I really appreciate her idea of an anti-debate. A type of debate gameshow where you can't "win" unless you argue in good-faith. Overall she feels like fresh air in a world of toxic hyperbolic tribalism.
@@moscuadelendaestin a word yes, but in a world where most ppl just use talking points to “win” a debate or form the question or POV in a belittling way this is a different approach in a way for both sides to come out honest and explain their perspective on the subject
@@moscuadelendaest "should" does a lot in that sentence :) debates have this preconception, but debates are all about rhetorics and rhetorics isn't a good tool for understanding, it's a tool for winning arguments. in some ways they still helps, but social media is actually very helpful in evaluating certain things, like what kind of behaviour different formats cultivate, and we can say for sure that debates mostly viewed as sport events: ppl interested in who won and root for a particular side.
No. A debate is a sport. Like any sport you have high quality matches and low quality ones. Being high quality isn't a necessary part of the sport itself. As someone who can debate fairly well but also hates "debate-bro" culture debate is more an opportunity to dunk on your opponent and gather support for your cause and less an opportunity for true intellectual discovery. For that you need discussion - unfortunately the low quality, low attention brains of those who seek a spectacle would be less inclined to discussion and more inclined to debate.
[01:00] - Introducing Stephanie Lepp and Philosophical Foundations [07:00] - The Anti-Debate: Redefining Political Dialogue [13:00] - Challenges in Constructive Dialogue [21:00] - Realignment and Polarization in Politics [28:00] - Synthesis in Action: Ethical and Political Challenges [39:00] - Philosophical and Psychological Tools for Growth [47:00] - Future Directions and the Value of Synthesis [50:00] - Practical Insights for Productive Conversations [58:00] - Balancing Convictions and Adaptability [1:06:00] - The Role of Moderation and Structure in Debates [1:14:00] - Lessons from High-Profile Conversations [1:26:00] - Media, Polarization, and the Path Forward [1:36:00] - Tools for Epistemic Humility and Better Understanding [1:48:00] - Closing Thoughts and Aspirations
@@dustybizzle1 you will one day, just keep watching and keep an open mind. By that I mean be extremely critical of anyone saying anything you like hearing.
Amazing interview - really made me think and re-evaluate my own thoughts. Would love to see more of Stephanie Lepp - I think she brings out a lot of good in Steven.
I've had similar experiences with activists and activist types as a grad student at my University as of late. A lot of people that think they are fighting for something but either don't know how or don't realize that they are actually hurting their cause. It's incredibly frustrating to be someone that is genuinely looking for groups of people or organize with locally, but no one wants to strategize or think through their opinions. The presumption of "common sense" in a lot of circles here is baffling considering the extreme gray area a lot of topics lie within, and that's step one. Step two is never addressed, how do we manifest change? Kids at my Uni seem to think simply having an opinion is enacting change. Civics, engagement, and actions are sorely lacking and after this past election I am losing hope that college aged activism is a thing of the past, relegated and abandoned during the Vietnam protests. Thanks for reading my rant, love you guys
I subscribed right after I realized that these two and others like them are very important in the shaping of the history of politics and maybe even the world. Dissecting the insane debates and conversations we are having that keep adding fuel to the fire and these people are trying to figure out put the fire out or even to prevent the fire in the first place. Destiny will play such an important role in our history and he doesnt even know it yet. Fun and inspiring to watch history happen, as it happens.
Stephanie Lepp absolutely floored me with her brilliance here. There are few times in my life I have been so struck by someone’s genius, and this interview is one of those times. Also, did anyone notice how she gently challenged Destiny about his stance on the imperative to generate shareholder value by employing her framework? First she stated something along the lines of “but this is the process, not the outcome.” Then she goes on to talk about leadership styles; how each can offer something depending on the context (for example, a controlling style may work well in times of crisis). Did this just all fly right over Destiny’s head? It’s like they were talking about all these ways to interrogate their own belief systems, the literal specific way she does this, and then he doesn’t get that she flipped it around on him to see if he could actually do it on one of his own beliefs?
I think the Issue with Stephanie's anti-debate format is that it is a struggle to find people who will be good faith and knowledgeable enough for it. As seen in Destiny's content, most people online and who are willing to have these conversations are not having them in good faith and most of them are without any of the real facts of what they're talking about too. The far-left and right-wing talking heads are wholly bad-faith and most people in the current day connect themselves way too much to either side for them to put those biases and the influence of them aside. You would have to have it between people like Destiny and Lonerbox on the Israel-Palestine war where we know that they're both knowledgeable already and have disagreements (but I suspect they largely agree on most things so I don't know if it would work so well). And you would also have to make it long as fuck to properly get into the weeds.
I think the setting is REALLY important. There are some people who are just so insanely ideologically captured that you'll never get a good faith discussion in any context out of them, like a Tucker Carlson or a Hasan for example - but most people, if you get them away from the bloodsport theater of Piers Morgan or Jubilee 1 vs 20, and into a more reasonable, intimate setting with just them, a moderator, and very clear rules and expectations (The Format™), I really believe could be guided by the hand into a better conversation.
Yeah, all most people are going to hear is “so, you are finally admitting we were right all along, but just can't say it outright for some reason. Well, yet.” Although, when I first heard about the idea, I really liked it. The more I think about it, the more I understand how flawed it actually is. Having said that, I would really like some long, in-depth discussions. I'm just not sure, it would be sustainable. Probably, the first anti-debate should be about the format and applicability of anti-debates. But in general, we already have science and philosophy. They are, kind of, supposed to broaden our perspectives, answer questions and suggest new ones.
I'm guessing that she talks to people who aren't public figures. Destiny talks to people who have audiences and are thus unable to actually engage with his arguments.
On the concept of "life begins at conception, and the product of conception should have all the rights of born child", one thing to note, is that no-one knows the conception has occurred until later, often much, much later.
After the election when I watch this podcast and think I'm learning a ton I have this feeling that I'm living in an echo chamber where I don't understand the other side. The black conservative (he said it not me) talked about his life but I really wanted to know his ideology and reasoning to it. I do appreciate the probing question and calm conversations with people who have given me alot to chew on but I don't know if this podcast is anything but a vibe check with cool ideas. ^relating to the hashing it out objective
The black conservative (Glenn Loury) and I have also been in dialogue! I have a lot of love and respect for him: ua-cam.com/video/cYC8XdlvKyY/v-deo.html
1:41:47 Reminds me of Goodhart's Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” In the same way if you replace reality with the map you were using an approximation for reality you are going to get into trouble
Only 17 mins in but as Destiny said, he would never trust someone who speaks like him, she triggered so many red flags with how she spoke but as of now i think she has a good solid foundation from which she speaks
It’s not so much avoiding ideology but understanding the limitations of ideology and being honest about those limitations. Instead of getting stumped in the limitations you find a path forward that closer matches your value system but also recognizes complexity. It’s definitely where I am now.
@ sometimes the complexity of an issue may at first seem unresolvable due the fact our society likes more satisfactory outcome. So, we struggle to come terms with having to accept the best answer isn’t satisfying. So, the limitations we can identify can often shut down process of resolution. Hope that’s somewhat clearer.
@JaredandTasha say for instance immigration. One side says let's just create an amnesty program and allow them in and the other side says close the borders and deport all those here illegally. There is of course more complexity to the issue. There's background checks, legal immigration pathways stymied by unnecessary red tape and expensive fees. There's also the cost to the economy. It can feel overwhelming as what we should do. Do we start with legal immigration and work towards resolving illegal entry or do we address illegal entry and those already here? These are the limitations of government that moved so slowly we must choose the path that though least satisfying in the short may create a better outcome in the long-term. So, overcoming analysis paralysis we must choose despite the likelihood it won't correct everything. Hope that makes sense!
Yeah and then right after that another banger. "They are boiled alive." "Yes before you kill something it is alive." Even in debates with the biggest regards on UA-cam, I have not heard such a stupid take.
@@bluebitproductions2836 also the take before that hot dogshit “I have an issue with the food production system where you can raise and slaughter animals humanely, but treat plants like shit” like wow what a dogshit take? do plants squeal and bleed? how do you treat a plant like shit? with pesticides? I dunno if that counts as “treating them like shit” like if you don’t care about veganism anymore just say you don’t care for fucks sake
Destiny: This is going to be a great bridge building ep with counter points! Also Destiny: Proceeds to agree with everything the Bridges guest says 😅😅 Great ep, look forward to Faces of Meat 👍
Even though I am a Destiny enjoyer I have to say Steven is doing a great job with Anything Else. Aside from the cool diversity of guests the quality of the video and sound is great! Keep up the good work brother D!
I know it sucks a lot but the best way to deal with bad faith debaters is to just stick to the facts of the matter in my opinion. I think it'll ultimately win out in the end. Despite there being so much financial and social incentives and rewards for lying, grifting, and misrepresenting others as much as possible. The Destiny and Shapiro debate gave me a lot of hope in that. There was even a brief time when Destiny and Shapiro were using each others' debate tactics and rhetorical styles.
need tougher moderators who aren't afraid of appearing biased tbh the problem is that in any mainstream left vs. mainstream right debate in the current landscape, the moderators are going to end up correcting the right-wing debater MUCH more often than the left-wing debater, and you're going to have infinite amounts of MAGAs in the comment section scremaing "BIASED LIB MODERATORS!!! THIS DEBATE WAS RIGGED!!!" because the unfortunate reality right now is that mainstream right-wing figures are incentivized to either straight up LIE (fox news dominion lawsuit) or to misrepresent facts/spread conspiracy theories, and the same is NOT true of the left-wing. People will look at massive amounts of media coverage of Donald Trump and never once think "Maybe it's because Trump is always DOING THINGS to warrant media coverage" and the same thing is true of this, maybe the right-wing debater is just wrong or lying more often, and yes, he is. The moderators need to NOT be afraid to hold them to this standard, to take off the kid gloves and STOP fearing backlash from people who don't even watch them in the first place, what are they so afraid of? They're not going to lose viewership, any "centrist" that isn't already in lock step alignment with Donald Trump is going to be able to comprehend the fact check anyway, what is there to fear? Just do it.
I'm not sure if attaching a point system will be enough incentive for people to try and integrate the other side's ideas into their own. I can already see people going to the show, losing intentionally by basically refusing/failing to integrate the other ideas, but going out smug because the other side actually accepted some of their ideas.
the reality is that she will be treated the same as fact checkers are now treated she will be denounced as fake news or dishonest and biased or whatever for fact checking/pushing the right-wing debater. the right wing debater will go on there, lie and misrepresent endlessly, have his position steel manned strongly by the left-wing debater which all of the right wing and "centrist" pundits will endlessly show clips of, depending on the fame of the left wing debater, and then on the right wing debater's own show he will denounce the show as being biased, make endless excuses for how "the other side is so objectively incorrect that no one would have been able to give a decent steel man of it" and then behave as if he had won.
"Philosophy is just about other people wrote, and I didnt like that" Proceeds to gargle Hegel's balls for an hour, as though no one ever synthesized two differing positions until the 1900's Fucking unreal
I'm half in on her being a radical centrist. She said all the things that Destiny said you should look out fornwhile not showing any positions ornactually working through any issues. All we got was "Why do you have to know if a fetus is a person?".
There is an article by Fiery Cushman (Cambridge) titled "rationalization is rational". I think discussions of Hegelian dialectics should contain this observational data that was not available to Hegel.
I really hope her project works out & she doesn't betray us. I don't buy into the hegellian nonsense but she at least seems to be more genuine & thoughtful about it.
58:36 - "What is moral consideration?" When we consider if our actions that affect someone are right or wrong. Pretty simple bro. "When does something grant moral consideration?" When that something (or someone) is sentient and can feel pain and suffer. See, it's not that difficult.
Also, why would you have a policy debate but not a philosophical debate on the same issue? Our policies are supposed to reflect our philosophies/values. There's no point having a policy debate if you can't justify said policy with a philosophical value.
Do you not know that what you just said is a simplified version of what destiny himself already believes?? Why comment this, lol. Have you not seen him talk about abortion before?
Please invite Daniel Schmachtenberger on to the podcast, especially if y'all are interested in sense-making topics related to what was talked about here. I find he is one of the most intelligent and wisest thinkers alive.
@ I don’t really know how to respond to your comment other than no. I find good value in mostly everything he puts out. I’ve heard this opinion before and after listening to almost every podcast or talk he’s given, I don’t agree. If you’d like to point me to certain work he’s put out that you think is purely word salad, I would be glad to take a look at it and let you know my thoughts.
@@rickhunter1454 actually coming back to this, the only conversation I can put into the word salad camp is his conversation with Jamie wheal and Jordan hall. I do think it was very convoluted and distorted.
Stephanie just reiterates the definition of "both-sides-ing" in a palatable way and suddenly its not a big deal. This shows that Destiny was stuck, being "triggered" by "both-sides-ing", and all it took was someone to come in and say "well what if both sides are right". Philosophical blind-spot.
46:40 wasn't George Patton made the 1st 5 star general for WW2 Europe campaign? Control and lead all forces? George Washington was technically that position over the revolutionary forces.
Let me expand your view on the topic sounds so much more engaging, understanding and well meaning then the let me change your mind. I guess people are more open to listen, remember and over think later on if you approach them that way.
Her many faces on abortion alone disqualify her as a serious person if she actually believes that video comes close to accurately representing either side and presenting a new synthesis that in any way changes the debate
wait what is happening is this a new destiny podcast? I havent seen anyone or anywhere this being talked about? is there a video introduction about this whole thing I missed somewhere? would love a link if anyone can send me
1:30:40 It occurs to me that a lot of true experts are not heard from on the internet because alot of them sacrifice their communication skills to be better experts in their field, or maybe just the people who know the most about specific things tend to be autsitic. Given that they aren't as good at communicating and farming engagement they appear less frequently in our feed, aren't entertaining, or dont even try because they dont care to speak publicily. I dont think these people would do well in a debate setting, but they might do pretty well in a moderator role with very clear and specfic rules to follow for how to assign points, in fact they might do really well at that.
Destiny said “I don’t think being right or wrong is the most important thing. I think matching your convictions is really important, too.” Yet, the MAGA guy who truly deeply believed that the 2020 election was STOLEN and went to the capital to protest what he sincerely believed was an overthrown democratic process is treated by Destiny as a person DESERVING being executed. Where’s the understanding and basic level of respect of that MAGA guy being there (or at a rally) because he was “matching his convictions”?
Very cool interview. Too bad Stephanie Lepp can't seem to see how the abortion debate is harder than she proposed. Her arguments on other subjects will most likely lack depth also, unless this is something personal for her and her emotions are clouding her judgements on this particular topic.
Debates aren’t discussions… there are no “good faith” debates. The defining factor of a “debate” is that there is an audience. That is why debates fail to generate tangible results. Regardless of the good faith or lack of bias, the point of the debate is to convince the audience. And thus, assuming the audience is mostly laymen, which is to be expected, then your success is determined by your ability to convince the laymen. This is why PHD’s are defended in front of experts, no laymen. This is entirely why politics exists, because rhetoric is only effective when applied towards laymen. Its funny how debate nerds can’t come to accept this basic and easily observable fact 😂
Your comment is all over the place. There are good faith debates. You seem to think a debate must be a discussion to be in good faith. What do you think a discussion is? Two people agreeing with each other? Experts are often arguing in bad faith.
@ obviously in the general sense, words like discussion, debate, argument, discourse etc. are all interchangeable, let’s move past that. In a more specific context, discussions do not have an audience. However, the fact of an audience is not what is restrictive in a debate, rather the style of argumentation used, the appeal to that audience. The distinction between a public discussion and a debate is the appeal to the audience, thus there are no “good faith” debates. Appealing to the audience is inherently corrupting to whatever truth you are seeking through argumentation. Opposed to a discussion, which can also be in bad faith, but has at least the capacity for good faith because there remains opportunity for collaboration without ego. The awareness of an audience, the desire to win against an opponent, derives corruption. This is why there are exactly zero scientific “debates”. Disagreements are created through alternative interpretations, and solved through data collection, not argumentation. Discussions are performed in a peer reviewed format, which has flaws, but is actively working against the problem I outlined above. It’s to be expected that humans mostly operate “not in good faith”, meaning we have bias, emotions, faulty memories, ego, etc that is difficult to overcome, and I argue, impossible to overcome when you are aware of an audience and are actively arguing
@ weird how the guy who started debating me also thinks debates are necessary. They aren’t. Nothing functional, innovative or relevant has ever come from debate.
Haven’t been disappointed by bridges yet
Have you been able to stay awake for all the episodes???
I wish August would add time stamps.
He does, but it always takes a long time till he adds them after the upload
@@metallica2500 Is that necessarily a problem ? You can always listen to these before going to sleep
@@retrograde126you would think considering how much they make that’s the least they can do lol
Every guest with a hat has been great so far! Please give us more guests with hats!
Destiny needs to put on an Indianna Jones hat and end every episode with "but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it..."
@@Tubeytime absolute kino 🖐🏻😲🤚🏻
Bridges is so much better then Anything Else
🥶🥶🥶
i'd rather watch anything else than dan and destiny shouting at each other
entirely different format eh, both can be good
Both are good
The one that got posted recently with jreg freaking out was pretty lame tbh
I really appreciate her idea of an anti-debate. A type of debate gameshow where you can't "win" unless you argue in good-faith. Overall she feels like fresh air in a world of toxic hyperbolic tribalism.
isn't that what a debate should be in the first place?
Been begging for this format for years
@@moscuadelendaestin a word yes, but in a world where most ppl just use talking points to “win” a debate or form the question or POV in a belittling way this is a different approach in a way for both sides to come out honest and explain their perspective on the subject
@@moscuadelendaest "should" does a lot in that sentence :) debates have this preconception, but debates are all about rhetorics and rhetorics isn't a good tool for understanding, it's a tool for winning arguments. in some ways they still helps, but social media is actually very helpful in evaluating certain things, like what kind of behaviour different formats cultivate, and we can say for sure that debates mostly viewed as sport events: ppl interested in who won and root for a particular side.
No. A debate is a sport. Like any sport you have high quality matches and low quality ones. Being high quality isn't a necessary part of the sport itself.
As someone who can debate fairly well but also hates "debate-bro" culture debate is more an opportunity to dunk on your opponent and gather support for your cause and less an opportunity for true intellectual discovery. For that you need discussion - unfortunately the low quality, low attention brains of those who seek a spectacle would be less inclined to discussion and more inclined to debate.
[01:00] - Introducing Stephanie Lepp and Philosophical Foundations
[07:00] - The Anti-Debate: Redefining Political Dialogue
[13:00] - Challenges in Constructive Dialogue
[21:00] - Realignment and Polarization in Politics
[28:00] - Synthesis in Action: Ethical and Political Challenges
[39:00] - Philosophical and Psychological Tools for Growth
[47:00] - Future Directions and the Value of Synthesis
[50:00] - Practical Insights for Productive Conversations
[58:00] - Balancing Convictions and Adaptability
[1:06:00] - The Role of Moderation and Structure in Debates
[1:14:00] - Lessons from High-Profile Conversations
[1:26:00] - Media, Polarization, and the Path Forward
[1:36:00] - Tools for Epistemic Humility and Better Understanding
[1:48:00] - Closing Thoughts and Aspirations
Ok
Slay
KING
(/Queen)
Thanks for doing August's job for him 😂😂😂
It almost sounds like a radio show. Very professional! Thanks to both hosts.
Consumer audio quality has become so good in the past couple years that you can elevate it to radio quality.
Steve is in his "studio" arc.😊
here for Stephanie! she's incredible
Alex O'Connor would be great at one of them anti-debates. He can sometimes argue for the position of the other side better than them.
You have to see how that's a problem. You just have to. Please tell you understand what is wrong with this statement.
@@HighFlyActionGuy I don't see how. Enlighten the rest of us!
@@dustybizzle1 you will one day, just keep watching and keep an open mind. By that I mean be extremely critical of anyone saying anything you like hearing.
@@HighFlyActionGuy what? you arent making any sense
@@HighFlyActionGuy Can I have an explanation? I'm also confused. How is understanding multiple viewpoints around an issue problematic?
I love the sound of this already!
Wow, my favourite Bridges podcast, yet, this truly highlighted why I gravitate towards Destiny's Content.
Amazing interview - really made me think and re-evaluate my own thoughts. Would love to see more of Stephanie Lepp - I think she brings out a lot of good in Steven.
Beautiful convo with wonderful Stephanie Lepp - I guess that my last 3 months of Bridges+AnythingElse patreon subs are worth after all ;-)
I look forward to every episode of this podcast. It's so good.
Stephanie Lepp is such a wonderful speaker! I'd love to see her on again!
I've had similar experiences with activists and activist types as a grad student at my University as of late. A lot of people that think they are fighting for something but either don't know how or don't realize that they are actually hurting their cause. It's incredibly frustrating to be someone that is genuinely looking for groups of people or organize with locally, but no one wants to strategize or think through their opinions.
The presumption of "common sense" in a lot of circles here is baffling considering the extreme gray area a lot of topics lie within, and that's step one. Step two is never addressed, how do we manifest change? Kids at my Uni seem to think simply having an opinion is enacting change. Civics, engagement, and actions are sorely lacking and after this past election I am losing hope that college aged activism is a thing of the past, relegated and abandoned during the Vietnam protests.
Thanks for reading my rant, love you guys
Those leftists in the sixties were just as stupid as today
"are you familiar with Ayn Rand" hahaha I love it.
Its called a conversation, you must not have many of those. For future conversations you might have this is something people may say to eachother
Wow you lasted 5 minutes before having to share your dipshit opinion. 🤡
@@kylerBDis this how you react when people say stuff?
I subscribed right after I realized that these two and others like them are very important in the shaping of the history of politics and maybe even the world.
Dissecting the insane debates and conversations we are having that keep adding fuel to the fire and these people are trying to figure out put the fire out or even to prevent the fire in the first place.
Destiny will play such an important role in our history and he doesnt even know it yet.
Fun and inspiring to watch history happen, as it happens.
Sincerely cool stuff!
Stephanie is so insightful! Everything was so thought provoking.
Stephanie Lepp absolutely floored me with her brilliance here. There are few times in my life I have been so struck by someone’s genius, and this interview is one of those times.
Also, did anyone notice how she gently challenged Destiny about his stance on the imperative to generate shareholder value by employing her framework? First she stated something along the lines of “but this is the process, not the outcome.”
Then she goes on to talk about leadership styles; how each can offer something depending on the context (for example, a controlling style may work well in times of crisis).
Did this just all fly right over Destiny’s head? It’s like they were talking about all these ways to interrogate their own belief systems, the literal specific way she does this, and then he doesn’t get that she flipped it around on him to see if he could actually do it on one of his own beliefs?
Incredible podcast, really nice to listen to
This was awesome!
This is one of my fav episodes so far. What a great conversation
I think the Issue with Stephanie's anti-debate format is that it is a struggle to find people who will be good faith and knowledgeable enough for it. As seen in Destiny's content, most people online and who are willing to have these conversations are not having them in good faith and most of them are without any of the real facts of what they're talking about too. The far-left and right-wing talking heads are wholly bad-faith and most people in the current day connect themselves way too much to either side for them to put those biases and the influence of them aside. You would have to have it between people like Destiny and Lonerbox on the Israel-Palestine war where we know that they're both knowledgeable already and have disagreements (but I suspect they largely agree on most things so I don't know if it would work so well). And you would also have to make it long as fuck to properly get into the weeds.
I think the setting is REALLY important. There are some people who are just so insanely ideologically captured that you'll never get a good faith discussion in any context out of them, like a Tucker Carlson or a Hasan for example - but most people, if you get them away from the bloodsport theater of Piers Morgan or Jubilee 1 vs 20, and into a more reasonable, intimate setting with just them, a moderator, and very clear rules and expectations (The Format™), I really believe could be guided by the hand into a better conversation.
Yeah, all most people are going to hear is “so, you are finally admitting we were right all along, but just can't say it outright for some reason. Well, yet.”
Although, when I first heard about the idea, I really liked it. The more I think about it, the more I understand how flawed it actually is. Having said that, I would really like some long, in-depth discussions. I'm just not sure, it would be sustainable.
Probably, the first anti-debate should be about the format and applicability of anti-debates.
But in general, we already have science and philosophy. They are, kind of, supposed to broaden our perspectives, answer questions and suggest new ones.
knowledgeable on israel palestine? ok bro
@@swiggersyolo5748 Given that they both have hours and hours of public content on their channels of them researching it... yeah?
I'm guessing that she talks to people who aren't public figures. Destiny talks to people who have audiences and are thus unable to actually engage with his arguments.
Favorite podcast right now
Really nice convo. Bridges convos are awesome, needs more/better promoting on the main stream to get it the attention it deserves. This is world-class
this chick is really cool..enjoyed this convo a lot
This was such a fun talk destiny really found someone on the same wave link
*Wavelength ;) Fully agreed!
This guest was great
Such a good conversation, happy to have found Stephanie to follow now, looking forward to her Anti Debates
more bridges like this! happy to find out about her
This was really good.
She's amazing thank you
This is my favourite episode yet!
These bridges episodes are really interesting!
this was a great conversation
It’s so great to hear someone easily as clever as Destiny.
"a 9yo is not a defective 12yo" is a banger line 😂
This podcast never fails to fascinate me
Best conversation I've ever seen destiny have
Best one so far man. Very nicely done here.
Oh, I'm gonna watch this everytime it drops now.
This was such a great guest loved the convo
The Dalivengers are forming.
Based.
this an amazing discussion
"Melted Snickers bar in the morning" stealing that thx
On the concept of "life begins at conception, and the product of conception should have all the rights of born child", one thing to note, is that no-one knows the conception has occurred until later, often much, much later.
After the election when I watch this podcast and think I'm learning a ton I have this feeling that I'm living in an echo chamber where I don't understand the other side. The black conservative (he said it not me) talked about his life but I really wanted to know his ideology and reasoning to it.
I do appreciate the probing question and calm conversations with people who have given me alot to chew on but I don't know if this podcast is anything but a vibe check with cool ideas.
^relating to the hashing it out objective
The black conservative (Glenn Loury) and I have also been in dialogue! I have a lot of love and respect for him: ua-cam.com/video/cYC8XdlvKyY/v-deo.html
Top 5 guest. Great discussion.
Her & the last guest have been Ws
This was a really good conversation.
Let's make a "Which guest has the best hat contest!" we have a nice hats.
This will be interesting!
This talk + sophie scott-brown with new anarchy. Good way to think about and restructure some things.
“The second you decide the map is the territory, then you’re going to get yourself in real trouble” 1:41:46
This one is a good one.
Omg I wanted to hate the hat lady so bad but then she said the thing I’ve been saying for years!! “Centrism relies on how you define extremism” YES!!
This was interesting to listen to.
1:41:47 Reminds me of Goodhart's Law:
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
In the same way if you replace reality with the map you were using an approximation for reality you are going to get into trouble
AMEN 🙏🙏🙏🙏
At the end i really felt she was implying Destiny should talk to JOE ROGAN!! IT WOULD BE EDIFYING
Only 17 mins in but as Destiny said, he would never trust someone who speaks like him, she triggered so many red flags with how she spoke but as of now i think she has a good solid foundation from which she speaks
For real with the red flags lmao
yeah she felt super “guru” type to me. felt like a lot was said without really actually saying anything
@@BreakinFire73did you watch the whole video and come to this conclusion? I think you’re being distracted by the silly hat
@@BreakinFire73You weren't paying attention then.
may i ask what red flags exactly? Genuinly I am curious because I don't see it
She made it really good case here with you for the importance of centrism and avoiding ideology
It’s not so much avoiding ideology but understanding the limitations of ideology and being honest about those limitations. Instead of getting stumped in the limitations you find a path forward that closer matches your value system but also recognizes complexity. It’s definitely where I am now.
@ what do you mean by stumped in limitations?
@ sometimes the complexity of an issue may at first seem unresolvable due the fact our society likes more satisfactory outcome. So, we struggle to come terms with having to accept the best answer isn’t satisfying. So, the limitations we can identify can often shut down process of resolution. Hope that’s somewhat clearer.
@@karydoughty3206 i guess i meant like an example of it, sorry!
@JaredandTasha say for instance immigration. One side says let's just create an amnesty program and allow them in and the other side says close the borders and deport all those here illegally. There is of course more complexity to the issue. There's background checks, legal immigration pathways stymied by unnecessary red tape and expensive fees. There's also the cost to the economy. It can feel overwhelming as what we should do. Do we start with legal immigration and work towards resolving illegal entry or do we address illegal entry and those already here? These are the limitations of government that moved so slowly we must choose the path that though least satisfying in the short may create a better outcome in the long-term. So, overcoming analysis paralysis we must choose despite the likelihood it won't correct everything. Hope that makes sense!
Crazy cool discussion
her anti-vegan argument was one of the most mindnumbingly stupid arguments I've ever heard. "Who is loving this lobster more?" Who cares?
Yeah and then right after that another banger.
"They are boiled alive."
"Yes before you kill something it is alive."
Even in debates with the biggest regards on UA-cam, I have not heard such a stupid take.
@@bluebitproductions2836 also the take before that hot dogshit “I have an issue with the food production system where you can raise and slaughter animals humanely, but treat plants like shit” like wow what a dogshit take? do plants squeal and bleed? how do you treat a plant like shit? with pesticides? I dunno if that counts as “treating them like shit” like if you don’t care about veganism anymore just say you don’t care for fucks sake
Destiny: This is going to be a great bridge building ep with counter points!
Also Destiny: Proceeds to agree with everything the Bridges guest says 😅😅
Great ep, look forward to Faces of Meat 👍
We need VeganGains on that episode.
He would probably end up killing the pro-meat-eating version of himself.
Even though I am a Destiny enjoyer I have to say Steven is doing a great job with Anything Else. Aside from the cool diversity of guests the quality of the video and sound is great! Keep up the good work brother D!
I'm just happy seeing him on things that encourage good faith engagement.
I know it sucks a lot but the best way to deal with bad faith debaters is to just stick to the facts of the matter in my opinion. I think it'll ultimately win out in the end. Despite there being so much financial and social incentives and rewards for lying, grifting, and misrepresenting others as much as possible. The Destiny and Shapiro debate gave me a lot of hope in that. There was even a brief time when Destiny and Shapiro were using each others' debate tactics and rhetorical styles.
need tougher moderators who aren't afraid of appearing biased tbh
the problem is that in any mainstream left vs. mainstream right debate in the current landscape, the moderators are going to end up correcting the right-wing debater MUCH more often than the left-wing debater, and you're going to have infinite amounts of MAGAs in the comment section scremaing "BIASED LIB MODERATORS!!! THIS DEBATE WAS RIGGED!!!" because the unfortunate reality right now is that mainstream right-wing figures are incentivized to either straight up LIE (fox news dominion lawsuit) or to misrepresent facts/spread conspiracy theories, and the same is NOT true of the left-wing.
People will look at massive amounts of media coverage of Donald Trump and never once think "Maybe it's because Trump is always DOING THINGS to warrant media coverage" and the same thing is true of this, maybe the right-wing debater is just wrong or lying more often, and yes, he is.
The moderators need to NOT be afraid to hold them to this standard, to take off the kid gloves and STOP fearing backlash from people who don't even watch them in the first place, what are they so afraid of? They're not going to lose viewership, any "centrist" that isn't already in lock step alignment with Donald Trump is going to be able to comprehend the fact check anyway, what is there to fear? Just do it.
pf jung needs to watch this
Synthesis is connecting the metonymic chains. It's more like observing a bunch of origin stories than fusing like Gotenks.
What a great fucking episode holy shit i feel like i just had a nourishing homecooked meal
If they made a philosophical reboot of the movie Twins, she would be Arnold, and Candace Owens would be Devito.
I'm not sure if attaching a point system will be enough incentive for people to try and integrate the other side's ideas into their own.
I can already see people going to the show, losing intentionally by basically refusing/failing to integrate the other ideas, but going out smug because the other side actually accepted some of their ideas.
the reality is that she will be treated the same as fact checkers are now treated
she will be denounced as fake news or dishonest and biased or whatever for fact checking/pushing the right-wing debater.
the right wing debater will go on there, lie and misrepresent endlessly, have his position steel manned strongly by the left-wing debater which all of the right wing and "centrist" pundits will endlessly show clips of, depending on the fame of the left wing debater, and then on the right wing debater's own show he will denounce the show as being biased, make endless excuses for how "the other side is so objectively incorrect that no one would have been able to give a decent steel man of it" and then behave as if he had won.
wow the video quality is so good now, who did you hire to set that up?
"Philosophy is just about other people wrote, and I didnt like that"
Proceeds to gargle Hegel's balls for an hour, as though no one ever synthesized two differing positions until the 1900's
Fucking unreal
Im enjoying the podcast but this fucking killed me 😂
@purplesuitman3764 same! Love bridges, hate hegel
I'm half in on her being a radical centrist. She said all the things that Destiny said you should look out fornwhile not showing any positions ornactually working through any issues.
All we got was "Why do you have to know if a fetus is a person?".
I really think episodes should be posted with time stamps
There is an article by Fiery Cushman (Cambridge) titled "rationalization is rational". I think discussions of Hegelian dialectics should contain this observational data that was not available to Hegel.
I really hope her project works out & she doesn't betray us.
I don't buy into the hegellian nonsense but she at least seems to be more genuine & thoughtful about it.
she looks like the female version of dan saltman
banger
58:36 - "What is moral consideration?" When we consider if our actions that affect someone are right or wrong. Pretty simple bro. "When does something grant moral consideration?" When that something (or someone) is sentient and can feel pain and suffer. See, it's not that difficult.
Also, why would you have a policy debate but not a philosophical debate on the same issue? Our policies are supposed to reflect our philosophies/values. There's no point having a policy debate if you can't justify said policy with a philosophical value.
Do you not know that what you just said is a simplified version of what destiny himself already believes?? Why comment this, lol. Have you not seen him talk about abortion before?
idk why i found this funny when destiny said I don't debate abortion and veganism and then they have a mini debate
Madly in love with you😅🎉🎉❤🎉❤🎉❤🎉❤
nice talk
Please invite Daniel Schmachtenberger on to the podcast, especially if y'all are interested in sense-making topics related to what was talked about here. I find he is one of the most intelligent and wisest thinkers alive.
Aren’t those guys just giving hours of word salad? 😅
@ I don’t really know how to respond to your comment other than no. I find good value in mostly everything he puts out. I’ve heard this opinion before and after listening to almost every podcast or talk he’s given, I don’t agree. If you’d like to point me to certain work he’s put out that you think is purely word salad, I would be glad to take a look at it and let you know my thoughts.
@@rickhunter1454 actually coming back to this, the only conversation I can put into the word salad camp is his conversation with Jamie wheal and Jordan hall. I do think it was very convoluted and distorted.
Schedule says premiere Matt Bruenig. Has anyone got any information on this?
Things got shifted. Matt was last week.
Alright, so no additional Bruenig content? ☹️
Looking into this
@@anomalunadota2 Concerning.
@@anomalunadota2 !
Stephanie just reiterates the definition of "both-sides-ing" in a palatable way and suddenly its not a big deal.
This shows that Destiny was stuck, being "triggered" by "both-sides-ing", and all it took was someone to come in and say "well what if both sides are right".
Philosophical blind-spot.
Yeah, she seems lioe another radical centrist who knoes the right words.
@1:04:00 She should call it Rebate.
46:40 wasn't George Patton made the 1st 5 star general for WW2 Europe campaign? Control and lead all forces?
George Washington was technically that position over the revolutionary forces.
Bridges = the veggies 🥦
Anything else = the candy 🍭
What’s th?
@Lxerm the. My auto cuts the "e" off or it tries to add the "r" to make it look like thr.
Is notsoerudite not on every episode? If not, why not
Let me expand your view on the topic sounds so much more engaging, understanding and well meaning then the let me change your mind.
I guess people are more open to listen, remember and over think later on if you approach them that way.
Her many faces on abortion alone disqualify her as a serious person if she actually believes that video comes close to accurately representing either side and presenting a new synthesis that in any way changes the debate
Shapiro doesnt debate. Shapiro preaches.
I didn't know Dan had a sister.
wait what is happening is this a new destiny podcast? I havent seen anyone or anywhere this being talked about? is there a video introduction about this whole thing I missed somewhere? would love a link if anyone can send me
1:30:40 It occurs to me that a lot of true experts are not heard from on the internet because alot of them sacrifice their communication skills to be better experts in their field, or maybe just the people who know the most about specific things tend to be autsitic. Given that they aren't as good at communicating and farming engagement they appear less frequently in our feed, aren't entertaining, or dont even try because they dont care to speak publicily. I dont think these people would do well in a debate setting, but they might do pretty well in a moderator role with very clear and specfic rules to follow for how to assign points, in fact they might do really well at that.
Destiny said “I don’t think being right or wrong is the most important thing. I think matching your convictions is really important, too.” Yet, the MAGA guy who truly deeply believed that the 2020 election was STOLEN and went to the capital to protest what he sincerely believed was an overthrown democratic process is treated by Destiny as a person DESERVING being executed. Where’s the understanding and basic level of respect of that MAGA guy being there (or at a rally) because he was “matching his convictions”?
Very cool interview. Too bad Stephanie Lepp can't seem to see how the abortion debate is harder than she proposed. Her arguments on other subjects will most likely lack depth also, unless this is something personal for her and her emotions are clouding her judgements on this particular topic.
Debates aren’t discussions… there are no “good faith” debates. The defining factor of a “debate” is that there is an audience. That is why debates fail to generate tangible results. Regardless of the good faith or lack of bias, the point of the debate is to convince the audience. And thus, assuming the audience is mostly laymen, which is to be expected, then your success is determined by your ability to convince the laymen. This is why PHD’s are defended in front of experts, no laymen. This is entirely why politics exists, because rhetoric is only effective when applied towards laymen. Its funny how debate nerds can’t come to accept this basic and easily observable fact 😂
Your comment is all over the place. There are good faith debates. You seem to think a debate must be a discussion to be in good faith. What do you think a discussion is? Two people agreeing with each other? Experts are often arguing in bad faith.
@ obviously in the general sense, words like discussion, debate, argument, discourse etc. are all interchangeable, let’s move past that. In a more specific context, discussions do not have an audience. However, the fact of an audience is not what is restrictive in a debate, rather the style of argumentation used, the appeal to that audience. The distinction between a public discussion and a debate is the appeal to the audience, thus there are no “good faith” debates. Appealing to the audience is inherently corrupting to whatever truth you are seeking through argumentation. Opposed to a discussion, which can also be in bad faith, but has at least the capacity for good faith because there remains opportunity for collaboration without ego. The awareness of an audience, the desire to win against an opponent, derives corruption. This is why there are exactly zero scientific “debates”. Disagreements are created through alternative interpretations, and solved through data collection, not argumentation. Discussions are performed in a peer reviewed format, which has flaws, but is actively working against the problem I outlined above. It’s to be expected that humans mostly operate “not in good faith”, meaning we have bias, emotions, faulty memories, ego, etc that is difficult to overcome, and I argue, impossible to overcome when you are aware of an audience and are actively arguing
@@kylenmaple4668 I disagree. With basically all of it. Feel free to ask about something specific, but I'm not replying to all of that.
@ weird how the guy who started debating me also thinks debates are necessary. They aren’t. Nothing functional, innovative or relevant has ever come from debate.
IDK if its just me but I feel like the amount of ads im getting on Bridges is really high. Getting 1 every 2-3min