Swear to god Vaush just says stuff in the present to not look bad then constantly contradicts himself and completely ignores the previous statements he said.
You mean like when he was going off on some female model for dressing up and being rich as a socialist and literally said socialism isn’t just talk and then defends hasan a week later saying he talks about socialism so it’s ok that he does nothing
exactly, thats also why he constructed his socialist "movement" in a way to never compell anyone to do anything i think even the word "movement" itself is being abused for optical reasons, his "movement" doesnt compell anyone to move he doesnt want to be cought having a position on socialism on which he can be called out for, that would be bad optically, and thats all he cares about
vaush’s goal is to look good in the moment, and thankfully for him, it is ALWAYS ‘the moment.’ so he doesn’t have to worry about contradictions because to him the only thing he’s ever said is the thing he’s currently saying.
I have seen him jump between moral arguments, arguments based on the existing law and his weird take on utilitarianism so often. And all of that in the same debate depending on which comes in more handy at the moment. I legit think he doesnt actually care about his justification himself. He just whips something up to defend the points he thinks his followers want him to stand behind
He's the modern online poster child for "the ends justify the means" As long as he can manipulate and convince the brainlets to join his side, he'll do and say anything.
Normal person: "I have these positions on things, so I guess this label would fit me." Vaush: "I don't actually have my own positions on anything, I just picked a label and all my positions are according to what I think that label dictates." Call it strawmanning, but this is honestly what Vaush sounds like to me at this point. Jesus Christ
@spitedriven Yeah, it's also frustrating how smug he is about it, when I'm pretty sure he's just flat out wrong about what he says about utilitarianism. But what can you do, he certainly won't talk to anyone with a good understanding of philosophy anymore if he can possibly help it, so his fans will probably eat his bullshit right up.
Capitalism leads to poverty... Umm actually the definition of capitalism doesnt say anything about poor people therefore in real capitalism that doesnt happen its just never been tried before
As a PhD candidate in Economics what Vaush said is blatantly incorrect and it shows up how much he truly does not understand utilitarianism (which he says he follows as a value system). First, to the question ‘What is the basis of moral obligation?’. There is no general answer. It is improper to imply that all right acts are right for the same reason. Consider two possible grounds for moral obligation: 1) the goodness of the effects of an action, and 2) the goodness of the act itself. Whereas the former, which is broadly utilitarian, fails to comply with our real moral convictions, the latter does not capture well the role that motive plays in determining the rightness of an action. Moral principles are not deducible either from one single principle or from anything that is not a principle. Each is independent and possesses its own reason as the basis for a given moral obligation. So knowing (1) exists by itself already disproves Vaush's initial claim. Furthermore it is possible that you can actually say both (1) and (2) are both utilitarian because if you can show somebody not only gets utility for observing the acts of doing something that is a normative good, for example, watching a homeless person smile or watching them buy a piece of food with the dollar you gave, but also utility for the act itself which might be derived either from how closely our identity matches that of what is perceived to be society's benchmark of doing the societally acceptable action ("good citizen") ex post of the action or deriving utility from knowing others watched me do a good action, then both are necessarily utilitarian. TLDR: just show people have other regarding preferences and show people want to be perceived as good not only by others, but to themselves. There is a massive literature (theoretically and empirically) proving this and a more recent meta analysis on the preferences for truth-telling behavior which gets at the heart of this meta-related question of moral obligation. Vaush will one day understand utilitarianism..... when he can derive higher belief based utility functions up to the 3 degree and then tie them back to emotional psychological states. :) EDIT: Also the twitch comment by @Quarkit at 8:36 is called "negative utilitarianism" and basically states that the objective is to minimize suffering rather than maximize happiness. Unfortunately, this ethical framework has not stood the test of time because you could argue a ruler would have the incentive to wipe out an entire civilization as to reduce the natural state of suffering that exists in human beings. This argument has a few caveats: to kill everyone must mean you maximize your own utility by experiencing solidarity. This means that it cannot be argued that the ruler would keep someone alive as to minimize their own suffering on the basis of welfare lost in having the non-existence of a continuation of social interactions. This could be a "sub-optimal" outcome though under this framework. Also there is no religious ideals in place that may have those killed actually experience anticipatory positive welfare as to think they are going to a "better place", but then this would depend on their current standing with a god and/or gods (some may have positive valence while others have negative). However, conditional on religious ideals existing about the eternal, it would require that the ruler not announce that they will kill everyone or else the anticipatory utility would come to fruition (scope conditions for even this are hard to conceptualize). Basically the argument fails a lot of robustness checks and a negative utilitarianist COULD be someone that is pro genocide and/or a nihilist. Some have even argued that under this framework, after the ruler has killed everyone they would also need to kill themselves since their natural suffering is no different than any other human being that they were trying to save by killing all of them.
My knee jerk reaction to your last paragraph was "Vaush fully understanding a concept!? Not in his lifetime." then I saw the smiley face and I smiled at the fact that this was most likely well placed and well written insult.
1:10 this is great bc you could say that every lefty streamer is obsessed with steven crowder and ben shapiro. if you're making content, expect commentary.
I don't understand why utilitarianism & deontology are always considered incompatible and something to argue over. Shouldn't we just say that we should follow moral (deontological) rules that will result in greater overall utility if people follow them, and that people should consider the context when weighing which rules to consider in a given situation? (and that different "rules" can be considered simultaneously when deciding how to act)
Uh Oh! V00sh just admitted 6:56 in that socialism is just an ideology. 😂 I’m going to finish the sentence for him with “ for dip shits who don’t want to do anything but criticize capitalism with but not ACTUALLY do anything to change it.”
I remember watching that video and never really found the argument convincing. I know Vaush isn't exactly reliable so it's possible he's said differently to this, but it seems like he is just an anti realist, not necessarily a nhilist. Basically Destiny's position but not explained as well I think.
@@pointlesstwat8927 i thought the point was that Vaush doesn't actual believe in any structured moral system but only looks towards the world as what has impact, consequences and power grabs so he'll to discard arguments that are a inconvience towards him (Like the Hypocrisisy argument and holding people to their standards that ahrelevant brought up) and Adopt Positions that are conveint for him (Like trashing Elon Musk's Ex Girlfriend for "pretending to be into Marx") A "Moral Free-rider" as the creator put it
Rinnegan of Rage yeah I don't really disagree he does those thing, he's admitted himself in the past that he's an ideologue. I don't think that's really nhilisim though. He does care about a set of morals, even if there is no consistent applied or normative system there (although arguably "I do whatever further my fundamental morals" is a system, probably not a great one lol). I think a lot of the hasan stuff makes sense when you view it through the lens of a "good things are those which advance my system" model.
@@rinneganofrage7206 The problem with a position like that is that it necessarily means you're the only interpreter of what's good or bad. This becomes a problem when you also feel so certain in your righteousness that the "good" ends you determine justify any means. Such a system immediately devolves into disaster when the person believes all of their conclusions are obviously correct, which is more than likely not the case when you've only been alive for less than 30 years and are only one human. Concepts like honesty and integrity in your actions are important to guarantee that even if you are wrong about something (which you probably are), then at least the damage won't be too bad. But Vaush is both incredibly arrogant and completely divorces from good faith action, and so comes across as as a slimy egotistical douche
Here's my Sasuke/Naruto shipping take: Destiny more correct but milktoast Vaush more ideological but based. Frankly I would want Destiny in a lab/data science center gathering accurate data but I'd want Vaush against overarching political systems that self- perpetuate/reinforce. It's not like Destiny tends to pick Vaush's policies or points apart it's always "but you're going about it inconsistently". I grew up on Destiny's side of the fence on consistency, I'm ASD too, but there came a point where I realised that being "technically correct" is pointless if it doesn't lead to progress or consensus. Since he's made his "I'm not married to capitalism but I'm going to argue for data against anyone who pushes socialism like a "concerned" oil lobbyist" it's pointless to me. This is demonstrated everytime he jumps in panels with the opposite take for "reasons". Plus when he was in the debate with Perspective Philosophy he even agreed to all the points Vaush makes through a different mouthpiece the things Vaush pushed back on (moral realism and veganism) Destiny also pushed back on. Their only core disagreements come from the fact Destiny personally likes "being right" over "advocating change" when those 2 cross paths Vaush will power through with a take that we don't have Destiny's level of preferred data on. Whereas Destiny will hit a brick wall go "we need more data time to stop inferring talking or theorising, no more logical inference no more convo just descriptive statements please". If Vaush were a politician with actual institutional power I would probably actually jump back over to Destiny's side, but he's not. He's a commentator all he has to do is take ideas for things being better synthesise info and propose potential ways that could be done. If he's wrong when someone tries it oh well if not woo bonus.
The problem is that inconsistency usually demonstrates stupidity, or a lack of thought of your own position, or dishonesty. Take the clip that Destiny watches where on the one hand, Vaush says socialism is just believing in a specific economic model, but then later criticises a woman for claiming to be socialist even though she was married to a very wealthy man and was wearing clothes that costs tens of thousands of dollars. That very strongly indicates to me that Vaush simply isn't being honest about his positions and beliefs. He just says whatever he thinks will help him the most. Claiming to have no moral obligations helps him because he doesn't want people to expect anything of him. Calling out that lady helps him because his viewers like to see him go off on people. It still matters even if he's 'just a commentator' because people who realise these inconsistencies trust him less, as shown when Destiny mentioned he's been getting more emails about disaffected Vaush viewers. Also, the consequences of him being wrong could be disastrous depending on what he advocates for. We know socialism doesn't work, we know it degenerates into imprisoning/murdering dissidents and mass starvation.
@@TheRedHaze3 Those points all follow I mean there are no jumps in that argument. Thanks for proving my point man you see I at least stated that my preference was a preference. Let's take Destiny's own approach then I'll talk on your comment at the level appropriate "Consistency is always best statements shouldn't be made if not because it's misinformation" 1) Inconsistency is bad because it leads to mistrust here's an example of Vaush being inconsistent. 1) Agreed it causes mistrust but I don't want to "trust" everything a streamer says I agree more with the one who says "We can't know whole human systems so we have to identify problems, theorise solutions then advocate for the attempt to the most people" over the one that says "We should be consistently devils advocate then make descriptive claims because normative ones will be inconsistent over time as you get more info" 2) Destiny claiming people trust Vaush less via personal emails (just trust me it's relevent). 2) So I suppose appeal to numbers is the way to address the trust thing? Rather than even establishing there are different levels of trust? 3) We *KNOW* insert claim about umbrella model of economics. 3) Oh wow. So not even policy based or anything just "I don't like the term socialism so we *KNOW* it doesn't work. This is why I prefer Vaush's position because it's a constructive thing to be tried. Destiny's position and the thinkers it produces result in your statements which are still inconsistent! Your criteria for "knowing" socialism doesn't work would have been perfectly applicable to the first places that tried capitalism as the monarchs pointed to individuals saying "Look see serfs can't run businesses = we know capitalism devolves into wasted crops and needless rebellion from peasants".
@@StuartAtkinson4467 I would appreciate it if you put some more thought into your grammar, because sometimes it's difficult trying to parse what exactly you're saying. 1. It doesn't matter if you "don't want to trust everything a streamer says". Trust is extremely important for most people, and for most people if they catch dishonesty or hypocrisy, that's enough for them to write you off unless they have a strong bias in favour of you. 3. That's a pretty stupid mischaracterisation. We know socialism doesn't work because it's been tried many times, and no one succeeded. I'm not sure what you're basing this claim of capitalism not working originally off of. Capitalism has never (to my knowledge at least) *not* worked. No monarch ever looked at a business owner and said "look, the peasants can't run businesses!" If anything, they said, "the peasants are becoming too powerful and gaining too much influence." Honestly, this point makes me question whether I'm conversing with an intelligent person in good faith. I don't understand how you can be this wrong. Are you just talking out your arse?
@@TheRedHaze3 Thanks I'm not usually great with grammar because with work I often bounce between ERP running/dev work and any other thing. Your lack of knowledge of the failures of capitalism proves my point it has a long history of not working for the exact same reasons as socialism: poor application. Lack of knowledge of markets. Environmental disasters. Long supply chains. Managers not having specialised knowledge and making decisions based on social and personal enrichment/profit motive over long term sustainability. Industry scale vs function. Inelastic markets. The eventual difference is it transferred rational crique borne of the enlightenment (i.e. nurture has higher impact on humans than nature and fundamentally all humans are equal therefore class is nonsensical). Over to "yeah sure totally but maybe these CEOs are better by nature and they're 100x more productive than joe who is popping out the commodities" . This profit over business model where workers are not only treated like they're not making the products slows down all good business. I work in chemical manufacturing guess where the good ideas come from? Not from directors or C-level from the people making the product. Check out Ayn Rand and Objectivism to get the proper critique she posits that if CEO's left industries then they would all collapse even when established not the professionals, scientists, engineers or workers that create goods or provide services the head managers. Basically her philosophy is that in all businesses the CEO is probably the head product developer/service provider and if they leave their business it would collapse (because the skill drop-off is like 80% in companies) That's not how it works in business CEO's only earn the amount they do because of legal institutions saying they should. Most of those laws aren't formed on "who did the labour" they're formed on "who directed the work be done". Essentially replacing monarchy of a country with monarchy of a business. Anyhow if you have a critique of any of the points or actually want to look up the history instead of going "I don't think that's true so I doubt I'm talking with an intelligent person are you talking our of your arse" Feel free to engage with the topic otherwise seethe and cope I suppose
@@StuartAtkinson4467 In an intelligent conversation, people usually provide sources and evidence themselves rather than simply say, "google it". Given how extensive your replies are, I'm inclined to think you would do that rather than tell me to, if you actually had anything to back up your claim. Yeah, capitalism isn't perfect, no one is claiming it is, but it has never failed colossally like socialism did. It doesn't produce mass famine in countries that subsist off local agriculture (e.g. Russia and China). It doesn't massively fuck up the country's economy (e.g. Venezuela). It doesn't inevitably lead to a dictatorship (e.g. literally any socialist country).
if your a vaush fan.... surely youve gotta realise how dumb his line of logic is right? "the term obligation is not in the definiton so whatever, red rose in twitter name is fine" even tho pretty much most positions (including utilitarianism) are explicitly about increasing said position most efficiently
This makes no sense because I remember clearly he said “we say not doing a good action when it is easy can be considered bad”. He has no fucking idea what his own ethics are
Utilitarianism is how you can decide what is good to do, but what good things you consider your responsibility is a separate question. I don't think this is a new thing that Vaush made up specifically, although he might be going back and forth on it in different cases. Like all utilitarian's agree that buying yourself a hot chocolate is not optimal because you could donate the money to something more important, but not all utilitarian's are monks and destiny is not going after pretty much everyone who calls themselves a utilitarian.
As D has said before, there is a difference between failing to live up to an ideal and not having the ideal in the first place. Plenty of people fail to live to a utilitarian ideal even if they call themselves utilitarians. Vaush actively defends taking actions which are not utilitiarian, yet calls himself a utilitarian.
@@sirjelly72 Destiny also has a lack of ideals here though. Destiny claims to be rule (utilitarian, which pretty much all utilitarians are anyways so same thing ) and doesn't believe people are morally obligated to be charitable. It's a problem that Vaush moves his obligations around when talking about different people, but before that part Destiny was just criticizing his lack of obligations, which come in pretty arbitrarily in Destiny's morality and not at all for the topic of rich people, even though Destiny acknowledges that rich people should be taxed more and thus are not in optimal utility.
To my knowledge, I've never heard Destiny argue that "charity" is an ideal utility to strive for. To properly call out Destiny for doing the same thing as Vaush, we'd need a topic that he very clearly believes and argues is ideal, yet simultaneously logically argues that he or no one else is require to attempt to live that ideal. It's possible a topic like that exists, but seeing as Destiny is literally on record for encouraging "that people should live out their principles", it's more likely you'll find that Destiny failing his principles is a result of ignorance or an emotional mindset about certain topics. That would still be BAD, but it's different than Vaush's lack of fundamental logical consistency.
Is it possible that vaushs "superogetory" stuff is him trying to express the idea of an obligation only being useful if it actually works? So basically although we might consider it to be morally bad to not donate to charity, telling people that will just annoy them, so we label it superogetory so as to maximise the people who actually do it (better outcome)? Obviously we could still, while discussing ethics, say something is bad though, which is the bit vaush seems to miss.
The problem is he applies this far too broadly. Which do you think would get more people to release slaves - saying it's a horrible thing to own slaves and you have an obligation to free them, or saying it would be nice if you freed them?
People here have such lukewarm and/or vague dunks on Vaush it gives me secondhand embarrassment. It just devolves into some uncharitable nitpicky bullshit
His way of thinking unironically justifies all immoral actions given they are already the social norm If something bad was already going to happen you doing it yourself has no difference in outcome therefore it’s morally neutral It’s a retarted view by any standard including his own he just made it up to protect rich communists
Nah I’m a Vaush fan and I agree with Destiny when he calls out the whole “you’re just obsessed” mindset. Vaush is a major public figure within an internet subculture that Destiny is also a part of. It’s not weird for Destiny to talk about him a lot.
When he starts stalking people. No, responding to stream clips is not stalking, nor is it stalking when Vaush does it to others too. If you think you can categorize this as stalking then man do you live a privileged life. Lol.
Swear to god Vaush just says stuff in the present to not look bad then constantly contradicts himself and completely ignores the previous statements he said.
his main goal is always to look good. he isnt even hiding it.
He's a bit of a sociopath
You mean like when he was going off on some female model for dressing up and being rich as a socialist and literally said socialism isn’t just talk and then defends hasan a week later saying he talks about socialism so it’s ok that he does nothing
He only cares about minute to minute rhetorical dunks…he has zero spine
exactly, thats also why he constructed his socialist "movement" in a way to never compell anyone to do anything i think
even the word "movement" itself is being abused for optical reasons, his "movement" doesnt compell anyone to move
he doesnt want to be cought having a position on socialism on which he can be called out for, that would be bad optically, and thats all he cares about
vaush is like "my ethics are salient as fuck!"
vaush’s goal is to look good in the moment, and thankfully for him, it is ALWAYS ‘the moment.’ so he doesn’t have to worry about contradictions because to him the only thing he’s ever said is the thing he’s currently saying.
That's why vaush is evil
@@DyrgeAfterDark EVIL
Vaush has proven time and again he either doesn't understand, or care, about ethics.
It’s a combo of theories for whatever support him at the time
Well he himself has said he doesn't care if he or others (people on his "side of the war") are hypocritical
@@gamerGUY3013 he also said he doesn’t care if they intentionally lie
I have seen him jump between moral arguments, arguments based on the existing law and his weird take on utilitarianism so often. And all of that in the same debate depending on which comes in more handy at the moment.
I legit think he doesnt actually care about his justification himself. He just whips something up to defend the points he thinks his followers want him to stand behind
He's the modern online poster child for "the ends justify the means" As long as he can manipulate and convince the brainlets to join his side, he'll do and say anything.
Normal person: "I have these positions on things, so I guess this label would fit me."
Vaush: "I don't actually have my own positions on anything, I just picked a label and all my positions are according to what I think that label dictates."
Call it strawmanning, but this is honestly what Vaush sounds like to me at this point. Jesus Christ
@spitedriven Yeah, it's also frustrating how smug he is about it, when I'm pretty sure he's just flat out wrong about what he says about utilitarianism. But what can you do, he certainly won't talk to anyone with a good understanding of philosophy anymore if he can possibly help it, so his fans will probably eat his bullshit right up.
I swear to god vaush was created in a clown factory
Capitalism leads to poverty... Umm actually the definition of capitalism doesnt say anything about poor people therefore in real capitalism that doesnt happen its just never been tried before
What?
@@Leonnicko I think it’s an attempt at imitating dumb ass Vaush.
No capitalism is just something you put in your Twitter bio idiot
@@Vudoo13 more like socialists in general
As a PhD candidate in Economics what Vaush said is blatantly incorrect and it shows up how much he truly does not understand utilitarianism (which he says he follows as a value system). First, to the question ‘What is the basis of moral obligation?’. There is no general answer. It is improper to imply that all right acts are right for the same reason. Consider two possible grounds for moral obligation: 1) the goodness of the effects of an action, and 2) the goodness of the act itself. Whereas the former, which is broadly utilitarian, fails to comply with our real moral convictions, the latter does not capture well the role that motive plays in determining the rightness of an action. Moral principles are not deducible either from one single principle or from anything that is not a principle. Each is independent and possesses its own reason as the basis for a given moral obligation. So knowing (1) exists by itself already disproves Vaush's initial claim. Furthermore it is possible that you can actually say both (1) and (2) are both utilitarian because if you can show somebody not only gets utility for observing the acts of doing something that is a normative good, for example, watching a homeless person smile or watching them buy a piece of food with the dollar you gave, but also utility for the act itself which might be derived either from how closely our identity matches that of what is perceived to be society's benchmark of doing the societally acceptable action ("good citizen") ex post of the action or deriving utility from knowing others watched me do a good action, then both are necessarily utilitarian. TLDR: just show people have other regarding preferences and show people want to be perceived as good not only by others, but to themselves. There is a massive literature (theoretically and empirically) proving this and a more recent meta analysis on the preferences for truth-telling behavior which gets at the heart of this meta-related question of moral obligation.
Vaush will one day understand utilitarianism..... when he can derive higher belief based utility functions up to the 3 degree and then tie them back to emotional psychological states. :)
EDIT: Also the twitch comment by @Quarkit at 8:36 is called "negative utilitarianism" and basically states that the objective is to minimize suffering rather than maximize happiness. Unfortunately, this ethical framework has not stood the test of time because you could argue a ruler would have the incentive to wipe out an entire civilization as to reduce the natural state of suffering that exists in human beings. This argument has a few caveats: to kill everyone must mean you maximize your own utility by experiencing solidarity. This means that it cannot be argued that the ruler would keep someone alive as to minimize their own suffering on the basis of welfare lost in having the non-existence of a continuation of social interactions. This could be a "sub-optimal" outcome though under this framework. Also there is no religious ideals in place that may have those killed actually experience anticipatory positive welfare as to think they are going to a "better place", but then this would depend on their current standing with a god and/or gods (some may have positive valence while others have negative). However, conditional on religious ideals existing about the eternal, it would require that the ruler not announce that they will kill everyone or else the anticipatory utility would come to fruition (scope conditions for even this are hard to conceptualize). Basically the argument fails a lot of robustness checks and a negative utilitarianist COULD be someone that is pro genocide and/or a nihilist. Some have even argued that under this framework, after the ruler has killed everyone they would also need to kill themselves since their natural suffering is no different than any other human being that they were trying to save by killing all of them.
My knee jerk reaction to your last paragraph was "Vaush fully understanding a concept!? Not in his lifetime." then I saw the smiley face and I smiled at the fact that this was most likely well placed and well written insult.
@@noelh9842 Haha. I would never do such a thing. :)
Great breakdown
Vaush should never discuss philosophy. It's just embarrassing.
Vaush encourages slacktivism
Social workers are scary, I wish they had guns so I could feel comfortable around them
"...Where everything is suddenly not anything anymore.." Yeah that sums up Vaush's bullshit
1:10 this is great bc you could say that every lefty streamer is obsessed with steven crowder and ben shapiro. if you're making content, expect commentary.
Vaush ethics: yes for thee, not for me
I don't understand why utilitarianism & deontology are always considered incompatible and something to argue over.
Shouldn't we just say that we should follow moral (deontological) rules that will result in greater overall utility if people follow them, and that people should consider the context when weighing which rules to consider in a given situation? (and that different "rules" can be considered simultaneously when deciding how to act)
Uh Oh! V00sh just admitted 6:56 in that socialism is just an ideology. 😂 I’m going to finish the sentence for him with “ for dip shits who don’t want to do anything but criticize capitalism with but not ACTUALLY do anything to change it.”
Did he stream yesterday only on twitch?
Rawls wasn’t a utilitarian though.
What happen to the Idea That Vaush Supports Meta-Normative Nihlism that was in the "Vaush is Unironically Evil' Video?
I remember watching that video and never really found the argument convincing. I know Vaush isn't exactly reliable so it's possible he's said differently to this, but it seems like he is just an anti realist, not necessarily a nhilist. Basically Destiny's position but not explained as well I think.
@@pointlesstwat8927 i thought the point was that Vaush doesn't actual believe in any structured moral system but only looks towards the world as what has impact, consequences and power grabs so he'll to discard arguments that are a inconvience towards him (Like the Hypocrisisy argument and holding people to their standards that ahrelevant brought up) and Adopt Positions that are conveint for him (Like trashing Elon Musk's Ex Girlfriend for "pretending to be into Marx") A "Moral Free-rider" as the creator put it
Rinnegan of Rage yeah I don't really disagree he does those thing, he's admitted himself in the past that he's an ideologue. I don't think that's really nhilisim though. He does care about a set of morals, even if there is no consistent applied or normative system there (although arguably "I do whatever further my fundamental morals" is a system, probably not a great one lol).
I think a lot of the hasan stuff makes sense when you view it through the lens of a "good things are those which advance my system" model.
@@rinneganofrage7206 The problem with a position like that is that it necessarily means you're the only interpreter of what's good or bad.
This becomes a problem when you also feel so certain in your righteousness that the "good" ends you determine justify any means.
Such a system immediately devolves into disaster when the person believes all of their conclusions are obviously correct, which is more than likely not the case when you've only been alive for less than 30 years and are only one human. Concepts like honesty and integrity in your actions are important to guarantee that even if you are wrong about something (which you probably are), then at least the damage won't be too bad.
But Vaush is both incredibly arrogant and completely divorces from good faith action, and so comes across as as a slimy egotistical douche
he sounds like the kind of guy that would murder you "for the greater good"
Here's my Sasuke/Naruto shipping take: Destiny more correct but milktoast Vaush more ideological but based.
Frankly I would want Destiny in a lab/data science center gathering accurate data but I'd want Vaush against overarching political systems that self- perpetuate/reinforce.
It's not like Destiny tends to pick Vaush's policies or points apart it's always "but you're going about it inconsistently".
I grew up on Destiny's side of the fence on consistency, I'm ASD too, but there came a point where I realised that being "technically correct" is pointless if it doesn't lead to progress or consensus.
Since he's made his "I'm not married to capitalism but I'm going to argue for data against anyone who pushes socialism like a "concerned" oil lobbyist" it's pointless to me. This is demonstrated everytime he jumps in panels with the opposite take for "reasons".
Plus when he was in the debate with Perspective Philosophy he even agreed to all the points Vaush makes through a different mouthpiece the things Vaush pushed back on (moral realism and veganism) Destiny also pushed back on.
Their only core disagreements come from the fact Destiny personally likes "being right" over "advocating change" when those 2 cross paths Vaush will power through with a take that we don't have Destiny's level of preferred data on. Whereas Destiny will hit a brick wall go "we need more data time to stop inferring talking or theorising, no more logical inference no more convo just descriptive statements please".
If Vaush were a politician with actual institutional power I would probably actually jump back over to Destiny's side, but he's not. He's a commentator all he has to do is take ideas for things being better synthesise info and propose potential ways that could be done. If he's wrong when someone tries it oh well if not woo bonus.
The problem is that inconsistency usually demonstrates stupidity, or a lack of thought of your own position, or dishonesty.
Take the clip that Destiny watches where on the one hand, Vaush says socialism is just believing in a specific economic model, but then later criticises a woman for claiming to be socialist even though she was married to a very wealthy man and was wearing clothes that costs tens of thousands of dollars.
That very strongly indicates to me that Vaush simply isn't being honest about his positions and beliefs. He just says whatever he thinks will help him the most. Claiming to have no moral obligations helps him because he doesn't want people to expect anything of him. Calling out that lady helps him because his viewers like to see him go off on people.
It still matters even if he's 'just a commentator' because people who realise these inconsistencies trust him less, as shown when Destiny mentioned he's been getting more emails about disaffected Vaush viewers. Also, the consequences of him being wrong could be disastrous depending on what he advocates for. We know socialism doesn't work, we know it degenerates into imprisoning/murdering dissidents and mass starvation.
@@TheRedHaze3
Those points all follow I mean there are no jumps in that argument. Thanks for proving my point man you see I at least stated that my preference was a preference. Let's take Destiny's own approach then I'll talk on your comment at the level appropriate "Consistency is always best statements shouldn't be made if not because it's misinformation"
1) Inconsistency is bad because it leads to mistrust here's an example of Vaush being inconsistent.
1) Agreed it causes mistrust but I don't want to "trust" everything a streamer says I agree more with the one who says "We can't know whole human systems so we have to identify problems, theorise solutions then advocate for the attempt to the most people" over the one that says "We should be consistently devils advocate then make descriptive claims because normative ones will be inconsistent over time as you get more info"
2) Destiny claiming people trust Vaush less via personal emails (just trust me it's relevent).
2) So I suppose appeal to numbers is the way to address the trust thing? Rather than even establishing there are different levels of trust?
3) We *KNOW* insert claim about umbrella model of economics.
3) Oh wow. So not even policy based or anything just "I don't like the term socialism so we *KNOW* it doesn't work.
This is why I prefer Vaush's position because it's a constructive thing to be tried. Destiny's position and the thinkers it produces result in your statements which are still inconsistent! Your criteria for "knowing" socialism doesn't work would have been perfectly applicable to the first places that tried capitalism as the monarchs pointed to individuals saying "Look see serfs can't run businesses = we know capitalism devolves into wasted crops and needless rebellion from peasants".
@@StuartAtkinson4467 I would appreciate it if you put some more thought into your grammar, because sometimes it's difficult trying to parse what exactly you're saying.
1. It doesn't matter if you "don't want to trust everything a streamer says". Trust is extremely important for most people, and for most people if they catch dishonesty or hypocrisy, that's enough for them to write you off unless they have a strong bias in favour of you.
3. That's a pretty stupid mischaracterisation. We know socialism doesn't work because it's been tried many times, and no one succeeded.
I'm not sure what you're basing this claim of capitalism not working originally off of. Capitalism has never (to my knowledge at least) *not* worked. No monarch ever looked at a business owner and said "look, the peasants can't run businesses!"
If anything, they said, "the peasants are becoming too powerful and gaining too much influence."
Honestly, this point makes me question whether I'm conversing with an intelligent person in good faith. I don't understand how you can be this wrong. Are you just talking out your arse?
@@TheRedHaze3 Thanks I'm not usually great with grammar because with work I often bounce between ERP running/dev work and any other thing.
Your lack of knowledge of the failures of capitalism proves my point it has a long history of not working for the exact same reasons as socialism: poor application. Lack of knowledge of markets. Environmental disasters. Long supply chains. Managers not having specialised knowledge and making decisions based on social and personal enrichment/profit motive over long term sustainability. Industry scale vs function. Inelastic markets.
The eventual difference is it transferred rational crique borne of the enlightenment (i.e. nurture has higher impact on humans than nature and fundamentally all humans are equal therefore class is nonsensical). Over to "yeah sure totally but maybe these CEOs are better by nature and they're 100x more productive than joe who is popping out the commodities" .
This profit over business model where workers are not only treated like they're not making the products slows down all good business. I work in chemical manufacturing guess where the good ideas come from? Not from directors or C-level from the people making the product.
Check out Ayn Rand and Objectivism to get the proper critique she posits that if CEO's left industries then they would all collapse even when established not the professionals, scientists, engineers or workers that create goods or provide services the head managers. Basically her philosophy is that in all businesses the CEO is probably the head product developer/service provider and if they leave their business it would collapse (because the skill drop-off is like 80% in companies)
That's not how it works in business CEO's only earn the amount they do because of legal institutions saying they should. Most of those laws aren't formed on "who did the labour" they're formed on "who directed the work be done". Essentially replacing monarchy of a country with monarchy of a business.
Anyhow if you have a critique of any of the points or actually want to look up the history instead of going "I don't think that's true so I doubt I'm talking with an intelligent person are you talking our of your arse"
Feel free to engage with the topic otherwise seethe and cope I suppose
@@StuartAtkinson4467 In an intelligent conversation, people usually provide sources and evidence themselves rather than simply say, "google it".
Given how extensive your replies are, I'm inclined to think you would do that rather than tell me to, if you actually had anything to back up your claim.
Yeah, capitalism isn't perfect, no one is claiming it is, but it has never failed colossally like socialism did. It doesn't produce mass famine in countries that subsist off local agriculture (e.g. Russia and China). It doesn't massively fuck up the country's economy (e.g. Venezuela). It doesn't inevitably lead to a dictatorship (e.g. literally any socialist country).
I know nothing about ethics but for whatever reason the term ‘non-cognitivist’ seems particularly appropriate for Vaush in the clip…
if your a vaush fan.... surely youve gotta realise how dumb his line of logic is right? "the term obligation is not in the definiton so whatever, red rose in twitter name is fine" even tho pretty much most positions (including utilitarianism) are explicitly about increasing said position most efficiently
This makes no sense because I remember clearly he said “we say not doing a good action when it is easy can be considered bad”. He has no fucking idea what his own ethics are
Bruh watch out destiny has told August to DMCA other destiny channels getting a lot of views
How fucking useless is an ethics framework that doesn't prescribe how one should act?
Utilitarianism is how you can decide what is good to do, but what good things you consider your responsibility is a separate question. I don't think this is a new thing that Vaush made up specifically, although he might be going back and forth on it in different cases. Like all utilitarian's agree that buying yourself a hot chocolate is not optimal because you could donate the money to something more important, but not all utilitarian's are monks and destiny is not going after pretty much everyone who calls themselves a utilitarian.
As D has said before, there is a difference between failing to live up to an ideal and not having the ideal in the first place. Plenty of people fail to live to a utilitarian ideal even if they call themselves utilitarians. Vaush actively defends taking actions which are not utilitiarian, yet calls himself a utilitarian.
@@sirjelly72 Destiny also has a lack of ideals here though. Destiny claims to be rule (utilitarian, which pretty much all utilitarians are anyways so same thing ) and doesn't believe people are morally obligated to be charitable. It's a problem that Vaush moves his obligations around when talking about different people, but before that part Destiny was just criticizing his lack of obligations, which come in pretty arbitrarily in Destiny's morality and not at all for the topic of rich people, even though Destiny acknowledges that rich people should be taxed more and thus are not in optimal utility.
To my knowledge, I've never heard Destiny argue that "charity" is an ideal utility to strive for.
To properly call out Destiny for doing the same thing as Vaush, we'd need a topic that he very clearly believes and argues is ideal, yet simultaneously logically argues that he or no one else is require to attempt to live that ideal. It's possible a topic like that exists, but seeing as Destiny is literally on record for encouraging "that people should live out their principles", it's more likely you'll find that Destiny failing his principles is a result of ignorance or an emotional mindset about certain topics.
That would still be BAD, but it's different than Vaush's lack of fundamental logical consistency.
Dan tology
Vaush needs to stop talking about philosophy. He doesn’t know shit. Rem and Perspective Philosophy already showed us that.
Is it possible that vaushs "superogetory" stuff is him trying to express the idea of an obligation only being useful if it actually works? So basically although we might consider it to be morally bad to not donate to charity, telling people that will just annoy them, so we label it superogetory so as to maximise the people who actually do it (better outcome)?
Obviously we could still, while discussing ethics, say something is bad though, which is the bit vaush seems to miss.
The problem is he applies this far too broadly. Which do you think would get more people to release slaves - saying it's a horrible thing to own slaves and you have an obligation to free them, or saying it would be nice if you freed them?
Socialism=let children drown in pools🏊🏼
Me and my good buddy steven love to hate watch voosh
😎
People here have such lukewarm and/or vague dunks on Vaush it gives me secondhand embarrassment. It just devolves into some uncharitable nitpicky bullshit
His way of thinking unironically justifies all immoral actions given they are already the social norm
If something bad was already going to happen you doing it yourself has no difference in outcome therefore it’s morally neutral
It’s a retarted view by any standard including his own he just made it up to protect rich communists
This is such a bad faith reaction.
You mean good faith
@@mrvinjm its a joke about vaush, he always says any criticism of him is bad faith.
When can we consider Destiny a stalker?
when he starts stalking people?
Do you know how many people's content he watches on a daily basis? He only tunes in on Vaush every now and again.
Nah I’m a Vaush fan and I agree with Destiny when he calls out the whole “you’re just obsessed” mindset. Vaush is a major public figure within an internet subculture that Destiny is also a part of. It’s not weird for Destiny to talk about him a lot.
When he starts stalking people. No, responding to stream clips is not stalking, nor is it stalking when Vaush does it to others too. If you think you can categorize this as stalking then man do you live a privileged life. Lol.
When he starts leaving Vaush 25 text messages over six hours lmao.
Vaush just talks. That is it. There is nothing to be gained.