▼Timestamps▼ 00:01:12 Vaush claims she wants to be sexually harassed 00:07:33 ShoeOnHead drama 00:10:28 Shoe blew up the tweet, got it on Tucker Carlson 00:29:34 Destiny fan versus Charlie Kirk clip 00:31:06 Vaush vs philosophy PhD 01:23:19 "Over there it's aqua..." - Vaush 03:07:12 Destiny and Rem recap the debate
i am a third of the way in and i might just have to stop and watch the original video if destiny doesn't shut up... let them talk for more then 30 seconds before chiming in or talking to chat.. holy shit. You don't even give the other guy a chance to rebuttal what vaush says, i don't want to hear the same counter arguments twice if he agrees with you.
This sums up the 3 hour video perfectly. Holy shit. I have a feeling Vaush grew up in school thinking he was very intelligent but when he discovered that he actually wasn't very intelligent and scored poorly in every subject, instead of facing reality he constructed a defense mechanism that allows him to keep his 'I'm still smarter than you' identity.
The phd also did an incredible job of keeping track of vaush logically throughout the entire interview, like a real scientist does. while vaush, seemingly never even learned how think like that. He doesn't really care if what he is saying is self contradictory or not
@@mariomario1462 They were never talking about the words that refer to concepts or things (e.g. the water/agua distinction doesn't matter), they were talking about the concepts/things themselves.
I argued rocket science with a NASA employee at the bar the other day. I totally won after mentioning that rocket in Spanish is “cohete” and therefore invalidates his entire argument. He was completely stumped. Congratulations me!
@@EmmsReality Agreed. The question of whether trans-women are women is one of semantics, the question of whether water is aqua or a rocket is a cohete is not. In both cases "Rocket and Cohete", or "Water and Aqua", both words have the same meaning, so it's not an issue of semantics. I am honestly not sure what branch of linguistics it'd be a part of, moronics maybe?
@Cheesus Crisp good luck with that adult human lady parts. Most of the science and history is from LAST century. Trans people are not going anywhere. You’ll have to kill us.
PhD: Can you agree ice is water? Vaush: I think the exaltation and amelioration of the philosophical conflagrations ultimately perish during radical deconstructivists familiarity with endocrinological viciousness. PhD: So... no?
Vaush is gonna lose his mind if he ever goes to Pennsylvania and finds out that they dont know what "water" is, and instead refer to a liquid known as "wooder".
I feel so sorry for this professor. He's all happy about people having debates and discussions over the internet and the first person he gets introduced to is fkn Vaush.
@@tman040496tb I mean, what research could possibly prepare you for the "over there, it's agua" argument. It's like when Katy Perry asked Neil deGrasse Tyson if math was related to science. It's so far out of left field (ha pun) that you need to stop every thought and re-assess the level of the person you're talking to.
That PhD was so nice and generous, it's hard to even imagine behaving that way against someone as pompous and condescending as Vaush. He literally had zero interest in "winning" or "dunking" on his opponent, dude was legit just trying to have a conversation and make Vaush understand his points. Kudos to him. I hope some day i can be like that.
@@ongobongo8333 If you walked away from that debate thinking Vaush had better points, You either didn't understand the arguments being made, Or you're delusional.
I disagree slightly, the Phd used ad hominem a few times - “Vaush said this a few years ago” and “Vaush had a different view a few years ago” which is purely intended to make him look bad
@Table Salt Painting the opponent as someone with inconsistent positions. "Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument." - From Google
The way the philosophy phd argued was phenomenal. It genuinely felt like optics weren't important to him; he didn't talk over Vaush, and also tried to meet him where he was and argued in good faith. I would LOVE if more conversations were conducted the way he conducted himself.
Unfortunately the only people able to debate in such a way are those who *genuinely* know what they’re talking about. Such people have spent 10+ years in their field, studying and/ working, and typically aren’t found in the circles of online debating. It’s honestly really simple - the vast majority of people online don’t have the time to properly learn about topics between streaming and debating, so they will never achieve the level of competence debating like this requires.
@@matsab7930 Where can I find these types of people and talk with them? This PHD guy was so pleasant and ... I wish I was able to talk to people like that, seems like they would be nice convo people
@@danielsurvivor1372 if you can sift through the nonsense on the modern day debate channel they have had on quite a few high level academics debating various topics. If you’re into philosophy/religion capturing Christianity do formal high level academic debates.
Two hours into the debate, he said something that made me recontextualize everything. Optics weren't a factor, literally at all. This guy isn't Terminally Online, he has no idea who Vaush is. If you look at 2:22:44 (or 2:22:55 to skip the niceities), he says "A middle aged person like me is worried that kids these days aren't interested in this kind of stuff, so it's nice to see this community thriving in, *I don't even know what twitch is*". He's not treating this like a debate of sincere ideas on a podium, he's treating this like he's walked into a high school study hall and wants to spend time carefully chatting with the youngins and encourage them to be interested. Which, yeah, from our perspective, we know better on the what and how of what Vaush engages in. It's just interesting to see it make sense to me why this guy was so incredibly softball with Vaush.
Yeah, the guy was trying to have an actual intellectual debate and be fair about it. Vaush isn't one of those kinds of people. Frankly, most radicals aren't. The only way to be radicalized is to debate like Vaush does. Total cognitive dissonance and plugging your ears to dissenting information.
I half expected him to at some point ask Vaush if he has a totally pragmatic view on truth (which he does), but he only said that people are interested in truth when defining things, he could have gone way harder, but he had limited time and wanted to stay on point. He isn't interested in making 345345 because he thinks that will make him look better, just calmly focusing on what is most relevant to his point. Kinda me of Alex Malpass, though Malpass cared even less about persuasion, he would go off purely formal tangents, he didn't care about optics.
Vaush: Hey, can I have a glass of water? Employee: -gives a glass- V: -drinks. Spits- This is gasoline! E: Fundamentally similar. That's a distinction we constructed! One we can change. You might call it _trans_ water. It IS water. V: Well.. I agree. The definitions ARE a social construct, so.. -drinks and forces a smile-
E: gives a glass V: Wow this is good water *drinks completely *a few hours pass V:Ow man, I've not been feeling good since I had your water. What was that? E: Just H2O, you know: water. V: That's poisonous! E: shoot. But it's water! V: Yeah, but not what I *meant* by water in the context we were speaking in. E: Oof, yeah, sorry about that. Here's some better water then. V: Oh, thanks. V: *spits -This is ocean-water! E: Shoot, I messed up again! How am I supposed to know what you mean by water? V: Drinking-water, or tap-water, please. E: Oh, okay.
After the whole mind numbing water debate he should have just said, "Yknow what, I forgot, I have better uses for my time than arguing with this horse weiner aficionado." Dropped the proverbial mic, and walked out.
@@julymagnus493 I'd like you to say the same to Vaush when he puts 300+ videos on Shapiro, Peterson, Crowder etc "OMG, why is Vaush reacting to what another content creator says. That's so obsessed. React content bad." Soyyy
Vaush is that guy we all knew in college who thought he was much smarter than he was. He was the type of guy who tried very hard to sound smart, use big dictionary words, often spoke in that circular type of logic where everything is relative, everything means nothing and vise versa. The problem with guys like that is they spend so much time trying to convince people they're smart, they don't' actually put in the effort to really get a deep understanding of things.
The basic word game is to deny that words mean anything when your opponent is speaking and then to insist they mean something when you are speaking. It works because conversation and debate requires at least one of the two parties to act as though words have meaning, but it's clearly unfair to the party that has to act in good faith.
@@clemonsx90 I feel you have a very simplistic understanding of “meaning”. What Vaush understands, and Destiny and the phd don’t, is that words don’t have factual unarguable definitions. Each person has a slightly different understanding of the “meaning” in any word. Words are most used for utility, so there is utility in the way Vaush defines “woman”.
@@MOME914 yeah but we all come around a basic understanding of every word and agree to it. Also, slightly different, Vaush's meaning of the word women is anything but slightly different, hell it's not even coherent.
It's painful that Vaush had to argue literal stereotypes to define what a woman was. Hard to call your opponent "regressive" and "traditional" when he's struggling to offer anything besides, "Like a woman would be a mother or a bratty socialite, you know? Women."
Yes, because that’s what anything but the biological definition will eventually boil down to. And it really does and will continue to hurt women and trans people themselves.
So do you just have to behave like that archetype to be considered a woman? There're plenty of men that can fit under that if they act that way but they don't identify as a woman. So do you just need to identify yourself as that archetype to be considered a woman even if you don't act that way? What is the common factor in all of the civilizations in which a woman is identified?
What's also painful is reading Vaush's chat... There's so many dumb things, like Vaush says something stupid and they're like "GOTTEM" or the philosopher guy tries to explain something that should be obvious and the chat starts doing pepega emotes... It really highlights the lack of critical thinking skills among many of his fans that they aren't criticizing him all that much... Granted I think you could also point to ignorance since they don't have the study being pulled up to know how bad it is...
Vaush Doesn't start from a place of curiosity or honesty, he starts from a position of predetermined outcome. He can't lose a debate because "it's not possible that I've gotten anything wrong, I listen to the right opinions and the right people". It's not even that he himself is selfish, he is just a closeminded person trying to pull the façade that he is open for debate, and at this point it's so deep that he's even lying to himself.
@@yellowcactustvz4929 That's initially how he became popular within the Breadtube sphere - by arguing against easily debunkable political ideologies - but you don't mean to imply that EVERY person with which he has argued, including Dr. Bogardus, is insane do you? Is this a rhetorical statement? I pray to God it is!
"Vaush Doesn't start from a place of curiosity or honesty, he starts from a position of predetermined outcome" this is actually showing when it comes to the allegations against Andrew Callaghan.
The funny thing is even though "Ah-Kwah" came out of his mouth, he may very well know the word is "agua" because he insists on pronouncing everything in the weirdest way possible, like Ace-thetic or coward-ice.
I don't believe my eyes. People finally criticising Vaush. I just saw his channel a week ago I find him and his fanbase to be extremely delusional. I am glad there are others who are calling him out. I was beginning to lose faith in humanity and was about to make a video of my own against this clown. I may not agree with Destiny or his fans on everything but this we can agree on. Vaush and his community are toxic pos. Also they have a strange obsession with Jordan Peterson. His whole channel and comments are just condescending, slander or insults. They have nothing of substance.
@@ccash3290 people interested in online politics talking about someone who has a career as a commentator in online politics isn't an obsession... its to be expected
Best example of this imo, currency. It's value is relative entirely to social and internationally constructed agreements, but we would never call currency useless as a tool lol
My technique anytime this comes up in a conversation is "...therefore..?" I don't know how, but so many people bought the idea that social construct equals meaningless and arbitrary. The same idea would make every mental disorder diagnosis meaningless. Math, science, language, and most every concept we can think of would be meaningless.
@@Ridistrict Egality necessitates the eradication of norms because most norms distinguish or segregate. Europe and the US following it formed a social agenda to prioritize egalitarian ideals above other ideals within reason. This has been achieved, so for adherents (anyone idly sharing these cultures) the next step is egalitarianism outside of reasonability. Most people naturally limit the scope of this using "common sense" but it makes the average person susceptible to arguments hinging on the wrongness of norms until they more deeply consider them.
"I think vaush is actually an intelligent guy" I have heard that Destiny donates to charity a lot. But this comment is the most charitable claim about vaush... That level of charity would break the bank of most people.
Vaush clearly is above average in intelligence. The problem lies in that he pretends to be way above average in intelligence. There is a big difference between having an IQ of 120 (1/10 rarity) and an IQ of 150 (1/1000 rarity) and it's almost impossible to pretend that you are that one a thousand when you are that are one in ten. For anyone with above-average intelligence, it's patently obvious who is who. But it's not only a question of raw brain power but adequate schooling and avoiding being indoctrinated into specific philosophical/political beliefs that cloud your judgment and reasoning ability.
Vaush can't take criticism because he's a narcissist. This is also why he cannot cede any ground in debates and opts for deflection/logical fallacies instead of taking the L. Very happy to call myself an ex-Vaushie.
Which video of his can you point to that isn't so bad that you could've thought he wasn't the worst for a period of time? He was recommended to me and he was immediately such a confidence huckster I couldn't stand to listen to him for more than one video.
@@daringiconoclast6547 I think it's just down to people's brains. I'm a depressed pile of shit and everyone always suggests me JP and I can't get through more than 2 minutes of that guy talking before wanting to go through with it and neckrope.
@@daringiconoclast6547 Watch his “debate” with Tim Pool. It’s pretty good. He does sound pretty pompous, but so does Destiny. I don’t understand people who fall into almost parasocial relationships with politics streamers.
I really feel like the term narcissist is overused, but honestly everything you said I agree with. I'm also a former "fan" of vowsh. #vaushUnironicallyBad
@@sydneemikumuren9812 it is overused - I only use it when I'm absolutely sure it applies to someone, and if you look at narcissistic traits, well, Vaush pretty much hits every branch on the way down.
I legitimately lost IQ points listening to Vaush in this. He used every tactic he could think of to run out the clock so he could claim victory. Meanwhile his opponent was there trying to argue in good faith.
He did. But I would also point out his calm nature AFTER his opponent complimented him. (Remember how he completely forgot to "shake hands" before the debate?) Vaush did what he doesn't do with Demon Mama or Destiny or anyone that irritates him; Vaush sat back in his chair, listened to the entire rest of Philosophy's explanation and waited politely for Philosophy to be praised back. I'm not saying Vaush didn't try every tactic, but he was compliment-stalled into listening.
@@shrimp562 I’d argue that People are two things A personality and a body Their body has their sex Their personality is individual. And only has one name, the persons name. A personality can fit into “traditional gender roles” in the romantic sense But aside from traditional gender roles An ever changing concept of gender seems pretty pointless.
@@shrimp562 And society pretending like they are is not doing any good either. Thats their whole argument. "it prevents suicides" No it doesnt. It creates them. And if we adress this more, we have the moral and the theoretical arguments on our side and we can slide back into the middle ages!
Vaush arbitrarily arranges words in such a manor that he hears himself speaking with intellectual dominance, while we all hear a man saying SO MUCH while simultaneously saying nothing at all.. the mastery of this skill is astounding
@@andrewthetruth to be fair, having watched any amount of most vaush videos, u would see him using big words and terms he doesn't fully understand to make himself sound smarter and therefor right or he just says Utilitarianism....
Heres my opinion on why Vaush was able to so easily destroy a PHD in philosophy. I see many parrelles between the LGBTQIA+ writings of Sartre and the salient activism of Vaush. These readings are why Vaush disposed of a "PHD philosopher" (fascist) so saliently. I also see Vaush as one of the few remaining blockades against fascism sweeping over the country, for example if Vaush died I truly believe we would be 4 steps closer to the TQ (Trans Question) taking place, another few years of boushjuwah (Vaush taught me this word) electoralism and I expect to see my fellow they/them/brothers/sisters in christ being round up, arrested, and I shudder to think what would happen after this. I would like to thank this community and Vaush for ameliorating the utilitarian harm done by boushjuwah electoralism, and for extrapolating the writings of Sartre so saliently. That is all thank you.
This "aqua" thing just floored me. The way he makes that argument, so confident, and yet failed so miserably. I never heard anything that dumb from Vaush, it's way beyond his level of intelligence. I guess that happens when you come unprepared to debate with an actual scientist, you would often make yourself look like an idiot. I used to think that this guy can debate academics like Jordan Peterson and win like he always brags we would, but now I'm not so sure.
It's a common theme with political streamers - spout absolute bullshit with confidence, and worse, undeserved smugness. Obviously it fools their entire fan base.
You believed he’d WIN A DEBATE WITH JORDAN PETERSON? I mean…. You can’t blame him for that. The fact you believed that is a result of your own incompetency
@BeanyBabyRabie I believed he could at least stand his ground against him. To be honest, both of them are now equal in their ignorance and more about word salad and adhearing to their own ideology than anything else, so joke's on you, my friend.
Vaush comes of as that person in philosophy class who when discussion a topic will say shit like "but what is happiness?", derail the whole thing, add zero substance but the teacher somehow still decides to give him an A
They got an A because, depending on the context, that was probably a good question. Presumably introductory util discussion, if you can't objectively define/quantify the thing we're measuring to guide our ethics that's a big problem on the reliability of our utilitarian calculations.
I don't know what's better, his blatant sexism, him trying super hard to look like an alpha male, or his smug confidence while being completely wrong. He's off his rockers
@@extremedrumming3393 It’s him using sexist slurs to attack women he don’t like or disagree with and him making sexist jokes all the time. He does not support sexist policies but acts sexist very often anyway
"Everything is a worthless arbitrary social construct" therefore anything I say is true and you cant tell me I'm wrong! I have a feeling Vaush grew up in school thinking he was very intelligent but when he discovered that he actually wasn't very intelligent and scored poorly in every subject, instead of facing reality he constructed a defense mechanism that allows him to keep his 'I'm still smarter than you' identity. He's completely unoriginal, doesn't ever say anything, it's all just word garbage because he has no solid foundation of knowledge. He plays videogames
1:23:42 this part was so f*cking funny because it was PAINFULLY CLEAR that the philosophy guy was trying his best to get Vaush to focus on 'water' as a real thing that exists in the universe, and separate that thing from its definition, and when he just says 'no, I'm, referring to water. The stuff that fills lakes and rivers' I could just feel his disappointment. This guy is great.
It's funny because it encapsulates both how stupid Vaush is and how much stupider his fanbase is. They think feigning (or legitimately) not understanding that water is a physical thing that exists with a definable atomic structure outside of human intervention/definition is a GOOD hot take in a debate. Holy shit.
@@yagamifire7861 And he just double downed on it on a recent video. Social Constructs are things humans created. The first def of Nature are things found in the natural world not referring to things of human creation which means water, trees, mountains, etc as opposed to religion, law, govt, etc but because language is a social construct because language can change from culture to culture so then water is a social construct because agua? Umm no. Now they are going on about the utility of words.
@@gladedextrose9898 Why is that funny? Vaush not admitting his folly? His confusion over things that exist outside of our definitions? That is the whole point. What is gender? Is gender under nature def #1, it exists outside of our defining it for our understanding or is it like money, a human fiction, i.e. we made the concept up and differs from society to society. We already have the words cis and trans so apply them to male or female and we get categories of each. If a woman then is an adult human (cis/trans) female then BAM. The same with man being an adult human (cis/trans) male. Yet Vaush wants to double down on water, agua, and wasser are all different because one is English, one is Spanish, and one is German when they are all the same fucking thing. smf Then go on about the utility of words? smf x2. Umm, yeah, let us all have our own definitions of words so no one can understand each other and we can win every argument by simply changing what words mean.
Vaush’s entire argument basically hinges on the idea that things don’t exist because humans have placed definitions on said things. With this line of reasoning you could argue that Gravity doesn’t exist because the word gravity was a definition made up by humans.
@@Sue_Me_Too Very good, remembering Einstein, but I don't think that you can apply the equivalence principle quite that literally, as in practice there are people on the other side of the planet lol
The much-hated Jordan Peterson has pointed out that progressives tend to have a problem with the idea of rigorous definitions or boundaries, and I've often had the impression that he's correct.
God hasan is just the worst person ever. Sucks too cause I knew bo burnham was a very liberal, but I found out he’s a fan of hasan. That breaks my heart. Inside is a masterpiece
@@ZHike360 Disliking someone for their preferences is not remotely strange. If I had a friend and I later found out they loved the character of Hitler, I would no longer like that friend. Understand?
Vaush just seems to know his side's beliefs well and holds them dogmatically, but he doesn't seem to realize that they are beliefs, not self-evident truths.
Its so wierd, i always assumed the more academic titles someone had the more ''intelectual'' and complex they would try to sound, turns out streamerbros speak in way more complex terms than a literal guy with a phd, i feel like i could learn from that guy, while i was struggling to figure out if vaush is saying something or just speaking in circles half the time
complexity can be expressed complexly or over-deconstructively and either depends on whether you intend to sound as you base your self-importance around being articulate which may affect external perception in resorting to uncritically attribute associated archetypes or beguiling them if it's inverted. Vaush's pretended complexity is easily identifiable since it aggregates from a simple base into being forcibly circumlocutory, which in his case seems to be more habitually forcible. That said, even being a pseudointellectual such as Vaush, it's required to have intelligence exceeding that of the archetype he's attributed, but in proximity to that of the archetype he futilely intends to come across which is typically an underestimation made by midwits to self-convincingly rationalize a recognized inferiority which by definition Vaush has done even while not being one himself.
That's because Vaush just says a lot of intellectual sounding words in quick succession so that nobody understands what he's saying. So they can't argue against it, and then come to find out it was meaningless statements all along. It takes a higher degree of understanding to talk about a complicated subject so that anybody can understand, than to talk about something to where only people who are in that space can.
@@drts6955 The part where he argues that it's an arbitrary categorisation to distinguish elements by protons instead of neutrons, how isotopes which are "different" are considered the same element when the amount of neutrons differ but not protons. The molecular properties of elements is almost uniquely determined by the electrons and protons. The reason is that molecular properties are almost only due to electromagnetic forces which affect charged particles, protons and electrons. Neutrons, have no charge, hence the name. The number of neutrons pretty much only affects how stable an isotope is i.e the time it takes for an element to decay to another element through some decay process. But no, he just had to say some really ignorant stuff to make whatever point he was so convinced of. And sadly Destiny doesn't seem to know much chemistry/physics either so he didn't catch on and thought Vaush was making a valid point. If you're curious about the "almost" parts, I'm primarily thinking of macroscopic properties where the ratios of isotopes may have a significant impact. Small atoms where the number of neutrons has a significant impact on the mass of the atom can also have macroscopic effects, but this in no way supports Vaush.
"Vaush is fairly intelligent" he's really not, he's the perfect example of an intellectual, who has read up on theories in principle without knowing their actual meaning or method and runs with it like a child with scissors
@@butter3754 I'll admit I can be a bit of a fanboy. Blind even. But there's no objective comparison between the intellectual prowess of Vaush and Thomas Sowell, so I'd say I made a safer bet.
I love that Vaush's TH-cam comments think he's a genius and that the trans water thing was brilliant. Even went as far as to say this PhD was just some hog who didn't do any reading this is the bs that happens when you create an echo chamber everyone just ends off worse
It's funny cuz I thought the trans water thing was really dumb. There's a reason heavy water is called heavy water and not water. It's different, it's not the same. By this definition then, if heavy water is trans-water, and we're using "water" as an analogy for "women," then trans-women aren't women.
You know what's sad, this is never going to change, just like you said, I checked his video to see if anyone was calling him out but nope everyone was calling the PhD an idiot and how much they wanted to suck his fighting transphobic d*ck, one thing I noticed tho is that his video actually had a more comments than likes, didn't want to check the dislikes because then TH-cam would recommend vaush's videos and i'm pretty sure the dislikes would be high either
@@fisharepeopletoo9653 You have the same conclusion as Destiny at 1:35:00 but his interpretation was likely bad faith to the point Destiny promoted an illogical position should he apply the same logic universally. I'll explain: At 1:35:00 Destiny asks if heavy water and water are factually different things? Vaush would presumably say yes to that question as there is a fundamental scientific difference but not to the extent that the socially constructed utility for both can't both be expressed under the term 'water.' Vaush would then presumably say the same is true of cis women and trans women. Yes, there are differences between these people, just as there are for any distinct objects within a set, but there is social utility in calling them both under a shared term. There's no contradiction between science and what Vaush is describing generally. Destiny's conclusion at 1:35:00 where he suggests the argumentation implies trans women are not women is because of his bad faith rather than his inability to understand. Destiny's bad faith here implies a faulty conclusion where essentially he'd have to believe there shouldn't ever be shared terminology for social utility such that no term that categorizes a set can be used because there are always distinct characteristics among elements within a set. This example is rather analogous towards gender and sex due to gender being a set of socially constructed identities which are often abstractions from sex. Sex is essentially never used in practicality, despite people often misunderstanding this. We instead constantly utilize assumptions or simplifications on identities that qualify people under those socially constructed viewpoints for the utility of society. We call it gender because nobody in day-to-day life is truly analyzing the causal consequences of the 23 pairs of chromosomes people have towards their conclusions on what a person is. They make assumptions or qualify people as identities based on things like physical characteristics or style, which is ultimately what the term gender expression encapsulates, as well as mentally defined characteristics, such as what the person personally identifies themselves to be within the set of socially constructed identities, if any. Sorry, if I went over this poorly towards explanation. This isn't my wheelhouse but hopefully you found this helpful.
@@kattatonic8010 This thread decried "echo chambers" only to embarrass itself by repeating Destiny's embarrassing logic. As I mentioned earlier, I don't have a background in this topic. My strengths are in tech. I'm just not stupid enough to have dumber people do my thinking for me on topics they clearly don't understand either.
Every time that "Tacoma wept" clip rolls, I remember that Vaush's ego will bait him into the dumbest possible situations, and this is no different. Very excited to see him do the reputation rehab on this one lol. Aqua indeed.
Is Vaush saying that he is such a popular streamer, that girls he matches with on tinder recognize him, and want to fuck him? Or is he saying that his game is so strong he doesn’t use his follower count he just straight up pulls women? I wish he’d clarify that
The thing I've never understood about Transgenders is if someone has gender dysphoria and wants to change genders doesn't that imply that genders are categories? I don't understand the argument that a woman could be this shapeless non descript thing but that someone can transition and become that thing and it is now well defined.
Plenty of trans people just want the characteristics of the sex they're transitioning to and it's not that deep. Don't assume big V represents all of us.
It's similar to race in a sense. *(disclaimer at end) Its a social construct, yes. But you, as an individual, can't change the social construct and all of the connotations and real world effects that it entails just because you, an individual person, say "No. FAKE." So from the point of view of a person with gender dysphoria they may conceptualize gender as being a social construct the connotations and rules of which are somewhat subject to change (what is expected of men and women). They have traits and desires that go against society's rules and expectations of their gender. They may very well wish that these things would change in order to include traits of their identity within the gender they were assigned at birth. However they know that those rules and assumptions are not going to change in the way they want in their lifetime, if ever. So realistically they are left with the choice of continuing to present and live as the gender they were born as, or try to instead live as the other gender for which ,they feel, the societal rules and expectations more closely align with their own identity traits and desires. Perhaps they think this way people might allow them to live in such a way as rhey want more easily without so much confusion and derision. I don't know. Obviously trans people are dtill the subject of quite a bit of confusion and derision so its debatable if that really works. But if they did all of those same stereotypically womanly things and called themselves a man would there be any less confusion and animosity? *I would argue that its a little bit different because there really are more fundamental differences between men and women when it comes to psychology and differences that will always affect personality and societal roles. Not so much between people with different skin colors or facial features. Im not sure the social construct of gender can or should ever be done away with, but the particulars can change.
when you can follow what a dude with a phd in philosophy is saying better than a dude that makes a living talking to a wide audience on the internet during a debate I think you can conclude right away who is trying to have an honest debate and who is trying to just get a "gotcha moment"...
Yeah I was saying similar in another comment. When I listen to people argue a position, I always try to determine are they speaking in a way to clarify and describe reality? Or are they speaking in a way that's vague and obfiscates reality. The former is someone arguing in good faith (Doesn't mean their argument is correct, just that they used logic to get there.) The second is someone who has chosen a belief based on emotional reasons, or because perhaps those around them hold that belief, and they are working backwards from already having a belief and trying to make logical claims for it. Vaush is clearly the latter in this case.
@@Tekner436 This is what Vaush does all the time in order to “debate” he just breaks down the language enough to where he effectively begins speaking an entirely different language and then acts like he’s smarter than the other person because they aren’t as much of a sophist as he is.
Most people would be surprised how much clearer the known "difficult" philosophers are if you actually read the material. I think a key example, that's all over Vaush here, is that Quine has transcripts that are in perfectly clear basic language from chats you can still watch but he does not speak well at all in the actual videos with all of the same words. The flip side, to use someone else you can just watch, is Foucault. I just have to believe it's deliberate obtuseness in interviews on that one.
Vaush always used big words in order for his followers to think he was a good debater. Go back and listen to all of his debates. He always does this. Glad someone picked up on it.
The rants where Vaush just describes himself perfectly, proudly declaring to everyone that he hates people who act like him. That they should never be taken seriously. We know, Vaush. We know.
The only thing Vaush does well in a debate setting is he knows how to use his voice. He has a nice bass and he has almost no verbal ticks whatsoever. Which is impressive and I'm willing to acknowledge the training he had to go through to master that. That is the one and only compliment I'm willing to give to Vaush. With that said he relies wholly on his vocal abilities as a sort of smoke and mirrors to mask the gaping flaws in all his arguments.
I disagree with you that that's the only good thing about his debate tactics but I'll say that the voice thing is even more impressive considering he's autistic.
Yeah, when I first heard him he sounded relatively logical and along my political lines (I'm socialist) but when I took the time to consider what he was saying I realised he was as dumb as the Ben Shapiro types who charismatically spout bs
Vaush is performing excellent sophistry, he's playing that game of "if i can't win then I'll stalemate". You can't win against vaush because while he appears to be playing chess, he's actually playing checkers. He's not interested in truth just optics, so if you play the optics game, then truth doesn't matter just how it looks, if you try to actually debate with him about truth he will confuse and stalemate mate you until everyone gives up. Moral of the story, he's not an honest actor
he’s interested in truth when he’s right on something, but when he’s not, you get this kind of gas lighting the entire debate. He basically changed the subject and ran the clock out.
Unfortunately this is the logic people use in this argument. When the simple truth is the definition of a woman is pretty obvious and agreed upon by probably 86% of the planet yet we have this idiotic, circular debate by people who can't accept what they are. If you have a vagina you're a woman because that is the accepted definition by the majority of people.
The definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in god The definition of theist is someone who does believe in a god The definition of a nonbinary person is someone who does not believe that they are any gender The definition of woman is someone who believes that they are a woman The definition of a man is someone who believes that they are a man
The most ironic thing is when people, like Vaush, think they are mentally superior to others & refer to them as “pseudo intellectuals”, then get absolutely bodied in a debate. If he had a clone of himself that held the opposite of every opinion he had, he would hate it. Can’t stand these types of people. “I’m smarter than you because your opinions are wrong & mine are right” energy.
Can anyone expand on how he lost this debate? Serious question, im not that familiar with vaush or who this professor is but apparently everyone here seems to hare him. I watched the whole debate and while there were a few optically bad points like the delivery of the aqua argument, nothing here struck as me as egregiously wrong
Fun fact regarding 3:01:11. Before a scientist called Mendeleev came along, the periodic table wasn't organised. He ordered it by atomic weight and grouped them according to properties. Vaush going on about chemistry is infuriating for this reason. Nobel gasses are grouped because their outer orbital is full, and thus they are completely inert. Group 1 elements are grouped because they have only one electron in their outer shell, and are thus extremely reactive. They aren't grouped arbitrarily, this guy is just a moron.
Wanta have your mind blown? Noble gases are *not inert.* Go look up how hard it is to store liquid argon. You would think something able to store the non-noble gas, nitrogen, as a liquid would be more than enough to store a lower density liquid that doesn't need to be kept as cold, but you'd be very wrong. Having *low* chemical reactivity in standard atmospheric conditions does not mean having low chemical reactivity, and it certainly doesn't mean it is inert.
Im amazed at how little shame vaush has spouting out nonsensical philosophy terms and word salad to someone with a PHD in philosophy to avoid admitting water exists and has existed before humans.. I just couldn't do it.
@@srijanagrawal255 I used to watch vaush quite a bit and he's not always bad, but he just will never admit to being wrong on anything. needs a little humility.
sometimes seeing someone completely wrong is funny, but the second hand embarrassment I got from this was just waaaay too much. This was hard to sit through
3:06:26 Aliens: "Hello Vaush. We have traveled across galaxies to discuss gender with you." Vaush: "A questionable premise on it's face, but I must ask for reasons of my own edification: how did you achieve interstellar travel?" Aliens: "We grouped things by texture."
I gotta be honest, hearing the same arguments that most moderate/center people were making about gender and sex that were dismissed as bigoted 5 years ago be difficult for today's left to wrap their heads around is unbelievably frustrating. It's like the left is relearning what gender roles previously were and are finally realizing that "gender" is just a synonym for "gender role." The idea that the sexes determine how you ought to behave is what was fought against for so long and succeeded in. Girls didn't have to be girly to be Girls. Boys didn't have to be boyish to be boys. Girls could enjoy football, boys could enjoy dolls, everything was fine. But the latest update to gender ideology has decided that the sexes MUST behave or feel a certain way and that ANY deviation from the stereotype is an example of being trans. I'm glad that destiny finally caught on but good lord, we could've avoided 5 years of unironically reinforcing gender stereotypes if this weren't such an issue back then.
Yeah it's kind of sad that tomboy is now a "trans positive" stereotypes when it's clearly not. It's like feminism just straight up died in favor of trans agenda, leaving even more chauvinism to be had.
Truth, so many people "forgot" their own talking points like it didn't happen. They're now actively erasing ANYTHING in the middle as trans especially for young girls. Since women still fetishize "softbois", yet little Sarah like hot wheels she MUST BE A BOY... Watching these mooks accept what they once reviled is a total trip that's for sure.
Vaush effectively conceded the debate in his open statement. His argument was that we need to change the definition to include transwomen in order to prevent harm, if your position is that the current definition needs to change you essentially admitted that by today's standards transwomen are not in fact women.
Im not so sure about that. If I said, something like, “men’s rights are human rights” have I admitted that “men” are not “human”? Seems that the statement “trans-women are women” is saying that trans-women are part of the larger category “woman”. Wuddaya think?
@@MrJustSomeGuy87 No, Men are roughly half of the population so yes their rights are human rights. Transpeople ironically have ALL the same rights men and women have. The problem is the current growing pains and people clearly abusing their "minority" status. All to make it seem like this VERY small aspect of the population should come before more dire problems like homelessness, economy, education and healthcare system. IF we focused on those four problems a lot of "trans-issues" would be solved as well. Sometimes to help the small you need to focus on bigger problems.
@@MrJustSomeGuy87 It is disanalogous, "Men" are understood to be a part of the category "human". Vaush's argument is that we need to redefine the terms for better utility (harm reduction in this case) to include transwomen into the category "women", by making this argument he has already conceded that currently the way the term is used is excludes them from the category, hence the reason why it should change.
@@MrJustSomeGuy87 Just to make it clear Question : Is water a solid? Vaush answer : Well if you expand the definition of solid to encompass anything that takes up physical space, then yes. Expanding the definition means that the current definition of the word is not applicable to the subject, meaning water is not a solid unless the expand the definition. Apply the same logic to Vaush's answer to "Transwomen are women" and you can see that he shoots himself in the foot in the opening statement.
@@lincabe321the funny thing is that he's technically correct. D2O possess different quality than H2O that allows it to be used as a radio-analysis thingy. The problem is that there's no reason to distinguish it for any other reason and whatever concentration of D2O in the water is ignored because it behave the same way H2O does.
@@bw2020 Many people HAVE drunken it, so many in fact that we know it is "sweeter" and there is ZERO detrimental affects. It is NOT radioactive. The ONLY issue with it is the individual may get dizzy for a short period. . . until you drink MORE. Can you live on it . . ? Would like cause issues. . But you CAN drink a few glasses with ZERO real issues. It IS water. We make the distinction ONLY because in chemistry it is important. In nearly EVERY other aspect it is not important.
@@aquaticaaficionado2004 heavy water is water EXCEPT (insert exception). So fine, a trans woman is a woman EXCEPT (insert exception). So are you happy with that statement then?
Vaush helped me identify a tactic that drives me up a wall. He associates a train of thought he's arguing against with something like fascism or something else objectively evil to paint his opponents ideas as in line with other ideas while never addressing the points made in front of him. So many of these political streamers are too concerned with optics and not intellectual integrity. His voice makes him appear intelligent but I know pseudo intellectuals like him and debating them is like falling into a k hole of long words and meaningless metaphor.
That is a classic radical move (regardless of political inclination). Paint your opponent as evil and wrong and then clobber them with half-truths, cherry-picked evidence and rhetoric. Job done, and Vaush's audience prooves it.
Every time I watch a Vaush debate I walk away having learned nothing and feeling like no ground has been gained in any direction. It is always and only intellectual dishonesty baked in disingenuous rebuttal. Why do I waste life on this?
While bad vowsh does a hell of a job to fight actual fascist and putin supporters, thus pulling a lot of disengaged, fooled or centrist people, good lefties are engaged in a useless echo chamber which inspires nobody except them
any intelligent communicator understands the wisdom of "why use big word when small word do trick" - being able to simplify your thoughts is a skill that makes for efficient and accessible communication. if you're secure in what you have to say, and understand it well enough, you shouldn't need to couch it in sophisticated language. you should be able to explain it in a way that a middle schooler could grasp easily. yet vaush seems to think that the more verbose he gets, the smarter it makes him look. which is why he speaks the way he does. all his rhetorical flourishes are really just fireworks shows that conceal a total lack of substance. it's a way to make himself sound smarter and more authoritative when really there's nothing there at all except sophistry and pedantry. not to mention he barely has a layman's understanding of almost all the issues he has no problem pontificating about on stream with utmost confidence. he's a total fraud
As a master of marine chemistry with a focus in isotopes, listening to them talk about water as an element, not knowing what a compound is, deuterium, isotopes means having an extra electron or proton, made me die internally. I wish they wouldn't use an example they have no clue about...
@@partypete5672 Tomas repeatedly said that water isn't an element, and only referred to water as an element when talking about how Aristotles described it.
As a pre-med student it hurt me. Vaush graduated from college right?? The adding/subtracting protons changes the element, adding/subtracting electrons makes an ion, and adding/subtracting neutrons changes the isotope of the element is something you learn in freshman chemistry that is review from high school chemistry.
to be wicked is to intertwine truths and falsities PERPOSEFULLY in order to get what you want. Vaush does just that in order to win a debate. He constantly dances around like a little magical gnome between entirely separate ways of thinking. Whether it be within the context of chemistry, biology, gender theory/expression, linguistics.. this guy is truly an amazing spectacle. I'm glad he spent his energy in the realm of streaming instead of other things like politics or serial killing edit: knock on wood.
Am I crazy in looking at his comment sections + subreddit and getting a weird parasocial almost culty vibe from a large chunk of his fanbase? Certainly that's always going to be an issue _to a certain extent_ with debate bro streamers, but it seemed excessive even by those standards last I checked.
@@darkrider962 I think it's a combo of his audience being filled with young and very impressionable people wanting a place and community to belong to (hence the culty and parasocial behavior)
@@markusmellert5421 Yeah, school being kinda out now they can watch these whole dumpster fire debates as people like Vaush is clearly losing his mind. While his cultist simply clap and cope.
jordan peterson talking about archetypes after having studied jung extensively for decades: SOOYYYYYYYYY vaush talking about the archetypes he pulled out of his ass: GIGABASED
Isn’t it a moderators job to keep debates on topic? Why do none of these internet moderators ever do that? They just sit back let shit get derailed and nothing productive ever comes out of the debates. 👏
He literally said both 'all these definitions are inconsistent' and 'I don't think the self ID view and the social role view are inconsistent' within about 1 Min of each other.
In response to 47:00, I feel like changing the definition of "woman" and "man" to mean "someone who behaves in a stereotypical fashion," DOES cause harm to almost everyone in society. Because the more this view takes hold, the harder it will be for people (our kids and grandkids) to deviate from stereotypes without feeling the pressure to transition. If we want harm reduction we need to destroy sex stereotypes, not put them on a pedestal.
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 I mean fundamentally the big question is whether people truly have an internal perception of gender. Because many progressives will say there are two things 1. Socially constructed gender and 2. Internal perception. What this does is essentially eliminate any notion of gender since it can be individually defined 💀 making gender a completely useless word. They give so much importance to gender yet pull the rug out whenever they need to 😂😂
This is nonsense as well woman and man have different roles in society because of their biology, and if you’re too stupid to figure that out as the men who literally built every society in the world for all time
I have never been more defeated than trying to be a philosopher in graduate school. The utter soul crushing difficulty it takes to be a PhD in philosophy is mind blowing. They are at the top of my respec-totem-pole
2:25:47 "At the end of the day, the biological argument on [sex] has been more or less settled" Vaush was so correct, just not at all in the way he thought he was.
Every time he and his ilk go “aDvAnCeD bIoLoGy” I can’t help but think… if your “advanced biology” fundamentally contradicts high school biology, then you’re peddling pseudoscience. Basic and intermediate biology lay the foundation for advanced biology, they don’t teach some insanely different things.
It really does feel crazy how much Vaush has changed. In the past he would regularly do research streams or bring on expert guests. He talked about how note-taking is basically an auto-win in debates. He didn't mute himself to talk to chat during debates. And he barely ever made reference to being pro-gun where it feels like it is a constant now.
@@donaldthompson6808 As much as I am not a fan of that idea, considering his goal of shifting to being a video game streamer that casually mentions politics... The comparison is growing more apt.
I remember when he tried to do a research stream on hindu fascism. He opened the wikipedia page of the RSS, mumble read the page until he got to the part about Gandhi's assassination. Then he said something like "yikes", opened the page of Nathuram Godse, and mumble read the intro. Finally, he says something like " That was a good research stream chat" and ends the video. What an intellectual powerhouse!
the not muting while the other is talking thing is so f*ing disrespectful. He is sniping at words and poisoning the well. It shows all he cares about is his audience listening to his words but not the response.
As an actual philosophy person (didn't get my PhD though) it is painful to listen to Vaush talk. He doesn't stick to a position - he seemingly tries to hold all these contradictary positions which create blatant problems with other positions he argues and it honestly makes me confused as to why people listen to him (Not a regular watcher - so I don't know his appeal.). Is he really interesting knowledgeable on other topics? I, also, can't imagine taking someone seriously who does no debate prep. (I don't agree with Dr Bogartus position btw) The main reason I am commenting is to answer Destiny @1:57:10 - Philosophers, in general, let a lot of ideas slide that are challengable/weak in conversations/debates simply in an effort to stay on topic. Most often when people critique the discussions afterwards, in writing, those points are thoroughly addressed. The reason for the attempt to stay on topic is the endeavour to make progress on the thing being discussed. In this instance to start talking about whether "all definitions are prescriptive" is 1. Pertinent, but 2. Surely, a path to a long conversation that steers far away from the intended topic which is what most people watching/listening to would like to hear about. For anyone interested, a good example of how this can lead to a frustrating/boring debate for the casual listener is Ed Feser and Graham Oppy, on whether there are any good arguments for God. While interesting to me on a technical level, they go down a rabbithole of what is an argument, what makes a good argument, which many find off putting. And trust me a PhD philosopher can do this on so many seemingly innocuous points, that you will never progress haha, but it oftimes doesn't serve the discussion. What I would personally try to do differently, is to more strongly point out areas of disagreement, or that are contentious which we could explore given time, but then focus on the topic at hand. It is of course difficult to do in real time, and it is clear a few times that Bogartus does make certain statements to that effect - for example, earlier stating that he would attempt to focus on the correct line of critique. How effectively that comes across to the listener/watcher is a different matter. Anyways, enjoyed your commentry :) Edit: Oh almost forgot - at one point you ask/ponder about the simplicity of his writing and question the standard of ideas in philosophy (maybe philosophy of gender, given the what your read from Bogartus) - fun philosophy fact - a lot of the reputation that philosophy has for these obscure and hard to follow texts and writings dates back to Kant. His writing was exceptionally complicated, and it kicked of a tradition for a long while especially in the German and French schools of philosophy to create these complex works in order meet some rigorous standard. Hegel actually wrote much of his works in a much more simplified manner than what most people are tasked with slogging through when they go to Uni. But in order to be taken seriously at the time he needed to complexify that shit up haha. Most philosophical writing before Kant is actually fairly understandeable and there has been a movement by some in recent years to get away from needless layers of difficulty often used. Of course some ideas cannot be expressed so simply, but a fair amount can.
Regarding the last point, a person without any Philosophical background can read Plato, and then just jump to Kant, and I guarantee one will feel like watching the first and the last episode of 20 season soap opera. While the style of Kant was unarguably influenced by his contemporary tendencies, it's also worth to mention that philosophical language was so weighted by historical background that it was also kinda natural for Kant to write in that sense. I wholeheartedly think that Philosophy and Science (tbh any branch of any field) should be written in a way that any person could understand the writing, but at the same time I have come to the understanding that the scope of terms that are essential for the topic and the nuance they possess are very detrimental to how understandable the writing can be. I'm Philosophy grad myself, and I have noticed that whenever I discuss some metaphysical staff, people usually think that I tend to overcomplicate my explanations just by using terms like being and becoming. Those are some very basic philosophical concepts that are hardly problematic in understanding as terms, but my friends often struggle to comprehend the meaning behind the sentence wherein I use those terms. And that's understandable, because I struggled when I was studying them, it's just I get used to them. Imo same goes when one reads Kant, if you are familiar with historical background of The Critique of Pure Reason, you are more used to the language Kant uses. While when you read Plato, there is no much historical background, at least in the sense that philosophical language could have been formed, and therefore the understanding comes much easier. But from then philosophy in its language slowly becomes more and more complicated, where as reading Neoplatonic texts are a bit more struggling, and Scholastic texts even more complicated and early enlightenment even more and so on and on. Exception exist of course (Descartes' meditations are quite a good example here) but I can clearly see the overall standard and its historical necessity.
Yeah its genuinelly painfull and disturbing, like i could probably watch some dark shit and be unphased by it, but vaush just makes my mind have existencial terror instantly. Almost like existence itself is castrated and distorted
This, (the last reference to Kant) is funny to me, because also as a philosophy person I never found Kant as difficult as the Germans that followed on using him as a base. I find that most Philosophy, even in text, is easier than most people think it should be. A lot of the more incomprehensible texts have the problem of containing words they are assigning new meanings to. Words that are in a language that BBC is not the one it is currently being read in.
I'm going to be real, I've seen Vaush talk about a lot of things and I don't get how Destiny can view him as "fairly intelligent". This isn't at all out of the ordinary for him, debating someone with formal education or proper expertise on a topic and showing up completely unprepared saying random shit that doesn't even make sense. I would argue you can't be considered to have a certain level of intelligence doing shit like that on the daily but I guess what do I know? Guy seems flat out stupid to me...
Maybe it's just insanity, because a lot of insane people are intelligent? Vaush being fairly intelligent seems to be a pretty good description considering he didn't do any prep for this debate & still managed to convince some of his audience that he not only won but he destroyed this guy. I personally think he's intelligent but I also think he's arrogant, irrational and lazy. I've always agreed with the saying "hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard." I honestly believe Vaush is talented at TH-cam debates, but obviously this PHD streamer was way above his league and made him look like a bumbling idiot because Vaush did absolutely no preparation & is a bad faith, lazy douchebag.
You're confusing intelligence with having correct, reasoned beliefs. Vaush is intelligent enough to fool people into watching his content which allows him to earn an income from constantly lying. That's not something everyone can do.
Can't we just say that trans women are trans women. They are not exactly the same as a woman who is born a woman. Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be trans...they would just be women. It doesn't mean we can't respect how people want to live their lives and call them a woman if that's what they want. There are issues in certain areas, like in sport for example. Which can be discussed and dealt with. The whole argument just seems completely stupid and unnecessary to me. People are trying to argue that we MUST define trans women and women as the same even though they are obviously not.
you know ... for many years as a trans girl im trying to say. we are a third gender, with social markers at the nearest biological one..cause thats what weve got for now.
You can blame esoteric gender theory in postmodernist academia for that. Most people are totally fine with other people identifying as whatever they want. Its when you start playing God in a sandbox with linguistics, trying to shape everyone else's reality, that you run into problems.
No. A trans woman is a trans woman. It's okay to be trans, but that doesn't mean we have to change definitions and language to suit other people's lifestyles.
I guess the way I've always understood this linguistics argument it is that we don't feel it necessary distinguish with most other categories of differences between women, so why trans? We can just refer to a black woman as a woman, and nobody has an issue. We can refer to a deaf woman as a woman and nobody has an issue. Yes, the black women and deaf women belong to a separate category of women, but they are still women. Same with trans women. Seems like it's right there in the words we use. But apparently it's an issue.
@@paulybeefs8588 Well when discussing issues that are exclusively faced by one of those groups, only referring to them as women implies that all women categorically face that issue.
I watched all the way to the end, and that did become a version of skepticism for the sake of skepticism. Question everything, as they say. I have an idea for that- and this is not my own idea, I did see someone do this in a different discussion. I think it's a good one, though. When you run into someone that really loves to question everything (for the sake of doing it) encourage that person to go ahead and do that on principle. But also, very early in the process, ask this person at what point they are willing to accept answers. This sort of person very often asks all of these questions and then congratulates themselves when they pick apart all of the answers and finds them lacking. This is, very often, a predetermined outcome that comes with the territory. So before they can even get all the way into that, tell them to go ahead and ask the questions but also give you an idea of the parameters within which they are willing to accept answers. Most people who "question everything" aren't entirely ready for that question, but I do think it's a worthwhile question that truly helps people to form their thoughts and go through the process in a better way. It's a tough question that requires quite a bit of thought, but I don't think it owns the person or makes them look silly. Quite frankly, they would look silly if they refuse to engage with it. I think it's one of the best questions that you can ask in this situation because it truly helps both people while precluding a time-wasting and probably zero-sum type of discussion. I wish I could remember exactly who I saw that did this- it may have been Peter Boghossian but I'm not totally sure on that.
Vaush was stroking his beard to help counteract the response from his Limbic system on account of his anxiety upon hearing that his opponent was well qualified and well researched/informed.
I've seen that happen a lot on this channel; the debate opponents Destiny invites on often become instinctually frazzled when they find out he has a girl's name.
"Cause that would mean you could get pregnant with yourself, which would be fucking based". I burst out laughing at Destiny's revelation of his deepest life goals.
I do watch both you and Vaush (though admittedly more of you at the minute). I like when there is disagreement as it helps me more actively examine both positions and consider my own thoughts about it.
The lake comeback was a typical Vaush optical trick that doesn't hold up. It's true that there are a lot of things IN a lake. Fish are IN lakes, dirt is IN lakes, etc. If you remove any of those things you still have a lake, but if you remove water you no longer have a lake for those things to be in. I'm high and Vaush's professional obtuseness is mind numbing.
You don't actually have a lake if Vaush just decides he is going to define it differently. But if you ask for that definition he'll say it's all arbitrary. Madness. Think it's fair to say that Vaush is just a bullshitting nihilist.
Why does Vaush's community use the term "gaslighting" so excessively? It has a very specific definition - not just "whenever someone tries to convince me of something I disagree with".
It's because if you're a sophist, and youre also the architect of a far left echo chamber, you have to use big words that you don't know the meaning of to remain in a position where you can delude yourself into believing that you've "intellectually outpaced" everyone. It's the exact same shit when he uses the word "arbitrary" incorrectly over and over again. It's almost like he thinks using the word arbitrary over and over again makes his point more valid, when in reality, it's just nonsense mixed into a fucked up blender filled with word salad and a thesaurus.
@@wolfmayner6274 yeh i thought about adding that in there ahaha. three letters is too few for these idiots. Theyve never heard of the gift of brevity lmao
@@wolfmayner6274 your comment is 100% on point! I find that alot of people in this audience also use alot of word salad too. I mean, nothing wrong with a wide range of vocabulary and the use of it but it becomes comical when there is meaningful substance or valid point behind it.
Yeah taking notes in a debate or heated argument can help ALOT. Not only can it help you keep your thoughts straight, it can serve to keep you from being leashed and led around by the emotions of who your are debating
Vaush thinks he's exceptionally smart because he has a worldview that nothing is real and no truth can ever be nailed down, and because of this he can never be wrong. Also his constant fiddling with his beard is infuriating. He cant go 5 seconds without grabbing it.
I think being a skeptic isn't unreasonable and probably better than what most people do but it certainly looks like crap in this video as he didn't prepare at all and is just incoherently rambling and constantly contradicting himself.
"Also his constant fiddling with his beard is infuriating. He cant go 5 seconds without grabbing it." It is extremely annoying. He thinks it makes him appear smart.
@@koalabandit9166 Yes definitions are conventions, used to refer to things that exist in the real world (like water for example). That's all the philosophy guy is saying
@@burt591 Well, sometimes they exist in the real world, like water. Other times, they don't, like leprechaun. Other times, they do, but the specifics of what they actually are depend on cultural factors, like king. Other times, it's debatable whether they exist, like the number 5. Other times, they may exist, like ET. And so on. And in all those times, what you are actually referring to depends on the definition you are using.
@@burt591 Great, then Vaush said nothing controversial. The philosophy guy seems to think he's saying that "everything is subjective" and accuses him of "post-modernism" lol apparently he never heard of realism and nominalism. Not that he'd need to, what Vaush is saying is perfectly clear and is simply a point about how language works. On that point, Vaush is correct (whatever one may think of his views on everything else).
Vaush literally says at one point that it doesn’t matter if a definition is accurate in portraying reality it only matters if it fits his idea “moral”. Argument is over at that point.
@@keep3alini664 Watch him debate right wingers and tankies. It's worth it, even if you disagree with his gender takes. He has pulled many people to the left, because he indeed is not a sophist. I listened to a few takes of him about this gender thing: Every time I listened, he was not talking about changing definitions like "biologically female" or "- male". That would be idiotic. It's about gender, which is socially constructed and arbitrary as far as I understand. That's the point: Using language in such a way as to refer to gender, a thing that is socially constructed anyway.
a definition being "accurate in portraying reality" doesn't make sense. you can't make up a definition that doesn't portray anything real, and something is either real or not real. a definition can't portray something in a "more real" way than another. and if you think socially constructed things aren't "real", then the only "accurate definitions" would be those of quarks and electrons.
That's how you know he's not worth taking seriously. Like this isn't a freshman course. People love weaponizing people fresh out of academia though. Any other day people would be laughing at a philosophy degree.
![Okarina, who is fasting and drinks drinks that will definitely upset her stomach [Okazu Club]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fNnppyGm2-w/mqdefault.jpg)
▼Timestamps▼
00:01:12 Vaush claims she wants to be sexually harassed
00:07:33 ShoeOnHead drama
00:10:28 Shoe blew up the tweet, got it on Tucker Carlson
00:29:34 Destiny fan versus Charlie Kirk clip
00:31:06 Vaush vs philosophy PhD
01:23:19 "Over there it's aqua..." - Vaush
03:07:12 Destiny and Rem recap the debate
Praise allah!
Wahoo! Fucking finally! Inshallah
hope your moving was smooth sailing and all over now
i am a third of the way in and i might just have to stop and watch the original video if destiny doesn't shut up... let them talk for more then 30 seconds before chiming in or talking to chat.. holy shit. You don't even give the other guy a chance to rebuttal what vaush says, i don't want to hear the same counter arguments twice if he agrees with you.
stargate did the periodic table as a language way before any of yas.
PhD guy: 1+1=2
Vaush: in France they say 'un'
It depends what the definition of 'is' is
"In Mexico they don't wear hats, they wear SAMBEROs"
Actually it's "duex"
This sums up the 3 hour video perfectly. Holy shit.
I have a feeling Vaush grew up in school thinking he was very intelligent but when he discovered that he actually wasn't very intelligent and scored poorly in every subject, instead of facing reality he constructed a defense mechanism that allows him to keep his 'I'm still smarter than you' identity.
The phd also did an incredible job of keeping track of vaush logically throughout the entire interview, like a real scientist does. while vaush, seemingly never even learned how think like that. He doesn't really care if what he is saying is self contradictory or not
"Mexicans don't know what water is. All they know... is *aqua*."
Absolute genius.
Especially because 180 IQ Vaush over here doesn't even know that "aqua" isn't the spanish word for "water" lmao
Timestamp?
Explain how he is wrong
@@mariomario1462 They were never talking about the words that refer to concepts or things (e.g. the water/agua distinction doesn't matter), they were talking about the concepts/things themselves.
@@elios2296 its literally at the start of the video AND in the timestamps comment
I argued rocket science with a NASA employee at the bar the other day. I totally won after mentioning that rocket in Spanish is “cohete” and therefore invalidates his entire argument. He was completely stumped. Congratulations me!
The argument of are trans women, women? Is one of semantics.
@@EmmsReality Agreed. The question of whether trans-women are women is one of semantics, the question of whether water is aqua or a rocket is a cohete is not.
In both cases "Rocket and Cohete", or "Water and Aqua", both words have the same meaning, so it's not an issue of semantics. I am honestly not sure what branch of linguistics it'd be a part of, moronics maybe?
@Cheesus Crisp what’s a real women?
@@cwilliams6884 girls misses juniors women trans girls trans women
@Cheesus Crisp good luck with that adult human lady parts. Most of the science and history is from LAST century. Trans people are not going anywhere. You’ll have to kill us.
PhD: Can you agree ice is water?
Vaush: I think the exaltation and amelioration of the philosophical conflagrations ultimately perish during radical deconstructivists familiarity with endocrinological viciousness.
PhD: So... no?
Vaush is gonna lose his mind if he ever goes to Pennsylvania and finds out that they dont know what "water" is, and instead refer to a liquid known as "wooder".
He will be flabbergasted when he comes to New England and hears it referred to as Watah
Or washer is worsher
yesssir philly here! woooder all day!
Wooder ice
@@phillyphillyyyyy Philly gang
Vaush has the absolute gall to drink from a giant jug of water after spending 15 minutes arguing that it doesn't exist. Mad lad.
Pro level debating 😂
He was trying to destroy the evidence against his argument
OMG thanks for making me crack up @@ts4gv
Oh you mean aqua?
I feel so sorry for this professor. He's all happy about people having debates and discussions over the internet and the first person he gets introduced to is fkn Vaush.
I do too, clearly he has no actual education. Vaush made him look like a complete idiot.
Well he did seem to do alot of research about vauch so I'm sure he new what he was getting into.
@@tman040496tb I mean, what research could possibly prepare you for the "over there, it's agua" argument.
It's like when Katy Perry asked Neil deGrasse Tyson if math was related to science. It's so far out of left field (ha pun) that you need to stop every thought and re-assess the level of the person you're talking to.
Well thats true, but I'm just saying ge was probably ready for him to say some off the wall shit. Intellectual dishonesty is vaush's mo.
He absolutely destroyed Vaush. And he gave us the "Aqua" Vowsh meme
That PhD was so nice and generous, it's hard to even imagine behaving that way against someone as pompous and condescending as Vaush.
He literally had zero interest in "winning" or "dunking" on his opponent, dude was legit just trying to have a conversation and make Vaush understand his points.
Kudos to him. I hope some day i can be like that.
the "phd" was clearly a moron
@@ongobongo8333 If you walked away from that debate thinking Vaush had better points,
You either didn't understand the arguments being made,
Or you're delusional.
I disagree slightly, the Phd used ad hominem a few times - “Vaush said this a few years ago” and “Vaush had a different view a few years ago” which is purely intended to make him look bad
@Table Salt Of course it's what ad hominem is. He was painting Vaush as inconsistent and thus attacking the person.
@Table Salt Painting the opponent as someone with inconsistent positions. "Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument." - From Google
The way the philosophy phd argued was phenomenal. It genuinely felt like optics weren't important to him; he didn't talk over Vaush, and also tried to meet him where he was and argued in good faith. I would LOVE if more conversations were conducted the way he conducted himself.
Unfortunately the only people able to debate in such a way are those who *genuinely* know what they’re talking about. Such people have spent 10+ years in their field, studying and/ working, and typically aren’t found in the circles of online debating.
It’s honestly really simple - the vast majority of people online don’t have the time to properly learn about topics between streaming and debating, so they will never achieve the level of competence debating like this requires.
It’s hilarious when you look at the comments on the Vaush vid.. they seriously think Vaush won and the PHD guy was a weasel
@@matsab7930 Where can I find these types of people and talk with them? This PHD guy was so pleasant and ... I wish I was able to talk to people like that, seems like they would be nice convo people
@@danielsurvivor1372 if you can sift through the nonsense on the modern day debate channel they have had on quite a few high level academics debating various topics. If you’re into philosophy/religion capturing Christianity do formal high level academic debates.
@@hostesscupcakes8130 Thats a discussion, not a debate.
Two hours into the debate, he said something that made me recontextualize everything. Optics weren't a factor, literally at all. This guy isn't Terminally Online, he has no idea who Vaush is. If you look at 2:22:44 (or 2:22:55 to skip the niceities), he says "A middle aged person like me is worried that kids these days aren't interested in this kind of stuff, so it's nice to see this community thriving in, *I don't even know what twitch is*". He's not treating this like a debate of sincere ideas on a podium, he's treating this like he's walked into a high school study hall and wants to spend time carefully chatting with the youngins and encourage them to be interested.
Which, yeah, from our perspective, we know better on the what and how of what Vaush engages in. It's just interesting to see it make sense to me why this guy was so incredibly softball with Vaush.
He’s unironnically to pure for this hell
Absolute chad.
Yeah, the guy was trying to have an actual intellectual debate and be fair about it. Vaush isn't one of those kinds of people. Frankly, most radicals aren't. The only way to be radicalized is to debate like Vaush does. Total cognitive dissonance and plugging your ears to dissenting information.
I half expected him to at some point ask Vaush if he has a totally pragmatic view on truth (which he does), but he only said that people are interested in truth when defining things, he could have gone way harder, but he had limited time and wanted to stay on point. He isn't interested in making 345345 because he thinks that will make him look better, just calmly focusing on what is most relevant to his point. Kinda me of Alex Malpass, though Malpass cared even less about persuasion, he would go off purely formal tangents, he didn't care about optics.
Vaush: Hey, can I have a glass of water?
Employee: -gives a glass-
V: -drinks. Spits- This is gasoline!
E: Fundamentally similar. That's a distinction we constructed! One we can change. You might call it _trans_ water. It IS water.
V: Well.. I agree. The definitions ARE a social construct, so.. -drinks and forces a smile-
E: gives a glass
V: Wow this is good water *drinks completely
*a few hours pass
V:Ow man, I've not been feeling good since I had your water. What was that?
E: Just H2O, you know: water.
V: That's poisonous!
E: shoot. But it's water!
V: Yeah, but not what I *meant* by water in the context we were speaking in.
E: Oof, yeah, sorry about that. Here's some better water then.
V: Oh, thanks.
V: *spits -This is ocean-water!
E: Shoot, I messed up again! How am I supposed to know what you mean by water?
V: Drinking-water, or tap-water, please.
E: Oh, okay.
what is gasoline if not oily combustable water? really makes you think
@@Sue_Me_Too haram
-wait actually?-
-I didn't know about this.-
_Could be a game changer._
*I appreciate you bringing this to our attention.*
Vaush is quite literally the embodiment of Reddit 😂
,😂
YOU ARE EVERYWHERE AUGH
The fact that he unironically takes reddit debunkings as legit breakdowns is just wild to me
No doubt this is embarrassing.
He's a mixture of reddit and Facebook.
I feel like Vaush has outpaced philosophy, intellectually.
yeah outpaced them to absurdity.
Vaush has outpaced the concept of outpacing in this conversation.
☯️ The Big Red Buddha has ascended 🕉
Vaush has outpaced his ability to comprehend what comes out of his own mouth. Alpha.
When vaush outpaced philosophy, philosophers wept
Vaush got absolutely bodied and the guy even held his punches. What a kind person!
phd guy won while only talking for like 10% of the time lmao
Yeah like he is such a saint bro, listening to this i was almost breaking my house apart like a abusive drunk husband
I mean, it's like fighting a child. If he actually did anything serious he'd look like a real asshole
After the whole mind numbing water debate he should have just said, "Yknow what, I forgot, I have better uses for my time than arguing with this horse weiner aficionado." Dropped the proverbial mic, and walked out.
@@Nick-hy1txt makes me sad that nobody is seemingly addressing Vaush’s arguments ):
Props to Vaush for making Destiny able to put food on the table.
Goldschläger, extra pulp.
What’s destiny gonna drink, water or aqua? Completely different things ya know
God that is what this is. Destiny just follows Vaush around producing react content. Then there's the Destiny orbiters.
@@julymagnus493 i mean this guy vowsh is mass producing hilarious content, how could you pass up on watching these videos lmao
@@julymagnus493 I'd like you to say the same to Vaush when he puts 300+ videos on Shapiro, Peterson, Crowder etc
"OMG, why is Vaush reacting to what another content creator says. That's so obsessed. React content bad." Soyyy
Vaush is that guy we all knew in college who thought he was much smarter than he was. He was the type of guy who tried very hard to sound smart, use big dictionary words, often spoke in that circular type of logic where everything is relative, everything means nothing and vise versa. The problem with guys like that is they spend so much time trying to convince people they're smart, they don't' actually put in the effort to really get a deep understanding of things.
The basic word game is to deny that words mean anything when your opponent is speaking and then to insist they mean something when you are speaking. It works because conversation and debate requires at least one of the two parties to act as though words have meaning, but it's clearly unfair to the party that has to act in good faith.
@@clemonsx90 I feel you have a very simplistic understanding of “meaning”. What Vaush understands, and Destiny and the phd don’t, is that words don’t have factual unarguable definitions. Each person has a slightly different understanding of the “meaning” in any word. Words are most used for utility, so there is utility in the way Vaush defines “woman”.
You don’t think he has a deep understanding of the things he’s saying?
@@MOME914 yeah but we all come around a basic understanding of every word and agree to it.
Also, slightly different, Vaush's meaning of the word women is anything but slightly different, hell it's not even coherent.
@@CrackYouUpFilms no he doesn't.
It's painful that Vaush had to argue literal stereotypes to define what a woman was. Hard to call your opponent "regressive" and "traditional" when he's struggling to offer anything besides, "Like a woman would be a mother or a bratty socialite, you know? Women."
He was out of options, he ran out of fog to pump out.
Yes, because that’s what anything but the biological definition will eventually boil down to. And it really does and will continue to hurt women and trans people themselves.
So do you just have to behave like that archetype to be considered a woman? There're plenty of men that can fit under that if they act that way but they don't identify as a woman. So do you just need to identify yourself as that archetype to be considered a woman even if you don't act that way? What is the common factor in all of the civilizations in which a woman is identified?
What's also painful is reading Vaush's chat... There's so many dumb things, like Vaush says something stupid and they're like "GOTTEM" or the philosopher guy tries to explain something that should be obvious and the chat starts doing pepega emotes... It really highlights the lack of critical thinking skills among many of his fans that they aren't criticizing him all that much... Granted I think you could also point to ignorance since they don't have the study being pulled up to know how bad it is...
Didn't he gave a more specific definition?
Vaush Doesn't start from a place of curiosity or honesty, he starts from a position of predetermined outcome. He can't lose a debate because "it's not possible that I've gotten anything wrong, I listen to the right opinions and the right people". It's not even that he himself is selfish, he is just a closeminded person trying to pull the façade that he is open for debate, and at this point it's so deep that he's even lying to himself.
He starts with a predetermined outcome because he always argues with insane people, of ourse he's gonna be right lol
@@yellowcactustvz4929 Dr. Bogardus is insane?
@@yellowcactustvz4929 That's initially how he became popular within the Breadtube sphere - by arguing against easily debunkable political ideologies - but you don't mean to imply that EVERY person with which he has argued, including Dr. Bogardus, is insane do you? Is this a rhetorical statement? I pray to God it is!
Pathologically arrogant
"Vaush Doesn't start from a place of curiosity or honesty, he starts from a position of predetermined outcome"
this is actually showing when it comes to the allegations against Andrew Callaghan.
“Many things fill lakes and rivers” is the ultimate defeater for all arguments, of any kind, from now, and until the end of all time.
Just try it:
A: “Consciousness begins at conception”
B: “Many things fill lakes and rivers”
Debate ends.
Intellectually outpaced.
@@TheOriginalKabelo hmmm slow down buddy. You’re outpacing yourself intellectually 😂
He was clearly thinking of all the people he murdered on meth when he said that.
@@TheOriginalKabelo many things fill lakes and rivers
owned libtard
This must have been such an infuriating debate for the PHD guy. Vaush comes across as a disingenuous interlocutor.
That's pretty much how everyone feels who comes across this overconfident pseudo-intellectual.
It's like Destiny but even more cancer
This dude had me CACKLING in the car when he smugly said “well in Mexico they call it Agua” oh my god
The funny thing is even though "Ah-Kwah" came out of his mouth, he may very well know the word is "agua" because he insists on pronouncing everything in the weirdest way possible, like Ace-thetic or coward-ice.
@@zacharychristy8928 Because he has broken-brain syndrome. 🤯
Aqua*
Aqua or Agua. Either way it was equally dumb.
Jake B, Im glad im not the only one who listens to theses while driving to work or just drive in general lmao
I don't take pride in seeing people fail... But Vaush failing.... Puts a smile on my face.
Doesnt your face start to hurt
I don't believe my eyes. People finally criticising Vaush. I just saw his channel a week ago I find him and his fanbase to be extremely delusional. I am glad there are others who are calling him out. I was beginning to lose faith in humanity and was about to make a video of my own against this clown. I may not agree with Destiny or his fans on everything but this we can agree on. Vaush and his community are toxic pos. Also they have a strange obsession with Jordan Peterson. His whole channel and comments are just condescending, slander or insults. They have nothing of substance.
You all are really obsessed with this guy.
@@ccash3290 people interested in online politics talking about someone who has a career as a commentator in online politics isn't an obsession... its to be expected
Pride seems like a really weird word choice here. I recommend joy instead.
Saying “ It’s just a social construct bro” doesn’t make something less valuable.
Best example of this imo, currency. It's value is relative entirely to social and internationally constructed agreements, but we would never call currency useless as a tool lol
There is no such thing as "social constructs." That's a leftist talking point.
One must first ask why it was constructed before tearing it down
My technique anytime this comes up in a conversation is "...therefore..?"
I don't know how, but so many people bought the idea that social construct equals meaningless and arbitrary.
The same idea would make every mental disorder diagnosis meaningless. Math, science, language, and most every concept we can think of would be meaningless.
@@Ridistrict Egality necessitates the eradication of norms because most norms distinguish or segregate. Europe and the US following it formed a social agenda to prioritize egalitarian ideals above other ideals within reason. This has been achieved, so for adherents (anyone idly sharing these cultures) the next step is egalitarianism outside of reasonability. Most people naturally limit the scope of this using "common sense" but it makes the average person susceptible to arguments hinging on the wrongness of norms until they more deeply consider them.
"I think vaush is actually an intelligent guy"
I have heard that Destiny donates to charity a lot. But this comment is the most charitable claim about vaush... That level of charity would break the bank of most people.
There's more than one kind of intelligence. You can be intelligent without actually having any correct beliefs.
Vaush clearly is above average in intelligence. The problem lies in that he pretends to be way above average in intelligence.
There is a big difference between having an IQ of 120 (1/10 rarity) and an IQ of 150 (1/1000 rarity) and it's almost impossible to pretend that you are that one a thousand when you are that are one in ten. For anyone with above-average intelligence, it's patently obvious who is who.
But it's not only a question of raw brain power but adequate schooling and avoiding being indoctrinated into specific philosophical/political beliefs that cloud your judgment and reasoning ability.
Enough charity to make the completionist blush
Vaush can't take criticism because he's a narcissist. This is also why he cannot cede any ground in debates and opts for deflection/logical fallacies instead of taking the L. Very happy to call myself an ex-Vaushie.
Which video of his can you point to that isn't so bad that you could've thought he wasn't the worst for a period of time? He was recommended to me and he was immediately such a confidence huckster I couldn't stand to listen to him for more than one video.
@@daringiconoclast6547 I think it's just down to people's brains. I'm a depressed pile of shit and everyone always suggests me JP and I can't get through more than 2 minutes of that guy talking before wanting to go through with it and neckrope.
@@daringiconoclast6547 Watch his “debate” with Tim Pool. It’s pretty good. He does sound pretty pompous, but so does Destiny. I don’t understand people who fall into almost parasocial relationships with politics streamers.
I really feel like the term narcissist is overused, but honestly everything you said I agree with. I'm also a former "fan" of vowsh. #vaushUnironicallyBad
@@sydneemikumuren9812 it is overused - I only use it when I'm absolutely sure it applies to someone, and if you look at narcissistic traits, well, Vaush pretty much hits every branch on the way down.
I legitimately lost IQ points listening to Vaush in this. He used every tactic he could think of to run out the clock so he could claim victory. Meanwhile his opponent was there trying to argue in good faith.
He did. But I would also point out his calm nature AFTER his opponent complimented him. (Remember how he completely forgot to "shake hands" before the debate?) Vaush did what he doesn't do with Demon Mama or Destiny or anyone that irritates him; Vaush sat back in his chair, listened to the entire rest of Philosophy's explanation and waited politely for Philosophy to be praised back. I'm not saying Vaush didn't try every tactic, but he was compliment-stalled into listening.
It's almost like trans people aren't actually the gender/sex they are pretending to be
that's one huge disadvantage scientists have against charlatans.
@@shrimp562 I’d argue that
People are two things
A personality and a body
Their body has their sex
Their personality is individual. And only has one name, the persons name.
A personality can fit into “traditional gender roles” in the romantic sense
But aside from traditional gender roles
An ever changing concept of gender seems pretty pointless.
@@shrimp562 And society pretending like they are is not doing any good either. Thats their whole argument. "it prevents suicides"
No it doesnt. It creates them. And if we adress this more, we have the moral and the theoretical arguments on our side and we can slide back into the middle ages!
Vaush arbitrarily arranges words in such a manor that he hears himself speaking with intellectual dominance, while we all hear a man saying SO MUCH while simultaneously saying nothing at all.. the mastery of this skill is astounding
It's called "sophistry."
It's basically the art of using rhetoric, syntax, posturing etc to make yourself look and sound intelligent when you are not.
oh my god, Vaush is just an inverted Ben Shapiro!
43 more people who didn't watch the whole video, lol
@@andrewthetruth to be fair, having watched any amount of most vaush videos, u would see him using big words and terms he doesn't fully understand to make himself sound smarter and therefor right or he just says Utilitarianism....
Heres my opinion on why Vaush was able to so easily destroy a PHD in philosophy. I see many parrelles between the LGBTQIA+ writings of Sartre and the salient activism of Vaush. These readings are why Vaush disposed of a "PHD philosopher" (fascist) so saliently. I also see Vaush as one of the few remaining blockades against fascism sweeping over the country, for example if Vaush died I truly believe we would be 4 steps closer to the TQ (Trans Question) taking place, another few years of boushjuwah (Vaush taught me this word) electoralism and I expect to see my fellow they/them/brothers/sisters in christ being round up, arrested, and I shudder to think what would happen after this. I would like to thank this community and Vaush for ameliorating the utilitarian harm done by boushjuwah electoralism, and for extrapolating the writings of Sartre so saliently. That is all thank you.
This "aqua" thing just floored me. The way he makes that argument, so confident, and yet failed so miserably. I never heard anything that dumb from Vaush, it's way beyond his level of intelligence. I guess that happens when you come unprepared to debate with an actual scientist, you would often make yourself look like an idiot. I used to think that this guy can debate academics like Jordan Peterson and win like he always brags we would, but now I'm not so sure.
It's a common theme with political streamers - spout absolute bullshit with confidence, and worse, undeserved smugness. Obviously it fools their entire fan base.
You believed he’d WIN A DEBATE WITH JORDAN PETERSON? I mean…. You can’t blame him for that. The fact you believed that is a result of your own incompetency
@BeanyBabyRabie I believed he could at least stand his ground against him. To be honest, both of them are now equal in their ignorance and more about word salad and adhearing to their own ideology than anything else, so joke's on you, my friend.
People who brag that they're smart very rarely are.
What about people who say they're dumbasses or ignorant about a subject?
Vaush was simply out-classed from the moment his opponent did his opening statement.
Intellectually outpaced
Explain
Vaush and his fans are idiots. No intellectual should waste their time with this clown
@@Sue_Me_Too wooosh fans are everywhere here
I am just glad he is a streamer and not in some career field where "not admitting you could be wrong" might cost lives.
Vaush comes of as that person in philosophy class who when discussion a topic will say shit like "but what is happiness?", derail the whole thing, add zero substance but the teacher somehow still decides to give him an A
They got an A because, depending on the context, that was probably a good question.
Presumably introductory util discussion, if you can't objectively define/quantify the thing we're measuring to guide our ethics that's a big problem on the reliability of our utilitarian calculations.
He would have earned that "A".
All he can do is bullshit.
Bullshit is the bread and butter of philosophers.
Yet Vaush totally shits on so many his guests.
I don't see an issue. We reduce things a ton when discussing them but for you to build something you need extremely specific definitions.
Vaush was the one who stayed on topic and had actual reasons for his positions
I don't know what's better, his blatant sexism, him trying super hard to look like an alpha male, or his smug confidence while being completely wrong.
He's off his rockers
21 people who didn't watch the whole video, lol
@@andrewthetruth ?
Where's the blatant sexism?
@@extremedrumming3393 It’s him using sexist slurs to attack women he don’t like or disagree with and him making sexist jokes all the time. He does not support sexist policies but acts sexist very often anyway
@@dehistoriapisciumfish7639 but where's the sexism in this conversation?
"Everything is a worthless arbitrary social construct" therefore anything I say is true and you cant tell me I'm wrong! I have a feeling Vaush grew up in school thinking he was very intelligent but when he discovered that he actually wasn't very intelligent and scored poorly in every subject, instead of facing reality he constructed a defense mechanism that allows him to keep his 'I'm still smarter than you' identity. He's completely unoriginal, doesn't ever say anything, it's all just word garbage because he has no solid foundation of knowledge. He plays videogames
1:23:42 this part was so f*cking funny because it was PAINFULLY CLEAR that the philosophy guy was trying his best to get Vaush to focus on 'water' as a real thing that exists in the universe, and separate that thing from its definition, and when he just says 'no, I'm, referring to water. The stuff that fills lakes and rivers' I could just feel his disappointment. This guy is great.
It's funny because it encapsulates both how stupid Vaush is and how much stupider his fanbase is. They think feigning (or legitimately) not understanding that water is a physical thing that exists with a definable atomic structure outside of human intervention/definition is a GOOD hot take in a debate.
Holy shit.
@@yagamifire7861 And he just double downed on it on a recent video. Social Constructs are things humans created. The first def of Nature are things found in the natural world not referring to things of human creation which means water, trees, mountains, etc as opposed to religion, law, govt, etc but because language is a social construct because language can change from culture to culture so then water is a social construct because agua? Umm no. Now they are going on about the utility of words.
@@DevinMacGregor doubled down* lol
@@gladedextrose9898 Why is that funny? Vaush not admitting his folly? His confusion over things that exist outside of our definitions?
That is the whole point. What is gender? Is gender under nature def #1, it exists outside of our defining it for our understanding or is it like money, a human fiction, i.e. we made the concept up and differs from society to society.
We already have the words cis and trans so apply them to male or female and we get categories of each. If a woman then is an adult human (cis/trans) female then BAM. The same with man being an adult human (cis/trans) male.
Yet Vaush wants to double down on water, agua, and wasser are all different because one is English, one is Spanish, and one is German when they are all the same fucking thing. smf Then go on about the utility of words? smf x2. Umm, yeah, let us all have our own definitions of words so no one can understand each other and we can win every argument by simply changing what words mean.
The fact he doesn't even know what Twitch is was pretty based to find out, guy is a serious academic
Vaush’s entire argument basically hinges on the idea that things don’t exist because humans have placed definitions on said things. With this line of reasoning you could argue that Gravity doesn’t exist because the word gravity was a definition made up by humans.
Aight guess Imma head out proceeds to float into space.
@@Sue_Me_Too You really said 🤓
I’ve been screaming “gravity doesn’t exist” all day and still can’t fly. Reality is BS
@@Sue_Me_Too Very good, remembering Einstein, but I don't think that you can apply the equivalence principle quite that literally, as in practice there are people on the other side of the planet lol
The much-hated Jordan Peterson has pointed out that progressives tend to have a problem with the idea of rigorous definitions or boundaries, and I've often had the impression that he's correct.
Vaush might be the most unbearable human of all time….then Hasan enters😂
God hasan is just the worst person ever. Sucks too cause I knew bo burnham was a very liberal, but I found out he’s a fan of hasan. That breaks my heart. Inside is a masterpiece
@@Ithaca-vv5dy??? A dude who foi like likes a dude you don't like. So???
The difference, in my opinion, Vaush airs more on the Malice side of Hanlon's razor whereas Hassan is more on the stupidity side
@@ZHike360 Disliking someone for their preferences is not remotely strange. If I had a friend and I later found out they loved the character of Hitler, I would no longer like that friend. Understand?
@@Ithaca-vv5dy Enjoy Bo Burnham for his comedy not his political beliefs. We need to be a lot better about separating the two
Vaush just seems to know his side's beliefs well and holds them dogmatically, but he doesn't seem to realize that they are beliefs, not self-evident truths.
his side doesn't have any beliefs. they're just bitter and miserable because they didn't want to be born.
Its so wierd, i always assumed the more academic titles someone had the more ''intelectual'' and complex they would try to sound, turns out streamerbros speak in way more complex terms than a literal guy with a phd, i feel like i could learn from that guy, while i was struggling to figure out if vaush is saying something or just speaking in circles half the time
Effective speaking is a lot like proper engineering. You want to make it as simple as possible while still accomplishing the task.
When i was in uni , the dumbest people talked in the most complex way. Profs , others spoke in plain language
The smartest people make complex things sound simple. Vaush needs to use a bunch of big words and mental gymnastics to sound intellectual
complexity can be expressed complexly or over-deconstructively and either depends on whether you intend to sound as you base your self-importance around being articulate which may affect external perception in resorting to uncritically attribute associated archetypes or beguiling them if it's inverted. Vaush's pretended complexity is easily identifiable since it aggregates from a simple base into being forcibly circumlocutory, which in his case seems to be more habitually forcible. That said, even being a pseudointellectual such as Vaush, it's required to have intelligence exceeding that of the archetype he's attributed, but in proximity to that of the archetype he futilely intends to come across which is typically an underestimation made by midwits to self-convincingly rationalize a recognized inferiority which by definition Vaush has done even while not being one himself.
That's because Vaush just says a lot of intellectual sounding words in quick succession so that nobody understands what he's saying. So they can't argue against it, and then come to find out it was meaningless statements all along. It takes a higher degree of understanding to talk about a complicated subject so that anybody can understand, than to talk about something to where only people who are in that space can.
As a chemistry student all i can say is that listening to Vaush arguments about elements and periodic table is brain-damaging.
but it's all made up. Humans made them up. I swear.- Vaush logic.
Yup, I wish someone advises him to never go full ret*rd. One of life's great lessons
Biomed undergrad here, and honestly same.
How?
@@drts6955
The part where he argues that it's an arbitrary categorisation to distinguish elements by protons instead of neutrons, how isotopes which are "different" are considered the same element when the amount of neutrons differ but not protons.
The molecular properties of elements is almost uniquely determined by the electrons and protons. The reason is that molecular properties are almost only due to electromagnetic forces which affect charged particles, protons and electrons. Neutrons, have no charge, hence the name. The number of neutrons pretty much only affects how stable an isotope is i.e the time it takes for an element to decay to another element through some decay process.
But no, he just had to say some really ignorant stuff to make whatever point he was so convinced of. And sadly Destiny doesn't seem to know much chemistry/physics either so he didn't catch on and thought Vaush was making a valid point.
If you're curious about the "almost" parts, I'm primarily thinking of macroscopic properties where the ratios of isotopes may have a significant impact. Small atoms where the number of neutrons has a significant impact on the mass of the atom can also have macroscopic effects, but this in no way supports Vaush.
I would genuinely not be surprised if Vaush got an x-ray one day and they found he had no frontal lobe. Dude has 100% confidence and 10% knowledge.
You’re way to generous with the knowledge
I love how this adds to 110% which points to the knowledge part probably being 0% to actually be true
You wouldn't see that on an X ray, you'd need an MRI, MRA or PET scan for that but I get your point 😂
@@Robstrap Damn I goofed
@@Robstrap Vaush actually got an X ray because he changed the meaning to mean MRI, MRA and PET.
You might not think Vaush is an idiot, but Vaush sure goes out of his way to try and prove he is.
"Vaush is fairly intelligent" he's really not, he's the perfect example of an intellectual, who has read up on theories in principle without knowing their actual meaning or method and runs with it like a child with scissors
I've read too much Thomas Sowell that those people scare me.
Diego ironically you're also that guy lmao
@@butter3754 I'll admit I can be a bit of a fanboy. Blind even.
But there's no objective comparison between the intellectual prowess of Vaush and Thomas Sowell, so I'd say I made a safer bet.
Vaush is literally below average IQ. He hears something and then repeats it.
“I don’t like him so I’ve decided he’s not smart”
This is you
I love that Vaush's TH-cam comments think he's a genius and that the trans water thing was brilliant. Even went as far as to say this PhD was just some hog who didn't do any reading this is the bs that happens when you create an echo chamber everyone just ends off worse
It's funny cuz I thought the trans water thing was really dumb. There's a reason heavy water is called heavy water and not water. It's different, it's not the same. By this definition then, if heavy water is trans-water, and we're using "water" as an analogy for "women," then trans-women aren't women.
You know what's sad, this is never going to change, just like you said, I checked his video to see if anyone was calling him out but nope everyone was calling the PhD an idiot and how much they wanted to suck his fighting transphobic d*ck, one thing I noticed tho is that his video actually had a more comments than likes, didn't want to check the dislikes because then TH-cam would recommend vaush's videos and i'm pretty sure the dislikes would be high either
@@fisharepeopletoo9653 You have the same conclusion as Destiny at 1:35:00 but his interpretation was likely bad faith to the point Destiny promoted an illogical position should he apply the same logic universally. I'll explain:
At 1:35:00 Destiny asks if heavy water and water are factually different things? Vaush would presumably say yes to that question as there is a fundamental scientific difference but not to the extent that the socially constructed utility for both can't both be expressed under the term 'water.' Vaush would then presumably say the same is true of cis women and trans women. Yes, there are differences between these people, just as there are for any distinct objects within a set, but there is social utility in calling them both under a shared term.
There's no contradiction between science and what Vaush is describing generally. Destiny's conclusion at 1:35:00 where he suggests the argumentation implies trans women are not women is because of his bad faith rather than his inability to understand. Destiny's bad faith here implies a faulty conclusion where essentially he'd have to believe there shouldn't ever be shared terminology for social utility such that no term that categorizes a set can be used because there are always distinct characteristics among elements within a set.
This example is rather analogous towards gender and sex due to gender being a set of socially constructed identities which are often abstractions from sex. Sex is essentially never used in practicality, despite people often misunderstanding this. We instead constantly utilize assumptions or simplifications on identities that qualify people under those socially constructed viewpoints for the utility of society. We call it gender because nobody in day-to-day life is truly analyzing the causal consequences of the 23 pairs of chromosomes people have towards their conclusions on what a person is. They make assumptions or qualify people as identities based on things like physical characteristics or style, which is ultimately what the term gender expression encapsulates, as well as mentally defined characteristics, such as what the person personally identifies themselves to be within the set of socially constructed identities, if any.
Sorry, if I went over this poorly towards explanation. This isn't my wheelhouse but hopefully you found this helpful.
@@Matt-ov1qp thanks Vaush
@@kattatonic8010 This thread decried "echo chambers" only to embarrass itself by repeating Destiny's embarrassing logic.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't have a background in this topic. My strengths are in tech. I'm just not stupid enough to have dumber people do my thinking for me on topics they clearly don't understand either.
Every time that "Tacoma wept" clip rolls, I remember that Vaush's ego will bait him into the dumbest possible situations, and this is no different. Very excited to see him do the reputation rehab on this one lol. Aqua indeed.
Do some ^*#$ing research. HA!
The guy clearly doesn't touch grass, yet he was saying junk about tinder LOL.
Guys that over compensate by saying stuff like that aren't getting any
Is Vaush saying that he is such a popular streamer, that girls he matches with on tinder recognize him, and want to fuck him? Or is he saying that his game is so strong he doesn’t use his follower count he just straight up pulls women? I wish he’d clarify that
The only sex vaush has is with clout hungry streamers
The thing I've never understood about Transgenders is if someone has gender dysphoria and wants to change genders doesn't that imply that genders are categories? I don't understand the argument that a woman could be this shapeless non descript thing but that someone can transition and become that thing and it is now well defined.
Plenty of trans people just want the characteristics of the sex they're transitioning to and it's not that deep. Don't assume big V represents all of us.
It sounds like you understand them then. It's Vaush who does not understand.
It's similar to race in a sense. *(disclaimer at end) Its a social construct, yes. But you, as an individual, can't change the social construct and all of the connotations and real world effects that it entails just because you, an individual person, say "No. FAKE."
So from the point of view of a person with gender dysphoria they may conceptualize gender as being a social construct the connotations and rules of which are somewhat subject to change (what is expected of men and women). They have traits and desires that go against society's rules and expectations of their gender. They may very well wish that these things would change in order to include traits of their identity within the gender they were assigned at birth. However they know that those rules and assumptions are not going to change in the way they want in their lifetime, if ever.
So realistically they are left with the choice of continuing to present and live as the gender they were born as, or try to instead live as the other gender for which ,they feel, the societal rules and expectations more closely align with their own identity traits and desires. Perhaps they think this way people might allow them to live in such a way as rhey want more easily without so much confusion and derision. I don't know. Obviously trans people are dtill the subject of quite a bit of confusion and derision so its debatable if that really works. But if they did all of those same stereotypically womanly things and called themselves a man would there be any less confusion and animosity?
*I would argue that its a little bit different because there really are more fundamental differences between men and women when it comes to psychology and differences that will always affect personality and societal roles. Not so much between people with different skin colors or facial features. Im not sure the social construct of gender can or should ever be done away with, but the particulars can change.
@@LiamSmith-r3p Thank you for an intellectually honest and genuine response. I will consider this and get back to you with a response.
when you can follow what a dude with a phd in philosophy is saying better than a dude that makes a living talking to a wide audience on the internet during a debate I think you can conclude right away who is trying to have an honest debate and who is trying to just get a "gotcha moment"...
when you can't agree on the basics of the language you're communicating in then you can't even debate
Yeah I was saying similar in another comment. When I listen to people argue a position, I always try to determine are they speaking in a way to clarify and describe reality? Or are they speaking in a way that's vague and obfiscates reality. The former is someone arguing in good faith (Doesn't mean their argument is correct, just that they used logic to get there.) The second is someone who has chosen a belief based on emotional reasons, or because perhaps those around them hold that belief, and they are working backwards from already having a belief and trying to make logical claims for it. Vaush is clearly the latter in this case.
@@Tekner436
This is what Vaush does all the time in order to “debate” he just breaks down the language enough to where he effectively begins speaking an entirely different language and then acts like he’s smarter than the other person because they aren’t as much of a sophist as he is.
Most people would be surprised how much clearer the known "difficult" philosophers are if you actually read the material. I think a key example, that's all over Vaush here, is that Quine has transcripts that are in perfectly clear basic language from chats you can still watch but he does not speak well at all in the actual videos with all of the same words. The flip side, to use someone else you can just watch, is Foucault. I just have to believe it's deliberate obtuseness in interviews on that one.
Vaush always used big words in order for his followers to think he was a good debater.
Go back and listen to all of his debates. He always does this.
Glad someone picked up on it.
I agree with Destiny that Vaush’s every word is carefully constructed to piss Destiny off as much as possible
The rants where Vaush just describes himself perfectly, proudly declaring to everyone that he hates people who act like him. That they should never be taken seriously. We know, Vaush. We know.
The only thing Vaush does well in a debate setting is he knows how to use his voice. He has a nice bass and he has almost no verbal ticks whatsoever. Which is impressive and I'm willing to acknowledge the training he had to go through to master that. That is the one and only compliment I'm willing to give to Vaush. With that said he relies wholly on his vocal abilities as a sort of smoke and mirrors to mask the gaping flaws in all his arguments.
I disagree with you that that's the only good thing about his debate tactics but I'll say that the voice thing is even more impressive considering he's autistic.
He should settle for voice overs
Yeah, when I first heard him he sounded relatively logical and along my political lines (I'm socialist) but when I took the time to consider what he was saying I realised he was as dumb as the Ben Shapiro types who charismatically spout bs
💯 get pass his tone and voice and many of his followers have become dumber for having to listen and eat up what he delivers.
ur gay man
Ive never seen someone so heinously and incorrectly abuse the word "arbitrary".
Arbitrary use of the word perhaps?
@@superhamz7 xd
Triggers the hell out of me when people misuse the word arbitrary.
@@Twistedhippy that's a pretty arbitrary thing to get triggered over
Wdym? He’s ameliorating the use of the word so that it’s supererogatory
Vaush is performing excellent sophistry, he's playing that game of "if i can't win then I'll stalemate". You can't win against vaush because while he appears to be playing chess, he's actually playing checkers.
He's not interested in truth just optics, so if you play the optics game, then truth doesn't matter just how it looks, if you try to actually debate with him about truth he will confuse and stalemate mate you until everyone gives up.
Moral of the story, he's not an honest actor
he’s interested in truth when he’s right on something, but when he’s not, you get this kind of gas lighting the entire debate. He basically changed the subject and ran the clock out.
I think you can just dismiss most of what he says.
Vaush: we made language, we should use it responsibly.
Also vaush: the definition of a woman is someone who is a woman
Unfortunately this is the logic people use in this argument. When the simple truth is the definition of a woman is pretty obvious and agreed upon by probably 86% of the planet yet we have this idiotic, circular debate by people who can't accept what they are. If you have a vagina you're a woman because that is the accepted definition by the majority of people.
Non-English speakers don't have water.
@@jeremias-serus Mexico has aqua. It's only your perception that it's agua. *strokes beard*
The definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in god
The definition of theist is someone who does believe in a god
The definition of a nonbinary person is someone who does not believe that they are any gender
The definition of woman is someone who believes that they are a woman
The definition of a man is someone who believes that they are a man
@@coppermoth6069 I can't tell if this is a troll or not
The most ironic thing is when people, like Vaush, think they are mentally superior to others & refer to them as “pseudo intellectuals”, then get absolutely bodied in a debate. If he had a clone of himself that held the opposite of every opinion he had, he would hate it. Can’t stand these types of people. “I’m smarter than you because your opinions are wrong & mine are right” energy.
Can anyone expand on how he lost this debate? Serious question, im not that familiar with vaush or who this professor is but apparently everyone here seems to hare him. I watched the whole debate and while there were a few optically bad points like the delivery of the aqua argument, nothing here struck as me as egregiously wrong
@@Runthemjewelsdo you also not know what a woman is?
@@Jeremy-wp4yhyou dont know what a woman is.
@@KirkirPL tell me, what is a woman?
@@Jeremy-wp4yh a person who has an internal, deeply held sence of being such? And what is the right answer?
Fun fact regarding 3:01:11. Before a scientist called Mendeleev came along, the periodic table wasn't organised. He ordered it by atomic weight and grouped them according to properties. Vaush going on about chemistry is infuriating for this reason. Nobel gasses are grouped because their outer orbital is full, and thus they are completely inert. Group 1 elements are grouped because they have only one electron in their outer shell, and are thus extremely reactive. They aren't grouped arbitrarily, this guy is just a moron.
Wanta have your mind blown?
Noble gases are *not inert.*
Go look up how hard it is to store liquid argon. You would think something able to store the non-noble gas, nitrogen, as a liquid would be more than enough to store a lower density liquid that doesn't need to be kept as cold, but you'd be very wrong.
Having *low* chemical reactivity in standard atmospheric conditions does not mean having low chemical reactivity, and it certainly doesn't mean it is inert.
@@ASDeckard 🤯
@@ASDeckardIt's inert at STP and that's all that matters and you know it. Don't pretend to be stupid.
Im amazed at how little shame vaush has spouting out nonsensical philosophy terms and word salad to someone with a PHD in philosophy to avoid admitting water exists and has existed before humans.. I just couldn't do it.
I could feel the mass genocide of brain cells going on in my skull 💀.....
It's disheartening to think that this guy has a huge following and is considered by some as a big intellectual figure in the political space
@@srijanagrawal255 I used to watch vaush quite a bit and he's not always bad, but he just will never admit to being wrong on anything. needs a little humility.
he knows he's doing mental gymnastics
sometimes seeing someone completely wrong is funny, but the second hand embarrassment I got from this was just waaaay too much. This was hard to sit through
3:06:26 Aliens: "Hello Vaush. We have traveled across galaxies to discuss gender with you."
Vaush: "A questionable premise on it's face, but I must ask for reasons of my own edification: how did you achieve interstellar travel?"
Aliens: "We grouped things by texture."
I wish the philosopher didn’t let Vaush get stuck on a point so much. He should’ve at least 6 times said “wait let me just finish this point”
I gotta be honest, hearing the same arguments that most moderate/center people were making about gender and sex that were dismissed as bigoted 5 years ago be difficult for today's left to wrap their heads around is unbelievably frustrating.
It's like the left is relearning what gender roles previously were and are finally realizing that "gender" is just a synonym for "gender role."
The idea that the sexes determine how you ought to behave is what was fought against for so long and succeeded in. Girls didn't have to be girly to be Girls. Boys didn't have to be boyish to be boys. Girls could enjoy football, boys could enjoy dolls, everything was fine.
But the latest update to gender ideology has decided that the sexes MUST behave or feel a certain way and that ANY deviation from the stereotype is an example of being trans.
I'm glad that destiny finally caught on but good lord, we could've avoided 5 years of unironically reinforcing gender stereotypes if this weren't such an issue back then.
Yeah it's kind of sad that tomboy is now a "trans positive" stereotypes when it's clearly not. It's like feminism just straight up died in favor of trans agenda, leaving even more chauvinism to be had.
Look, it's progress but in swirls not lines.
Truth, so many people "forgot" their own talking points like it didn't happen. They're now actively erasing ANYTHING in the middle as trans especially for young girls. Since women still fetishize "softbois", yet little Sarah like hot wheels she MUST BE A BOY...
Watching these mooks accept what they once reviled is a total trip that's for sure.
It only took sterilizing a couple of unwell kids. Progress!
I don't think Destiny is braindead enough to use the term "gender ideology" unironically.
Vaush effectively conceded the debate in his open statement. His argument was that we need to change the definition to include transwomen in order to prevent harm, if your position is that the current definition needs to change you essentially admitted that by today's standards transwomen are not in fact women.
Im not so sure about that. If I said, something like, “men’s rights are human rights” have I admitted that “men” are not “human”?
Seems that the statement “trans-women are women” is saying that trans-women are part of the larger category “woman”.
Wuddaya think?
@@MrJustSomeGuy87 No, Men are roughly half of the population so yes their rights are human rights. Transpeople ironically have ALL the same rights men and women have. The problem is the current growing pains and people clearly abusing their "minority" status. All to make it seem like this VERY small aspect of the population should come before more dire problems like homelessness, economy, education and healthcare system. IF we focused on those four problems a lot of "trans-issues" would be solved as well.
Sometimes to help the small you need to focus on bigger problems.
@@MrJustSomeGuy87 It is disanalogous, "Men" are understood to be a part of the category "human". Vaush's argument is that we need to redefine the terms for better utility (harm reduction in this case) to include transwomen into the category "women", by making this argument he has already conceded that currently the way the term is used is excludes them from the category, hence the reason why it should change.
@@MrJustSomeGuy87 Just to make it clear
Question : Is water a solid?
Vaush answer : Well if you expand the definition of solid to encompass anything that takes up physical space, then yes.
Expanding the definition means that the current definition of the word is not applicable to the subject, meaning water is not a solid unless the expand the definition. Apply the same logic to Vaush's answer to "Transwomen are women" and you can see that he shoots himself in the foot in the opening statement.
@@ExeErdna trans people are a marginalized group. They do not in fact have equal treatment in society.
You’ve lost the argument when you can’t answer yes to “Is water h2o?”
Bro said D20 isn't water when it's literally called "Heavy Water" 💀
@@lincabe321the funny thing is that he's technically correct. D2O possess different quality than H2O that allows it to be used as a radio-analysis thingy. The problem is that there's no reason to distinguish it for any other reason and whatever concentration of D2O in the water is ignored because it behave the same way H2O does.
@@akuakkk1908D20 is not water. That’s why we make a distinction. Go ahead and drink a few glasses of D20 and tell me if it’s “water”.
@@bw2020 Many people HAVE drunken it, so many in fact that we know it is "sweeter" and there is ZERO detrimental affects. It is NOT radioactive. The ONLY issue with it is the individual may get dizzy for a short period. . . until you drink MORE. Can you live on it . . ? Would like cause issues. . But you CAN drink a few glasses with ZERO real issues.
It IS water. We make the distinction ONLY because in chemistry it is important. In nearly EVERY other aspect it is not important.
@@aquaticaaficionado2004 heavy water is water EXCEPT (insert exception). So fine, a trans woman is a woman EXCEPT (insert exception). So are you happy with that statement then?
Vaush helped me identify a tactic that drives me up a wall. He associates a train of thought he's arguing against with something like fascism or something else objectively evil to paint his opponents ideas as in line with other ideas while never addressing the points made in front of him. So many of these political streamers are too concerned with optics and not intellectual integrity. His voice makes him appear intelligent but I know pseudo intellectuals like him and debating them is like falling into a k hole of long words and meaningless metaphor.
Have you ever read the Communist Handbook? It expressly states this and promotes this as a viable tactic to use against political adversaries.
Maybe if you people didn't constantly deliberately imply that people are racist their fascist and use that as your own form of derailment.
That is a classic radical move (regardless of political inclination). Paint your opponent as evil and wrong and then clobber them with half-truths, cherry-picked evidence and rhetoric. Job done, and Vaush's audience prooves it.
@@jakublulek3261 although ironically radical refers to left-wingers
His voice definitely does not make him appear intelligent lmao
Every time I watch a Vaush debate I walk away having learned nothing and feeling like no ground has been gained in any direction. It is always and only intellectual dishonesty baked in disingenuous rebuttal. Why do I waste life on this?
Because it's fun to see him make an ass of himself.
While bad vowsh does a hell of a job to fight actual fascist and putin supporters, thus pulling a lot of disengaged, fooled or centrist people, good lefties are engaged in a useless echo chamber which inspires nobody except them
Imagine saying this in a destiny comments section lol
@@TheBigJConTH-cam Yeah, imagine saying true things in a comments section.
any intelligent communicator understands the wisdom of "why use big word when small word do trick" - being able to simplify your thoughts is a skill that makes for efficient and accessible communication. if you're secure in what you have to say, and understand it well enough, you shouldn't need to couch it in sophisticated language. you should be able to explain it in a way that a middle schooler could grasp easily. yet vaush seems to think that the more verbose he gets, the smarter it makes him look. which is why he speaks the way he does. all his rhetorical flourishes are really just fireworks shows that conceal a total lack of substance. it's a way to make himself sound smarter and more authoritative when really there's nothing there at all except sophistry and pedantry. not to mention he barely has a layman's understanding of almost all the issues he has no problem pontificating about on stream with utmost confidence. he's a total fraud
nice meme
@@cuylerbrehaut9813 thank you
Fools speak of simple matters in esoteric terms.
The wise speak of esoteric matters in simple terms.
its actually the same with jordan peterson lol
@@radscorpion8 Yes
As a PhD chemist, this debate hurt my soul
As a master of marine chemistry with a focus in isotopes, listening to them talk about water as an element, not knowing what a compound is, deuterium, isotopes means having an extra electron or proton, made me die internally. I wish they wouldn't use an example they have no clue about...
@@partypete5672 Tomas repeatedly said that water isn't an element, and only referred to water as an element when talking about how Aristotles described it.
As a pre-med student it hurt me. Vaush graduated from college right?? The adding/subtracting protons changes the element, adding/subtracting electrons makes an ion, and adding/subtracting neutrons changes the isotope of the element is something you learn in freshman chemistry that is review from high school chemistry.
gimme money bro
to be wicked is to intertwine truths and falsities PERPOSEFULLY in order to get what you want. Vaush does just that in order to win a debate. He constantly dances around like a little magical gnome between entirely separate ways of thinking. Whether it be within the context of chemistry, biology, gender theory/expression, linguistics.. this guy is truly an amazing spectacle. I'm glad he spent his energy in the realm of streaming instead of other things like politics or serial killing
edit: knock on wood.
The cope in vaush’s comment section of this debate is insane
Am I crazy in looking at his comment sections + subreddit and getting a weird parasocial almost culty vibe from a large chunk of his fanbase?
Certainly that's always going to be an issue _to a certain extent_ with debate bro streamers, but it seemed excessive even by those standards last I checked.
Irony
@@darkrider962 I think it's a combo of his audience being filled with young and very impressionable people wanting a place and community to belong to (hence the culty and parasocial behavior)
@@markusmellert5421 Yeah, school being kinda out now they can watch these whole dumpster fire debates as people like Vaush is clearly losing his mind. While his cultist simply clap and cope.
@@darkrider962 woke shit is a cult /religion , so yea of course they act like they are in a cult
jordan peterson talking about archetypes after having studied jung extensively for decades: SOOYYYYYYYYY
vaush talking about the archetypes he pulled out of his ass: GIGABASED
You can bash them both but atleast Jordan got his from somebody not completely retarded.
TH-cam won't let me see the other reply.
@@mahlawn2808 me neither
@@mmeditatio I can bet sometime in the future TH-cam might just disable replies entirely.
The “Agua” argument genuinely sounds like a Jesse Lee Peterson argument, this is absolutely absurd
@@HaraQuinn what about dos dihydrogenagua? Checkmate dgg
Amazin’
Isn’t it a moderators job to keep debates on topic? Why do none of these internet moderators ever do that? They just sit back let shit get derailed and nothing productive ever comes out of the debates. 👏
“My belief in the value of a definition is not determined by consistency…”
Oh Vaush, we know that, sweetie.
He literally said both 'all these definitions are inconsistent' and 'I don't think the self ID view and the social role view are inconsistent' within about 1 Min of each other.
As soon as they mentioned TRANS WATER I mentally checked out of this debate.
Would trans-water be water with flavoring?
@@darkhero352 Trans water is water that identifies and presents itself as a solid or a gas.
@@counselorguy5481 ice
@@chochoproductions5720 🤔
Vaushs body is made up of 75% trans water
In response to 47:00, I feel like changing the definition of "woman" and "man" to mean "someone who behaves in a stereotypical fashion," DOES cause harm to almost everyone in society. Because the more this view takes hold, the harder it will be for people (our kids and grandkids) to deviate from stereotypes without feeling the pressure to transition. If we want harm reduction we need to destroy sex stereotypes, not put them on a pedestal.
This has always been a glaring contradiction in leftist views on gender.
What I've been saying forever. Bruh.
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 I mean fundamentally the big question is whether people truly have an internal perception of gender. Because many progressives will say there are two things 1. Socially constructed gender and 2. Internal perception. What this does is essentially eliminate any notion of gender since it can be individually defined 💀 making gender a completely useless word. They give so much importance to gender yet pull the rug out whenever they need to 😂😂
Referring to the collection of traits qualities and tendencies as well as physical attributes as just sex stereotypes is incredibly productive
This is nonsense as well woman and man have different roles in society because of their biology, and if you’re too stupid to figure that out as the men who literally built every society in the world for all time
I have never been more defeated than trying to be a philosopher in graduate school. The utter soul crushing difficulty it takes to be a PhD in philosophy is mind blowing. They are at the top of my respec-totem-pole
@@user-vq2lp2fk4bwhat would you say is the most difficult PhD in your experience
@@natetollett5515trying to fit 25 hr workdays in a normal day 🥲
What does one do with a degree in philosophy? Teach philosophy? Lol
@@TheStonedHermit make approximately 20$ a year
@@TheStonedHermit I asume they just think about thinks real loud while shaking a cup aroumd a train
Vaush says he uses "parallel arguments."
and everyone else uses "whataboutism."
2:25:47 "At the end of the day, the biological argument on [sex] has been more or less settled" Vaush was so correct, just not at all in the way he thought he was.
Every time he and his ilk go “aDvAnCeD bIoLoGy” I can’t help but think… if your “advanced biology” fundamentally contradicts high school biology, then you’re peddling pseudoscience. Basic and intermediate biology lay the foundation for advanced biology, they don’t teach some insanely different things.
Vaush has to change his name to Wooosh after this.
“Water is not water so you’re wrong” is the best argument ever 😂
It really does feel crazy how much Vaush has changed. In the past he would regularly do research streams or bring on expert guests. He talked about how note-taking is basically an auto-win in debates. He didn't mute himself to talk to chat during debates. And he barely ever made reference to being pro-gun where it feels like it is a constant now.
Vaush is basically Hasan lite.
@@donaldthompson6808 As much as I am not a fan of that idea, considering his goal of shifting to being a video game streamer that casually mentions politics... The comparison is growing more apt.
He's kind of stagnating in sub growth atleast. That explains the recent spike in Vaush's craziness.
I remember when he tried to do a research stream on hindu fascism. He opened the wikipedia page of the RSS, mumble read the page until he got to the part about Gandhi's assassination. Then he said something like "yikes", opened the page of Nathuram Godse, and mumble read the intro. Finally, he says something like " That was a good research stream chat" and ends the video. What an intellectual powerhouse!
the not muting while the other is talking thing is so f*ing disrespectful.
He is sniping at words and poisoning the well.
It shows all he cares about is his audience listening to his words but not the response.
Man, this is the definition of, destroyed with facts and logic.
As an actual philosophy person (didn't get my PhD though) it is painful to listen to Vaush talk. He doesn't stick to a position - he seemingly tries to hold all these contradictary positions which create blatant problems with other positions he argues and it honestly makes me confused as to why people listen to him (Not a regular watcher - so I don't know his appeal.). Is he really interesting knowledgeable on other topics? I, also, can't imagine taking someone seriously who does no debate prep. (I don't agree with Dr Bogartus position btw)
The main reason I am commenting is to answer Destiny @1:57:10 - Philosophers, in general, let a lot of ideas slide that are challengable/weak in conversations/debates simply in an effort to stay on topic. Most often when people critique the discussions afterwards, in writing, those points are thoroughly addressed. The reason for the attempt to stay on topic is the endeavour to make progress on the thing being discussed. In this instance to start talking about whether "all definitions are prescriptive" is 1. Pertinent, but 2. Surely, a path to a long conversation that steers far away from the intended topic which is what most people watching/listening to would like to hear about. For anyone interested, a good example of how this can lead to a frustrating/boring debate for the casual listener is Ed Feser and Graham Oppy, on whether there are any good arguments for God. While interesting to me on a technical level, they go down a rabbithole of what is an argument, what makes a good argument, which many find off putting. And trust me a PhD philosopher can do this on so many seemingly innocuous points, that you will never progress haha, but it oftimes doesn't serve the discussion.
What I would personally try to do differently, is to more strongly point out areas of disagreement, or that are contentious which we could explore given time, but then focus on the topic at hand. It is of course difficult to do in real time, and it is clear a few times that Bogartus does make certain statements to that effect - for example, earlier stating that he would attempt to focus on the correct line of critique. How effectively that comes across to the listener/watcher is a different matter. Anyways, enjoyed your commentry :)
Edit: Oh almost forgot - at one point you ask/ponder about the simplicity of his writing and question the standard of ideas in philosophy (maybe philosophy of gender, given the what your read from Bogartus) - fun philosophy fact - a lot of the reputation that philosophy has for these obscure and hard to follow texts and writings dates back to Kant. His writing was exceptionally complicated, and it kicked of a tradition for a long while especially in the German and French schools of philosophy to create these complex works in order meet some rigorous standard. Hegel actually wrote much of his works in a much more simplified manner than what most people are tasked with slogging through when they go to Uni. But in order to be taken seriously at the time he needed to complexify that shit up haha. Most philosophical writing before Kant is actually fairly understandeable and there has been a movement by some in recent years to get away from needless layers of difficulty often used. Of course some ideas cannot be expressed so simply, but a fair amount can.
Regarding the last point, a person without any Philosophical background can read Plato, and then just jump to Kant, and I guarantee one will feel like watching the first and the last episode of 20 season soap opera. While the style of Kant was unarguably influenced by his contemporary tendencies, it's also worth to mention that philosophical language was so weighted by historical background that it was also kinda natural for Kant to write in that sense. I wholeheartedly think that Philosophy and Science (tbh any branch of any field) should be written in a way that any person could understand the writing, but at the same time I have come to the understanding that the scope of terms that are essential for the topic and the nuance they possess are very detrimental to how understandable the writing can be. I'm Philosophy grad myself, and I have noticed that whenever I discuss some metaphysical staff, people usually think that I tend to overcomplicate my explanations just by using terms like being and becoming. Those are some very basic philosophical concepts that are hardly problematic in understanding as terms, but my friends often struggle to comprehend the meaning behind the sentence wherein I use those terms. And that's understandable, because I struggled when I was studying them, it's just I get used to them. Imo same goes when one reads Kant, if you are familiar with historical background of The Critique of Pure Reason, you are more used to the language Kant uses. While when you read Plato, there is no much historical background, at least in the sense that philosophical language could have been formed, and therefore the understanding comes much easier. But from then philosophy in its language slowly becomes more and more complicated, where as reading Neoplatonic texts are a bit more struggling, and Scholastic texts even more complicated and early enlightenment even more and so on and on. Exception exist of course (Descartes' meditations are quite a good example here) but I can clearly see the overall standard and its historical necessity.
@@donchuko7886 Great comment :)
Just wanted to say fuck hegel. He ruined my life. My degree literally tanked because of that one man.
Yeah its genuinelly painfull and disturbing, like i could probably watch some dark shit and be unphased by it, but vaush just makes my mind have existencial terror instantly. Almost like existence itself is castrated and distorted
This, (the last reference to Kant) is funny to me, because also as a philosophy person I never found Kant as difficult as the Germans that followed on using him as a base. I find that most Philosophy, even in text, is easier than most people think it should be. A lot of the more incomprehensible texts have the problem of containing words they are assigning new meanings to. Words that are in a language that BBC
is not the one it is currently being read in.
I'm going to be real, I've seen Vaush talk about a lot of things and I don't get how Destiny can view him as "fairly intelligent". This isn't at all out of the ordinary for him, debating someone with formal education or proper expertise on a topic and showing up completely unprepared saying random shit that doesn't even make sense. I would argue you can't be considered to have a certain level of intelligence doing shit like that on the daily but I guess what do I know? Guy seems flat out stupid to me...
Maybe it's just insanity, because a lot of insane people are intelligent? Vaush being fairly intelligent seems to be a pretty good description considering he didn't do any prep for this debate & still managed to convince some of his audience that he not only won but he destroyed this guy. I personally think he's intelligent but I also think he's arrogant, irrational and lazy. I've always agreed with the saying "hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard." I honestly believe Vaush is talented at TH-cam debates, but obviously this PHD streamer was way above his league and made him look like a bumbling idiot because Vaush did absolutely no preparation & is a bad faith, lazy douchebag.
You're confusing intelligence with having correct, reasoned beliefs. Vaush is intelligent enough to fool people into watching his content which allows him to earn an income from constantly lying. That's not something everyone can do.
I take exception to Mr. Doctor, PhD.
I identify as delusional. Therefore, Vaush is correct. And by necessary extension, the doctor lost, objectively.
You did it!
Can't we just say that trans women are trans women. They are not exactly the same as a woman who is born a woman. Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be trans...they would just be women.
It doesn't mean we can't respect how people want to live their lives and call them a woman if that's what they want.
There are issues in certain areas, like in sport for example. Which can be discussed and dealt with.
The whole argument just seems completely stupid and unnecessary to me. People are trying to argue that we MUST define trans women and women as the same even though they are obviously not.
you know ... for many years as a trans girl im trying to say. we are a third gender, with social markers at the nearest biological one..cause thats what weve got for now.
You can blame esoteric gender theory in postmodernist academia for that. Most people are totally fine with other people identifying as whatever they want. Its when you start playing God in a sandbox with linguistics, trying to shape everyone else's reality, that you run into problems.
No. A trans woman is a trans woman. It's okay to be trans, but that doesn't mean we have to change definitions and language to suit other people's lifestyles.
I guess the way I've always understood this linguistics argument it is that we don't feel it necessary distinguish with most other categories of differences between women, so why trans? We can just refer to a black woman as a woman, and nobody has an issue. We can refer to a deaf woman as a woman and nobody has an issue. Yes, the black women and deaf women belong to a separate category of women, but they are still women. Same with trans women.
Seems like it's right there in the words we use. But apparently it's an issue.
@@paulybeefs8588 Well when discussing issues that are exclusively faced by one of those groups, only referring to them as women implies that all women categorically face that issue.
"I think I've outpaced him... linguistically." - Vaush at the end of this Debate
I watched all the way to the end, and that did become a version of skepticism for the sake of skepticism. Question everything, as they say. I have an idea for that- and this is not my own idea, I did see someone do this in a different discussion. I think it's a good one, though.
When you run into someone that really loves to question everything (for the sake of doing it) encourage that person to go ahead and do that on principle. But also, very early in the process, ask this person at what point they are willing to accept answers. This sort of person very often asks all of these questions and then congratulates themselves when they pick apart all of the answers and finds them lacking. This is, very often, a predetermined outcome that comes with the territory. So before they can even get all the way into that, tell them to go ahead and ask the questions but also give you an idea of the parameters within which they are willing to accept answers.
Most people who "question everything" aren't entirely ready for that question, but I do think it's a worthwhile question that truly helps people to form their thoughts and go through the process in a better way. It's a tough question that requires quite a bit of thought, but I don't think it owns the person or makes them look silly. Quite frankly, they would look silly if they refuse to engage with it. I think it's one of the best questions that you can ask in this situation because it truly helps both people while precluding a time-wasting and probably zero-sum type of discussion. I wish I could remember exactly who I saw that did this- it may have been Peter Boghossian but I'm not totally sure on that.
Vaush was stroking his beard to help counteract the response from his Limbic system on account of his anxiety upon hearing that his opponent was well qualified and well researched/informed.
I've seen that happen a lot on this channel; the debate opponents Destiny invites on often become instinctually frazzled when they find out he has a girl's name.
"Cause that would mean you could get pregnant with yourself, which would be fucking based". I burst out laughing at Destiny's revelation of his deepest life goals.
another banger steven(you make these videos specifically for ME!)
how can they be for you when they slide right into my feeeeed?
@@jjoonathan7178 he just lets us watch it too
I do watch both you and Vaush (though admittedly more of you at the minute). I like when there is disagreement as it helps me more actively examine both positions and consider my own thoughts about it.
The lake comeback was a typical Vaush optical trick that doesn't hold up. It's true that there are a lot of things IN a lake. Fish are IN lakes, dirt is IN lakes, etc. If you remove any of those things you still have a lake, but if you remove water you no longer have a lake for those things to be in. I'm high and Vaush's professional obtuseness is mind numbing.
You can take all the water out of a lake but it will still be a lake as long as you have aqua.
@@Puzzlesocks shit, I guess you got me there
At best you could call it a dry lake bed. Which just means water was there at one time but is not now.
water is the only thing that isn't just contained within, but *fills* any term used for a body of water.
You don't actually have a lake if Vaush just decides he is going to define it differently. But if you ask for that definition he'll say it's all arbitrary. Madness.
Think it's fair to say that Vaush is just a bullshitting nihilist.
The h2o bit was basically what u described when mentioning Vaush often misses which level of a thing is being discussed
Until destiny came to understand the level at the end of the video, lol
Why does Vaush's community use the term "gaslighting" so excessively? It has a very specific definition - not just "whenever someone tries to convince me of something I disagree with".
I think people like to latch onto new words and phrases and they inevitably get run into the ground. For example, literally and touch grass.
Makes it easier to attribute malice without outright stating it. “I don’t believe him” or “I think he’s lying” just doesn’t have the same oomph
It's because if you're a sophist, and youre also the architect of a far left echo chamber, you have to use big words that you don't know the meaning of to remain in a position where you can delude yourself into believing that you've "intellectually outpaced" everyone. It's the exact same shit when he uses the word "arbitrary" incorrectly over and over again. It's almost like he thinks using the word arbitrary over and over again makes his point more valid, when in reality, it's just nonsense mixed into a fucked up blender filled with word salad and a thesaurus.
@@wolfmayner6274 yeh i thought about adding that in there ahaha. three letters is too few for these idiots. Theyve never heard of the gift of brevity lmao
@@wolfmayner6274 your comment is 100% on point! I find that alot of people in this audience also use alot of word salad too. I mean, nothing wrong with a wide range of vocabulary and the use of it but it becomes comical when there is meaningful substance or valid point behind it.
Yeah taking notes in a debate or heated argument can help ALOT. Not only can it help you keep your thoughts straight, it can serve to keep you from being leashed and led around by the emotions of who your are debating
Vaush thinks he's exceptionally smart because he has a worldview that nothing is real and no truth can ever be nailed down, and because of this he can never be wrong. Also his constant fiddling with his beard is infuriating. He cant go 5 seconds without grabbing it.
I think being a skeptic isn't unreasonable and probably better than what most people do but it certainly looks like crap in this video as he didn't prepare at all and is just incoherently rambling and constantly contradicting himself.
"Also his constant fiddling with his beard is infuriating. He cant go 5 seconds without grabbing it."
It is extremely annoying. He thinks it makes him appear smart.
He's autistic and it's called stimming glad to see destiny's community is still ablist.
@@NomadFlowor it's stimming from his autism, ablist destiny community 🎉.
cry@@averyarp7901
Woman: adult human female
Trans woman: adult human male who consents to being perceived as a woman
The confidence he has to say that about his dating life when he looks like that is amazing
Vaush says he excels in public speaking, and yet he has no charisma and is exceedingly boring. He always has to revert to word salad
The water argument is baseline philosophy. It is what I was taught in introductory philosophy. The fact that vaush can't engage with this is comical.
People in introductory philosophy don't understand that definitions are conventions? That's all Vaush is saying.
@@koalabandit9166 Yes definitions are conventions, used to refer to things that exist in the real world (like water for example). That's all the philosophy guy is saying
@@burt591 Well, sometimes they exist in the real world, like water. Other times, they don't, like leprechaun. Other times, they do, but the specifics of what they actually are depend on cultural factors, like king. Other times, it's debatable whether they exist, like the number 5. Other times, they may exist, like ET. And so on. And in all those times, what you are actually referring to depends on the definition you are using.
@@koalabandit9166 Yes, I agree with all that
@@burt591 Great, then Vaush said nothing controversial. The philosophy guy seems to think he's saying that "everything is subjective" and accuses him of "post-modernism" lol apparently he never heard of realism and nominalism. Not that he'd need to, what Vaush is saying is perfectly clear and is simply a point about how language works. On that point, Vaush is correct (whatever one may think of his views on everything else).
Vaush literally says at one point that it doesn’t matter if a definition is accurate in portraying reality it only matters if it fits his idea “moral”. Argument is over at that point.
Agreed. Conversation was utterly pointless. Vaush's prescriptive utility drivel was essentially him saying 'just trust me bro'. He's a clown.
When did he say that? Im new to him but he seems like a sophist. Its crazy how you can follow a philospher clearer than a youtuber
@@keep3alini664
Watch him debate right wingers and tankies. It's worth it, even if you disagree with his gender takes. He has pulled many people to the left, because he indeed is not a sophist.
I listened to a few takes of him about this gender thing: Every time I listened, he was not talking about changing definitions like "biologically female" or "- male". That would be idiotic.
It's about gender, which is socially constructed and arbitrary as far as I understand.
That's the point: Using language in such a way as to refer to gender, a thing that is socially constructed anyway.
a definition being "accurate in portraying reality" doesn't make sense. you can't make up a definition that doesn't portray anything real, and something is either real or not real. a definition can't portray something in a "more real" way than another. and if you think socially constructed things aren't "real", then the only "accurate definitions" would be those of quarks and electrons.
Can I just say...... it is nice seeing more people with academic backgrounds debate and discuss things. I mean...... the guy had a powerpoint ready.
That's how you know he's not worth taking seriously. Like this isn't a freshman course. People love weaponizing people fresh out of academia though. Any other day people would be laughing at a philosophy degree.