’s the same boat as long as there’s a coherent beginning-to-current progression
Minor Nitpick: at ~5:45 you said in regards to "cutting off people from their community" you referred to this as a common "abusive boyfriend tactic". Whilst true, it is more accurate to say this of an emotionally abusive relationships and specifying only men isn't entirely accurate. I just say this as someone who has been on the receiving end of it.
Nevertheless, good video.
That sucks man. I hope you recovered. That's honestly one of the things that scares me the most about trying to find a relationship, but most people usually aren't abusive like that and having someone who can be there for you is very much worth it IMO.
Yeah, abusive parents do it too.
Probably all emotional abusers do to some extent, but I suppose "the abusive boyfriend tactic" conveys the idea most efficiently.
This is a unique application of one of Zeno's paradoxes to contemporaneity. I've mainly seen it in terms of ethical questions of cloning, but extending it to the realm of information-sharing is a fascinating augmentation. Are we no more than the assembled amount of information that is used by others to describe us? Thanks for raising these questions.
While I'm no expert on reality, as someone who has delved into the realm of madness many a time, I can say to some extent, the gaps are useful. That is, while we are both defined by what we are not as much as we are, as humans we have imperfect information, and thus what is in one group may be mislabeled, or is found to be in neither category. While we are indeed the sum of you ur parts, there is a part of us that is self directed. This isn't to say we are fully in/out of control of ourselves, but that it's a delicate balance between these things, AND there are also other things outside of this balance as well. TLDR: we aren't the only thing in existence, so debating whether or not there is human free will mistakes the grounds of debate. Further, we can mistake the will of animate/ inanimate objects, so what is to say we can't do the same for ourselves? I'm on team free will, but I understand that consciousness is a fleeting emergent property that doesn't fully describe either life or death, and there is more to death than what we know, and thus more to life as well.
In my humble opinion, it's really cool that you acknowledge that our side is prone to this, too. It tells of your integrity.
The argument that popped up in my mind was this: "x/y (I think it was 3/4?) women are raped in college", where the definition of rape was as far as "did consentiously sleep with a guy and regretted it later".
In Discworld this is called "The Axe of my Grandfather" or "The Igor".
I really hope the Vision's philosophical discussion with himself in Wandavision brought you here.
It did
This reminds me of that ProZD skit about clickbait. (YOU WON'T BELIEVE!)