PLEASE HELP ME COVER THE COSTS OF TRAINING FOR MY UPCOMING SHOWDOWN WITH ANDREW TATE: 💰 PATREON | www.patreon.com/jacksaint 🔴 TH-cam | th-cam.com/channels/dQKvqmHKe_8fv4Rwe7ag9Q.htmljoin (Get special privileges like early access content, exclusive videos, q&as, private community discord and more) 👛 ONE-TIME TIPS @ ko-fi.com/lackingsaint One night, while innocently pressuring teens to kiss eachother on a livestream, Andrew Tate was ambushed by radical marxist Hasan Piker about his opinions on woman drivers. Soon after, for unrelated reasons, Tate was banned from most social media platforms. Jack tries to put the pieces together. Check out Thought Slime and Sophie From Mars' deep dive into the world of Andrew Tate: th-cam.com/video/ZmwbdX0gKoc/w-d-xo.html Richard Rorty on Pragmatism & Truth: th-cam.com/video/COyu-8-FW8Q/w-d-xo.html ✍ TWITTER @ twitter.com/lackingsaint 🎥 TWITCH @ www.twitch.tv/lacksaint 📱 TIKTOK @ www.tiktok.com/@jacksaintreal 👥 PUBLIC DISCORD @ discord.gg/BjVfT4JR66
@@thugstin6429 he'd look real menly beating a disabled man. and anybody with gun or other such long ranged weapon could beat him. real hard to bob and weave against the ancient art of bullet to dome.
@@robdye5885 not sure if sarcastic. it's not even something i had to really research it's something he doesn't really shut the hell up about so i just kindaconnected the dots on.
Man should stop being lazy and just drive himself. Or maybe don’t ride with the same reckless woman, cuz I doubt he lets multiple women drive him around enough to have enough evidence to support his assertion.
@@ma.2089 Its also entirely possible that he was the cause of those crashes in the first place, considering he's the only known common factor between all of them.
I've only been in one serious crash, got rear ended at a red light so hard my car was totalled. Guess who was driving the other car? A man. That's it, we need to make it illegal for men to drive! Fuck off with your statistics that say "most men won't rear end you at a red light", statistics can be biased and have agendas! Unlike my feelings, which are 100% objective facts that can never be wrong.
6:43 - I can't believe he said this with a straight face, genuinely expected to be taken seriously, and then protested when his interviewers laughed in his face.
I feel a lot of the things he say is so laughably stupid that I wouldn’t be able to not laugh in his face like they did. Good thing I’m not an interviewer
As a hermit with a very small friend circle I tend to forget just how unhinged and hateful people can be sometimes, so thank you for the refreshing reminder lmao
I don’t know people this unhinged and hateful in real life. I’m quite sure this is a persona created for TH-cam or at least just some outlier when it comes to behavior of real people in real life
I've met people this hateful maybe worse. When I asked why they say such horrible things they say it's a joke, to mess with me (trigger me). Every time. My cousin might be the worst in this case coz I constantly have to point out that something he's saying is misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, classiest or just generally cruel. Thing is he doesn't think he's a bad person and he's told me that I'm a nit picky stuck up bitch who can't take a joke but I don't think I'm a bad person either. I'm sure Andrew also sees himself as an okay guy but at the end of the day his actions expose him every time he starts trending or becoming popular. In so doing, it also emboldens his fans into normalizing his harmful, toxic persona just coz they found someone who "gets their jokes". If you do something ironically for long enough it becomes unironic.
@@cuentadeyoutube5903 You know what, my friend..l have led the OPPOSITE life, and thankfully don't know any like that either ! Now this has me thinking, though...is it POSSIBLE that there ARE some ,but they would be better served by not being demonstrative, while he steadily gains popularity by being so?
It's interesting how according to his experience every crash included a man, himself. He has no experience of women crashing with other women. So based on his own experience men are part of 100% of all crashes.
I first heard about him from Hannah Reloaded, who covered him extensively on Chud Watch. At the rate he's going, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up like Keith Raniere.
@@razzdiamond6447 Most people heard about him when it was revealed he was removed from Instagram and TH-cam. Countless articles exposed his pyramid scheme as well. He survives by exploiting his impressionable young fans. Sooner or later the well dries up and they will move on to the next big asshole on the internet. Tate is just a fad and he's slipping into irrelevancy.
holy shit the milo footage, absolutely refutes the idea that tate will be lionized and boosted on alternative social media websites after getting deplatformed
It refutes it, but I somehow feel that Milo was able to shunted more easily because he's gay. Tate, while obviously a repressed homosexual, I'm pessimistic that he'll ever be fully gone.
@@fowad27 Idk what about him screams repressed homosexual to you, rather than CTE sustained from his MMA career, feeling invincible (I'm pretty sure i was a successful career unfortunately), never hearing the word "No.", an obscenely lavish lifestyle, a toxic personality, attention seeking and most likely, literally toxic chemicals in like Testosterone supplements or something. anyway invisibility makes these guys disappear fast - especially when their whole schtick is doing and saying crazy things for attention.
My favorite part of modern society is that people really thing being constantly speculative on any information given makes you an alpha male and not a sociopath
No pardon me that's actually VERY healthy, of course in this context he's just a moron, no critical thinking applied plus he's not suspicious on the info or anything it's just a grift.
it definitely feels quite funny to watch Tate talk about how he moved to Romania because it so much easier to get away with crime there and then see him arrested in Romania for trafficking crimes.
I really appreciate that this is not a one, two or more hours video, doesn´t put someone like Tate in front of an audience just to remark on how dumb his ideas are (we know) and actually makes a point that helps to recontextualize the trash of our culture in less that 20 minutes.
@@arabwaluigi5248 Quinton Reviews videos on the NSU are super fascinating, and I'm a 36 year old whose time was before iCarly and the rest and so never watched them. He does a great job and making a topic that I shouldn't give a shit about, much less for hours in end, incredibly interesting. But then again I also listen to TH-cam videos and podcasts at work, so having long content that'll last me most the work day is desirable to me lol
@@JaseekaRawr honestly if you make multiple videos about victorious that are 5+ hours long, you’re probably not a very good writer. There’s no fucking way you’re filling all that time with essential material.
Idk in an exhibit on depictions of personal hell it seems appropriate. With the black and white filter it even looks like it could be. Just trapped in an eternal infomercial looking like a complete joke.
From one side I am genuinely distressed about giving up the pursuit of truth, and on the other I’m glad that Milo was banished to the shopping channel. It’s like a little sprinkle of righteous Schadenfreude with my existential anxiety. Thanks
"The pursuit of truth." Uh huh. Because if I need a guide for pursuing truth, I go for the guy investigated for felonies who teams with white nationalists and conspiracies, that beats bitches, exploits bastards, and gets triggered over actual facts. Who tends to try picking up underage girls. Just to add, I'm just fucking around, but there are people who actually believed, and still do, that Tate was this Alpha voice of truth.
love this new interaction of this channel, the humor and lightheartedness has always been there but it's really on point now. sick of hearing about tate of course but this made it interesting and worth watching
It's like Jack walked into your room and sat at the end of your bed because he has to talk about the plot of Half-Life 2 or Ed Bassmaster's turbomisogynist clone.
@@thrownstair He's like the person who has been kinda quiet the whole time in the gathering and it's about to check out but decides to start talking until their Uber gets there
It takes one intro to stats course to know that data is continuously tested and goes through many processes to be published while encompassing a wide spread number of people to make it significantly more reliable than one singular man baby's thoughts. Even the limitations of studies is way more meaningful to consider than one person's personal experience.
To the first example if one were in a car collision caused by a woman driver and so they therefore believed women were bad drivers that would be called an experience bias. Our brains are "hardwired" to identify these types of patterns in order to prevent our future suffering, which is why it's such an easy trap for men like Andrew Tate and his followers to fall into. It's important throughout life for all of us to occasionally confront these beliefs. Look at the data, listen to some different opinions, be open to changing our minds.
To ones who feel like they don’t need morality and recognition of the other’s humanity as long as they have bitches and pleasure: You can get much more pleasure from genuine relationships with other people than with whatever Andrew Tate is proposing. A solipsist’s world gets very lonely, and I’m sure you know that loneliness stings like nothing else.
The fact that Andrew Tate has survived this long with his philosophy of "follow your instincts, morality be damned" is shocking. That's an ultimatelly self-destructive attitude (evolution geared our instincts towards the survival of the especies, not ourselves as individuals, and also they aren't as optimized as some pseudo-humanists think, either), so althought the pragmatic part of me suspects thar Tate has the minimum of braincells required to do whatever his lawyers say he has to do to stay away from the consequences of his acts, I can't help but think that sooner or later he will do something soo knuckleheadedly stupid that it will cost him his fortune and maybe even his freedom or worse. I know the world is unfair, but I also think that you can only act like a character in a bad 2009 "fratire" webcomic for so long before you runout of privilegde and dumb luck
the issue here isn't that he's not doing a fuckin moral calculus, it's that these "instincts" have to be constructed in the first place (you can do it on your own, it's fun), and he got some bad ones
I think he's gotta have more pragmatism than he's letting on. A lot of people forget that we viewers only see Tate as he is in front of cameras. He's a sex trafficker and that one audio clip alleged that he launders money... I know that 'privilege and dumb luck' as you said, as well as a flat out lack of care for victims of sex crimes from the police and general public can get people like him a long way, but he can't *just* be going on instinct to run his horrendous operations. I think that no matter how seemingly stupid, everything he does in front of a camera has to be read in the frame of performance for intimidation and recruitment.
There is a great difference between philosophical solipsism (which kinda silly but not inauthentic) and immoral subjectivism which should be immediately rejected by anyone that considers themselves capable of moral behavior. We might not agree on what acts are right or wrong but we do agree that the answer matters and is worth it to try to find common ground. This grifter doesn't care what is right or wrong in any sense: whenever he says something is "his truth" he is just refusing to consider anything else, it's not a description of something in the world as it is or as he sees it, it's just the equivalent of "shut up". When Hasan brought up that everyone is biased, AT thought that Hasan was agreeing with the idea that everyone can take as truth whatever he wishes: that misunderstanding is sad example of the question. The existence of biases is not a excuse to stop the enquiry for truth but a obligation to make good use of other sources of truth (even if sources those are themselves informed by bias).
I don’t care what’s right or wrong because fundamentally there’s no such thing. I do care about having sincere consistent values that have justifications. Not ones that are justified (that’s subjective) but ones that have some sort of justification. That is, someone who has a coherent reason why they hold those values. Not a dogmatic unchanging reason though. When we eventually arrive at a disagreement in values, at the very least we can discuss it. It’s not a matter of proving who’s right who’s wrong but a matter of convincing someone that ones reasoning is persuasive. But it may not be just words. Actions are also persuasive. People don’t change values by what’s right or wrong but by what they believe what’s right and wrong which conforms to their reasoning. Bypassing the non-existent right or wrong and ones personal right or wrong and focusing directly on their reasoning is by far the more effective approach.
@@Liliquan AT's statement on women driving is wrong as it conflates personal experience with fact and AT's behavior is wrong as it fosters mistreatment of women. So I have to disagree about your first statement on right and wrong - there is fundamentally such a thing: a misogynist holds a morally bad belief and will harm others. I don't care if that misogyny is coherent with the set of values of that person. Also, AT's fans being persuaded by him doesn't make those ideas any less wrong. In many cases to wonder carefully if an act was right or wrong may be challenging but this is not the case.
@@Liliquan There IS actually a fundamental... Well, not right or wrong itself, but a fundamental to morality ("right" and "wrong"): It's disgust. That's it. It's just an emotional disgust to something, much like smelling shit or hearing someone vomit will set off most humans' physical disgust. That's why it's so visceral a reaction until you actually figure out WHY it happens and realize that, yes, it's hardwired and different people have different sensitivity to emotionally repugnant things, like how physically some people don't get set off by shit.
My experience with a solipsistic breakdown took on a much more literal bent. I spent a good few months completely detached, obsessing over Descartes and the whole 'brain in a vat' debacle. Overall it was a weird way to find out I have OCD.
happened something similar to me but with Kant. being 16 and being obsessed with how me order shit of our knowledge and the world. What is a true statement, synthetic vs analytic, aprioristic vs aposteriori. I'm still somewhat on that shit but that's because I study Philosophy.
I've thought about the brain in a vat stuff before too, my conclusion on it was that even if we are brains in a vat it doesn't really matter since I'm still experiencing life as a brain in a human. I wonder what liquid they put in the vat though.
@@legend7951 yeah. academic philosophy is a massive waste of time and being a brain in a vat isnt particularly bizarre or revelatory. its more of a "yeah... ok. what's your point?" kind of revelation. people that actually think these kind of philosophical ponderings are deep or insightful, its like.... did you just smoke weed for the first time in your life? I remember my first joint. i find philosophy to be insanely boring and just boils down to "whoa, dudes.... like.... isnt life weird/confusing/sad. like when you really think about it.... what even are we?" but say that over the course of 500 pages of run-on sentences. most worthless and boring subject you can study.
I feel like most ways to find out you have OCD are weird; the brain gremlins tend to come up with off the wall choices for what to get hung up on. God, I remember being maybe 9 and having insomnia for the better part of a year because I realized an afterlife didn't make sense to me, and that's some prime OCD real estate. Edit: A comma splice.
Regarding truth: as one of those scientists who puts animals into categories (it's really fun) I agree with your statements here - I do believe there is a 'truth' but it's not useful to know it in the entirity. One thing that helps wrap my head around this is thinking about colour and language - different languages have different names for colours, and different distinctions for colours. Being English, we have a whole smorgesboard of colour words, but in other languages there are fewer colours - many lump blue and green into one bluegreen word. Some make sensible choices like just calling pink 'light red'. Some make distinctions we would find weird in English, such as blue and light blue being different colours. The 'truth' is that colours are a spectrum, and we're just seeing a combination of wiggling photons. The way different languages categorise or quantify these photon wavelengths is based on utility! I recommend looking into languages for different perspectives on 'truth' - many languages don't have a 'yes' or 'no' binary, chosing instead to express these concepts in an 'it is' or 'it is not'. If things like yes and no, black and white, blue and red are not always 'true', but ways of describing how truth works, it allows you to build up your own framework on how truth works. FUN EXPERIMENT TO TRY AT HOME - which colours do you think need their own category? Do you believe in bluegreen or blue and green? Or even lime, olive, viridian, emerald, teal, turqouise, cyan, ultramarine etc.? Do smaller categories or bigger categories serve your needs better? What other categories can you do this with? Male vs female? Right vs wrong? Day vs night? (rescheduling 'day and night' to 'before work', 'work', 'after work', 'good time to sleep' may be better than day vs night). Family vs friends? What do words mean to you, and what are the best words to reflect your understanding of 'truth'? Anyway sometimes I get lost in colour theory for a few hours as a form of existential crisis and I find 'purple' is best split between 'red purples' (magentas and marroons) and 'blue purples' (violet and indigo).
My gf and I are both artists and we have regular arguments over the thresholds of where green becomes yellow and violet becomes blue. We've been at it for at least 3 years, haven't reached any conclusions and it's always entertaining. Because, in your words, we utilize colors differently, her being a digital artist and myself working in traditional mediums.
@@SilvrRazorFeather YEAH! Light vs pigment deffinitely adds flavour to the conversation - is red combined with green yellow or brown?? I have artist friends who tell me indigo is in of itself a colour and not the mingling of purple and blue, and fellow scientists who tell me violet is not a shade of purple it's Totally Different. Nuts! As soon as you have this discussion with someone with a different language the minutia of indigo-violet-purple matters a lot less as you scramble to even find a good word for 'purple'. I hope you win the green-yellow debate. The thing that keeps me up at night is the divide between red and orange - why is 'scarlet' different from 'blood orange'??? It haunts me.
@@banquetoftheleviathan1404 yeah! My field of research is palaeontology, and the shuffling of animals to let them sit in the most parsimonious arrangement is such a satisfying thing to take part in - hyraxes and elephants having the same teeth and other clues to their kinship being missed in early studies then coming to light on closer examination is a fun example. Also, working with fossils when you only classify a species based on morphology (no genetics or fertile offspring tests, or even behaviours...) really shows how much information we would need in an ideal world to make a 'true' taxonomy. Every time we update the tree of life, tweaking it closer to 'truth', we're making it more accurate, but it'll never be perfect. Evolution never halts, species change and progress and split and merge - a phylogenetic tree doesn't need to be 'perfect' or 'true', it just needs to make sense with all the evidence we have so far! New evidence = new changes! (I work with pseudosuchians fossils btw, ancient crocodiles!)
I wish I was able to study epistemology enough to really address the issues in this video. I don't have the resources to do that, but of course I'm not going to let a little thing like ignorance stop me from commenting. While I agree Jack is describing a real problem with the collapse of a "truth" that can be relied on, I think he makes one possible mistake when connecting this idea to Andrew Tate. Jack speaks as if he thinks Tate's rejection of objective truth is the source of his solipsism -- in other words, Tate first recognized that the "authorities" were unreliable, and therefore decided it's best to be the kind of asshole he is, one guided by misogyny, bigotry, greed, etc. If I understand him correctly, Jack is saying that he sees in this a reflection of his own crisis of truth. I think this description of Tate has it backwards. He did not decide to become who he is because of an intellectual insight. Rather he chose to be who he is and then found that his truth-solipsism was a reliable way to justify it -- his moral commitment preceded his epistemology. Or in simpler terms, he is an asshole who chose a way of looking at the world that makes it easier to continue being an asshole. I say this because I think the idea that "truth" has been completely dethroned from public discourse is incorrect. To be sure, I agree there is no such thing as any definitive set of judgments about almost anything that will finally establish "the objective truth" about anything. Our truths will always be provisional and limited -- and I'm tempted to say they will be "pragmatic" but I'm not so sure I want to fully accept Rorty's approach. (This is where I'm truly in over my head intellectually.) But I do think it's possible and reasonable even in the world as it is to seek truth in the sense of "correspondence to reality", while recognizing it as a process, always subject to error, always developed within a community of discourse, etc. But we also have to be the kind of people who have the inner moral qualities that make us capable of discerning truth from falsehood. The flood of nonsense masquerading as truth today is the result of forgetting that reality and assuming that searching for truth has nothing to do with ethics. (Actually I would say it has always been this way, because people have always been nasty and self-centered in large numbers.) Searching for truth has everything to do with ethics. This is the real reason Andrew Tate can't be taken seriously about anything related to truth -- he is plainly a morally bad person. (Yes, morally bad people can make true statements, but they are no position to participate in the search for truth, because the only thing they care about is themselves, in the worst sense possible. And no, I'm not saying we should evaluate any truth-claim based on the moral qualities of the person who makes the claim.) Of course, by saying all this, all I've really done is raise the basic questions about ethics -- what it is, how do we know, etc. But in my opinion that's a better place to begin than anything that's ever come out of Andrew Tate's mouth. By the way, did you notice how much Andrew Tate's epistemology sounds like Aleksandr Dugin's? For both, truth is subordinate to unchecked desire.
Wouldnt have been able to put it quite as nicely or in depth as you did, but yeah, I also had a problem with the whole solipsism part of the video. Because yes, technically all we can say for 100% certain is "cogito ergo sum", but thats such an utterly useless mindset that noone is gonna follow it. Because yeah, technically you cant say for sure the "reality" youre experiencing is actually real, there are plenty of things you can infer from it that no reasonable person would go against. If I throw this brick up into the air, it will come back down, even if you want to argue that brick may not be real, its still gonna fall (12 year old me confirmed that the hard way) If you want to leave your home, you could do that through your bedroom window on the second floor, that would get you outside too, yet somehow people consistently choose to take their front (or back) door, even though technically, if you wanna play the sollipsist, they cant "know" for certain they wont fall to their death (or at least grave injury) if they do take that window, we all know both that and why the door is the better idea. Even if this reality isnt "real", it doesnt change the fact that its the one we live in, so denying it on that basis instead of acting on what we CAN know about it, like the fact that gravity, whether its real or simulated, very much exists in our world, is a waste of time at best, and completely irresponsible at worse. So eh... yeah... as you may be able to tell, I'm not the biggest fan of sollipsism...
I think this is a great comment to help people further understand the distinction between the two, although as I was listening I didn't get the impression that Jack thinks his and Tate's philosophy on morality are the same. To me it seemed with the Tate example he was actually pointing out how it can be easy to come to the idea that morality is not objective without even thinking about it, because wanting to do the most self-serving thing is such a basic instinct. It seemed like he used Tate to show how that's a childish version of the idea, even mentioning how young teens can easily fall into that thinking, and how it often uses technicalities for reinforcement (like pointing out that institutions can make mistakes, or can be manipulated) but that in the end it's just a shallow way of justifying selfishness and a lack of empathy. And then it seemed like he went on to explain how a person who has actually thought about it philosophically can come to the understanding that while it may be true that nobody can ever know the "objective truth" because their perspective always has a bias and anything presented to them by anyone else will have a bias or may also be inaccurate, that doesn't just give you a free pass to drop the idea of morality and shared truths altogether. So overall to me it really seemed the whole point was to make it clear that solipsism isn't a sound philosophy just because it may be based on or be factoring in a few very real flaws in how we come to consensus, and I think him pointing out that there can be similarities in that type of thinking or arriving at either of these philosophies wasn't to say they're the same as each other, but rather just a way of saying it reminded him of a philosophical journey he went on because each line of thought raises similar questions. And honestly I think it's a good idea of him to point out those similarities because while Tate may not, I definitely see people using moral relativism to "justify" horrific ideas and actions on a daily basis, and they think it "makes sense" because of the kernel of "truth" that moral relativism represents. They see other people with that "F you, I'll get mine" attitude and think since nobody else seems to care about anyone's morals but their own, it's okay for them to be that way too, so I'm glad he's pointing out the similarities and showing how realizing that can also lead to a philosophy that *doesn't* involve just dropping all empathy for and responsibility to others. That was just my perception of the video though, but since Jack said a couple of times in the video specifically that this wasn't an argument in favor of Tate's world view, and that he doesn't agree with how Tate uses that core idea of recognizing everything is subjective to then justify a terrible world view, it just felt like he was very much trying to say their perspectives weren't at all the same.
It’s funny, “you’re boring” seems to be the gravest insult to these alpha male weirdos. It’s like a high school mindset in the head of a grown ass man. Like Im not a huge fan of Hasan, he’s slightly annoying to me and can’t take mild criticism, but what is he supposed to do? Do a stand up routine?
They get so mad when you also go "why are you getting all emotional?" Like, I get it's the toxic masculinity programming and I shouldn't push that misogynistic button but damn if that kind of guy doesn't make it easy.
I would say calling Tate a "solipsist" is at best extremely charitable and at worst just kind of stupid and pointless. To imply that Tate has any philosophical backing in his views as if they aren't entirely derivative of his ego is probably doing him a little too much justice and inversely a damaging association to make with the philosophy (as if solipsism needs a worse reputation lol.) Sure his views might seem to fall into that camp, if you only look at it in a post-hoc sense, but I'd say it's not a meaningful or accurate distinction as far as where his takes are sourced from or what his ideology really is.
There's academic philosophy and then there's popular philosophy. You can describe someone as stoic without it meaning that they've read Marcus Aurelius, much less any modern academic literature. The fact that he latched onto this concept because it largely fit how he already saw the world is... well, just pretty much how people do that. The ideas do eventually escape the academy, and they don't stay particularly pure after that.
The point about Milo at the end is perfect. Yes, there was a flurry of headlines about Tate as he started getting banned from various platforms but I would ask people who seriously think this will help him in the long run point to a single alt-right weirdo who's gotten deplatformed and bounced back from it.
Well, I would point to Alex Jones, but things have been going south pretty quickly for him lately. Though that's completely unrelated to his deplatforming.
@@-tera-3345 Alex Jones largely survived deplatforming but I don't think he benefited from it in any way but that would be hard to say for certain without Infowars' traffic data.
Truth is just, what is. It may be true that Andrew Tate gets in accidents with only women (which doesn’t seem to be true) but that doesn’t alter the truth that both men and women can be good drivers, and that not all of either are bad drivers. The gaslighting from people like Andrew and other conservatives probably don’t help the breakdowns people have about “what is truth”. But tbh, that’s probably what they want.
We got to stop having their argument. Andrew Tate has not lost his free speech he still can say whatever he wants, he just can't say it in certain places where the people who own those places don't want people like him to be.
I think that the argument is that private entities should not have full control of public forums, because of free speech. Imagine that the owners of all the journals of the country blacklist a journalist
@@cd7002 While I don't like that I had to exodus twice because FFnet is a bunch of conservative-pandering cowards (seriously, we needed trigger warnings for gay pairings in fanfics or else we were at risk of the "sexual content" over two guys kissing chastely, holding hands, and being domestic and very home economics-subjects-y together) and LJ got sold to Russian media after caving in to self-righteous pdf file witchhunting christian hatemobs and catching fandoms in their panicked mass-ban... FFnet and LJ had the right to pull that shit. Just like us fandoms had the right to scatter across the zillions of LJ clones and Dreamwidth, and ultimately founded AO3 to stand for an ethical ideal of free speech without allowing harrassment and flash mobbing. Also: they do do that, actually. You don't hear about it much, but journals WILL blacklist certain journalists, and that's actually how we, as the public, can figure out if that outlet has journalistic standards and integrity or not. Bad journos get blacklisted from good news outlets, investigative reporters can get politically repressed by people who don't want to be exposed, and so on. There's an ongoing movement from journalists to make journalism a public service BECAUSE the commercial nature of journalism is eroding the ethics they stand for.
weird way to say 'gave him a platform, exposed his audience to him, allowed him to speak to that audience' if no one made fuckin 2 hour long 'debates' with andrew tate, who clearly doesn't give a single shit about actual debate, he just wants to spread his ideas, then the social media ban he got would be so much more effective and his reach would be cut down significantly
So…using all 5 bedrooms in his house to run a cam girl scheme with women who also happened to be former girlfriends sounds like a gynophobic’s worst nightmare. So. Idk mate.
@@katsmith-riply9862 well the way he talks about women suggests otherwise. Misogyny and Gynophobia means disrespecting women and not seeing them as people. NOT distancing from them like a plague. Renegade Cut explains it better on his James Bond review.
I think Jack is the only person on youtube I would genuinely love to have a conversation with. You opened my eyes to a way of thinking I will definitely be looking into more. Thank you
I cannot believe that people seriously engaged in a debate about whether or not women can drive. was it really worth anyone's time to bother arguing tate about this?
I'm pleased to have you back Jack. I'm very sorry that you've had this struggle with the nature of truth. I wish I could say something more useful than that.
@@elipticalecliptic481 still based on misunderstanding and misuse, proliferating the idea that philosophy can be equated with "ones worldview". just like the misunderstanding and misuse of "metaphysical" has gotten most convinced it means "spiritual" or even "religious"
Personally I’m not sure how ppl can say Tate is just joking and that some of his points are legit. A broken clock is right 2 times a day, so it’s not surprising that he can be right on a few things. That doesn’t mean everything he gets COMPLETELY wrong (gets them wrong factually too, not even an opinionated view of how society works), is a joke.
The reason Andrew Tate is "right" about some things is because he starts with an extremely basic point and then uses it as a vehicle to get to his more extreme views It's like me saying "human contains the word man so women aren't human" I was right about the word human containing the word man but it doesn't justify the other more extreme point directly after it
Truth is information that isn't uncertain, false, erroneous, or misleading. This also accounts for scientific progress where what was once understood as true is now proven false. "Personal truth" isn't really "truth" so much as "the belief that something is true", which can give nuance to your reading of a situation, but truth itself isn't subjective.
I'm kind of annoyed that anyone on the left was even willing to entertain a debate about whether women can drive. Like the fact that you're even debating it is stupid and offensive.
02:33 When I was a teenager, I got hit by the same lady twice. Andrew Tate is a tool, and evidently a bad driver who can't afford a shirt. Possibly due to all the payouts for car wrecks he caused.
I bet Andrew's getting some conflicting feelings about "the degeneration of Western society" now he's getting first hand experience of the Romanian prison system.
You took this guy way more seriously than anyone should need to and I really appreciate that because the Andrew Tate's of the world scare me until I realise that most people do not believe his dogshit
I will point out that it's a common misconception that genera are based on arbitrary resemblance- they were somewhat in Linnaeus' time, but today we ultimately derive taxa from their genetic phylogeny,who is descended from who. We may still rely on resemblance when there's no other option for long extinct animals, and where we draw the line between where species are considered separate can be arbitrary, but at the end of the day we endeavor towards taxa to be descriptive of very measurable aspects of reality.
"I was going at mph up a blind curve and if I wasnt a good driver I'd have been killed." Mate if you were a good drover you wouldn't have been approaching a blind curve at 220 mph
The thing about andrew tate is that he he doesn't stop at 'you can't trust these institutions' and he doesn't even stop at 'you can trust only yourself' because neither of those are his full message. His message, like any cult leader, is 'you should only trust ME' part of his grift is to gaslight his fans into thinking that whatever comes out of his mouth is what they already think and agree with, and what is already true but people won't accept. it's that 'silent majority' shit that racists do. Of course, most of his fans do agree with him already, but they agree because he's andrew tate, not because they're convinced of his ideas- because he doesn't have any. There is no underlying philosophy. They want as much violent power over women as possible, and they say whatever they have to to justify it to themselves and others. Whether or not that works is irrelevant. It's anti-thought, meant to get people tangled up in their supposed 'ideology' when they only have one goal, and that is to be authoritarian slaving shitbags. Every tate fan who swears he's not a sex trafficker absolutely knows he is, and that's what they like about him. That's why he got popular. It's disturbing because it shows the bare truth: it's simple hatred of women. This is why a debate with him is a mistake even if it makes him look like an idiot. Like debating a fascist, he's not trying to win the argument. He's performing for the purposes of intimidation and recruitment.
Truth is indeed subjective, at least insofar as our perspectives are limited and incapable of taking in the entirety of any single situation. We're limited to viewing everything once, from one fixed point in time (we are moving linearly through time, but our perspectives are collections of points and periods along those travels). We might be able to glimpse something near an objective truth by comparing multiple perspectives, but to consider your own perspective as objective truth above any other is just narcissist.
Pretty funny how Milo almost broke the surface of the sea of irrelevance he was relegated to by riding Kanye's public image death throes, only for Fuentes to yank it from him after being invited onto that dying whale by Milo.
PLEASE HELP ME COVER THE COSTS OF TRAINING FOR MY UPCOMING SHOWDOWN WITH ANDREW TATE:
💰 PATREON | www.patreon.com/jacksaint
🔴 TH-cam | th-cam.com/channels/dQKvqmHKe_8fv4Rwe7ag9Q.htmljoin
(Get special privileges like early access content, exclusive videos, q&as, private community discord and more)
👛 ONE-TIME TIPS @ ko-fi.com/lackingsaint
One night, while innocently pressuring teens to kiss eachother on a livestream, Andrew Tate was ambushed by radical marxist Hasan Piker about his opinions on woman drivers. Soon after, for unrelated reasons, Tate was banned from most social media platforms. Jack tries to put the pieces together.
Check out Thought Slime and Sophie From Mars' deep dive into the world of Andrew Tate: th-cam.com/video/ZmwbdX0gKoc/w-d-xo.html
Richard Rorty on Pragmatism & Truth: th-cam.com/video/COyu-8-FW8Q/w-d-xo.html
✍ TWITTER @ twitter.com/lackingsaint
🎥 TWITCH @ www.twitch.tv/lacksaint
📱 TIKTOK @ www.tiktok.com/@jacksaintreal
👥 PUBLIC DISCORD @ discord.gg/BjVfT4JR66
Wipe the floor with him King, those tater tots won't know what hit em'. It'll be a one, two, and disillusioned with the misogynistic guru.
@@asunnynight9592 how is this video helping tate in any way unless you consider showing him to be the massive piece of shit that he is helpful?
when i found out that tate was pro boxer i thought "yeah this guy sure does sound like he got beat in the head for a living"
hE cOuLd BeAt YoU iN a FiGhT!
@@thugstin6429
he'd look real menly beating a disabled man.
and anybody with gun or other such long ranged weapon could beat him. real hard to bob and weave against the ancient art of bullet to dome.
Kick boxer good due diligence though pal👍🏻
"Pro" is an overstatement his fights are embarrassing to say the least
@@robdye5885 not sure if sarcastic.
it's not even something i had to really research it's something he doesn't really shut the hell up about so i just kindaconnected the dots on.
“All the car crashes I’ve been in” like having multiple serious crashes is normal ???
Man should stop being lazy and just drive himself. Or maybe don’t ride with the same reckless woman, cuz I doubt he lets multiple women drive him around enough to have enough evidence to support his assertion.
@@ma.2089 Its also entirely possible that he was the cause of those crashes in the first place, considering he's the only known common factor between all of them.
@@fhey7903 additionally, doesn’t he think that woman shouldn’t drive? Why would we assume he has a woman in the driver seat anyway.
its like that saying...meet an asshole in the morning, and you met an asshole. meet assholes all day, and YOURE the asshole.
I've only been in one serious crash, got rear ended at a red light so hard my car was totalled. Guess who was driving the other car? A man. That's it, we need to make it illegal for men to drive! Fuck off with your statistics that say "most men won't rear end you at a red light", statistics can be biased and have agendas! Unlike my feelings, which are 100% objective facts that can never be wrong.
6:43 - I can't believe he said this with a straight face, genuinely expected to be taken seriously, and then protested when his interviewers laughed in his face.
I feel a lot of the things he say is so laughably stupid that I wouldn’t be able to not laugh in his face like they did. Good thing I’m not an interviewer
Andrew Nate
Podcast from a GTA game
It’s why he had to go talk to Tucker, he knew Tucker would never cuck his freeze peach like that meanie commie Piker guy
That was so tappped AHHAAHAHAH😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
As a hermit with a very small friend circle I tend to forget just how unhinged and hateful people can be sometimes, so thank you for the refreshing reminder lmao
I don’t know people this unhinged and hateful in real life. I’m quite sure this is a persona created for TH-cam or at least just some outlier when it comes to behavior of real people in real life
I've met people this hateful maybe worse. When I asked why they say such horrible things they say it's a joke, to mess with me (trigger me).
Every time.
My cousin might be the worst in this case coz I constantly have to point out that something he's saying is misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, classiest or just generally cruel. Thing is he doesn't think he's a bad person and he's told me that I'm a nit picky stuck up bitch who can't take a joke but I don't think I'm a bad person either.
I'm sure Andrew also sees himself as an okay guy but at the end of the day his actions expose him every time he starts trending or becoming popular. In so doing, it also emboldens his fans into normalizing his harmful, toxic persona just coz they found someone who "gets their jokes".
If you do something ironically for long enough it becomes unironic.
@@cuentadeyoutube5903 You know what, my friend..l have led the OPPOSITE life, and thankfully don't know any like that either ! Now this has me thinking, though...is it POSSIBLE that there ARE some ,but they would be better served by not being demonstrative, while he steadily gains popularity by being so?
It's interesting how according to his experience every crash included a man, himself. He has no experience of women crashing with other women. So based on his own experience men are part of 100% of all crashes.
The more I learn about him, the more I'm thankful for never hearing about this fella before he started crumbling and falling.
Right? I heard about him a while back ago, then only now am I being like “woooow, how the hell were you ever a thing dude?”
Couldn't agree more 🥴
I first heard about him from Hannah Reloaded, who covered him extensively on Chud Watch. At the rate he's going, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up like Keith Raniere.
Crumbling and falling? He's going live in under an hour lol
@@razzdiamond6447 Most people heard about him when it was revealed he was removed from Instagram and TH-cam.
Countless articles exposed his pyramid scheme as well.
He survives by exploiting his impressionable young fans. Sooner or later the well dries up and they will move on to the next big asshole on the internet. Tate is just a fad and he's slipping into irrelevancy.
Fun Fact: I believe that the "hot girl we had on before Hasan" Andrew Tate references was in fact a 17 year old minor
🤢
Welp if there wasn’t already a good fine reason to kick him in the balls I’m sure this would be a fantastic reason
That's why Jack plays the "when you turn 18" clip
I'm surprised...that 17 isn't too old for him.
You do realize the age of consent is different in a lot of countries, right? They addressed this before.
It seems like a misconception about the land.
Favourite dunk on Cobra Tate was his description as "like someone tried to draw Pitbull from memory"
holy shit the milo footage, absolutely refutes the idea that tate will be lionized and boosted on alternative social media websites after getting deplatformed
It looks like Milo got deplatformed from reality and has been trapped in an infomercial like something out of the twilight zone.
It refutes it, but I somehow feel that Milo was able to shunted more easily because he's gay. Tate, while obviously a repressed homosexual, I'm pessimistic that he'll ever be fully gone.
@@fowad27 Idk what about him screams repressed homosexual to you, rather than CTE sustained from his MMA career, feeling invincible (I'm pretty sure i was a successful career unfortunately), never hearing the word "No.", an obscenely lavish lifestyle, a toxic personality, attention seeking and most likely, literally toxic chemicals in like Testosterone supplements or something.
anyway invisibility makes these guys disappear fast - especially when their whole schtick is doing and saying crazy things for attention.
@@fowad27 Can we stop with the "repressed homosexual" meme? It's just a homophobic way for straight people to pretend homophobia isn't their fault.
@@nerdaitami7205 amen to that
Andrew Tate leaves out the fact that when he sees a woman on the road, he goes blind with rage.
Love your pfp
You and I are both subbed to Apollo the talking Grey Parrot and I think that's pretty based
My favorite part of modern society is that people really thing being constantly speculative on any information given makes you an alpha male and not a sociopath
It's got to be tiring too, I imagine.
No pardon me that's actually VERY healthy, of course in this context he's just a moron, no critical thinking applied plus he's not suspicious on the info or anything it's just a grift.
They aren't constantly speculative on any information, just like everyone else, confirmation of their worldview goes down just fine
Years of media telling people that those are the same thing. Figure’s they got what they ordered
it definitely feels quite funny to watch Tate talk about how he moved to Romania because it so much easier to get away with crime there
and then see him arrested in Romania for trafficking crimes.
I hate Andrew Tate because he made me know who he is. I could go back to the time I had no idea who he was and be happy.
Well now we can enjoy the downfall right?
@@familiarfoe5072 I don’t want to enjoy another downfall. I want peace. I don’t want to hear about political weirdos saying political weirdo shit.
@@dstinnettmusic same lmao
Other influences: Leave the platform because of abuse.
Jack Saint: Leaves the platform for a year due to epistemological breakdown.
What a king.
It’s funny how I’ve never heard of this man until last month and now every commentary channel is making a video about him
You are lucky... Just wait a bit to see his fanbois all up in these comments
Been hearing about him on and off, always bad, like painfully so. I just finally get that he's an embodiment of "fuck you got mine".
Cause he brings in the likes and views. These betoids can barely get anything done with their lives
Incredibly lucky I wish I only just heard about him
@@nelsonth good grief, they’re all brain dead
I really appreciate that this is not a one, two or more hours video, doesn´t put someone like Tate in front of an audience just to remark on how dumb his ideas are (we know) and actually makes a point that helps to recontextualize the trash of our culture in less that 20 minutes.
Yeah, some subjects are just not interesting to listen to for extended periods of time.
@@Horatio787 @Quinton Reviews
@@arabwaluigi5248 he keeps doing it, too 😭 lol I love that he actually made a 5 hour iCarly review tho, amazing. Didn't watch it ofc lol
@@arabwaluigi5248 Quinton Reviews videos on the NSU are super fascinating, and I'm a 36 year old whose time was before iCarly and the rest and so never watched them.
He does a great job and making a topic that I shouldn't give a shit about, much less for hours in end, incredibly interesting.
But then again I also listen to TH-cam videos and podcasts at work, so having long content that'll last me most the work day is desirable to me lol
@@JaseekaRawr honestly if you make multiple videos about victorious that are 5+ hours long, you’re probably not a very good writer. There’s no fucking way you’re filling all that time with essential material.
That Milo footage belongs in a museum, just as much as that Mary statue belongs on a nightstand in your home.
Idk in an exhibit on depictions of personal hell it seems appropriate. With the black and white filter it even looks like it could be. Just trapped in an eternal infomercial looking like a complete joke.
From one side I am genuinely distressed about giving up the pursuit of truth, and on the other I’m glad that Milo was banished to the shopping channel. It’s like a little sprinkle of righteous Schadenfreude with my existential anxiety. Thanks
Think of it less as giving up the pursuit of truth, and more about always being on the lookout for a better version of the world.
Truth is overrated. That's why I've come up with Truth 2. It's like classic Truth but with WAAAAAAY more confirmation bias.
@@CallMetheMusicMan and loot boxes
"The pursuit of truth." Uh huh. Because if I need a guide for pursuing truth, I go for the guy investigated for felonies who teams with white nationalists and conspiracies, that beats bitches, exploits bastards, and gets triggered over actual facts. Who tends to try picking up underage girls.
Just to add, I'm just fucking around, but there are people who actually believed, and still do, that Tate was this Alpha voice of truth.
@@javsandarts exactly
love this new interaction of this channel, the humor and lightheartedness has always been there but it's really on point now. sick of hearing about tate of course but this made it interesting and worth watching
It's like Jack walked into your room and sat at the end of your bed because he has to talk about the plot of Half-Life 2 or Ed Bassmaster's turbomisogynist clone.
@@thrownstair He's like the person who has been kinda quiet the whole time in the gathering and it's about to check out but decides to start talking until their Uber gets there
Sometimes I'm reminded that there are some completely unhinged people out there in the world.
And those unhinged people have admirers and fans who follow their every word like the gospel
It takes one intro to stats course to know that data is continuously tested and goes through many processes to be published while encompassing a wide spread number of people to make it significantly more reliable than one singular man baby's thoughts. Even the limitations of studies is way more meaningful to consider than one person's personal experience.
@@emilyau8023 Yes. How is that relevant to what I commented?
To the first example if one were in a car collision caused by a woman driver and so they therefore believed women were bad drivers that would be called an experience bias. Our brains are "hardwired" to identify these types of patterns in order to prevent our future suffering, which is why it's such an easy trap for men like Andrew Tate and his followers to fall into. It's important throughout life for all of us to occasionally confront these beliefs. Look at the data, listen to some different opinions, be open to changing our minds.
To ones who feel like they don’t need morality and recognition of the other’s humanity as long as they have bitches and pleasure: You can get much more pleasure from genuine relationships with other people than with whatever Andrew Tate is proposing. A solipsist’s world gets very lonely, and I’m sure you know that loneliness stings like nothing else.
+
Hedonism is a lot easier than self-reflection for a lot of people unfortunately
The fact that Andrew Tate has survived this long with his philosophy of "follow your instincts, morality be damned" is shocking. That's an ultimatelly self-destructive attitude (evolution geared our instincts towards the survival of the especies, not ourselves as individuals, and also they aren't as optimized as some pseudo-humanists think, either), so althought the pragmatic part of me suspects thar Tate has the minimum of braincells required to do whatever his lawyers say he has to do to stay away from the consequences of his acts, I can't help but think that sooner or later he will do something soo knuckleheadedly stupid that it will cost him his fortune and maybe even his freedom or worse. I know the world is unfair, but I also think that you can only act like a character in a bad 2009 "fratire" webcomic for so long before you runout of privilegde and dumb luck
the issue here isn't that he's not doing a fuckin moral calculus, it's that these "instincts" have to be constructed in the first place (you can do it on your own, it's fun), and he got some bad ones
death grips philosophy be like
I think he's gotta have more pragmatism than he's letting on. A lot of people forget that we viewers only see Tate as he is in front of cameras. He's a sex trafficker and that one audio clip alleged that he launders money... I know that 'privilege and dumb luck' as you said, as well as a flat out lack of care for victims of sex crimes from the police and general public can get people like him a long way, but he can't *just* be going on instinct to run his horrendous operations. I think that no matter how seemingly stupid, everything he does in front of a camera has to be read in the frame of performance for intimidation and recruitment.
Welp... you weren't wrong
There is a great difference between philosophical solipsism (which kinda silly but not inauthentic) and immoral subjectivism which should be immediately rejected by anyone that considers themselves capable of moral behavior. We might not agree on what acts are right or wrong but we do agree that the answer matters and is worth it to try to find common ground. This grifter doesn't care what is right or wrong in any sense: whenever he says something is "his truth" he is just refusing to consider anything else, it's not a description of something in the world as it is or as he sees it, it's just the equivalent of "shut up". When Hasan brought up that everyone is biased, AT thought that Hasan was agreeing with the idea that everyone can take as truth whatever he wishes: that misunderstanding is sad example of the question. The existence of biases is not a excuse to stop the enquiry for truth but a obligation to make good use of other sources of truth (even if sources those are themselves informed by bias).
such an interesting comment, gives me a lot to think about. thank you for posting it
I don’t care what’s right or wrong because fundamentally there’s no such thing.
I do care about having sincere consistent values that have justifications.
Not ones that are justified (that’s subjective) but ones that have some sort of justification.
That is, someone who has a coherent reason why they hold those values.
Not a dogmatic unchanging reason though.
When we eventually arrive at a disagreement in values, at the very least we can discuss it.
It’s not a matter of proving who’s right who’s wrong but a matter of convincing someone that ones reasoning is persuasive.
But it may not be just words. Actions are also persuasive.
People don’t change values by what’s right or wrong but by what they believe what’s right and wrong which conforms to their reasoning.
Bypassing the non-existent right or wrong and ones personal right or wrong and focusing directly on their reasoning is by far the more effective approach.
@@Liliquan AT's statement on women driving is wrong as it conflates personal experience with fact and AT's behavior is wrong as it fosters mistreatment of women. So I have to disagree about your first statement on right and wrong - there is fundamentally such a thing: a misogynist holds a morally bad belief and will harm others. I don't care if that misogyny is coherent with the set of values of that person. Also, AT's fans being persuaded by him doesn't make those ideas any less wrong. In many cases to wonder carefully if an act was right or wrong may be challenging but this is not the case.
@@Liliquan There IS actually a fundamental... Well, not right or wrong itself, but a fundamental to morality ("right" and "wrong"):
It's disgust.
That's it. It's just an emotional disgust to something, much like smelling shit or hearing someone vomit will set off most humans' physical disgust.
That's why it's so visceral a reaction until you actually figure out WHY it happens and realize that, yes, it's hardwired and different people have different sensitivity to emotionally repugnant things, like how physically some people don't get set off by shit.
yo best thread right here
My experience with a solipsistic breakdown took on a much more literal bent. I spent a good few months completely detached, obsessing over Descartes and the whole 'brain in a vat' debacle.
Overall it was a weird way to find out I have OCD.
happened something similar to me but with Kant. being 16 and being obsessed with how me order shit of our knowledge and the world. What is a true statement, synthetic vs analytic, aprioristic vs aposteriori. I'm still somewhat on that shit but that's because I study Philosophy.
I've thought about the brain in a vat stuff before too, my conclusion on it was that even if we are brains in a vat it doesn't really matter since I'm still experiencing life as a brain in a human. I wonder what liquid they put in the vat though.
@@legend7951 yeah. academic philosophy is a massive waste of time and being a brain in a vat isnt particularly bizarre or revelatory. its more of a "yeah... ok. what's your point?" kind of revelation. people that actually think these kind of philosophical ponderings are deep or insightful, its like.... did you just smoke weed for the first time in your life? I remember my first joint.
i find philosophy to be insanely boring and just boils down to "whoa, dudes.... like.... isnt life weird/confusing/sad. like when you really think about it.... what even are we?" but say that over the course of 500 pages of run-on sentences.
most worthless and boring subject you can study.
@@djangofett4879 studying philosophy != reading the Wikipedia pages for a couple philosophy-related topics
I feel like most ways to find out you have OCD are weird; the brain gremlins tend to come up with off the wall choices for what to get hung up on.
God, I remember being maybe 9 and having insomnia for the better part of a year because I realized an afterlife didn't make sense to me, and that's some prime OCD real estate.
Edit: A comma splice.
Regarding truth: as one of those scientists who puts animals into categories (it's really fun) I agree with your statements here - I do believe there is a 'truth' but it's not useful to know it in the entirity. One thing that helps wrap my head around this is thinking about colour and language - different languages have different names for colours, and different distinctions for colours. Being English, we have a whole smorgesboard of colour words, but in other languages there are fewer colours - many lump blue and green into one bluegreen word. Some make sensible choices like just calling pink 'light red'. Some make distinctions we would find weird in English, such as blue and light blue being different colours. The 'truth' is that colours are a spectrum, and we're just seeing a combination of wiggling photons. The way different languages categorise or quantify these photon wavelengths is based on utility!
I recommend looking into languages for different perspectives on 'truth' - many languages don't have a 'yes' or 'no' binary, chosing instead to express these concepts in an 'it is' or 'it is not'. If things like yes and no, black and white, blue and red are not always 'true', but ways of describing how truth works, it allows you to build up your own framework on how truth works.
FUN EXPERIMENT TO TRY AT HOME - which colours do you think need their own category? Do you believe in bluegreen or blue and green? Or even lime, olive, viridian, emerald, teal, turqouise, cyan, ultramarine etc.? Do smaller categories or bigger categories serve your needs better? What other categories can you do this with? Male vs female? Right vs wrong? Day vs night? (rescheduling 'day and night' to 'before work', 'work', 'after work', 'good time to sleep' may be better than day vs night). Family vs friends? What do words mean to you, and what are the best words to reflect your understanding of 'truth'?
Anyway sometimes I get lost in colour theory for a few hours as a form of existential crisis and I find 'purple' is best split between 'red purples' (magentas and marroons) and 'blue purples' (violet and indigo).
My gf and I are both artists and we have regular arguments over the thresholds of where green becomes yellow and violet becomes blue. We've been at it for at least 3 years, haven't reached any conclusions and it's always entertaining. Because, in your words, we utilize colors differently, her being a digital artist and myself working in traditional mediums.
@@SilvrRazorFeather YEAH! Light vs pigment deffinitely adds flavour to the conversation - is red combined with green yellow or brown?? I have artist friends who tell me indigo is in of itself a colour and not the mingling of purple and blue, and fellow scientists who tell me violet is not a shade of purple it's Totally Different. Nuts! As soon as you have this discussion with someone with a different language the minutia of indigo-violet-purple matters a lot less as you scramble to even find a good word for 'purple'. I hope you win the green-yellow debate. The thing that keeps me up at night is the divide between red and orange - why is 'scarlet' different from 'blood orange'??? It haunts me.
Taxonomy actually helped me better understand how flimsy labels can be, and that they should be subject to change with new info.
@@banquetoftheleviathan1404 yeah! My field of research is palaeontology, and the shuffling of animals to let them sit in the most parsimonious arrangement is such a satisfying thing to take part in - hyraxes and elephants having the same teeth and other clues to their kinship being missed in early studies then coming to light on closer examination is a fun example. Also, working with fossils when you only classify a species based on morphology (no genetics or fertile offspring tests, or even behaviours...) really shows how much information we would need in an ideal world to make a 'true' taxonomy. Every time we update the tree of life, tweaking it closer to 'truth', we're making it more accurate, but it'll never be perfect. Evolution never halts, species change and progress and split and merge - a phylogenetic tree doesn't need to be 'perfect' or 'true', it just needs to make sense with all the evidence we have so far! New evidence = new changes! (I work with pseudosuchians fossils btw, ancient crocodiles!)
I wish I was able to study epistemology enough to really address the issues in this video. I don't have the resources to do that, but of course I'm not going to let a little thing like ignorance stop me from commenting. While I agree Jack is describing a real problem with the collapse of a "truth" that can be relied on, I think he makes one possible mistake when connecting this idea to Andrew Tate. Jack speaks as if he thinks Tate's rejection of objective truth is the source of his solipsism -- in other words, Tate first recognized that the "authorities" were unreliable, and therefore decided it's best to be the kind of asshole he is, one guided by misogyny, bigotry, greed, etc. If I understand him correctly, Jack is saying that he sees in this a reflection of his own crisis of truth.
I think this description of Tate has it backwards. He did not decide to become who he is because of an intellectual insight. Rather he chose to be who he is and then found that his truth-solipsism was a reliable way to justify it -- his moral commitment preceded his epistemology. Or in simpler terms, he is an asshole who chose a way of looking at the world that makes it easier to continue being an asshole.
I say this because I think the idea that "truth" has been completely dethroned from public discourse is incorrect. To be sure, I agree there is no such thing as any definitive set of judgments about almost anything that will finally establish "the objective truth" about anything. Our truths will always be provisional and limited -- and I'm tempted to say they will be "pragmatic" but I'm not so sure I want to fully accept Rorty's approach. (This is where I'm truly in over my head intellectually.) But I do think it's possible and reasonable even in the world as it is to seek truth in the sense of "correspondence to reality", while recognizing it as a process, always subject to error, always developed within a community of discourse, etc.
But we also have to be the kind of people who have the inner moral qualities that make us capable of discerning truth from falsehood. The flood of nonsense masquerading as truth today is the result of forgetting that reality and assuming that searching for truth has nothing to do with ethics. (Actually I would say it has always been this way, because people have always been nasty and self-centered in large numbers.) Searching for truth has everything to do with ethics. This is the real reason Andrew Tate can't be taken seriously about anything related to truth -- he is plainly a morally bad person.
(Yes, morally bad people can make true statements, but they are no position to participate in the search for truth, because the only thing they care about is themselves, in the worst sense possible. And no, I'm not saying we should evaluate any truth-claim based on the moral qualities of the person who makes the claim.)
Of course, by saying all this, all I've really done is raise the basic questions about ethics -- what it is, how do we know, etc. But in my opinion that's a better place to begin than anything that's ever come out of Andrew Tate's mouth.
By the way, did you notice how much Andrew Tate's epistemology sounds like Aleksandr Dugin's? For both, truth is subordinate to unchecked desire.
Wonderfully said!
Wouldnt have been able to put it quite as nicely or in depth as you did, but yeah, I also had a problem with the whole solipsism part of the video.
Because yes, technically all we can say for 100% certain is "cogito ergo sum", but thats such an utterly useless mindset that noone is gonna follow it.
Because yeah, technically you cant say for sure the "reality" youre experiencing is actually real, there are plenty of things you can infer from it that no reasonable person would go against.
If I throw this brick up into the air, it will come back down, even if you want to argue that brick may not be real, its still gonna fall (12 year old me confirmed that the hard way)
If you want to leave your home, you could do that through your bedroom window on the second floor, that would get you outside too, yet somehow people consistently choose to take their front (or back) door, even though technically, if you wanna play the sollipsist, they cant "know" for certain they wont fall to their death (or at least grave injury) if they do take that window, we all know both that and why the door is the better idea.
Even if this reality isnt "real", it doesnt change the fact that its the one we live in, so denying it on that basis instead of acting on what we CAN know about it, like the fact that gravity, whether its real or simulated, very much exists in our world, is a waste of time at best, and completely irresponsible at worse.
So eh... yeah... as you may be able to tell, I'm not the biggest fan of sollipsism...
I think this is a great comment to help people further understand the distinction between the two, although as I was listening I didn't get the impression that Jack thinks his and Tate's philosophy on morality are the same. To me it seemed with the Tate example he was actually pointing out how it can be easy to come to the idea that morality is not objective without even thinking about it, because wanting to do the most self-serving thing is such a basic instinct. It seemed like he used Tate to show how that's a childish version of the idea, even mentioning how young teens can easily fall into that thinking, and how it often uses technicalities for reinforcement (like pointing out that institutions can make mistakes, or can be manipulated) but that in the end it's just a shallow way of justifying selfishness and a lack of empathy. And then it seemed like he went on to explain how a person who has actually thought about it philosophically can come to the understanding that while it may be true that nobody can ever know the "objective truth" because their perspective always has a bias and anything presented to them by anyone else will have a bias or may also be inaccurate, that doesn't just give you a free pass to drop the idea of morality and shared truths altogether.
So overall to me it really seemed the whole point was to make it clear that solipsism isn't a sound philosophy just because it may be based on or be factoring in a few very real flaws in how we come to consensus, and I think him pointing out that there can be similarities in that type of thinking or arriving at either of these philosophies wasn't to say they're the same as each other, but rather just a way of saying it reminded him of a philosophical journey he went on because each line of thought raises similar questions. And honestly I think it's a good idea of him to point out those similarities because while Tate may not, I definitely see people using moral relativism to "justify" horrific ideas and actions on a daily basis, and they think it "makes sense" because of the kernel of "truth" that moral relativism represents. They see other people with that "F you, I'll get mine" attitude and think since nobody else seems to care about anyone's morals but their own, it's okay for them to be that way too, so I'm glad he's pointing out the similarities and showing how realizing that can also lead to a philosophy that *doesn't* involve just dropping all empathy for and responsibility to others.
That was just my perception of the video though, but since Jack said a couple of times in the video specifically that this wasn't an argument in favor of Tate's world view, and that he doesn't agree with how Tate uses that core idea of recognizing everything is subjective to then justify a terrible world view, it just felt like he was very much trying to say their perspectives weren't at all the same.
It’s funny, “you’re boring” seems to be the gravest insult to these alpha male weirdos. It’s like a high school mindset in the head of a grown ass man. Like Im not a huge fan of Hasan, he’s slightly annoying to me and can’t take mild criticism, but what is he supposed to do? Do a stand up routine?
They get so mad when you also go "why are you getting all emotional?"
Like, I get it's the toxic masculinity programming and I shouldn't push that misogynistic button but damn if that kind of guy doesn't make it easy.
I would say calling Tate a "solipsist" is at best extremely charitable and at worst just kind of stupid and pointless. To imply that Tate has any philosophical backing in his views as if they aren't entirely derivative of his ego is probably doing him a little too much justice and inversely a damaging association to make with the philosophy (as if solipsism needs a worse reputation lol.) Sure his views might seem to fall into that camp, if you only look at it in a post-hoc sense, but I'd say it's not a meaningful or accurate distinction as far as where his takes are sourced from or what his ideology really is.
Counterpoint: are you certain you respect solipsists the correct amount?
There's academic philosophy and then there's popular philosophy. You can describe someone as stoic without it meaning that they've read Marcus Aurelius, much less any modern academic literature. The fact that he latched onto this concept because it largely fit how he already saw the world is... well, just pretty much how people do that. The ideas do eventually escape the academy, and they don't stay particularly pure after that.
The point about Milo at the end is perfect. Yes, there was a flurry of headlines about Tate as he started getting banned from various platforms but I would ask people who seriously think this will help him in the long run point to a single alt-right weirdo who's gotten deplatformed and bounced back from it.
Well, I would point to Alex Jones, but things have been going south pretty quickly for him lately.
Though that's completely unrelated to his deplatforming.
@@-tera-3345 Alex Jones largely survived deplatforming but I don't think he benefited from it in any way but that would be hard to say for certain without Infowars' traffic data.
@@-tera-3345 Alex Jones was a TV grifter long before he became an internet grifter though.
Truth is just, what is. It may be true that Andrew Tate gets in accidents with only women (which doesn’t seem to be true) but that doesn’t alter the truth that both men and women can be good drivers, and that not all of either are bad drivers.
The gaslighting from people like Andrew and other conservatives probably don’t help the breakdowns people have about “what is truth”. But tbh, that’s probably what they want.
The one thing in common between every accident Andrew Tate has been in, is Andrew Tate.
@@vaiyt It's almost like a reckless a-hole with an axe to grind is prone to driving bad.
We got to stop having their argument. Andrew Tate has not lost his free speech he still can say whatever he wants, he just can't say it in certain places where the people who own those places don't want people like him to be.
I think that the argument is that private entities should not have full control of public forums, because of free speech. Imagine that the owners of all the journals of the country blacklist a journalist
@@cd7002 social media are private forums by definition though, not public
@@cd7002 While I don't like that I had to exodus twice because FFnet is a bunch of conservative-pandering cowards (seriously, we needed trigger warnings for gay pairings in fanfics or else we were at risk of the "sexual content" over two guys kissing chastely, holding hands, and being domestic and very home economics-subjects-y together) and LJ got sold to Russian media after caving in to self-righteous pdf file witchhunting christian hatemobs and catching fandoms in their panicked mass-ban...
FFnet and LJ had the right to pull that shit. Just like us fandoms had the right to scatter across the zillions of LJ clones and Dreamwidth, and ultimately founded AO3 to stand for an ethical ideal of free speech without allowing harrassment and flash mobbing.
Also: they do do that, actually. You don't hear about it much, but journals WILL blacklist certain journalists, and that's actually how we, as the public, can figure out if that outlet has journalistic standards and integrity or not. Bad journos get blacklisted from good news outlets, investigative reporters can get politically repressed by people who don't want to be exposed, and so on.
There's an ongoing movement from journalists to make journalism a public service BECAUSE the commercial nature of journalism is eroding the ethics they stand for.
@@cd7002 well a journalist that gets fired from enough journals would probably have a hard time finding work in journalism.
Hasan literally ended Andrew Tate's whole ass career!! Fuck yes comrades, ya love to see it
weird way to say 'gave him a platform, exposed his audience to him, allowed him to speak to that audience'
if no one made fuckin 2 hour long 'debates' with andrew tate, who clearly doesn't give a single shit about actual debate, he just wants to spread his ideas, then the social media ban he got would be so much more effective and his reach would be cut down significantly
@@alisonpurgatory85 Well don't you know everything
I can't tell if you're using pitbull pics or not.
I feel it is important to let you know that you are the first commenter to notice the pitbull pics
Tate's not a misogynist, he's gynophobic. Which is doubly vile of him.
HAHAHAHA!!! Oh boy oh boy!
So…using all 5 bedrooms in his house to run a cam girl scheme with women who also happened to be former girlfriends sounds like a gynophobic’s worst nightmare. So. Idk mate.
@@katsmith-riply9862 well the way he talks about women suggests otherwise.
Misogyny and Gynophobia means disrespecting women and not seeing them as people. NOT distancing from them like a plague. Renegade Cut explains it better on his James Bond review.
@@sammyvictors2603 I’ll have to watch that vid, Renegade Cut’s stuff is pretty good
@@katsmith-riply9862 i mean, pimps can be gynophobic
I think Jack is the only person on youtube I would genuinely love to have a conversation with. You opened my eyes to a way of thinking I will definitely be looking into more. Thank you
I cannot believe that people seriously engaged in a debate about whether or not women can drive. was it really worth anyone's time to bother arguing tate about this?
_Never play defence_ 😷😷
I'm pleased to have you back Jack. I'm very sorry that you've had this struggle with the nature of truth. I wish I could say something more useful than that.
Somehow I am watching this unlisted video
oh lol I guess it's showing up on the video essay playlist? congrats on the secret early access 👍
Same here?
@@LackingSaint why is it in my recommendations👀
Somehow, @@LackingSaint has returned.
Early Access Club, whoo!
Loving to see more regular uploads, you’ve been sorely missed.
I think these are some of the best vids jack has ever made and I hope that signals a peace for jack and not a strain
Andrew is really confident for a guy who’s last name is basically taint.
Honestly seeing Milo be relegated to one of those hosts on a discounted and unexciting Christian version of Antiques Roadshow is very amusing.
Saying "my philosophy" is akin to saying "my mathematics" or "my quantum physics"
"my philosophy" is a pretty common term lol
words can have more than one meaning and usage 🤯
@@elipticalecliptic481 still based on misunderstanding and misuse, proliferating the idea that philosophy can be equated with "ones worldview". just like the misunderstanding and misuse of "metaphysical" has gotten most convinced it means "spiritual" or even "religious"
Ah yes because I OWN QUANTUM PHYSICS 😂
Personally I’m not sure how ppl can say Tate is just joking and that some of his points are legit. A broken clock is right 2 times a day, so it’s not surprising that he can be right on a few things. That doesn’t mean everything he gets COMPLETELY wrong (gets them wrong factually too, not even an opinionated view of how society works), is a joke.
Schrodinger's Douchebag strikes again.
Only joking if you're wrong or get a bad reaction
Yee
Even if he's joking. It's having a pretty bad effect on the world.
The reason Andrew Tate is "right" about some things is because he starts with an extremely basic point and then uses it as a vehicle to get to his more extreme views
It's like me saying "human contains the word man so women aren't human" I was right about the word human containing the word man but it doesn't justify the other more extreme point directly after it
Holy shit that Milo footage. I am experiencing so much shadenfraude.
Lmao the pitbull and jeff bezos inserts
Y'know, I really like this new style of video you've got going on. Loose, but slick, fun, but informativd. A really chill vibe I can get behind.
i like how you added yiddish folk music when andrew tate had to stop himself going down an antisemitic rant
Just found your channel and thank god your editing scratches my adhd brain
I am enjoying the "Jack holds the camera" arc
"Deplatforming Works" is a video I'd very much like somebody to make and for it to go viral before the end of the year. That would be nice.
Trying to find a definition for truth is kind of like trying to come up with a description of a chair that excludes all things that arent chairs
Truth is information that isn't uncertain, false, erroneous, or misleading.
This also accounts for scientific progress where what was once understood as true is now proven false.
"Personal truth" isn't really "truth" so much as "the belief that something is true", which can give nuance to your reading of a situation, but truth itself isn't subjective.
A woman taught me how to drive and I am the only person in my family with a clean driving record lol
"every single accident I've been in"
Dude... How many accidents have you been in? I've been driving for 10 years, and only had one accident
To be fair, unlike tate you're a real man
He admitted to speeding so I'm not shocked that Andy's been in quite a few accidents
@@xp8969 "wh-what's happening to me"👩👩🧔♀
0:21 how do people take this man seriously when he looks like a Pitbull knockoff? call him uhhh....bedlington cause he's bri'ish
I'm kind of annoyed that anyone on the left was even willing to entertain a debate about whether women can drive. Like the fact that you're even debating it is stupid and offensive.
I'm okay with restricting the free speech of human traffickers.
Thus editing 🤣
02:33 When I was a teenager, I got hit by the same lady twice.
Andrew Tate is a tool, and evidently a bad driver who can't afford a shirt. Possibly due to all the payouts for car wrecks he caused.
I'm so glad you're back, Jack. I'm not sure why, but something about you makes me feel less alone in the world. Thank you for being you.
He just got arrested while I was watching this, lol
I bet Andrew's getting some conflicting feelings about "the degeneration of Western society" now he's getting first hand experience of the Romanian prison system.
Good to know you're making videos again and I can tell your content has really improved
"You can't cancel me!" is the new "What are you gonna' do, stab me?"
You took this guy way more seriously than anyone should need to and I really appreciate that because the Andrew Tate's of the world scare me until I realise that most people do not believe his dogshit
Could you post that interview in the ethics vs pragmatism section in the description? I would like to watch the full thing. Good video btw
Good idea!
@@LackingSaint who was the other guy you mentioned? John Dewey? Toohey?
@@fowad27 Yes, it's Dewey. You can look up the American Pragmatists for the entire lineage. It's a fantastic philosophical framework.
@@fowad27 Yeah it was John Dewey, "Logic: The theory of inquiry" and "The Quest for Certainty" are good starting spots
"Every car accident I’ve been in has involved a woman driver"
I mean, I'd definitely crash into Andrew Tate on purpose.
I will point out that it's a common misconception that genera are based on arbitrary resemblance- they were somewhat in Linnaeus' time, but today we ultimately derive taxa from their genetic phylogeny,who is descended from who. We may still rely on resemblance when there's no other option for long extinct animals, and where we draw the line between where species are considered separate can be arbitrary, but at the end of the day we endeavor towards taxa to be descriptive of very measurable aspects of reality.
since I started watching this video the vibes are down
just kidding jack I watch all ur videos and the vibes are most certainly UP
So glad to see you back man.
"I was going at mph up a blind curve and if I wasnt a good driver I'd have been killed."
Mate if you were a good drover you wouldn't have been approaching a blind curve at 220 mph
I'm really liking this news series of videos :)
the final chapter name is my favorite part of the video
That Patricia Taxxon track at the end made me SO happy
The thing about andrew tate is that he he doesn't stop at 'you can't trust these institutions' and he doesn't even stop at 'you can trust only yourself' because neither of those are his full message. His message, like any cult leader, is 'you should only trust ME'
part of his grift is to gaslight his fans into thinking that whatever comes out of his mouth is what they already think and agree with, and what is already true but people won't accept. it's that 'silent majority' shit that racists do. Of course, most of his fans do agree with him already, but they agree because he's andrew tate, not because they're convinced of his ideas- because he doesn't have any. There is no underlying philosophy. They want as much violent power over women as possible, and they say whatever they have to to justify it to themselves and others. Whether or not that works is irrelevant. It's anti-thought, meant to get people tangled up in their supposed 'ideology' when they only have one goal, and that is to be authoritarian slaving shitbags. Every tate fan who swears he's not a sex trafficker absolutely knows he is, and that's what they like about him. That's why he got popular. It's disturbing because it shows the bare truth: it's simple hatred of women.
This is why a debate with him is a mistake even if it makes him look like an idiot. Like debating a fascist, he's not trying to win the argument. He's performing for the purposes of intimidation and recruitment.
Maybe his father deserves to literally lose his penis for this because without him maybe all these boys would have never been as trash as Andrew
I love seeing milo absolutely diminished like that to a shopping network guy, my god
Truth is indeed subjective, at least insofar as our perspectives are limited and incapable of taking in the entirety of any single situation. We're limited to viewing everything once, from one fixed point in time (we are moving linearly through time, but our perspectives are collections of points and periods along those travels). We might be able to glimpse something near an objective truth by comparing multiple perspectives, but to consider your own perspective as objective truth above any other is just narcissist.
"every car accident I've been in has been the fault of a woman"
"I find it offensive that a police officer in England will stop me for speeding"
What’s funny is while I’m sure he thinks it’s self serving it’s really self sabotage…he ruined so many people’s lives including his own
He is his biggest enemy
"You're boring, I'm gonna go drink my sparkling worta"
Milo doing christo-fascist home shopping network is exactly the tonic I needed today
Jack Saint is back babyyyy
That clip of Milo at the end healed something in me
I think if I have to hear that accent Andrew Tate has one more time I'm going to gouge my ears out with a rusted spoon.
Pitbull slander lmao
I've really enjoyed your content since the return. It feels like classic youtube and the unscripted format works well for you!
DIREGENTLEMAN--
I'm so happy you're back.
This video reminded me why I had subscribed in the first place. Glad to know you're back with a freshened up outlook
Wasn’t expecting to have an existential crisis about truth and perception, after clicking on a video about Andrew Tate
that milo footage is like a drug, so good
Ooooofff, that Milo clip... I had no idea, simply devastating. That's beautiful.
don’t dare compare mr worldwide 305 dale to common L andrew tate. pitpull is an amazing person and based/loves women
Thank you for showing that Milo Yinnapolous clip, that made my day lol.
The siren edit overlaying his voice has me rollingggg. Thank you for your service!
THANK YOU for showing me that M*lo clip at the end!!!! Those seconds were pure bliss and joy!
Pretty funny how Milo almost broke the surface of the sea of irrelevance he was relegated to by riding Kanye's public image death throes, only for Fuentes to yank it from him after being invited onto that dying whale by Milo.
Here within a minute lol
You're the only tuber I have notis on for
03:32 This means there is a collection of women who can cite traffic accidents involving Andrew Tate.
Sounds like he's an epically bad driver.