Saying Nothing Of Substance
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 сер 2018
- An explanation as to why particular answers to certain questions are wrong.
This is an analysis of Trevor Noah, Dave Rubin, and how a statement or an answer to a fair question can seem satisfactory while lacking any substance.
Noah Interview: • 'Daily Show' host Trev...
Rubin Direct Message: • Welcome to The Idea Re...
This video is a revision of a previous upload to this channel. The original video was not revised due to copyright complications, but rather because it simply fell short of the channel's typical standards. It is currently unlisted.
Tweet: / counterarguing
Post: / counterarguments
Buy: teespring.com/stores/countera...
Donate: www.paypal.me/counterarguments
Email: countertheargument@gmail.com
Trevor Noah talking about politics sounds like me trying to bs my way through a 3 hr exam despite only studying for 1 day
you say that but it works for uni students.
Tom Williams and it works for him because for whatever reason people watch him
@@Aedi no shit, I do better in classes without studying then Trevor does at talking politics.
You studied for a whole day?
Pfft. Amateur.
@@TerpTheBandit
Yep, I study 3 mins before the class starts.. Get on ma lvl
A late-night show is hollowed of any opinions?
I'm shocked!
No that's not the case !
He is just a presenter with a very appealing character !
But most probably he needs a team to prepare his speeches.
I believe that's racism and discrimination are the most important issues to him !
But British prime minister !
He simply couldn't say I know nothing about it .
And he had to continue his improvising after it .
lol
ua-cam.com/video/HI3L1ap3Ti8/v-deo.html
Jimmy Kimmel be like
Noah's job depends on his not offending the powers that be, this is why he will say nothing of substance on political issues.
Replace him with Bill Burr and watch the shitshow begin
@@dleoner1 by God do I wish he would get to host the show for however long it was until they fired him, it would actually be a good show.
"Unlike Trevor Noah who was giving an unrehearsed interview, lets analyze someone giving prepared statements that they themselves wrote."
I don't know why but that made me laugh.
Josh Bassett xx do you really think Trevor Noah doesn’t put out propaganda... lol.
@@neoclassicalsynthesis892 they both progerganda machines , the differenece Noah is a comedian so jokes hides alot of his bs.
@@aaaaaaaaaaaa7952 You may not know this, but Dave was (is still?) a comedian the last I knew. He may have stopped doing that to focus on his show more. He's just not funny, at least not on his show...or clips of his standup I've seen. Trevor isn't funny either though he's trying to be on his show.
@@MusicMaing learn somethin new everyday
Laugh because it was true. Comedy that has an element of truth in it can often be funny. Trevor is at best reading cue cards on his shows. How much of it he wrote himself seems to be very little based on Amanpour's interview. Amanpour's job is to be heavy into international analysis, so that is like a Little League kid going up against Babe Ruth.
"Talking without speaking"
I prefer "Saying nothing with many words"
Henrik Agestedt that's a bit more eloquent.
WHO AM I?
LEFTIST.
PROGRESSIVES.
I AGREE WITH THAT.
DEFENDING MY LIBERAL PRINCIPLES HAS BECOME A CONSERVATIVE POSITION.
FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS.
REGRESSIVES.
I LEFT THE LEFT.
DONATE TO MY PATREON.
I NEED A HOME STUDIO BECAUSE DEFENDING MY LIBERAL PRINCIPLES HAS BECOME A CONSERVATIVE POSITION
Joel Lundqvist what are you going on about?
Colin McGreevy It is the Dave Rubin obligatory quotes that he says in every video.
The most interesting thing Noah said was “if poverty causes racism then black people would be racist” and he assumed that wasn’t true of black people while clearly targeting white people as racist.
Which is an ironically racist attitude.
Poor blacks can be bitter racists, which I can’t blame them for feeling. Noah lumps ALL blacks together when he profiles them; therefore, if some blacks are marginalized, they must all be.
He thinks poor people are black people interchangeably
@@Demi.d3mi So does Biden, who sits at the top of the US hierarchy, so its understandable that one could make that mistake.
Black people can't be racist because they've never been in a position to your affect your life, at least not in the US. Racism requires power
@@chrisallison9151 Ok, let's PRETEND, just for sake of this conversation, that your CRT definition of racism is legit and correct. The common black person today, has much more social control and influence than the common white person does, and it's really not even close. That's just amongst the poor and working class. Its extrapolated quite heavily when you consider blm and black people completely control our current social and culture environment, and have one political party and the cities they control, completely under its thumb. That's to say NOTHING of professional victims that make millions making a side career out of athletics. Just because you see white people all over the place and in leadership roles (in a majority white country, I know its shocking and traumatic), does not mean white people control the power dynamics or that 100% of the control is "white control". Nope, that couldn't be further from the truth. The blm/woke ideology which attempts to cater specifically to black people runs nearly all MSM and has acquired nearly all available power extended beyond the .1% of our societies elite (color is no longer important in this group). The vast majority of social power is given to a population that makes up 12-14%, despite this country being half white. So TLDR, you are dead wrong, and in this country, outside of the .1%, the black community owns the social power. I know thos, because we have ACTUALLY supremacist groups running amok and committing callous hate crimes, with regularity and everyone must pretend they arent, while hailing them and others as charities and a positive for the community. You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment of "black people never having power", because they hold nearly all of it currently.
"I love space, I follow everything in space and love it"
"What's your favourite planet?"
"Ermm well I don't know, I don't live on another planet"
"What planets do your fellow scholars like?"
"Ermm well that depends which train they took to the observatory"
🙄
Love this
This guy is a professional (probably pathological) liar, that’s what he is. And he has managed to fool Hollywood and weak minded.
That's exactly what happened .
But let's be fair
When you ask a (south African - stand up - living in US) about the British prime minister .
It's the same as asking a med student about space and quantum physics.
He physician might be enjoying the physics UA-cam videos
Yet he can't restate the facts and of course can't share his (physics / astronomical) opinions
@@roamingmompreneur792 you mean Oprah Winfrey...?
Underrated comment
“Hot is not an antonym for low” has to be the most trivial yet scathing criticism of Dave Rubin I’ve heard lol
Always happy for more content from you
Hopefully this has some substance
Especially when it gets reuploaded lol
No substance in this video at all.
This video has AIDS from a gay sex party
@@squarerootof2 It's post-modernist art. It is itself an ironic example of the thing it decries. Claim of widespread lack of substance is ironically unsubstantiated. We are all trapped in a post-modern matrix from which we are yearning to awaken. Heh.
@@deepfriedsammich I take it that boils down to whether its vacuous to criticize vacuous topics.
"I am making rapid progress in the art of using many words to say nothing at all"- Prussian Politician Otto Von Bismark
TV Presenter - "What's your verdict on Theresa May"?
Noah - demonstrates he doesn't actually 'Noah' 😂
Fuck you
😂😂😂
Damn 😂😂😂
You've earned an upvote...but at what cost?
Thw cost being? 😂
"I have a dream,
That I cannot remember.
But racism is bad!"
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Nobody:
Dave Rubin: I... aGree
Lol FreedomTunes
Do you agree?
I...ah...gureeee with that!
ThE reGrResssiVe LEft
Regressive regressive regressive, regressive regressive regressive regressive, regressive regressive.
I aGreeeee with that
I think with Dave Rubin, a lot of things that “lacked substance” were topics that he commonly talks about on his show, or at least has brought up in the past, and talked about.
Having watched some of Dave’s interviews, when he talks about the world changing, and the needle pointing to hot, he’s talking about the idea of people being so accepting of these long form discussions, talking about hard topics without shouting at one another, having principled arguments, etc...
So, I understand that in that one direct message, it may have seemed like it lacked substance, but it’s only because he feels like he doesn’t need to dive into something that HIS audience already knows that he’s referring to.
Those are just my thoughts
Dave Rubin sometimes has interesting guests on but he himself has virtually no ability to think critically or make sense. Even when he has a guest on I want to hear I rarely watch because listening to Dave's "questions" is painful.
Joe Alias I like Dave overall. But I agree with you; the line of questioning isn’t very great. Also, he doesn’t SEEM to think for himself much...but he’s a likeable guy
Joe Alias yeah this clip of him has more context than we are led to believe but I often find myself bored with whatever Dave Rubin has to say. He mostly talks in general platitudes
Joe Alias I agree Dave isn’t really able to articulate his beliefs he has to work on it I seen him during a speech at a campus and the students just through tantrums i was waiting for him to atleast make them question their actions with reasoning but he just kept saying the same thing he’s not as witty as other people but he’s on the right side of ideals imo and he rarely agrees with something that’s wrong
Are you not confirming the opinions expressed by counter arguments in the video? That lack of substance sounds satisfying if it fits a preconceived opinion? Dave is not saying much but because you agree with him you read into what he is saying and project your own interpretation. I myself have fallen victim to finding Dave's lack of substance satisfying when I use to avidly watch his videos. Initially I agreed with what he was saying and extrapolated his own lack of substance "talk" in my mind into ideas much more substantive. But ultimately after some thought I realized that my own ideas (triggered from his) were not necessarily held by Dave. In reality Dave is speaking without substance because it appeals to his target audience and allows them to create their own unique narrative about Dave and the show making them feel apart of an in crowd.
I don't mean to misrepresent your views and though I indictate that you are a supporter of Dave I am sorry if you are not.
“What’s your thoughts on Kim jeong un?”
“I don’t know, I don’t live there”
You can still formulate an opinion based on the facts brought forward. I don’t have to be in the basketball game to say how it is going.
Plus I think actually giving his opinion was one of the expectations of the interview. Especially after he claimed to have done so much observing of the situation. He clearly didn't want to give his opinion and simply punted.
Its fine to say "I dont know enough to have an opinion" for really anything, but it was silly for Noah to say he was keeping track of what was going on and THEN saying "I dont know. I dont live there"
Right? How much more do you need to see to form an opinion about KJU? It seems Frankenstein could more easily discern bad from good: "Fire Bad! Bread, Good!"
What was frustrating about Noah is that he starts off by saying it depends on how they travel - by car, subway, etc. then goes nowhere with it. If he "heard" something he should be able to follow up with one of them....those by a car or those by a subway. Pick one, at least it could illuminate his point. He picked none and let it drop.
@@aisherwasher6959 Yes, why tease out something and then bring nothing to it? Why say you "follow" them and then later pretty much admit you don't follow them at all? This makes no sense.
Any question Rubin is ever asked he just answers with "Well I'm really just interested in ideas"
I have something to say:
That is all thank you.
I have something to say.
Read more
Now *THAT* is Substance.
One has to wonder is life worth living? You win sir. UA-cam comment section is all yours.
I agree bro
Shane Rooney Dam you Shane. I clicked that read more 3 times
Wasn't this already uploaded?
Peadar yeah I don’t think the rubin bit was tho- i think he might’ve refined his arguments or video
Peadar he tends to take down old videos and redo or rephrase them a bit in effort to refine his argument
No this is the Mandela effect! He never uploaded this in this timeline but in a past timeline he did!
Oh so that's why I had so strong déjà vu
If he's changing parts of his argument... shouldn't there be some disclosure for that?
Noah: "I keep tabs on everything and know everything."
Christiane: "So how are things?"
Noah: "Not my business, so I don't know."
Christiane: "Okay... so... how do you think people whose business it is feel about things?"
Noah: "Depends on who you ask."
Everyone with a functioning brain cell: 🤦♂️
Technical point. You mixed up theory and hypothesis. Your using theory in the colloquial sense but hypothesis in the scientific. This is a bit confusing as they mean the same thing. Theory in the scientific sense is a much stronger term and is supported by facts.
@@SpellbreakWiki the problem is that he is not using them interchangeably. I recommend you rewatch the video. The context makes it very linguistically confusing.
@@SpellbreakWiki why does your name glow blue?
6:10
Thought I’d put a timestamp there for quick reference.
I must admit, the vague use of “theory” and “hypothesis” bugged me a bit too. I think there is better words to use in such context because in scientific arenas these terms mean something very specific when discussing science. I tend to think people who use such terms are attempting to make their argument sound more formal than it is and don’t have much to do with the scientific usage. I prefer to use less weighty words when speaking about someone’s thoughts or worldviews.
I must disagree with the TS though, I don’t think he used either of these terms in a formal scientific manner. Here he used hypothesis and theory to pretty much mean “idea” or “concept”. His usage of hypothesis did not refer to a prediction that is testable or falsifiable, and imo this removes it from being eligible to be considered a scientific form of the word.
@@gumbilicious1 that is my complaint. The way he uses hypothesis is colloquial but his use of theory is vague but supposed to mean something else. I object to the colloquially use of these terms on general principles. There is too much confusion about their use
@@gumbilicious1 that is my complaint. The way he uses hypothesis is colloquial but his use of theory is vague but supposed to mean something else. I object to the colloquially use of these terms on general principles. There is too much confusion about their use
Rubin's two main problems, by my estimation, are that he's rarely the most competent and/or eloquent person in the room and that he's much better suited to moderation than debate. When he moderated the Harris/Peterson tour, he was so fortunate and blown away by both the discussion and the response from audiences. You see the same thing when looking at Dave's place in the greater IDW. He's really only there because he helps facilitate those conversations, not because he has anything of substance to contribute to them, and I wish he would realize and admit that more often. That being said, I think one of his followers or someone who follows that world a little more closely would be able to read into what he's trying to say. But he's not particularly focused or eloquent, and that keeps him out of the top tiers of the online intellectuals.
It seems Rubin gets more of a pass because he has an audience. His audience, that have been following him for sometime, understand and can recall instances and issues that substantiate his statements.
You are confirming the opinions expressed by counter arguments in the video. That lack of substance sounds satisfying if it fits a preconceived opinion. Dave is not saying much but because you agree with him you read into what he is saying and project your own interpretation. I myself have fallen victim to finding Dave's lack of substance satisfying when I use to avidly watch his videos. Initially I agreed with what he was saying and extrapolated his own lack of substance "talk" in my mind into ideas much more substantive. But ultimately after some thought I realized that my own ideas were not necessarily held by Dave. In reality Dave is speaking without substance because it appeals to his target audience and allows them to create their own unique narrative about Dave and the show making them feel apart of an in crowd.
Mryugideck I agree that sometimes Rubin does this, but I also think this was a just bad example, as most of the points he touched on in his intro have previously been delved into in hours long shows with knowledgeable guests. Yes, he’s an interviewer, but sometimes fails to ask the hard questions, and interjects with semi-informed opinions fairly often throughout the show. I think that’s why he comes off as very agreeable and superficial
@@MrYugideck I think there isn't much wrong with making claims in opening statements without substantiating it. That goes for either side, substantiating claims can be very long winded and there is a specific time and place for those. There's a difference between saying "nothing of substance" and actually saying nothing of meaning. At least you can understand the viewpoint of Reuben while for Trevor you actually have no idea.
@@RealKombatWombat This doesn’t even begin to make sense. Rubin makes a number of false predictions and promised to leave if Joe Biden became President. He has not even the presence of bad ideas, but a contemptible absence of ideas altogether.
The premise is much clearer now. Thank you very much for taking the criticism you received on the first video into account. This is why I love this channel so much.
Never change this attitude!
This video is more about why it’s often necessary to know a person’s basic ideology before you will be able to properly decipher what they’re actually saying.
Hey man. I saw your Trevor Noah video and I loved how you deconstructed 1 of his lines and explained why it lacked depth (vagueness, grammar errors etc) and I was wondering if you could do a full video on how to make a good argument/essay in general.
I think this would benefit all.
If you haven't yet, the 12 angry men series from this channel. Revolutionised my conversations.
The Rubin part I think is just Dave talking to his base.
yeah, its rubin talking directly to his base, you cant really expect him to be too detailed about his arguments then
I had the same thought. He's making vague references to views and arguments that his audience is already familiar with. It's not the same as a public interview or debate where you need to introduce or substantiate your position.
jeppep95 don't expect a detailed deep dive into the nuances of his political views in a brief PSA for his channel and his tour. I'm sure he has other videos on his channel for that.
That's what I was thinking, so I'm glad you brought it up. The Direct Message is pretty much just there to fire up the audience and give us a sense of community (speaking as one of his base).
It's wearing pretty thin too. I doubt many people actually watch for Dave himself. His entire stance is that governments don't do things efficiently and have a tendency to abuse their power (no shit Sherlock). He does interview quite a few interesting people though. This channel has already spelt out the problems with the Rubin Report but he's essentially an intellectual lightweight. His strength is his conversational ability and general agreeableness, not his vague and unworkable ideas about how the world should be.
I've never hit the bell immediately after subscribing until now. This was an excellent critique of two public figures whose personalities I've always admired--for essentially the same reasons--but whose rhetoric I've wittingly tolerated on occasions like these. Thanks for relieving me of my own due diligence, Counter Arguments!
U could have just picked up any of Justin Trudeau speaches
Wanna hear a real life joke? Trevor Noah is considered a "comedian" 😂
Falling on the floor laughing. Same for most late night comedians these days.
His standup is alright, but his show is god awful.
@@GC-yw1mn Aren't most of the late night show awful?
jimmy neutron Yeah pretty much, except Conan, and even then the format gets old quick.
his standup is ok at least
Is this a reupload?
The previous one was about Trump and Obama saying nothing.
no it def is a re-upload. same guy
MST Average Nah, the one before didn't have Rubin in it.
Wondering the same thing... Noah video was previously uploaded... OR, I have been consuming too much Melange. The Spice. Must. Flow.
It's more like an edit. A better script even.
I think that Ruben was talking to his audiance, because its his channel and had a lot of assumed stuff, thats why you didnt find substance.
When it comes to noa, i dont think he wanned to share it (or even CNN).
StonedAurelius yeah, I think your right. Its more of a “remember these things” to regular watchers than him trying to explain something to new viewers.
I kind of agree, one was talking to an audience about previously shared view points. The other was potentially talking to people who have no idea who he is about his view on certain topics.
Agreed. If Rubin were required to reiterate every point or idea he has ever produced on the Rubin Report, you would never get anything new. I will say, however, that Dave Rubin definitely struggles with providing much insight to a discussion, but that is usually because he relies on his guests for that, and he acts more as a reporter than an expert on a subject.
@@bradenhull8965 If you think there is amy difference between liberals and conservatives and libertarians you are an idiot
Reporter's are supposed to ask tough questions, Rubin does not
I think you took introductory statements and asked them to support their arguments when the context of the situation is implied. If I say “it’s through that door” and point at a door, you can assume from context what door I’m talking about. I also think that many of these people have made content that explains these statements, and the statements are made to a known audience that has this background. You seem to be complaining that a chemistry professor is talking to a crowd of chemistry teachers without explaining the fundamental concepts of chemistry
I agree, the first statement was a bit of a nonanswer, but what he said about the Windrush scandal is actually an interesting and relatively radical observation if you understand the situation (which this counter argument character doesn't even care to explain)
That response "comparing Obama and Trump would be crazy" has some fishiness there. Waving off something like that is like telling someone to not think about the topic. It also kills potential for a great bit of criticism at Trump if his harmfull actions are as big and numerous as insinuated.
Hollywood thinks their opinions about Trump are self-evident truths that don't require any facts or scrutiny.
I understand your argument, but I don’t think that everyone needs to construct a thesis claim and 3 points of textual evidence every time they try to say something lmao. Yes, Rubin was talking very vaguely, but like you said it was addressed to his audience who knows the examples of what he’s saying themselves. It wasn’t really appropriate in Noah’s format to get into specific instances either, of course he shouldn’t be talking politics in an interview if he doesn’t actually have anything to say.
I agree with you and just posted a similar comment. It would have been more persuasive to pull a clip of interviewees responding to Rubin so that both situations were contextually equivalent.
I agree. I hear this a lot that people are not saying anything, when the speakers are trying to actually handle themselves like adults, with nuance and not being unnecessarily strong with their language. Or maybe the examples were just not very good.
Fair but he did claim to have somethings to say so it was a fair question and a little bit of a disingenuous answer.
Watching this after your "Dear Subscribers" video, kudos again on catching yourself. Also, wow, didn't even know about Rubin, but that handy he was giving to his viewers rakes me so wrong. It's like some cult tactic. "Don't listen to them. You are smart. Listen to me. You are smart."
A much more well thought-out version of the argument than the version with just Trevor Noah's interview. Nicely done.
Good edit and change of the original video.
Thanks, Gabe.
A total redo of the original video, a lot of people criticized the old video as being biased and unfair to Trevor Noah. Counter Arguments agreed, and took the video down. This is the "updated" version of that video. Both videos have similer argument premises, however this one is less emotional.
Gabe Durno
I really didn't see how it was biased to Trevor Noah since alot arguments he brought up in that video where placed in the first portion of the video.
It was biased AGAINST Trevor Noah as Counter Arguments had a "vandetta", for lack of a better word, and Counter Arguments admitted that in a video. However in contrast to your point, Counter Arguments used one out of the three clips shown in the other video.
Downgrade from original video.
The logic on Dave Rubin is incorrect. He is saying things of substance.
People calling you a racist bigot is an attempt at deplatforming your views by placing you into a box.
Trevor Noah is nothing but a snarky complainer. His Daily Show bit is an endless feed of racism accusations and Trump insults.
Even though trump is the cockiest stupid guy around.... I fully agree with you
@@Pranav-rp8wi Cockiest yes. Stupidest no.
If he were stupid he wouldn't be president.
@@konradverner6326 did I say stupidest??? .. btw, you don't know what being born in the right family and a bit of luck can do..
@@Pranav-rp8wi He didn't get lucky Hillary was just a dumbass and he was always the loudest voice in the room and people heard of him because of all the controversy.
His ability to have the news give him free advertisement with said controversy is what got him elected to the highest office in the land.Few people remember Love trumps hate but MAGA is unforgettable.
You've won my subscription because of the way you broke things down.
I've felt this way about Trevor ever since he went to America. He either counters arguments with logical fallacies, or says nothing of substance but in a sophisticated fashion
My eyes are open. Love the content❤️
In both cases I don't think they're trying to field arguments, they're expressing an affective opinion. Or in Trevor's case, he's trying to communicate that the issue is complex and he cares about these issues but he doesn't want to weigh in for some reason.
Interesting argument, I was kind of curious what you meant when you said “ a lot of formats don’t allow someone to say something of substance”. Could you possibly elaborate on that? By the way I really enjoyed the video so this is not meant as an “attack” of sorts I’m honestly just wondering where that comes from or what your opinion on that is.
Thanks much!
I'm not him and I'm coming in like over a year later, but I think I can give an answer. Typically any important discussion of politics or explaining stances on certain issue requires long explanations, because these topics are complex and require a lot of details. That can take several minutes per question, but when it comes to interviews like this or even national debates they can't dedicate that much time to each answer, they have a tight schedule and they need to move on. Thus, there isn't time to go into enough depth, any attempt to do so would eventually be cut short, which would hurt what is being said. Therefore, politicans avoid that risk entirely by saying nothing.
I agree fully. To add to your point, on top of the tight timeframe to respond interviewees don’t have access to resources to help them remember their position. They have to recall their rational and evidence on the spot while possibly under immense pressure (their reputation/career could be on the line). With sometimes unpredictable questions it’s understandable if answers are sometimes of little substance.
Good video! I like the improvements in your arguments. I am glad you took on the challenge to remake this video. :-) You did well.
When I watched the original I didn’t quite understand what you were saying, but know I think you’ve actually got a really good point. I find myself thinking that this is a big problem with media right now (new or old). Thanks
P.S. this channel is one of the best on yt.
this interview is the definition of tiptoeing.
"whats your opinion of X?"
"well its not really fair to say any opinions"
I want to ask you directly (@Counter Arguments) if I understand correctly your message.
I have peeked at Rubin's channel a couple or more times, and I have an idea about his political orientations. From your analysis, of him at least, I noticed that I could rationalise and make MY OWN sense of his point. Is THIS the problem? The fact that he speaks in generalities so that what he says can have a different meaning or interpretation from viewer to viewer? Is it the fact that the meaning of his sentences is not derived by the sentence itself, but from the bias and experiences of the receptors?
This is a sincere question, and i hope there is some feedback.
P.S.: Since i don't follow Noah in any way, I realised how devoid of substance his statements were since I wasn't able to link them with something familiar he said on his show, for example, but that wasn't so obvious with Rubin.
so you have an idea of his political orientations? Not that you know where he stands for or anything.
I could tell his political orientation cuz I've listened to him to know where he stands. It's not an idea, it's a fact where he stands on certain issues currently and that is subject to change as he gets more information just like your viewpoints will change with more info.
From your analysis, of him at least, I noticed that I could rationalise and make MY OWN sense of his point. Is THIS the problem?
Why is that a problem? Your thinking about his ideas and where he stands and what you agree or disagree with. Thats called individuality. It's thinking for yourself. Its dissecting the ideas to what you agree or disagree.
Do you think about what this channel posts and think deeply about what they are saying or do you nod and agree?
If so, why are there dislikes? Clearly some ppl dont agree. Are you curious as to why?
Ask yourself this do you agree with anyone 100% all the time? If yes why? Is it because their argument is strong and makes sense. Can you destroy it by playing devils advocate? Trying to find flaws in the logic they give you? If yes, than ask yourself why havnt they thought it out? You'll get to 2 possible outcomes, one they havnt thought out the idea at all and they are repeating what they heard with no thought of their own, or two its maybe they know the flaws and are withholding it. If that's the case why arent tell you the flaws. Why arent you being informed of it? Nothing is very black and white or dealt in absolutes. If you think things or right or wrong in absolutes your missing the naunced points.
Like for example, in this video they say that trevor Noah, gives empty answers, when asked for his opinion. He has often criticized foreign leaders on his show and Twitter. Yet when asked for his opinion he gives nothing from his point of view. Why? Is it he doesnt know, and just follows the script given to him at the show? Or is it he didnt want to give his opinion at the time?
Both are valid, but when you add the times he has given his opinion and it's usually by tweets, means it's possible either someone tweets for him, or hes a better writer than speaking out loud. The issue is if it's the first one. If he is regurgitating information that means he has thought it through.
But when its their argument on dave rubin, they say if you dont know what hes talking about you dont know what it means. on the other hand if you do know what hes talking about than you get it. so its not about lack of substance, its what the viewer already knows. im going to assume counter arguments doesn't know what hes saying and taking it out of context.
for example they mention the enlightenment, how alot of these ideas have existed prior, correct, but the enlightenment came after the dark ages. and alot of the ideas in the enlightment is exploring the ideas from the greeks. those ideas existed but no one decided to reexamine them.
The Dark Ages is generally considered as the early medieval period of the European history. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe faced a drastic political, economic and social set back. The Dark Ages reflects the ill-consequences of this set back. This dark period started when the last Western Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus was defeated and deposed in 476 AD by a barbarian Odoacer.
romans took alot of their culture and ideas from the greeks. during the dark ages science and arts declined, look at some of the art done by the greeks and romans than during the dark ages, and at the enlightenment. youll notice at the peak of greek and romans, arts were very beautiful and done as true masterpieces look at their scuptures and paintings. than look at dark age arts. the quality and etc goes waaaay done. when the enlightenment happens, the skill in the arts goes back up.
so counter arguments case on dave rubin is these ideas existed before, yea and the greeks believed if you break matter to its smallest part, youll get to piece you cant break. and like 80 yr ago we called it atoms, now its quarks. but the idea that matter can only be broken such a point existed before modern science. but it wasnt fully proven or understood till modern times. the issue is they are saying these ideas existed, but before youtube and etc. most ppl i know watched jersey shore, they werent interested in ideas and a better understanding they wanted to watch reality tv. now you have channels such as these, creating works of thought and ideas, that ppl are egar to watch to understand.
personally i think counter points could have done much better, simply for the get divide between the statements of noah and rubin. noahs answers were empty of all info, rubins were assuming you have a base line of what hes talking about. that you watched videos from channels that predate him, that discussed such issues, during gamergate.
for example gamergate was a very naunced topic. fans and gamers were upset that a game journalist was sleeping with a game creator and called it a violation of ethics to have the journalist write a review. you have spin offs from the gamergate hashtag called notyoushield, saying how the journalists are misleading ppl by saying gamers are racist and sexist. that minorities, used that hashtag to say you dont speak for us, dont use us as a shield to say your speaking for us. which happened about 5 yrs ago. from gamergate you can see how feminism became more mainstream and how the term social justice warriors came to exist. and how it became culture, and from it spun a counter culture of ppl saying this is where your wrong and they were labelled anti sjws, and as time went on and other issues emeraged and the media focused on them more, people started to provide different sources of information by the time dave rubin created his channel and etc. it was like 3 yrs after gamergate, that such events lead to his opening introduction and thats what hes speaking to. the audience that wants to hear ideas, that they might agree, might not but want listen to them and get a deeper understanding. this is where hes saying there is an idea revolution, that more ppl want to be more informed want to have better understanding of such ideas, to explore them to listen to ppl that explored them, that educated and read to share that knowledge. before gamergate, i watched lets plays, just droning out watching ppl play games i didnt have or just didnt really want own but was curious for the story, now you have so many channels trying to share their thoughts and ideas to disprove others to find flaws. literally counter arguments is spawned from this idea revolution they wanted to provide bite sized information on both sides of an issue. to show how nuanced and complex things are.
Vadim, I seriously recommend checking out the top comment in Counter Arguments' video "Arguing over nothing" if you are wondering why it's a problem that he doesn't get specific. You are spinning it to a positive when someone is very generalistic because it provokes people to think. That is true, but what are they thinking about? Not about the point the person brought up, because it was devoid of substance. They think about their interpretation and what they project into it.
Might just be me, but I feel like you completely misunderstood what Counter Arguments is actually trying to convey here. They are not painting Dave Rubin in a positive light at all, yet you seem to think that, unless I got you wrong? It's not that you are knowledgable and understand what he means, they are talking about how, if you are his fan and in his club of "woke intellectuals", you put your own interpretation into his words and he doesn't have to put any substance into them himself.
Vadim Mishchenko too long didn’t read
counter arguments went on an autistic ramble there, forgetting that addressing your audience != political debate
I'm glad you redid this one.
Well done, thanks for the update!
Rubin did a very poor job of explaining context here. He's jumping around multiple implied topics in a way that sounds incoherent to an outside listener.
This especially doesn't mesh well when he mentions two separate ideas in one sentence: Peterson talking about self improvement and the censorship of controversial ideas. While not wholly unrelated as Jordan Peterson does discuss both controversial ideas of philosophy and self improvement, their conflation makes the first part appear a poor or confusing example for the latter. A better sentence equally relevant to the subject would have been "A middle aged professor criticizing identity politics. This simply wouldn't have happened two years ago because so many of you who dared to think differently were silenced by false cries of racism and bigotry." (since that is something Jordan has frequently done and serves as a far better lead up to the point)
The problem is that Rubin just kind of assumes that you're part of the community, have a good understanding of what the Intellectual Dark Web is about, and are in on the struggles that people such as Jordan and James Damore have experienced regarding censorship from the SJW left. In other words: he is in fact discussing actual ideas but very broadly and with zero focus or exposition. He needs a Star Wars title crawl or something.
Mister Doctor Professor Idiot S.M.D. Virgin
Gerry Wallington ... banal immature pejoratives = no one bats an eyelid. Try actually making an argument next time.
I think this video is for you Gerry
I understood Rubins words as a simple aknowledgement that the ideas he represent are becoming more mainstream and acceptable, witch is arguably true.
He just went about saying it in an unnecessarily long and rambly way.
Rubin always does a bad job at everything he does.
Ok so hold on. On the one hand, you criticize Rubin for giving his opinion on the Rubin Report before the interview starts, and on the other hand you criticize him for not saying anything in those 5 minute opinion clips?
This does not measure up to me unless you just mean that one specific clip in which case, alright.
Rubin's decent at interviewing, but he tends to just talk about ideas he has without any kind of plan or explanation for those ideas when he talks. Sometimes when he's interviewed, he'll go more in depth, but Rubin generally talks like his audience has already come to a conclusion based on pre-established evidence and he's summarizing the conclusion. At least that's what it feels like to me. Anyone who hasn't been listening to him for ages or heard that as the first piece of content from him wouldn't get it at all, it wouldn't make sense. I think that's the point here. "We're in an idea revolution. I didn't know that. What even is that?" "Trump led an idea revolution? Do you mean he's given out ideas or because he's so politically incorrect that people feel comfortable speaking out more now, or what does that mean?" Etc. I love the Rubin Report, but I binged a bunch of his stuff and even watched his public speaking events and he always is the weakest one there as far as substantive content. It's kinda like his ideas are a balloon that you need to listen to everyone else who comes on his show to understand what's filling it. Something like that
Vlad Romanyuk Not sure if there is a contradiction between giving and opinion and saying nothing of substance. For example, "people are clever becuase they are thinking of new ideas" is a statement that (with no evidence or supporting claims) doesnt really contain anything substantive. But it's still an opinion. I'm trying to learn to think like Counter Arguements haha
than the best way is to expose yourself to ideas that conflict with your view point. why? you might hear something you didnt know. you might understand better why you like your ideas more. you might know how counter poor ideas. and be able to say here are the flaws with your idea, heres how to improve it. and youll know the flaws in your ideas so you know how to fix them and make them better. for example, alot of ppl are scared of satanism, have you asked why? what does satanism stand for? what are their values? do you agree with them? do you disagree with them? why is your religion better? how is it worse? can it be improved? see more knowledge lets you build upon what you know and refine it.
I understood perfectly well what he meant. He means ideas and intellectual conversation are becoming a quickly growing phenomenon and people are starting to get more engaged in the aforementioned etc. I mean, I understand this with context and having heard him and his crew talk before etc. I suppose he'll assume his listeners know what he's talking about.
i would assume that to. he is not speaking to people that never heard his show, he is speaking to people that already have a certain background. establishing the background of some claims time and time again might be possible in a scientific paper.. but not in a interview...
does not mean of course, that you can claim what every you want without providing any substance
Very true. Ignorance of your own bias is detrimental to an honest and productive conversation. Self examination is key.
This channel is like Dr. Shaym, but less... angry.
Both channels are great, by the way. Keep up the splendid work!
Dave "classical liberal" rubin does this all the time
You mean Dave "classical liberal" "i love koch money" rubin
I like how that video was him trying to rally people against "authoritarians trying to censor you!" but he doesn't even dare accuse anyone of being said authoritarian. It's borderline conspiracy theorist tier and is essentially saying there's some omnipresent big bad out to get "us".
The Koch's are just good honest libertarians nothing to see here
Hazy I mean there are people to censor conservatives but you also need to back up your claim. *Looks at news outlets begging social media to censor Alex jones*
Given what he does I actually understand and to an extent support the idea that alex jones is getting blocked from most media outlets. A lot of things he says are flat out lies(and he admits they are and tries to play it off as him simply playing a character), and to top this off the things he rallies people for has resulted in scenarios like sandy hook parents getting harassed by conspiracy nuts.
It's debatable if Jones and his words are dangerous enough to warrant the "fire in a crowded building" argument however I do find it fair game for media outlets to not tolerate the things he says and the people he riles up.
I love your content
This really opened my eyes. An amazing video
Love the "fewer" enemies buzzer correction at the end. Hilarious.
For Rubin to say anything “of substance”, you may need to give him more time to break things down. He was giving you a summary, not an article to be published.
Or maybe it was just because his brain was still in recovery mode.
@@rod6722 Just as the body needs recovery time after taking in high-level exertion at the gym, the brain needs recovery time after taking in so many high-level important ideas at the Supreme School of Classical Liberalism for Big Brainiacs*.
*Sponsored by PraguerU
Rubin's observation about the conversations making it out into the real world was not a statement about ideas themselves but rather that people were watching his videos and were buying tickets to shows featuring the interviewees. The whole bit was a long-winded way of saying that his channel was becoming more popular and that he was appreciative of fans showing monetary support.
Really enjoying these videos.
It's so interesting... I can admit I was also going to write a comment defending an individual on this video, but you made it so clear that the issue isn't with substance-less comments.The issue is our inability to properly acknowledge and react to it.
Copyright troubles?
This guy description
No, its a remake, as CA wasn't satisfied with his previous video as seen in his description.
I’ve read the description. I commented right after he uploaded it.
He just reuploads videos if he finds them low quality.
That Rubin Report segment was a bit unfair. The reason for this is that you were taking the 3 minute video segment as if it was supposed to stand alone, it wasn't. Mr. Rubin clearly says "...the conversations we are having here..." in other words this video is not meant to stand by itself but rather in the context of the many hours of discussions that his channel hosts.
It should be noted that with Mr. Noah that was an interview, interviews do stand by themselves and you have to state your positions. Mr. Rubin was not doing a self interview, he was doing a reflection on what he has seen and what his viewers have seen should they have watched the various other videos already. This "he didn't say anything" counter argument is itself invalid because it is viewing a segment specifically meant and explicitly stated to be a short reflection of countless hours of discussions as if those discussions don't exist and that the segment stood alone. Basically, he DID say something, but not there and no one was ever meant to read in anything from these segments other than a short reflection on other videos.
You also say he was making groundless claims but the evidence for them would be found in (or at least should if there was any) the many videos that this clip itself references. It is worth noting that you are doing one of the things that Rubin is most critical of which is ignoring the context of the given statements. Rubin specifically keeps to long format talks, short hand segments like this are there as reflections and are not meant to be taken alone, and yet taking them as if they were alone was exactly what you were doing.
NecooMonsoon virgin
Gerry Wallington
Don't insult him over it... Instead counter argue him ;)
Yeah, I do agree with this comment
What? Me or the OP?
NecooMonsoon, thank you for speaking my mind. Additionally, I think it’s important to clarify that Ruben’s statements did have meaning (he did say something of substance) but there is no proof nor specific references provided to justify his claims; nor should they be during any formal summary. Noah, on the other hand, didn’t actually say anything of substance. He refused to give his opinion, even though he sat down for a formal interview where he claimed to be largely invested in the political history and current status of Britain. If the premise used to support the fundamental argument of this video is based upon a false equivalency, it surely is a waste of time and a prime example of pseudo intellectualism.
Im a stickler, so I’ll refute your label of Trevor Noah’s statements as “theories”. They arguably don’t qualify as even hypothesis from a rational perspective. His statements were momentary, fleeting grasps of “acceptable” answers.
Solid video, love your stuff. Keep posting!
I find it really cool you chose one example from both ends of the political spectrum. Well done sir
Deja vu
I have seen this vid before
Geokoun Geokoun (anime sounds intensify)
Am I disabled stole my comment😩😩
You guys are quick
Evidently UA-cam must have taken the original video down or something - that is usually why you get a repeat video> Counter Arguments has had to do this a few times (or similarly have to update the video) in order to have it accessable again for public viewing.
I am kind of getting annoyed by UA-cam on this kind of thing - I cannot imagine how our host maker feels. We need a new video uploading/viewing platform as an alternative to the essentially monopoly that is UA-cam.
Not to mention Noah's linking racism with being white, which you skimmed over. That's telling.
bushmen get the bullet too
Yeah that’s pretty much the only thing of substance Trevor Noah said... in very vague roundabout way, he essentially said “whites are racist”
Hate that nigga. Race baiter
Got any data for that claim Mana Montana?
Racism is prejudice combined with systematic oppression. White people are not systematically oppressed, and power in the US aligns with them, therefore even with prejudice against them in very limited scenarios (which are much less frequent than for other races), there is not anti-white racism in the US.
I love your channel so much
Only a great channel would redo a video just to make it better, keep up the fantastic content!
People like Dave Rubin is why everyone assumes Jordan Petersons motives are political
and jordan going on a 6 month long tour with him and writing a foreword to his book proves that he is, he is politically aligned with one side of the isle whether his fans consider him or not.
he does cozy up with Rubin
This topic is the whole premise of the movie: Being There. It's a great movie, definitely worth watching. (Starring Peter Sellers, released sometime in the 1970's).
My online AP Language class are learning about Saying Nothing Of Substance, and I reminded myself of this video and your "Arguing Over Nothing" video to help me get a better understanding of this.
In actuality, my head hurts and this is hard to comprehend due to listening to Reggie Watts (he made me laugh), Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton not saying anything.
I think the main problem is in our world is we are very likely to just express our opinion, then hate or discriminate anyone who disagrees. Because of this, we are likely to find a media source that "shares" the same opinion or so we think. Large media is most likely to say something of no substance, as to get most consumers the company would need to say something that would appeal to as many as possible. It is important to investigate for yourself, as these medias will say anything to get the most views and money possible. This goes for all media, not just CNN, not just Fox, all large media.
There is so much more to say about anything. Thank you for the great video with substance : )
Good video, I appreciate what you did here since I do like Rubin and side with him and Peterson on most things because i felt much the same way they do before i ever discovered either and can say it better than I ever could but its good to see that cognitive bias exists and can grab us all
Prince Black Elf
LEFTIST.
PROGRESSIVES.
I AGREE WITH THAT.
DEFENDING MY LIBERAL PRINCIPLES HAS BECOME A CONSERVATIVE POSITION.
FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS.
REGRESSIVES.
I LEFT THE LEFT.
DONATE TO MY PATREON.
I NEED A HOME STUDIO BECAUSE DEFENDING MY LIBERAL PRINCIPLES HAS BECOME A CONSERVATIVE POSITION
oh hey Rubin I didn't know you watched
and the other side is ;
RACISM, SEXISM, YOU ARE A NAZI, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Joel Lundqvist you have accurately copied things Rubin has said, in all caps nonetheless. Well done.
You've brought a lot to this conversation
I just have one thing to say, "low" and "hot" I'm very confident in saying is about stove tops. Lol
I'm so happy UA-cam recommended this channel
Much better! I was very skeptical during the first half though, but patience and listening win again.
Trevor "Hillary Clinton is a progressive as well" Noah
ooooooh! *Click* This explains to me why sometimes long-winded monologues confuse me. As you said, more questions arose while I was listening to Dave Rubin's direct message. How are we getting more allies and fewer enemies? How is it that we have had our voices shut down by totalitarians? I think he makes really large jumps in his thinking with the hope that those listening are reading his mind to fill in all the confusing gaps.
Same
"This video is a revision of a previous upload to this channel. The original video was not revised due to copyright complications, but rather because it simply fell short of the channel's typical standards. It is currently unlisted." Read the description
Now I realise why I unsubscribed from The Rubin Report... I always found he's hard to listen to
What????!!! You don't like the repetitive lines he uses, or the fact that he refuses to debate anyone on the left because he is "a lefty"? Man, let me tell you what, Dave Rubin knows basically nothing and the-intellectual dark web-keeps him around just for the fact that he reaches so many people. He never has anything of weight to talk about and watching his program is basically a drinking game with how much he repeats the same lines without actually saying anything.
Yeah I did notice that I also stopped watching Rubin videos because every time he talks I feel like he isn't adding anything to the conversation. That usually doesn't matter if his guest that day is interesting on their own, but if it's just Rubin talking you immediately want to shut it off.
I agreeeereeere with that
It's kind of a big circle jerk over on his channel. I always feel like those audiences and groups that are constantly patting themselves on the back due to their own conceptions are missing, well, a lot.
Mimle Bimle It’s about having conversations bro... Mostly with other Jews.
Hot is totally an antonym for low - he’s speaking in electrician’s terms. Critiquing someone’s choice of language (or grammatical errors) subtracts from the argument said person is trying to make. Like insulting someone in response to an argument when you can’t think of an answer, it’s indicative of not understanding the question or not being interested in giving a real answer.
You were saying something about “saying nothing of substance?”
The amount of people that do that is scary
Yeah I have to say these particular clips don't quite bring across the point video is trying to make. Not once does the video actually define substance, which is something of an irony itself. Also, and this is not trying to pick sides, Reuben does actually say something of substance.
Started rethinking my typical interactions with people, I've been totally unable to recognise such statements
I once watched a recording of a woman giving a speech at an environmental conference with a bunch of like minded people. When she finished, a man got up, turned off the TV and asked:" Wow, wasn't that inspiring?." I immediately said: "No!. That was BS! That woman talked for 15 minutes and DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING!" Most people were taken aback by my comment, but could hardly refute it. It still makes me laugh. I feel you, Fraser.
You should add in a related category of "saying nothing definite or concrete." This is where someone says something so elastic, vague, ambiguous, opaque, or meaningless that they can't reliably be held accountable for it or can stretch or reframe it to mean any number of things. A certain Peterson comes to mind...
That technique works wonders against SJWs though... Who constantly try smearing people with false claims... Against Peterson that gets reflected back on to them.
Its why I love Watching JP in interviews.... But as a monologue its not as entertaining
8:30 "Everything is up in the air right now from out political institutions, from the to our educational institutions..."
Haha, I love when people dryly read other people's obvious typos. Such a cheeky move.
My good man, your use of Frasier has earned you another sub.
"This video is a revision of a previous upload to this channel. The original video was not revised due to copyright complications, but rather because it simply fell short of the channel's typical standards. It is currently unlisted." - Description
This is why I only listen to the people Rubin Interviews and don't really care about what he says at all, lol.
...I love Cheers too
Isn’t this a reupload of some sort? I swear I recognise it
It's a redo of a video.
@@LeafyGreenProductions why tho. what's different?
Alexander Baldwin yeah
The previous video was about how Trump and Obama have said nothing.
was also about trevor noah.
I like this channel. It’s very critical and philosophical
There's a fantastic quote that I love and is incredibly useful, "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Hitchens
Dave Rubin is someone that when you actually watch his content, there is then a lot more context to the statements shown in the video.
You're using the word 'theory' the wrong way. A theory is something we hold almost surely to be true. What you mean is a hypothesis or a conjecture.
No, he's using the vernacular of theory, which does include the scientific term hypothesis and the mathematical term conjecture. In other words, context
@@mxbc_ebk5086 I think the vernacular is newspeak created by evolution deniers to muddy the subject.
@@DoctorPhileasFragg no it's not it's a product of the evolution of words as they move down from elites who abide by strict definitions, which of course is necessary in a specific area of competence, to the regular people who use the word theory to describe just about everything. Evolution skeptics simply misuse the word theory, adopting the vernacular which was already widely in circulation, because they can't accept that there is abundant evidence for something they don't agree with.
Really good criticisms of Dave Rubin. This shows that I've fallen from this trap many times, as someone who agrees with Dave Rubin on many things and watches his show.
The kicker is that as often as we, the audience, might not spot someone saying nothing of substance, chances are good the person saying nothing of substance doesn't realize it either. There have been quite a few studies published regarding what some might argue as the decline of dialog with the proliferation of text messaging and social media. I can't imagine that the reduced/smaller word choice as people have switched their primary communication from phone calls to text messages to shorthand text messages has done anything positive for dialog. Speaking well is a skill a lot of people can use either intuitively or through practice to much success. Speaking substance is a different skill that it seems not as many people practice, as it requires mindful effort and, at least in the case of unscripted interviews, a quick mind.
Dave Rubin saying nothing of substance? You dont SAY?!
Holy fuck, this renegade just called someone dumb. Guy must be a genius who has sex and is tall.
@@borgue Renegade geniuses who have sex and are tall for life!
Two criticisms:
1. When you reference Rubin direct messages, which are just a few minutes, he's using shorthand. I'm not understanding how that's without substance nor "saying nothing." When you build an audience, you speak in shorthand (lest you assume your audience will either be A) always entirely new or B) comprised of individuals who all fall somewhere in the autism spectrum and need things explicitly stated and exemplified). But no one ever consistently talks that way. That would come off awkward, redundant, and annoy your viewers.
It reminds me of an astute criticism of novelists and other writers I once heard:
When you break everything down and handhold, you're not giving your readers (or in this case, viewers) much credit.
2. Not a fan of Noah, but I can't ignore the irony that you've made a video that nitpicked on a *live* interview, where the interviewee doesn't have the editorial power to "re-do" anything, and then go on to re-upload a video because you weren't satisfied with what you said the first time.
1) The problem with Rubin direct messages was that those claims were entirely unfalsifiable. Besides, it was not a criticism of Rubin. It was an example.
This is NOT a story. People read a story from start to finish and understand the context along the way. Rubin's show is on youtube and new viewers come along all the time. People aren't always going to watch every single video he has ever uploaded. Context IS required.
Returning viewers wouldn't need that direct message anyways since they can observe and judge the situation (idea revolution) themselves. The viewers didn't need Rubin to tell them that an idea revolution was happening. If he was trying to convince his viewers that an 'idea revolution' was happening, then he would need to provide context and use that to back up his statements, which he didn't do.
2) He explained that Noah was in an unprepared live interview. Understanding that can be used to hand wave away the example, he provided another one. Hence why he then used Rubin as an example which was prepared. Once again, it wasn't a criticism of Noah, it was an example to explain the topic. It wasn't being hypocritical for him to re-upload the video in the first place if it was never a criticism. He is using youtube, so it is only logical to use the platform to its fullest potential, including fixing up mistakes that can be misinterpreted.
3) Your criticisms are based on a misinterpretation of the video. It is not a criticism of anyone mentioned. They were used as an example for 'saying nothing of substance.'
"Watching this interview is a waste of time." *rewinds it so we can all watch it again* 😂😂😂
Wow just goes to show how speaking with precision is so important
It's uncanny watching Ruben and his buddies wink, wink nudge, nudge each other without actually saying anything. Then, at the end they pat each other on the back and tell each other how intelligent they and their viewers are.