Arguing Over Nothing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 гру 2017
- A personal point of view regarding a debatable topic.
Topic: Arguing over the meaning of an empty or ambiguous statement.
Opinion: If a statement doesn't contain enough information, an objective judgment cannot be made, and any disagreement over its actual meaning is not worthy of an argument.
Donald Trump's Campaign Announcement: • Donald Trump President...
George Carlin on Political Language: • George Carlin - Nation...
President Trump's CBS Interview: • President Trump talks ...
Tweet: / counterarguing
Post: / counterarguments
Buy: teespring.com/stores/countera...
Donate: www.paypal.me/counterarguments
Email: countertheargument@gmail.com
It seems like a lot of the comments here are criticizing several of your examples regarding what Trump has said, effectively arguing that the things he says **obviously** mean X, therefore it's okay to argue about what he said because anyone denying the meaning of what he said is being ignorant. This completely misses the point of the video, however. The point is that, by virtue of such statements being **at all and in any possible way** mistakable, by virtue of there being any room for error in interpretation, it defeats any debate that could be had about the position being claimed by Trump because it isn't about whether what he said was true, or whether what he said is moral, but instead it's about whether what he said **is even what he said.**
You can look at his comments about Mexicans or news reporters and evaluate them based on your opinion of what he *probably* means, but you can't debate it with someone else because that debate will necessarily devolve into a discussion of what he means, not the implications of the opinion he holds. If you can establish with someone you're debating with that Trump believes X, **then** you can discuss why that's a good or bad thing, and what can be done in response to it, should it warrant a response. But if you disagree about what's even being discussed, one debate isn't going to change someone else's network of preexisting beliefs that inform their interpretation of an ambiguous statement.
Twenty Seventh Letter oh my fucking god thank you you gracious human being
Twenty Seventh Letter There is no way to make a statement that is not *_*at all and in any possible way*_*_ mistakable._ What if Trump was really just talking in another language where the word “rapists” means awesome, “crime” means money and “drugs” means food? You can’t rule this out completely. The point is, you can always come up with whacky interpretations of any statement. Now we can either become total relativists and lose our shit or we can just go with the most plausible interpretation. The latter is the only way communication can work.
You can go around that by giving the definitions you use. You just need to point out to a specific dictionary and everybody agrees on every term.
This could be your advertisement! I agree that there is no actual way to make a statement unmistakably clear. My point is that, regardless of what the actual statement is, two interlocutors **must** agree about what it means for a debate about its implications to occur. If Trump said "All Mexican are rapists," verbatim, then you and I would likely agree about the idea he is conveying by the statement, and the discussion could move forward into what we as a society should do in response to such an idea. If, however, he is recorded muttering something that you think says "All Mexicans are rapists," but that I think says "Puppies are awesome," then there isn't a mutually agreed upon idea being debated; it's like that whole non-debate about the dress that happened a few years ago. It's not -- and can't be -- a debate, because you're arguing that **you** perceived X, while I'm arguing that **I** perceived Y. There is no relationship between X and Y, because there's no relationship between what you perceived and what I perceived. So my argument is not contingent on the possibility of unmistakability, but on the possibility of **a priori agreements between interlocutors.**
Before I go further into any debate that brings up technical terms, I always make certain that the definitions of the terms being used are defined and agreed upon. Even if the debate is about the meaning of a word, the words used to describe that one must be agreed upon.
I dont give a fuck about your opinion, man.
I’m anti-things, I’m more of a stuff person.
Commie.
You're a nazi
A vote for Jack Barman, is a vote for stuff! If you like votes, you've got mine, cause I love stuff!
Marxist!
I too...enjoy stuff.
Counter-arguments accidentally explains why twitter is cancer for communicating
Marc Alcatraz because he didn't say anything. Funny
goggles789. MeaningNazi
NO *Semantic Nazi
DaDARKPass. Ok, But Liking your own comments is pathethic
oh i get it! because you're comment is pointless
This guy is exposing how I got so good at writing essays.
Essays are stupid. Anything with a page count/word count in it's requirements is stupid as fuck
Elaborate .... This is Epic .....
Eugene InLaw yeah, my essays are usually pretty long because I go off-course to explain something I said but then the teachers say it's "too long" and I have to remove some things. Like fuck off, why is there a word limit? But sometimes the subject is uninteresting and can be explained in less than two pages and they start saying that I didn't even try.
@@512TheWolf512 hahah exactly.
When am asked to write a short story 🤣
You didn’t mention the best slogan ever. Some dude in Birmingham Alabama ran for mayor with the slogan “Let’s Do Something”
Who is Something, and how do I meet her?
@@threethrushes lol
I don't know if that can top "he does things"
"mike will get it done"
oh my god I love that XD
It's time that someone had the courage to stand up and say
I'm against those things that everyone hates.
Every politician ever.
Futurama reverence?
you don't realize how it's accurate
Was that John Jackson or Jack Johnson?
You got my vote
“He does things” simple and straight to the point. I like that
Looks like he had ur vote
You actually think doing things is a good idea? I pity you.
@@imperson1785 what? You're not anti-things, are you?
@@captainobvious.29yearsago70 I am very much anti-things, thank you very much. Statistics have shown that 100% of human deaths are caused by things. If you support things, you're supporting a party that glorifies the destruction of humanity. It's not too late to vote anti-things at this next election cycle, otherwise you'll just remain the stupid little thingtard that you are.
@@imperson1785 That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. When you start to realise that 100% of all people who have drank water in their lifetime have died, it becomes clear how easy it is to misconstrue statistics.
I firmly believe that things is how we can prevent all the problems we seem to be having, in fact, did you know all human inventions have come from people doing things? Would you be so stupid as to presume in any way that being anti-things is helpful to this country- no, the entire world's progress? You have to be joking, sir.
“Short People are Rapists Too” is going to be my campaign slogan when I run for president
Heck you got vote!
lllHybridlll for president - 2020
Where did he get that from?
As much as I hate Trump both as a politician and a person, you have to admire the way he managed to do the exact same thing as everyone else, completely differently.
Honestly, I've talked to folks who support him, and it usually comes down to that. It's not a specific policy. It's not that they particularly like his vulgar attitude. It's that he's like Diet Coke when you thought it'd be Coke Zero. Pretty much the same product, slightly different flavor profile. I think it's the potassium. Makes people bananas.
@@fallingpetunias9046 I hate you for the last two sentences.
Fortunately, one can judge him fairly accurately from his actions, rather than just his words. And his actions actually amplify his words.
True
@blob darkass I think a Biden-Trump contest could really make a strong case for a third-party candidacy.
"Those who stand for nothing, fall for everything"
A. Hamilton
Well by this quote you're obviously referring to a quote by a man with the last name Hamilton, but not necessarily a famous one :))))))
@@goku_dunker_420 Bro, Alexander Hamilton
Here's what I got out if this
Politician/Hillary- "It Is."
Trump- "Is It?"
I disagree with that statement
@blob darkass yeah, if you account using a logo/flag of the white supremacy group VDARE for his 2020 campaign banner
@@johncenaplayingstarcraft9580 - His ex-wife and kids are Jewish and he has black people and latino people in top positions in his administration.
Also, we're experiencing the lowest level of black unemployment in history under his administration as well as prison reform which has been championed by black social leaders for years.
@@johncenaplayingstarcraft9580 Are you sure?
People used to criticize his Trump logo as being a Nazi swastika, but it's not. It never was. It's a HINDU swastika.
@@AppleOfThineEye its the exact flag logo shared by VDARE an alt-right white supremacy group
"You're not anti-things... *are you* ...?"
We should stop calling pro-things people 'pro-things', we should just call anti-things people evil. You're either pro-things or you're evil, simple as that.
I am. I’m entirely in the Pro-Services camp, myself. Down with the goods! Huzzah for the services!
#thingskillpeople
Wouldn't that be nice
"But he didn't say anything!!!"
That should be a meme lol
@Tessa Rossa
It's a part of the vernacular now, just be intelligent enough to use it in the right context.
Maybe you're right, but the content is what matters. This is a rather unbiased part of the whole thing that can be applied to any politician.
Even the creator uses it as a funny way of proving his point.
@Tessa Rossa
How does that counter anything I said, I didn't say anything insulting, demeaning, or condescending at all. You're the one accusing me of junior high maturity, not me.
If we're going to talk about the subject, stick to that.
It doesn't matter really anyway to me, i was just jokingly saying that it was funny, meme worthy, and in proper context could be humorous and even well thought out.
Maybe meme culture is stupid, i don't often share memes at all on my Facebook page to be completely honest. However I see "Idiocracy" come more from such as blatant disregard for an intelligent and well reasoned conversation such as you're making right now.
We could talk about serious issues and have real mature discussions, however I hardly believe that meme culture is to blame. Fallaciousness and rhetorically sucker punching pointless matters out of context is. If meme culture is stupid, it's only a symptom of that much larger problem.
@@jasongibson1225 HAHAHAHAHA!!! "If meme culture is stupid, it's only a symptom of that much larger problem." check-mate! 😂😂😂😂😂
@Ry Guy
Debate has been compared to a game of chess. You bring up points which corner in the argument your opponent presents with logic. So why not?
Granted, it is in the spirit of finding truth. So I'll give you that much.
What tv series is that scene from !?
When I run for president my slogan will be "It is"
Is it?
nhà độc tài Yang Wen Li will it?
Mine will be “you know nothing will change, why not vote for me”
And always was
Trump: vote for me because i will make america great again
Hillary: vote for me because i'm a woman
wow great arguments guys
Hillary never said to vote for her because she's a woman. Its just a stereotype. correct me if I'm wrong I didn't really follow up on most of the politics
Luke Hoover ****Hillary: Vote for me because I have the ‘popular’ opinion!
2017 is sheeeet
+Luke Hoover The biggest criticism of Clinton was that she was an insider. Her response was that she couldn't be, since she was a woman. She also touted how it would be historic to elect her (because she'd be the first female president).
A lot of her voters chose her over Sanders "because she's a woman", and a lot of celebrities who supported her have used this as their primary reason. It seems she preferred to coast off this rather than putting forward policies that she and supporters would like and remember. A lot of criticism of those who didn't vote for her has been that those people are sexist, which is similar to asking people to vote for her because she's a woman.
@Luke Hoover She did literally list her being a woman as one of the reasons to vote for her during a few interviews. It was far from the only reason she listed, but it was still something she said as though it had relevance. Simply being something new doesn't change your qualifications for a job. Here's a gross "segment" with a bunch of obviously scripted (and really sexist) lines delivered through kids. Her gender is the focal point of the whole thing: /watch?v=db94fvXK2ww
I genuinely think this is the best video you've made. And that's not to say your other work hasn't been fantastic. But this needed to be said and you communicated a nuanced topic gracefully and eloquently. Thanks for the hard work friend!
Surprise seeing you here, hi! :)
Wow, small world.
Hey ik u
Oh hi mark
But he didn't say anything 😉
I once tested this out in a random video I didn't even watch and said "Well, this is certainly something" in a comments section. Got thousands of likes and and inflammatory responses none actually questioning what I said or anything. Just... Amazing.
I mean it is something
"You're not anti-things, are you?" -CA
Got 'em
I'm in favor of Antarctic gun control
I must say I prefer the complexity of people are much more interesting than the monotony of things; but that's just my opinion.
I’m anti stuff.
the fact that a politician's hook was "he does things" is utterly hilarious to me
I would have voted for him...
I mean it's an unbreakable argument really. I mean how can you deny that he does in fact, do things.
It’s funny because this video can make both sides mad
“What do you mean it’s up to interpretation? OBVIOUSLY HES ________”
A. Being Racist / bigoted / bad thing etc.
B. Trying to make our country better / fighting back / good thing etc.
C. An idiot
D. A genius
It's E, every possibility ever
@Tyrique Wolford: Then it should be Z, because you know, A-Z.
Now look what happens when you flip them around.
I'm a(n):
A. Racist / bigoted / bad thing/ etc.
B. Trying to make our country better / fighting back / good thing/ etc.
C. An idiot
D. A genius
Telling, isn't it?
Kind of diffusing the whole appeal of trump by showing he’s exactly like a politician but not a politician. Or is he? Maybe
@@manictiger This means nothing crazy boy
So all politicians have been desperately trying to be perfectly True Neutral, then Donald comes outta nowhere and wins the election with Chaotic Neutral🤣
What a mad lad
More like chaotic evil.
The SOB based most of his decision on immoral thinking and what best serves him and his racist buddies.
Obama did alot of good and i can remember many quotes.
Like, "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America. There is the United States of America. There is not a black America, a white America, a Latino America, an Asian America. There’s the United States of America.”
That says alot and yet some how, their was a group of far right people who hat this quote.
@@thewingedhussar4188 dude, the entire video is about how politicians don't ever actually say anything of substance, they are ALL neutral.😂
@@turquoisesorcerer an yet look at the country. A person can stand for something. Sure they have to speak neutral, but politician is a craft like any other. Results are a sign when a politician is good. An trump is tearing the country apart for personal gain.
@@thewingedhussar4188 dude i'm not debating you, idc whether you like trump or like obama or whatever. I personally hate them both.
What i'm saying is that this politician speak is something every major candidate is guilty of, not just the ones you personally dislike. (Just look at their campaign slogans for fucks sake! Make America Great Again! and Hope!🤣🤣)
I tried saying "but he didn't say anything"
I got kicked out of the funeral
I-
*HOL UP*
*WAIT A MINUTE*
r/cursedcomments
ua-cam.com/video/HI3L1ap3Ti8/v-deo.html
IT IS
MrDirtBaggins
Is it?
Is not
It most certainly is not
It was
NO, IT IS NOT!
It's mostly just two parties shadowboxing with imaginary versions of the opponents they personally interpret as.
Found the enemy stand user
Strawmen
@@KLemon16 Donald Trump has [Money For Nothing] as his stand name
@@KLemon16 *It's an enemy stand!*
“Short people are racists too”. I’m high af watching this video and that caught me off guard, absolutely killed me
"He does things!"
F' yeah, he has my vote! :P
Glad to see you're not 'anti-things' brother.
I disagree, things have always been that way, and it's not good. stuff is better, due to it not being that way.
@@sxiayk7081 But stuff is a secondary term derived FROM the word things. they needed a more general term, and thus 'Stuff' was born from the need. Things is much more well established if you disagree you are dumb snalleygaster.
XD
@@chrisbolland5634 Stuff is a much different word. the definition of things is things, and therefore different from the definition of stuff, which is stuff. Stuff is also not the same word as things, proving your stupid, useless point moot and stupid.
Stuff is not derived from things, because the latin root for things is the latin root for things, and the greek root for stuff isnt the latin root for things
@@sxiayk7081 You... I... NOOO CURSES! FOILED AGAIN!!!!!!!!
I agree with some parts of the video however, I disagree with other parts of the video.
I disagree with this statement however, I agree with it.
BUTYOUDIDNTSAYANYTHING
I agree that your agreement with parts of the video are well thought and well worded but I also disagree that your agreement of some parts in the video is well thought out and well worded. I also disagree that your disagreement with parts of the video is necessary while also agreeing that this disagreement is necessary. IT IS
no you don't
Sneaky Pete how fucking dare you pull that it is shit at us
I'm just gonna leave this here.
Lois Griffin: "9...."
Voters: *gAsp*
Lois Griffin: ".... 11."
Voters:....
.... *raucous applause"
Lois Griffin: Turbo !
Death: *childish clapping*
is it
"neither correct or incorrect ". sounds like quantum politics to me
Lol; I got that joke.
I had to rede this thrice to get it
So to sum up Trump's campaign plan:
1.) Do literally everything in your power to demonstrate that you are not 'typical' of politicians.
2.) Instead of sounding agreeable to everyone, say things that are so polarizing (stupidly agreeable on one interpretation and vehemently disagreeable on the other) that everyone is talking about you.
3.) Demonize your opponent as much as possible (classic move, although a tired one.)
4.) NEVER EVER actually let out a detailed plan about anything except in the form of things that sound like detailed plans but can be easily repeated ad nauseum by the average 4th grader with a pencil in his brain (like "build the wall".)
5.) When in doubt, do the same crap that every politician does, but don't make it seem like you're doing the same crap that every politician does.
Damn, when you really think about it, Trump built his campaign like a salesman. These reek of salesmanship, from "this isn't your typical ____" to "Just wait, there's more" to "It will do whatever you want it to do" to "better than the other leading brand." Damn, in this age of oversaturated advertising, how did people not see this?
Alexander Abrams-Flohr you are correct, but if someone shot trump tomorrow, what would change? All the issues america has today, were there yesterday and the day before and all the days back to 2014 when trump wasn't running. He literally makes no difference to the overall system, he's just some clown the media can milk outrage out of
Alexander Abrams-Flohr whats so disagreeable with wanting to halt illegal immigration?
And There's actually been executive orders dictating the plan, its a four year plan of a securing the border first while deporting illegals, then categorizing those deportees into categories for fast tracking.
I always got the impression that is was something along the lines of:
1) Watch Fox and Friends and learn some surface-level hot takes about the issues of the day
2) Wing it
broncos24079
Sums up all of my late night studying.
keep in mind that Bush was supposed to be in. Bush and Clinton were to be our choices again. Bush had hundreds of millions from super pac from the beginning of the Republican campaign. Trump used the media to get the equivalent of expensive coverage. "Drain the swamp" was, according to this video a meaningless statement but it was really effective because of the context, that there are too many politicians that allow corruption, that allow special interest etc.
If you think about it, language really is built around assumptions. Just look at the word *that* for example.
Say the doorbell rings and you say to your buddy "hey, can you get *that*". It forces assumptions, as *that* is as unclear as it gets. *That* could mean the doorbell, but it could also mean the TV remote, the pizza that was left out, or the annoying fly that's buzzing on the walls. Even the sentence itself is left up to interpretation. "Can you get that" could either be a request or an actual fucking question. It forces us to make assumptions based on factors like the situation, the person asking the question, and the state you yourself are in. Usually we're correct, but other times... well... just go to 0:00 for an answer.
Well said.
I was starting to worry only I thought that literally everything in any language is an assumption, since language itself is a concept--something to represent another thing--to express ideas. This is why it can never be 100% correct.
It's like reading a book, then watching a movie about that book. Your perception of what the setting and actions of characters will be different than what the director thought, and both are different than what the author dreamed up.
*that* is called a pronoun dear friend
@@roakey5800 I get what you're saying and you probably just used the word assumption to reference the guy you're responding to, but language isn't really full of assumptions; any and all assumptions can easily be solved if so willing. I think to be more accurate though, language is merely made of symbols. And you actually already expressed that when you mentioned how words are representative or represent something actual in the world.
Obviously it would be incorrect to say or assume the tree I depict in a story is different from the one you depict, but it's still able to represent or symbolize a tree. It's a very reminiscent idea to the zen koan about "pointing to the moon" or describing the sound of a bell.
Tom Scott made a video on this
@@bobbersonpotatoe8229 Can you post a link to it?
Where is the "but he didn't say anything" clip from?
Idk
Keep me updated
It’s from Cheers
It says at the end of the vid.
Cheers - Woody gets an Electioj
Cheers
Cheers
It is what it is.
Jeff phillips you bloody genius I could've taken this 3 different ways
Well, that depends on what you mean by 'what'.....
Jeff phillips no, it is not.
@@user-hl7bw8yw7n _but he didn't say anything_
But it should not be what it was and is
9/11 was bad
Bronies are bad
Andrea Ibrahim no u
can´t disagree
My birthday is on 9/11
What year? or did you mean every year?
Ooh, I’ve only just discovered you, but this piece reminds me of a Last Week Tonight piece: it presents a thesis, makes a logical argument, connects it to popular/relevant news, and ends the piece by giving the audience a way to make a difference. Very well done, very effective. Bravo.
I just found this. This. . .this. . .is amazing. I've spent sooooo much of my life trying to figure out what exactly made a politician a politician, and how so many people can make statements that are literally impossible to argue against, because they are quite literally - saying NOTHING. This opened a huge window in my brain. And for that, I thank you.
This video actually changed how I think, holy shit
_HORY SHET_
Fr
Counter Arguments + Trump in Thumbnail = thisisgonnabegood
HERE COMES DA MONEY!
You can argue with 'It is' with a simple reversal. 'Is it?'
It isn’t, is it?
This is the basis of many relationship problems. People just tend to not express themselves clear enough / people are quick to interpret things wrong and have that interpretation ingrained in their mind as a fact, both leading to an argument over nothing.
44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
Please make a counter argument video regarding those who believe pineapple belongs on pizza.
Gaki this needs to happen
WW3 will be fought over this. I guarantee it.
I will extend an olive branch to pineapple on pizza lovers if we can agree strawberries will never belong on pizza no matter what.
So did you beat the horse to death, or was it dead when you got here?
Ian Halterman what about dessert pizza?
This was such an interesting video and it was so nice to see someone talk about Donald Trump without being biased one way or the other.
Doorlord but you must admit it's slanted in Trump's favor
I think it was possible slanted against him.
You saw what happened.
You can have whatever opinion you want.
Actually, he called him a tyrant, so...
I’m going to have to say slanted against him.
Yea but in fairness, Trump says some pretty authoritarian things.
Luckily his administration does the opposite and tries to put more power back in the hands of the legislature.... too bad they look at it like someone’s trying to hand them a dirty diaper.
@@andyrichter2714 example of those authoritarian things please?
I am becoming exceptionally talented in the art of using many words to say nothing at all.
-Otto Von Bismark
This is one of the best videos out there on UA-cam. I watch it at least every 6 months.
23 minutes and I fucking love it ty.
It is more like 24, but who is counting?
You probably fall for the 99 cent trick a lot, huh?
ah sheeple
You fell for the 23 minutes trick, which was no trick since there is a counter attached to the video. Instead of complaining "always," you should try taking a look at the human in the mirror from time-to-time, eh? I know that most sheeple don't do that sort of thing. Go on, mate. You can do it.
..I fell for a trick... or I watched a video and I agreed with it lmao yall are nuts keep getting butt hurt. :)
Generally, I agree with all of your points. However, there are times when it is clear what someone's intent was, even when they purposefully left a degree of ambiguity. The only reason someone ever does this is so that they can disingenuously leave themselves an out, and claim to have not intended what was obvious to all. Like a child. Or a mobster ambiguously threatening someone's safety. Trump was obviously implying that Megan Kelly was on her period. To fall into the trap of saying, "Well, he didn't actually say it. He could have meant she was bleeding out of her nose," is to fall into the child's game. "They never actually said they were going to break your legs. They we're just offering you 'protection' services." Really? Do better.
Adam Preuter I agree totally, this whole video's premise seems to be along the lines of "since he didn't actually say that he can't really be argued about or criticized. Utter nonsense!
That's why the point is that it's not worth arguing about. If you insist that yes he said that and they still insist that he didn't despite it being "obvious" you still can't exactly prove that. It's not a debate worth having. The debate worth having is if you can both agree that he said that, and then debate that. Getting into an argument over whether he said it or not is simply a waste of time.
Why... did this not go viral??? I feel like my eyes were just opened for the first time in my life wtf thank you
Statement: It is.
Counter Arguments: Is it possible to argue against this statement?
Me: It is.
Life is only skittles when you poison pigeons in the park.
And maybe we'll do in a squirrel or two. :)
Phil Collins A rabbit would be pretty easy to kill by feeding it skittles.
Context matters.
Context can also be interpreted.
But you didn't say anything!
Yes, but there really is no context in the words of a politician, it's just empty word and more empty words. There needs to be something to hung onto in order to create context, if there's nothing, then 2 things can happen
1. You fill in the blanks with your beliefs
2. You understand that it's just empty words and dismiss them
Romano Coombs The political atmosphere/ themes of the campaign are not nearly solid enough to provide even a bit of context. Where do you get the themes from? I think from what the politician says, but in when they say "Make america great again" ,or something like that, then what can you get from that? Nothing, there are no concrete themes, if there were then there would be no mass appeal.
As for the second part of your answer, I just don't understand what you are trying to say, sorry.
Oh, come on! Americans are too vapid and shallow to understand context!
This is an amazing video. You’ve blown my mind in such a short amount of time. Well done.
This video should be mandatory in all schools!
...or at the very least the topic of it!
Good to have you back, CA! :D
Hey, welcome back! You‘re the best! :-)
Naj Renchelf who is
salty pickle he was obviously talking about me
the best what? the best crack dealer? the best sheep-raper? the best eater of aluminum oxide?
You can figure it out. :)
Never mind what he says WHAT HE DOES SAYS ALL I NEED TO HEAR!
''He does things''
Simple, to the point, colloquial, I like it.
BUT HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING
It's funny how context can not exist
IT IS
Elderberries NO IT'S NOT
It's funny how people misinterpret the context in order to divine their own idea of what the politician "really meant"
canopeaz its like, what even are "words" anymore lol
Thanks post modernism!!!!
What exactly do you think postmodernism is?
This was absolutely incredible. I now have a new way to look at politics. Thank you!
Just found your channel and now i'm binge-watching everything!! I have found some of the burried golds on youtube. This is FANTASTIC!
I've said it a million times. Donald Trump is one of those people who can talk for hours, without saying a single word. In short, he is a typical politician.
Not quite, People like him because of his imperfection, he seems geniune and isn't afraid to piss people off, regardless of what one might think of him he is where he is because people failed to understand his appeal.
Agreed, but he says things in a way that makes it look like he’s saying something simply because he’s being disagreeable with a lot of people. It’s an illusion that makes his words meaningful to people who aren’t thinking critically. Just like a politician, but in an opposite way.
The fact that Donald Trump isn't politically correct already makes him different from the average politician.
Screaming PHOENIX. Trump does things
He is just another flavor of politician, instead of being calmed and positive, he is energetic and negative.
Even if it tastes differently, is the same vapid and empty stuff.
After worrying for weeks about your absence I now know that you were working hard on an awesome video
"It is time someone had the courage to stand up and say 'I am against those things that eveybody hates'" - Jack Johnson
I think this is a genuinely very well-put-together video with great analysis and a very important message.
Props to you!
105 thousand subs! Nice one man! Where the hell did they come from. Congrats.
I'm amazingly surprised at how funny this video is, which is perfect because it totally contrasts a lot of the video and the channel as a whole. Beautiful comedic timing, 10/10 will recommend
Dude, Thank you. I'm super bad with the words and don't have a solid way to explain that most people argue over bullshit.
This is the first video I see from this channel, and I am already a subscriber. This is great stuff.
HEY BABY I HEAR THE BLUES A CALLIN
TOSSED SALAD AND SCRAMBLED EGGS
"Yes, but the context clearly implies he said something specific"
"And what's that?"
*a million different opinion*
"Context" is itself word which can imply several different things.
You deserve all the credit for making such a delightful video during these confusing times
Question: what's with Democrats wearing red ties and Republicans wearing blue ones?
Colours make for simple easy identifiers. It's a theme, a flag, basically advertisement. It lets people know at a glance what side you support. In Britain the slightly right-leaning party (Conservatives) wear blue like Republicans, and the slightly left-leaning (Labor) wear red.
Why those colours specifically? I don't know the history, but it makes sense. Red is associated with passion & strong emotion, fit for a party advocating change (left ideology is newer so is analogous to change), while blue is associated with calmness, fit for a party advocating continuation of tradition (right wing). Also, red is associated with communism (left wing).
@@TheRABIDdude No, I know how it works in my country. I'm just wondering why Democrats would wear red when their associated colour is blue and Republicans blue when theirs is red.
Markus Aldawn Yep I mixed up the tie colours, I'm clueless too then XD
Damn that makes it even cooler that Andrew Yang never wore a tie, too bad he dropped out
Me: gets “do you approve of president trump? Take the survey” add in front of this video
The survey just has vague loaded questions that have presuppositions which trick people into "agreeing" with an idea that doesn't even exist and is a way to fake his approval numbers.
But pretty much every politician's surveys are vague and ambiguous to inflate numbers.
@@mattmurphy7030 the one that I looked at was not that simple, but I'm sure there are different versions.
"Ask Richard Nixon"
I choked on my apple juice.
I feel like this video changed and opened up my mind on this issue.
I know I've definitely been one to argue over abiguious statments in the past
and it was a little frustrating admitting fault to myself.
Thank you for this video, you've done the world a service.
then again of course "it is", what isn't?
This is brilliant. Probably my favorite Counter Arguments video.
Dude your a genius!!!! Thank you for spelling it out.
Holy crap, it that storm trooper okay?
That is probably the best video I have ever seen on UA-cam. Seriously. Thank you.
I've been impressed by this channel for some time now, but this video is straight up enlightening.
YOU NEED MORE SUBSCRIBERS YOU HAVE ORIGINAL AND GOOD CONTENT
Good coment, but explain your use of "good" and "original.". T
You spoke like a politician.
No he does not! His content is LAME and STUPID!!! I think CA is BAD
BUT HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING!
In text books on government, it's referred to as, "glittering generalities."
This might be one of the most needed videos for EVERYONE to watch!
Your channel is so underrated. Great video!
the necker cube kept switching perspectives for me so idk what that says about me
Do you often change political opinion?
I think that it doesn't say anything. I can imagine it both ways too, as there is no right answer, it's just a cube
it means you can see an optical illusion both ways. It doesn't mean anything at all. It's just a metaphor.
don't really think it means anything, but if you want to assign meaning... then maybe you can say that you're more willing to see things from other's perspectives, or frequently change your mind on things.
Of course, I don't really know you so I have no way of knowing if either of those are accurate lmao.
@@Ausar0 I would like to say those things about myself, because I do try to see things from other peoples perspectives. But at the end of the day I think you're probably right about it not meaning much of anything.
I mean. A little late to comment.
It seems a bit much to say "any ambiguous statement is unintelligibe and therefore not worth arguing over". This would completely disallow all meaning making other than in a strict empirical sense so what trump means becomes what you think he means and non empirical truth becomes completely unbound from standards of "reasonableness" (after all "reasonable" isnt actually so easy to unambiguously draw a bright yellow ling around).
Meanwhile back in the actual world where a man really is in power he can ban the muslims or the trans people or literally whoever and under this "ambiguity is not suitable for critical evaluation" formulation we busily argue "did he really mean like he would actively pass a law banning muslims, not sure, really no way to know, best not to draw conclusions from ambiguous things." We could continue this indefinitely, no one whos doing something morally complex is ever just going to say "i will do this thing" in empiricable terms.
theyll tell a story about what theyre doing and why. That story is going to contain ambiguousness mixed in with empirical statements
Theres an interesting thing in a speech act ambiguity isnt accidental, its a feature of speech and one almost controls it to an extent, the introduction of ambiguity goes along side the resolution of meaning it doesnt si oppositionally to it.
For example I could say "x% of mexicans are rapists" you could argue thats ambiguous, do i mean ethnic mexicans, mexican citizens, am i refering to the current population (maybe it was 2014 data im referencing) but I'm doing different things with that statement if i say it while at a mexican criminology meeting helping police where to spend resources vs if i say it at an anti-immigration rally to fire up the crowd.
It almost doesnt matter what trump means often, does he actually mean that more mexicans than whatever threshold are rapists, who cares saying that mexico is sending rapists to the US is doing work in that context unrelated to its empirical validity.
Example. I want to bribe a cop. I cant say "im going to give you $50 if you let me drive away without searching my car" so when they pull me over I "accidentally" have $50 sticking out of my wallet at an obviously staged angle, so if the cop gets upset i can pretend it meant nothing. But it didnt. We all know it didnt. I tried to bribe the cop.
Trump told his base that mexico was sending rapists to their country during a rally while running on a nationalistic and antjimmigration platform. He means mexico are sending lots of rapists and drug dealers. Can the statement be otherwise interpreted. Sure. So can all statements all the time. Now theres a bunch of dead latino-american folks shot in texas, this stuff is serious.
Well that was fun to write. Shame no one will read it. Probably not that big a shame actually but i do like thinking so i had fun with it.
I read it great points!
Yeah, really good points! But the second example, the blood one, to confirm, is a better example of arguing over interpretations, correct?
Good points but you’re also arguing from a side where you believe that he is racist and hate Muslims and trans people. To which you can gather evidence that supports that where you would seem correct. But let’s say that given the way the nation runs since September 11th, and the fact that Isis was a big thing as of recently and that they stood for the Islamic State and many other terrorist groups are associated with the religion of Islam including the boko haram which is in Nigeria and parts of west Africa, he didn’t ban passage from those countries. In fact it was of recent that those countries had travel bans due to their in ability to properly vet people for visas. While these countries also had Muslims and terrorist groups in their countries the problem was with regular citizens coming over and enacting acts of terrorism since those countries vet the people who move to America. The problem was refugees since it’s hard to vet them because they come over without going through that process that is diplomatically accepted between the two countries. While this all could be used to support that he’s not racist and looking out for America’s views im simply stating that you are missing the point of the video. Because you have a couple pieces of information doesn’t mean that what you are saying is correct since there is still information to refute it and valid information too. I don’t doubt that he could be hating Muslims but I also don’t doubt that he could be simply protecting a country in his way. His words and actions don’t completely support either and it depends on your judgement.
@@user-garnet Um I might have to cop to the fact that I only skimmed the video before i responded this time (it's super long). I think it is and frankly in terms of all the times trump has done this particular example is not the main one to worry about (he didn't actively make women some other or threaten their rights or anything). But still I'd echo the theme of my response to the video here, that statement is sort of doing work, for example I think it's reasonable to take from it that the "whatever" in the quote is intended by both speaker and audience to be a stand in word for some other term that isn't suitable for the place he's speaking and it's clear contextually that he's attempting to answer Kelly's percieved unfair treatment of him and he means to frame her as irrationally angry "blood coming out of her eyes".
I think that should be something all reasonable observers would agree on as a meaning so this statement didn't mean nothing even ignoring the "whatever" part it was intended to frame Kelly as irrational and anti trump. He said something.
As a much more debatable (and long) aside I'd also wonder if this is moving the goal posts a bit. Contextually it's a matter of literal record that trump was trying to frame Kelly as hysterical and said she had blood coming out of an orifice he signaled wasn't okay to say on TV. I think that should be uncontroversial and there's actually not that many ways to put those two facts together and get different words, it really seems like even the most ardent (but still reasonable) pro-trump advocate could say the options are "mouth, ears, eyes, rectum and vagina" are all somewhat reasonable but I'd think that'd be it. Moving away from being on trump's side of those if we were just given that sentence in a completely de-identified way as a tv quote and had to choose then eyes have been used so probably not, mouth and ears would continue the irrationality accusation but it's not clear why you wouldn't just say them "blood coming out of her eyes and ears" is suitable for modern cable, rectal blood couldn't be said on TV and... it says irrational "she was shitting blood" but it doesn't really do a great job framing this person as angrily hysterical. Menstrual bleeding on the other hand does kind of fit perfectly, it instantly signals strongly that she was acting irrationally and you can't really say vagina on cable TV (well at least not during an angry rant not at all related to women's health or anatomy) so I feel like it's sort of safe to conclude the most reasonable alternative is that "whatever" stands in for "vagina".
Now someone could come back and say "but it's not the case beyond any reasonable argument, like you said PR and ear bleeding do both sort of work as well so like if he was on trial he'd definitely go free" and they'd be like 100% right but I feel like this is showing that Trump critics need to show him to have been rhetorically consistent, to show his intent and proven the effect of his action all beyond any reasonable doubt to be taken seriously, that's a completely impossible standard, no historical figure could have ever satisfied that; We could have argued to the roman senate that it wasn't really caesar's idea to conquer Gaul, he was just sort of forced into it so really they shouldn't be jumping to conclusions if we'd wanted to but if we're trying to be fair and act in Rome's best interests... why would we use such a weirdly pro caesar standard of evidence?!?
@@DavidElendu Umm; I see what you mean maybe I'll clarify a little. I don't actually give half a shit if in the depths of trump's soul he is a racist or hates muslims. That has literally no importance to me (well I mean it would still be bad).
The question at hand is "When trump says things where it is possible to take more than one interpretation of his statement, can we conclude anything from his statements".
For example lets consider the tweet "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow...Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming...victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you"
Is it transphobic beyond reasonable doubt, no he could be acting for his stated reasons and earnestly be attempting to reform the millitary in a controversial fashion, executives must do this occasionally and in some cases even if wrong did so earnestly and with the best of intentions this gives us no window into his soul to determine if "in his heart he is a transphobe" (whatever that would mean).
However; the tweet is obviously not saying nothing, the tweet says that if you are transgender service-person you better get a new job and hope your family has another source of income. Having Frasier say "but he didn't say anything" isn't going to feed that guy's (...sorry person's) kids.
the point I intend to make is the argument over our ability to judge what "he really meant" is indeed as the video says difficult to know but the effects of his statements are still very much real things and arguing epistemically over how they reflect on Trump's "intent" is missing the point; he's doing stuff, he's saying stuff, a lot of it is really important and I worry the argument we're having is a rhetorical dodge to frame his critics as hysterically anti-trump.
For example if we were going to talk abt Portland I would say we should be arguing over whether the presence of federal officers with broad, not super clearly overseen or well defined arrest powers constitutes a de-facto suspension of the writ of habius corpus, whatever we decide (either way) in that discussion the result is important and actionable but if instead we were to argue over what Trump, in truth, believes the extent and oversight of arrest powers held by officers under his control should be, this would not result in any obvious important outcome we would be left in what boils down to an epistemic discussion about the limits of the human ability to understand the mental state of another person, while that's an interesting discussion it's not relevant to political action.
This video has been in my 'watch later' for over 4 years, and now that I finally watched it I cannot believe I didn't do so sooner.
This made me seriously reconsider the way I take in information. I think that if people put more importance onto differences in semantics and took them into account during arguments we'd have a much better society with much more productive discussions
This is video helped me to be more insightful and look at statements objectively. Thank you.
This says a lot about society, and yet we live in one.
Favorite clip from family guy-
"Mrs Griffin, what do you intend to do about the crime"
Lois-
"A.. Lot.."
LOL
I am stunned that I am stunned by this information.
(Subscribed.)
holy shit, what a well made video. the message, the music, editing, graphics... all told in a logical and orderly fashion. How long did this take you (and your team?) to make. THANKS
10:03
_"Short people, are rapists too"_ *in the style of Randy Newman* Awesome.
Chuckle
Oh god lmao
This video opened my mind’s eye.
Your video was fantastic. I wish it could be shown on news channels or in Schools. Thank you so very much for presenting this so very well. Very funny and terrifying too. I will do my best to circulate this video.
Wow, another great channel!
I'm subscribed
The American Dream had a concrete definition when coined: The ability and freedom to have a home and raise a family no matter what your job, along with all the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
The pursuit of happiness
Sorry, that is simply not true, 'no matter what your job' was definitely NOT part of it, rather 'no matter your beginnings' which is a completely different meaning.
“I don’t stand by anything”
Hey, do you know What tv series is that scene from !?
This is a really interesting idea that honestly explains a lot of the debate over what Trump means so thanks. I never thought of it like this
The problem with this argument is that mob bosses give orders such as "it would be nice if he would fall down a flight of stairs" as instructions to subordinates to commit crimes. A jury shouldn't say that they don't know and can't know what he meant. They know beyond a reasonable doubt that he was ordering a hit. We can know that outside of a jury trial as well.
HesderOleh you have predicated this with a mob boss, change it to politicians and it doesn’t hold up.
@@DavidElendu except that many politicians also use this sort of framing to evade responsibility.
@@HesderOleh yes and it will evade responsibility. The sad thing is that we may not know true intentions but that's the game. That's why they're politicians and we get to vote them in. Dont go with someone who's vague, vote based of definitive political point that they make that are not mixed with three different connotations