I was very disappointed when you said “I can imagine being in her shoes” and then the cartoon did not depict Big Joel inside a shoe on top of shoeonhead’s head
every animal has a mind, humans are herbivores, sticking ur hands into a cow stuck in a r@&# rack or paying someone to molest them for you is all just as bad as bestiality
The desire to "not be wrong" produces some of the most robust defense mechanisms going all the way up to imagining alternate realities and version of events.
I think it's also important to point out that the way Shoe responded to this situation is exactly the type of behavior that is encouraged and rewarded by Twitter as a platform. So if there is a true villain here, it is Twitter.
I mean, she won though. It was the most efficient move for her to win the argument. Actually engaging with their arguments wouldn't have netted her much positives as just labeling them as weird. Offense is better than defense. Defending her point would be tantamount to screaming at the void, whether she was right or wrong.
Oh hey, you're that guy that made the really amazing video on Golems! I loved it! You also made the amazing videos on haunted houses, depths, and areas designed for violence. Man, all the videos you put out are pure bangers.
Absolutely fucking love your videos, Jacob. When I'm rich enough, you'll be one of the main reasons I will subscribe to Nebula or Curiosity Stream or whatever it is. Great to find you in the comments here, it's only increased my fondness for your content.
That seems reductive. You don't hear about 90% of Twitter, you hear about the most attention grabbing bits of Twitter. It's kind of like with the news, you don't hear about almost every kitten stuck somewhere high, but you sure hear about almost all school shootings, one would hope that there are a lot less school shootings then kittens being kittens however. It's not to say what you hear about isn't important, it just means you can't extrapolate the ratio of trapped kittens to school shootings based on news coverage.
I think we can all agree that 90% is a hyperbole. But even if you take it as more literal, there can be an argument that the number of tweets is not an accurate representation of “the amount of twitter”. Instead, it’s the posts that get the most attention, which influence and are experienced by the most people. These tend to be the extreme arguments mentioned
Taking your news argument, whatever stories that are covered most represent the news, which doesn’t necessarily represent reality. Similarly, the most popular, extreme tweets, represent best the common experience of many twitter users but not necessarily the opinions of most users
@@Taekwondobbk I wouldn't even necessarily say that it represents the common experience of most twitter users, as much as it might reflect the infamous moments that can at times occur, but are not the average day and even more so reflect the view of twitter from those not on twitter, since it's what they hear about. Like how many ppl not on twitter know of the at minimum whole week of lesbian flags with dinosaurs on it that spawned from someone saying it looked boring and why there weren't any dinosaurs on it.
I find it weird and ironic that Twitter, a platform that was designed for short and quick status updates ended up giving birth to a community that often engages in long discussions and arguments even though Twitter by design wasn't meant for it.
I think a part of it is the character length is just enough to make a point and just short enough that you will spend an entire day clarifying and misunderstanding those points
Oh, no no no no, if we're nice to people who are wrong, even to those who change their mind, we might actually have the ability to cooperate and build a better society. That would be horrible, and to see such a day would destroy me and my beliefs as a person. Instead, I will insult you and try to make you feel as though you are beneath me as some lesser human.
@@jeffreykirkley6475bro can you imagine if people were actually nice to eachother and were actually cool to hang around?? Ugh makes me sick to think about it
@@jeffreykirkley6475im angry at you for stating your feelings, i wish to insult and besmirch you as an individual rather than coming from a place of understanding.
It is sorta coded into us. We don't want to feel wrong because it makes us feel like we have been ostracised by our group. So we then grab at whatever to avoid that feeling. That's why I think its hard to admit when you're wrong. At least for me, it's hard, though I try to.
@@JohnDaker35p i'm not sure about the feeling of ostracisation, it feels to me more like "someone could use this to get power over me", like if you let them, they can bring up more of your mistakes over time until they have a collection and intentionally (conscious or otherwise) form an image of you that puts you beneath them, and not defending yourself makes it worse. obviously the easiest way to beat that is to say/show "i was wrong and corrected myself, stop treating me like i didn't" there are plenty of people out there terrified of being wrong and will jump on a mistake to put you down like it's a reflex, just be confident in yourself and move on. brush yourself off, take action as needed and if they're lurking like a vulture, just focus on the task and act calm. if necessary, tell them to quit dragging it on or point out that they're really fixated on it
It's annoying how, when the question is posed, "Is X worse than Y?" SO many people tend to argue "So you think X is ok??" "So you think Y is ok??" Bro no we're arguing *which* is *worse*...
Well, you can try to use best instead of worse or how do you compare X and Y, because I think when you say best or worst you are not illustrating where you are or what's your expectation, which prompts people to immediately think "you'll have to do one of those things" which is exactly the opposite of what you want with the question and is dumb, because you didn't even say anything about that - which is kinda on you, in this hypothetical situation. You also kinda have to define best, worst and how you are comparing things. Maybe both things suck or both are great, which isn't usually how those questions pose it, seemingly for most people. You simply removed too much information when you made the question I'd say. And there's also a lot of times no way to answer a comparison of this type. "Is football worse than volleyball?" For instance. Sounds undecidable in general.
@@VeteranVandal The problem is there really isn't a better way to word it. Personally, best way I could word it is "which one would make you feel worse/better if you did it?", but then the problem is it's feel, and it's also kinda the same thing as you mentioned.
@@xaf15001 I think it's a case of maybe there are better questions or just change the framework to something measurable. What saves more lives, X or Y? What's more energy efficient? Among many other possibilities.
@@VeteranVandal The question is interesting precisely because it's immeasurable. It forces us to confront the fact that there's a lot of things wrong with the meat industry and some people will only understand on those terms. The scientific community has been screaming about factory farming increasing the risk of pandemics and even after a very deadly (and predicted) pandemic those warnings are still ignored. Using numbers won't help the original point. It can lead to a different interesting question, but you just get to the answer and apply your opinion on top of it, ignoring the forest for the one tree you decided to put your focus on.
@@VeteranVandal wouldn't changing to the word better imply far more interest in doing what is being talked about then worse? You other suggested addendum makes sense, but I don't understand your reasoning for your first.
A great video on one of the many reasons I left twitter. No one ever engages an argument in good faith, it's just an endless swirl of people posturing at each other
yep. and I think reversing that sentence basically explains all these misunderstandings: just because I think someone's argument sucks, doesn't mean I don't agree with their conclusion.
@@kittykittybangbang9367 Don´t know if you have ever experienced that a person uses "ad hominem" "straw man" or points out any logical fallacy just in an attempt to shut the others person argument or to say that is false just because is a fallacy... Well, that´s called an Ad logicam. It´s even in the definition of fallacy. Is not a lie, is a deceiving argument. "All cats have fur, Blacki has fur, Blacki is a cat" "A bear has fur too, that doesn´t show that Blacki is a cat, so it´s not a cat" "But Blacki is my grandma´s cat" See or im really bad at explaining?
I feel like the point when you understand that "Globe, Socks, Rose" emojis stand for particular political ideologies, is the exact point you need to step away from the internet and go live in the wilderness for a month.
I mean... that’s the point of emojis? I have certain emojis I use with other friend groups that have an inside means. Same idea as using shorthand words (iirc, afk, brb, gtg, etc, etc) yes I meant to put etc twice.
You know what movie character is most underrated? Rocket from City of God. In the middle of a turf war between different gangs and the police, does he get involved? As cool as robbing and killing and being apart of the culture is, no. No he does not. He just walks away and keeps his hands clean. Being one of the few characters alive by the end of the film, that proves to be the right choice. It’s a choice we can all make.
To be fair, the lines between a Debate, a Conversation and an Argument can blur real quick when there's a disagreement. I can't count how many times I was in the middle of what I thought was a light Conversation only for the person I'm talking to to Pull out the "Why are you trying to start an Argument?"
,,most people understand its wrong" MOST ahhh yes we have to consider these very few poor souls that dont, being considerete and acomodating has its limits as every other thing in this world i imagine it after 10 year, ohhh beastiality and pedo are preferences and sexual orientatation we have to think about them too
Twitter is not about a conversation it’s about performing a particular persona where other accounts/people/personas act as props for you own characterization
@@creepyjesus1471 well that's the thing, nobody is there to discuss anything, they're there to state their opinion and get clout from people who agree with them
Libs of Tiktok does something similar. She will make a non controversial statement about protecting children (something most of us agree on) but then structures the rest of her arguments in a way that accuses a minority of grooming. Then, when people of that minority get rightfully pissed off, she and her fans will frame those people defending themselves as groomers, because the only person who could possibly oppose their very specific idea of "not grooming" is a groomer themself. The key is to subtly distort a controversial and taboo concept (for example, "grooming"), so that every rebbutal sounds like ramblings of a mad person. They redefine the concept of grooming through a very right leaning lens and act like that's common sense.
I love the word "anti-intellectualisim" because that ecapsulates PERFECTLY everything I despise about modern discorse. It is designed to PREVENT intelegent reasoning.
Yes although twitter as a platform and social media in general is not conducive to intellectualism. So my argument is that if the platform is designed to be shallow why would you expect it to be deeper?
@@pokemasterx4244 but why was the platform designed to be shallow? sure, it wasn't meant to be used by physicists to discuss entanglement, but why is social media particularly egregious, and how do we fix it?
@@Helperbot-2000 anti-intellectualism has indeed been around forever, but you missed the point of highlighting the current iteration of anti-intellectualism, and how it is a problem, even without religion, and why?
i wonder what features specifically make modern discourse particularly anti-intellectual? what makes it so hard for people to really confront the real issues of the modern world? from what I've seen in my own life, is that when I've had a hard time really grasping serious point's about the nature of religion, science, and economics, i usually just get far enough to listen to a couple of people who i trust, and then stew on that point for about a year, before moving onto the next huge topic. i really do think becoming someone who THINKS is an incredibly hard process, and that most people really aren't courageous enough to step outside their own headspace, and learn about why they are not who they thought they were.
Doesn't matter if the writing style is eloquent if the overall argument is absolutely preposterous. The answer IS incredibly obvious. The reason behind the answer IS incredibly obvious.
To be fair, that one guys comment about debate culture being disastrous was pretty accurate, even if it's not accurate in the way he meant it. The reason arguments like shoe's are so common is because 99% of online discussions are less about actually discussing complicated moral questions and more about winning the debate and proving your answer is the correct one. Shoe's strategy of cutting the conversation off from the original context and then framing things so as to make anybody who disagrees with her seem like they're pro-beastiality was honestly pretty well calculated and a pretty effective way to "win" the discussion. She's basically just using the online debate meta and that meta happens to be anti-intellectual.
Wouldn't classical debate culture be about winning anyway though, rather than about discussion anway? In that sense it's got the same goal as online debate stuff, the rules are just different on how to win because the judges are using different standards and operating in a more fractured context.
Yeah, I think there's nothing 'special' about it. These kinds of 'framing' strategies are so abundant in modern society, and it's not even a surprise that someone in twitter happened to perform it.
@@projotce dialectic is about uncovering truth through reasoned debate. In a "classical debate" both sides present their view and then compare and contrast until they find an underlying solution. Neither side is trying to be correct at the beginning, they are trying to be correct together at the end
@@projotce This is a very old critique. 2000+ years ago, Socrates was railing against Sophists who he felt were more interested in developing their rhetorical skills than reaching the truth of the matter. He was annoyed that the philosophical culture of Athens was based more around winning arguments than seeking deeper truth. I think the existence of pseudo-intellectuals who love debating will always be there.
I know I'm commenting a tad bit late (the video is 2 years old as of now) but I need to thank you for this video. It changed how I think about things, it taught me to dig deeper even into things that seem obvious, to not only know that things are certain way, but also to know WHY they are a certain way. It was an extremely valuable lesson I didn't know I needed, and I'm glad I've learned it. Thank you Big Joel
fire vid. "the fact that she couldn't assemble a thoughtful position becomes evidence of her moral virtue" is such a thing that so many people do and is literally worthless to engage with
Assembling thoughtful positions is the *only* thing that matters. I literally don't care what people think as long as they believe it for the right reasons.
I got to this comment right when he said it. It was a cool moment. I see Christians do this all the time when I try to have a discourse with them about religion. It's..... Frustrating
I actually agree with that response though, i think ultimately lacks perspective on Twitter as a platform to pull so much from 3 tweets. Shoe and Joel’s opinions are almost identical to eachother, I just think shoe worded it really poorly and made 2 clap back tweets because that’s what’s popular on Twitter. This feels like kind of a petty video, the main indecent of this whole situation is based of the fact she used the word “natural”
I mean what humongous joel said made sense. Natural is a vague term and it doesnt necessarily means “good”. While it is true we are not natural animal maters like there is literally no point in doing it other than some sick and twisted reasons therefore bad, it is still not answered if meat eating is bad or good. She just said it is natural which honestly means nothing.
the 21 minutes and 11 seconds of "twitter is 90% someone imagining a guy, tricking themselves into thinking that guy exists and than getting mad about it"
@@mechanomics2649 destiny is the reason i deleted twitter, wish people would stop giving him attention though, she gets more and more insane because that’s how he stays relevant.
This video is just an extension of that and I guarantee a majority of you lot are now at least a bit more upset about a conversation you weren't even apart of on a different fucking platform
I think that's through sheer fear, I think Twitter's created a terrible environment where some people are so scared of looking bad that they'll even invent up people to be mad at, I think it's kinda depressing. It almost seems like paranoia
Dude ty for making this. I had this idea in my mind since middle school, about how much debate is influenced by people avoiding uncomfortable sensations within themselves, and really how this needs to be taken into account at the center of any conversation if there is an attempt to build a robust picture of what is taking place in the conversation
People are terrified to go into serious discourse and think cuz they're worried about what other people will think about them for it, and as a result they're quick to label other people for it so they can continue to look good in the eyes of the people they're with, I think that's what's happening, everyone thinks everyone else is quick to label and that makes them do the same, a self perpetuating cycle
ShoeOnhead was actually first known online to me because she was associated with the online atheist/skeptic movement, mostly because she dated "armored skeptic". She did get more popular with the anti-feminist stuff, but really she started as essentially anti-religion.
Man I used to watch both shoeonhead and the armored skeptic. I thought the armored skeptic was cool because… he was right. Sometimes. He would combat harmful Christian ideologies like "gays are bad". But now I realize he only really did that to create some sort of argument that Christians as a whole are horrible, and not just Christians, but all religious people in general. He wanted to push the narrative that it is stupid to believe in something beyond life. And even as a young impressionable preteen watching shoeonhead, sometimes I still had the thought "wait, why is this wrong? She says enbies are cringe, but why? In what way? Are they hurting others?" Ultimately I still watched and believed her because I saw her as someone who was older and cooler than me. So any fallacies present in her arguments, to me, were just ways she was wiser. She didn’t need to explain herself because CLEARLY she knew things I didn’t know. Turns out she didn’t know much at all.
@@offbranddorito9668 Nah nah it's bullshit to say she doesn't know much at all. She's knows not much at all as much as the next person knows not much at all. She's pretty based in alot of ways. But she also has a lot of dumb ass takes as well. I can't think of a single person who I couldn't say the same about. I think she's really just an average person who happens to have a large platform. For every intellectual I can think of , I can also give you an example of something they said that I think is stupid. What you did here is so common. We find individuals that largely confirm our biases and or make arguments that appeal to our sensibilities and sway our beliefs in a certain direction. We then put these people on a pedestal and this makes us more inclined to trust them and adopt their opinions of things that we weren't previously sure of. But if said individual comes out and says something that is diametrically opposed to a core belief , we suddenly think so much less of them and this causes us to move in the opposite direction. This is bad. We should all be able to accept that literally everyone is totally and painfully wrong about some things. Considering all of reality , we all know very little. We are just pathetic dumb humans after all. Including me. 👽
@@offbranddorito9668btw , does the armored skeptic claim that Christians/religion enjoyers are bad? Or just that religion is a net negative for society? I was never a fan of his. But I had a friend who watched him often when I was at his house. I never got the feeling that he hates Christians/ religious folk or thinks that they're all necessarily bad people. But more so that the world would be a better place without religion. Maybe I am just not as familiar with his work as you are. I'm genuinely curious.
@@couldyou4745 It's really hard figuring out what his world view is, because I very much doubt he has one. He seems to hate all religions, sure; but he was also borderline pro-Trump... though, that could be because he was so anti-BLM & Antifa? Supposedly he chose to be the knight guy (Armored Skeptic) because that way he wouldn't show a skin color, so he could talk shit about BLM without being called racist? Which kinda went out the window after his face reveal. Though sometimes he'll say performative things like "I don't just want to bash Christians..." before going off on a rant, I get the feeling he's a grifter, but I'm not a psychologist.
I remember YMS posed a similar question on a stream and people got so mad about it he had to make it clear that he doesn't support beastiality and we should just really be thinking about the treatment of animals in a world where factory farming becomes the standard in almost every country that becomes developed.... one of my friends was even like 'did you know Adam from YMS supports beastiality' like no, that's not what he said, he was having a discussion with his viewers fam
I feel like people need to understand the difference between criticizing someone's argument, and disagreeing with the underlying point the person is trying to make. Case in point.
The not good argument also meant we were moving away from the actual topic Which was not-so-secretly "If you don't like bad things happening to animals, don't you think not killing them would be good?"
@@misterscorpius1446 but they taste so good :( (Tryna go vegetarian lol. The only meat I eat now is chicken, and I usually don't even eat that. Kinda feels gross now; but it's a work in progress, and if I quit cold turkey (no pun intended lol), I'll probably just relapse, so I think I'll do it gradually and integrate good, healthy recipes into my life so it's stable :3. Plan is to be a full vegan of course, although I think cheddar cheese might be a particular weakness, as well as pretty much all cheese lol)
@@lyrablack8621 I decided to go vegetarian when I was 9, and have been vegan for 4 years now. After this long, I just see meat as corpses and not food. People always ask me if I'd eat meat in a survival situation and I say I'd try, but I'd probably just throw it up immediately if I could get it down in the first place. Chicken was my last meat too, then McDonald's got rid of the chicken selects and I was like, okay then, guess I'm completely vegetarian now. That was 14 years ago. Probably the only decision in my life that I have absolutely no regrets about.
"Through this paradoxical logic the fact that she couldn't assemble a thoughtful position becomes evidence of her moral virtue. Because unlike these freaks she doesn't even need to think that she's right. She doesn't need a good argument. She already knows the truth." Thank you for putting into words the horrible feeling I get when I'm trying to challenge people who claim themselves morally virtuous without providing any real arguments rather than silencing and mocking dissent.
An issue that encourages this type of reaction as well is that in places like Twitter if you cannot argue well you are treated very poorly, as if it's proof you do not believe something for a good reason or what you believe is wrong. People forget that being able to articulate yourself well in an argument/debate especially in a text format is a skill that you have to develop. There are people who are very good at arguing and very articulate that use it to dominate people who are not. I've seen plenty of bigots that are more proficient at debate than others push marginalized people and allies into reacting the same way as Shoe. Being good at debate is useful but it is not a virtue itself.
@@williampounds5191 which is a lot of what makes "academics" on the right so convincing. They're not smart or right, they're just better at words than the minorities who have emotional responses to the harm done to them. Its what made assholes like Steven crowder so popular bc he essentially didn't have to argue with his "change my mind" series when he caught average people off guard and unprepared
lovely video but one simple critique, when you saidyou can imagine being in her shoes, why were the shoes not on her head, thats just a missed opportunity imo
It's fascinating how a discussion started by a vegan ended with them being accused of bestiality apologetics. Few people are more strongly opposed to bestiality than vegans.
Yeah, often people say "Just let people eat whatever they want, it has nothing to do with morality" and I'll respond "then it's okay if I eat a human baby?" So many will completely miss the point and think I'm saying eating human babies is better than eating an animal and I just have to put my palm to my face.
Yeah, I'd call it reductio ad absurdum, or proof by contradiction, an argument form that goes back at least 2000 years. I wonder how many people are being deliberately obtuse vs genuinely horrified that you'd eat babies
@@thomasbishop7284 I'd say it's probably them not understanding. Factory farming is often compared to the Holocaust and many people think it's offensive to compare the two even though there's a group of holocaust survivors advocating for animal rights because they see the similarities.
Appeal to incredulity is one of the most under appreciated logical fallacies in that we just let it slip with ourselves and with other people so often that I don't even think we know how to catch it most of the time. But I try to be very attentive to it nowadays. Noticing when someone tries to pull a "my argument normal, your argument ridiculous" instead of actually making a case.
I genuinely think one of the most damaging things twitter does to ~the discourse~ is the capacity for people to just remove all context from it. Or social media in general. It's a lot more difficult to remove context to a large number of people face-to-face unless you go through the effort of setting up a whole thing.
True. You know how hard it is to make a factual claim _and_ cite a source on Twitter? Arguments have to be short and pithy, and typically uncited. May as well be making an argument on 4Chan.
I think this illustrates a big issue. Too many people don't give much thought to moral issues. They follow what they were shown to be morally correct instead of giving any thought to it. Yes, murder is bad but why is it bad? Only when you start to ask these questions will you develop beliefs based on thought instead of tradition.
@@extrahourinthepit pure logic is not enough to develop a moral/ opinion. If you had a being that only knows logic, and no emotion, it would probably do some pretty fucked up shit. I feel a mix of emotional and logical response would be required for a thing like this.
@@someman66 Reason alone can absolutely be used to decide whether something fits within a moral framework or collides with a set of values. That is what machines do every day: take a set of rules to go by (which values essentially are) and determine if something breaks them. If you search for a file it decides whether the files it examines break the rule of not fitting the search parameters. They just need to be given a set of values because machines operate based on the goals we give them. Every day you feed your machine 60, 74 and 82, and you'd be very unhappy with it should it have its own take on whether it would be best for those numbers to be added together, sent to the text editor as ASCII values, sent to the display as RGB values, etc. A machine cannot make its own goals not by nature but by definition, because the goal is inherent in the reason and way it was made, and if those were not to exist neither would the machine itself. So, if we consider the set of values we have, or any subset of it, as a given, we can absolutely use reason alone to decide if something goes against it. The insinuation that we can't almost smells like a last ditch effort at defending a belief that logic doesn't back.
@@extrahourinthepit Relying solely on reason or logical values is what leads to thought experiments where AI machines end up culling humanity to preserve whatever sum required to achieve sustainability. The goals you talk of should still be decided by people, because people are vessels that can marry both emotion and logic when exercising human morality and decision making, because they involve values that reason cannot quantify.
I don't use twitter, but this got me to understand why people argue like this and get defensive and mad. I do this too and I feel kinda disappointed with myself for it. This was really an interesting watch
Everyone does this to an extent every now and again, it's just super enchanced by social media. It's like we''re arguing against the 'idea' we have of the person rather than an actual person.
people get into arguments then get nervous when they realize the whole thing is taking place in a very public way so they start playing to the crowd. its not even a leftist thing or a political thing necessarily its just political subjects bring people to that point more quickly.
That initial tweet by shoeonhead helped solidify my decision to log on out my political twitter. Art and porn twitter is all the twitter I need, thanks.
@@TheBlarggle Only a good point if you think terminally online political statements and ameuter porn or people drawing cute OCs is equally political. Tho to be fair, I try to avoid obvious politics in porn and art too if its negative. Black or trans artists supporting each other, good politics. Porn with socially conservative vibes seeped into it, bad politics.
@@ileutur6863 Okay but art is fucking political ya dopes. I didn't say "Everything is political". SLYKM mentioned porn and art(arguably the same thing), both of which are involved in politics. Like, learn to fucking comprehend the shit you read, and if you have trouble, ask a question, don't just fucking assume shit.
I would say another big thing about anti-intellectualism on Twitter is that its always about dunking on someone rather than having an actual conversation. Sure you do have threads discussing about things, but in most cases its just "Youre either with me or against me" mentality.
Hence why I despise Twitter. I don't believe anything "intellectual" can ever take place on Twitter, the entire website is basically designed around the very concept of just being.. brain-dead garbage. It's all revolevd around "trending", hashtags, what can generate the quickest amount of controversy, immediate and cheap validation of your ego, etc. And with a severely reduced character limit, you basically can't articulate a good argument or anything that's actually worth listening to. Sure you can use those "extended" posts or whatever they call it, but noones ever going to read it, because again it's all about "quick and easy" statments that are easier to digest for mass consumption to get those likes and retweets. Making Twitter the perfect breeding ground for virtue signaling, whining and people trying to shout louder than each other, no more coherent than the rambling texts you get from your pissdrunk mate on the weekends.
Severe misunderstanding of why bestiality is wrong. It ain't because "animals can never enjoy sex with humans". Animals can be observed mounting humans for sex of their own volition, but in the same way that "well the kid said yes and had fun" isn't a justification for pedophilia, it still doesn't justify bestiality whatsoever. Why? Because the issue at its core isn't whether or not the animal/kid has the capacity have a "good time" in the moment, the issue is an incapacity for the category of living beings in question to reliably give informed consent, and the implications of harm that can have outside of the of the scope of one specific sexual act. A child's decision making capabilities are impaired by insufficient cognitive development, and a dog's decision making capabilities are impaired by being irreconcilably intellectually inferior to humans and lacking spoken language. We don't have any way of discerning whether an animal even "likes it" outside of physical arousal, which as any SA victim can tell you, does NOT imply consent and enjoyment. There is also intense power imbalances at play in both cases, which while not enough to make things illegal on their own (bosses having sex with employees is frowned upon and against most company guidelines but not illegal, for example) when combined with the previous issue of mental incapacity, compounds to form an extremely high chance of harm. Sex is by nature a very psychologically vulnerable act, with far reaching consequences on the recipient's mind depending on the circumstances. While there may be some exceptions where animals or children do it with adults and somehow turn out fine, we as a society *cannot take that risk for the sake of some creep's perverse pleasure*, because there's no way to judge when it will and won't be harmful to the person/animal with a sufficient success rate. Certainly not reliable enough to justify doing it just for sexual or romantic gratification! Additionally, "this act is morally equivalent in a vacuum, but highlights a particularly bad thing about the person in question" is an EXTRAORDINARILY shaky thing to base as drastic of a difference as complete legality + industrial commodification of the immoral act (in meat's case) vs complete illegalization and intense social ostracization of the act (in bestiality's case), and reeks horribly of vibes-based morality. It also greatly misunderstands the average zoophile; while there is sadists among them who do enjoy the thought of inflicting suffering, the broad majority do genuinely and wholeheartedly believe they are engaging in consensual sex, and derive pleasure from the act within that context. It's a failure of their twisted moral code, not a sign of sadistic malice that would indicate horrible things about their inborn nature or whatever. It certainly does indicate that they are capable of doing horrific things with exposure to misinformation and faulty belief systems, but most human beings are capable of that. To contrast, most meat eaters do genuinely understand that being killed for food hurts an animal! There is no room for the excuse of ignorance or delusion unless you literally don't know about the existence of factory farms. It also calls into question what should be done about sadistic meat eaters; the vegan obsessed carnivore weirdos who say "yeah and I like thinking about the sadness in the cow's eyes while I eat it". Should the legality or illegality (alternatively, morality or immorality) of meat eating be determined by whether or not someone is sufficiently somber and regretful while they have their burger? If someone does feel apathetic towards or even enjoy the suffering inherent in meat, seeing the cycle of suffering as more "primal" and "natural" (as some particularly disturbed hunters do), have they crossed over into moral equivalence with zoosadistic bestiality, and thus should be punished accordingly? Really weak way of addressing this particular moral issue, which belies a complete misunderstanding of the core principles of sexual morality. The very concept of defining such heavy moral questions based on what you "feel like it implies about the person" is bad enough, but building that on misinformed culturally-derived assumptions (dogs can never enjoy sex in any context, zoophiles are sadists rather than delusional, etc.) makes it so much worse. The phrase "it should be obvious" shouldn't even be a THING in a discussion of ethics. Building a moral worldview off of "common sense" is extremely bad practice on account of our morals and common sense being defined chiefly by our collective culture and personal biases rather than objective fact. While it might not really have bad consequences in this specific case because the conclusion that bestiality is reprehensible IS the correct conclusion, maintaining these same moral standards on other topics could lead to some extremely bad results! The phrase "Sodomy is bad for everyone involved, and their eternal souls. I think that's obvious" being spoken in 1920 comes to mind- a case where going off what you or your culture accepts as obvious fact could have terrible results. Building off appeals to common sense when discussing ethics is a bad enough habit in building a moral worldview that it reflects poorly on anyone doing it. Coming to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons may not have immediate negative consequences, but its really important that the record gets set straight to prevent knock-on negative effects from the maintaining of a faulty ethical foundation.
This is why we shouldn't argue whether something is normal or weird, but if it's actually good for us. What's weird today could be normal tomorrow and vice versa but that alone doesn't determine whether it's good or bad for us in the long run.
Moral philosophy aside, this just drives home why arguments in a giant open forum with strangers where it is so easy to divorce posts from their original context are bad. Whenever you lose an argument, you can just take something to your corner and have people who take you on good faith agree with you. It's bad for everyone. Also, you should get some oil for your hair. It helps the frizz a lot, I got some recently and I like it.
Ooh, disagree. Some of my most cherished arguments have been on giant open platforms with strangers jumping in. The distinction is that twitter murdalizes nuance in the way it breaks up conversations due to its format. Forums which allow for longer form writing allow you to double check context and quote easily. They also allow others to jump in with things you might not have known or thought of in the heat of the moment. Thoughtful people can use such forums to keep each other honest and keep arguments on track. In this regard, YT comments are actually better than twitter, albeit still not ideal.
@@rainbowkrampus I'd also add that gamification of posting with likes and reacts ruins any discussion because the authors are pushed to just write things that do big numbers and readers can just skip reading the posts that got "ratiod" regardless of the quality of the posts themselves.
@@GreatGodSajuuk I agree that this can be a problem. But then it really comes down to the community kinda elevating their interactions above the content of the main site. When a community forms around bringing their own expertise and curiosity to a forum, you generally have a great source of discourse. When a platform tries to turn this process into a game and generally only has one direction of communication, you get toxic platforms like twitter.
Talking to anti-intellectuals and people with an intense dislike of philosophy and/or pondering is frustrating for this exact reason. They will resort to anything in order to stop themselves from questioning even the smallest thing.
Yeah... I definitely have some people around me that are like that. Many people just look at me funny when I get the least bit analytical about anything, as though they can't see where it is even relevant. Which on my end is like "Come ON. This is already dull, right away. How can you not have anything to say about this?" People tend to frown on certain avoidant behaviors, flat-out. But some conversations really aren't worth having with certain people. I cannot respect the point of view of a person who resists questioning their own views. There's no room for talking if there is no room for questions. That is more their choice than mine. So many things I would love to discuss with so many people. But I can tell, they don't really want to go there. I've broken it down for people. A few somewhat understand me. I am constantly thinking things over. Sometimes I intentionally contemplate things that are very painful and scary for me, so when the time comes for real, I can have the clarity to make the distinctions I will need to make. I will be able to challenge my feelings on things when I need to. Or that is the hope. Less 'intellectual' people do seem to understand that. But I can see it is still a foreign concept to them... like, it's still just too much, even if they respect it. My biggest kite shield from these sorts of frustrations is my focus on my own curiosities. I look at those who never delve into anything the way I will delve into even the most mundane things, think of all of the amazing experiences I have because of that - the things I am able to understand and utilize to bring more fulfillment into my life and sometimes even help other people... and I just think they're missing out. Those thoughts become like my best kept secrets. I see my path, I know my tool kit. And I see what they step in, that I avoid suffering myself. I don't need to make more comparisons. That's kind of the point... because I have a mindset that advances me, and I see purpose in continuing to build on that. Other people's progress becomes less relevant to my own. If ever I see someone with a negative trait that really, deeply bothers me, I ask myself why that is and remind myself that I too am a people. I can't always change them, but I can make sure I'm not picking up those same flaws. It shows me a weakness that I, being similar to them in many ways, could catch. I can see they don't see in themselves. I might not either, if I'm not careful. I could go to try and change them, and then my turn to change would still come to nullify whatever progress I had believed I was making by engaging in that. It's a matter of what serves the better utility to me. What brings me those irreplaceable things in life. I think if all I see are people disappointing me, and it's making me unhappy a lot of the time, then it's probably time to focus less on them and more on me. If I am to consider myself intellectually curious, then that's what I'm going to act on. And I'm going to seek the avenues that best allow that aspect of my nature to flourish, not place myself where I'm going to be dragged down and forced to wrangle with my worst attributes in order to move forward. Those are big losses. That stuff takes time to recover from. Rather than wishing for others to be more like what I personally wish to be (and believe has that universal value,) I strive to embody as much of that as I can, because I think that ultimately brings more of that into the world than trying to make people move in a direction that they don't want to move in. If I believe myself to be making the right choices for myself, others may occasionally see similarities between us and take a little of my ways into themselves. Others will see what I have, and want it too. And if not, at least I myself am still okay, and probably not completely alienated from the people around me. I have to be honest with myself, too. I don't know or see everything. And in fact, I have always reveled in my inner world... of taking things apart and seeing how they work, studying other people to try to understand their experiences and choices. It's a point of endless fascination for me. So of course I think "What do you mean you've never thought about that?! How can you not?" Other people may just not experience the same things as me when it comes to the structure of their inner thoughts. And maybe it works for them. But here we see the flipside of that whole mindset that other people have their ways, and I have mine. It's natural to want to question it more, if that is your predisposition. My lesson, the one I had to learn to get a handle on the suffering caused by this, was the notion that there are more worthwhile answers than I'm ever getting out of a dull person. And arguing with them only makes me duller. One thing worth noting... these people still know what's up. When there's a tough thinky-thinky problem that nobody solves, these same people defer to me. I'm torn on this. On one hand, maybe the spark will catch. But on the other hand, it's a lopsided relationship for me. One where my emotional needs aren't met, while I am compensating for a weakness they have, that I don't.
@@differentbutsimilar7893 yeh, thinking about ourselves and how we think about things is crucial to both understanding ourselves and understanding others. Seems everything just circles back to "treat others the way you wanna be treated"
Oh Joel, this is a wonderful discussion. You said something that stuck with me in an earlier video, about someone being a "fundamentally incurious person" and I think that is very applicable here. Not being willing to engage with the material is something I also struggled with, and am thrilled to see it talked about online in this form.
that was a bad argument she made, but honestly, when you first described the original thought-provoking tweet, i imagine it got a LOT of replies like shoeOnhead, people just saying their gut feeling response without caring if they were well-justified or not.
It was usually the response I got, when I found myself living that Lisa Simpson dietary activist type life as a kid. Most people just HATE being made to think about what they’re doing. Especially ethical concerns. ESPECIALLY second or third order ethical concerns. That’s that. No matter what it’s about. So yeah, I fully concur with your prediction (but also don’t care to go look)
It’s not a thought provoking question to anyone though. All living things eat meat even herbivores eat meat when given a chance. We are literally built to eat meat and is one of the reasons we dominated the earth was because we got more nutrients from cooked meat then raw meat. Bestiality serves no purpose and is quite literally unnatural. Only sexual pleasure is gotten out of bestiality and often results in one or both animal and humans being hurt physically. To compare them is so stupid.
@@bojangles3518 1-natural =/=good, literally something that is said in the first 2 minutes of the video. 2-Plenty of animals commit sex acts with other species, as well as rape, infanticide and incest.
@@marreco6347 you missed my entire point. Something natural doesn’t mean right but it still serves a purpose so it is automatically a better option then the latter who serves no purpose. Secondly you don’t consider animals intelligent enough to consent so why should there actions matter? Do you pee your pants because a baby pees there’s? The argument is comparing the two and a evil act with purpose is better then a evil act without purpose. Edit: most animals don’t see another animal as another animal, they don’t have a sense of self so to them they are trying to spread their seed or be breed. They don’t know that having sex with other animals won’t bring them any closer to the reason behind their biological need to breed.
To me, the most interesting part is that when she removes her argument from its original context, the context kinda secretly creeps back in. She says, without context, "oh wow, people want me to PROVE that horse-fucking is bad?" and gets replies from people basically saying that obviously it's bad to needlessly harm animals. The people who don't know that the original question was meant to make people think about veganism are unintentionally making arguments for being vegan, and they don't even realize that's what they're doing.
"are unintentionally making arguments for being vegan" -- "gets replies from people basically saying that obviously it's bad to needlessly harm animals" if that were the argument the commentators were unintentionally making in veganism's favor, then it is a bad argument... as, meat-eating isn't necessarily needless, and we (as omnivores) gain from eating meat. Nonetheless, something can both be 'necessary' and morally wrong. At that point, you'd call it morally gray.
@@nyanshadow4491 Surely the fact that it is possible to survive while not eating meat means it is needless, it is a choice. Like, we aren’t hunting gazelle for survival, we’re choosing to raise and kill animals when we could live perfectly healthily while, you know, not doing that.
@@washada what bugs me, is that most of the time vegan don't understand that some people can't be vegan... I can't digest most legumes and beans (even some vegetables and fruits if I eat to much of them) without being in pain and most meat and cheese substitute are made with those. So if I were to go on a vegan diet, I'd have to take supplements (which can also be hard to digest). We could reduce greatly our meat consumption for sure but we can't stop it completely...
You must have not been harassed by TERFs who conflate furries (people explicitly ADVOCATING FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS who are by definition NOT animal rapists) and actual animalfuckers lol Like, that's technically a good thing I guess, but,,,
Personally, I don't think shoe's original argument was bad. We have evolved as omnivores to eat meat. We have most certainly not evolved to procreate with animals. Further, murder is not natural as humans are, by evolution, social creatures. Murderers are often exceptionally anti-social people due to extenuating circumstances (e.g. negative life experiences or psychological conditions). It may not have been the most relevant argument (as the question was about morality not how natural it is), but I think that it was fundamentally valid.
I don't know if a lot of people realize this, but this is an absolutely perfect analysis of a real-world example of the strawman argument and why it's bullshit and needs to be called out.
@@experimentalwhateverchanne2312 yes. But those are three emojis which are obviously supposed to represent a certain group of people. A group of people that Shoe vehemently despises, blatantly mischaracterizes and villainizes to her (comparatively) massive, biased and easily influenced audience. I‘m sorry, but you seem like the kind of person who‘d look at animated CP/loli, and defend it by saying that it’s „just a picture, bro“ Edit: to anyone who sees this, please don’t replicate my behavior here. It’s childish, worthless, and doesn’t really solve anything. I was just making things worse. Being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive
@@KeDe1606 You are the perfect example of a person who gives terrible analysis, couches it in a long-winded paragraph, and smugly moves on to the next commenter to own.
@@TeamSprocketI agree to an extent about the insult at the end, and the general vitriol with which KeDe1606 wrote their comment, but I feel obligated to point out that their analysis wasn't that far off. In terms of being an example of strawmanning, KeDe1606 is right in that its not "just 3 emojis", its meant to represent a group whose participation in the discourse shoe is purposefully misconstruing in order to garner support for her argument.
@@TeamSprocket ... and what is it that you're doing, exactly? What are you trying to say with your comment? You just came in here, insulted me, refused to elaborate on any of the points you've made, and left. What do you mean when you say that I "couch terrible analyses on long-winded paragraphs"? Are you referring to the first part of my comment? When I explained why I thought their statement was false? I honestly thought I did a pretty decent job at explaining myself. If anything, I'd say it was way too brief. And if you're referring to the last part, the unneeded insult, then... eh? I guess you're right? I just randomly threw it in there at the end, because I was feeling really angsty at the time. I'm not saying this to defend my previous comment/actions. I regret that I wrote that. A lot. It was a mistake, especially that extremely juvenile last remark. I was just being a hurtful POS. There's no denying that. I'm honestly glad that someone called me out for it. I just think that you... shouldn't have been the one to call me out. Or, at least, the way you decided to call me out was very much not befitting of the situation, and is honestly a bit ironic. We both created a caricature of our "opponents", based on a single reply, and then insulted said "opponent" based solely on that caricature. Hey, but at least you didn't "couch a terrible analysis on long-winded paragraphs", so at least you got that going for you! ... I guess
Little aside, but this particular response caught my attention: "you have some of the weirdest people post on *your* threads". She really did manage to make it seem like it was her conversation to begin with.
99% hot takes and reactions to hot takes that generate more reactions and more hot takes, ad nauseam. But you can simply ignore all of that and just follow cool people who make cool stuff, and then the experience isn't so bad. Like every big website, most of the content/people suck, but you can cater your feed to be pleasant and enjoyable with some extra effort.
twitter really isnt as bad as these kinds of videos make it out to be. like yeah shit like this sucks but like there's also a lot of good things on the platform
This is just blatant "anti-sjw-esq" rhetoric from her, shocking i know. Mischaracterize what people are saying, trivialize it, make it a "no brainder" and then bully the person/group.
Shoe really hasn't changed, and she's not what I'd consider "left" in any meaningful way. She's a conservative who wants healthcare, that's it. That's what she's been since 2016 and what she still is 5 years later. I'm not going to say she should be removed from the internet or anything, but the leftists who have platformed her the past couple years brought in a shrieking reactionary gremlin whose sole contribution has been lobbing grenades into The Discourse for clout(ie that pridefall moment back in may). They should probably consider why that is, how to avoid repeating it, and just maybe stop treating her with kid gloves while platforming her to large left audiences.
That is an old 4chan thing. Deflect the discussion into a moral tangent, then weaponize it and strawman the opposition. That woman clearly is permanently browsing /pol.
@@Africa893 she isn’t a conservative. This is a bad take. She doesn’t have socially or economically conservative takes. For example she believe black and brown people deserve rights, She likes a lot of socialist policy, and she believes in gay and trans rights. She is very left for America. She would probably be center left of America wasn’t so fucking conservative. I could get into it more, but to call her a conservative is wild. I agree she hasn’t changed is a problematic figure, but Brie f a problem and being a conservative aren’t the same thing. Obama was a war criminal and Joe Biden is a plagiarist and supported and was proud of racist policy. That doesn’t make them conservatives. At least not American conservatives. Clinton was more economically right than Nixon. But he was still socially left.
Because fucked tweets like this are a perfect illustration of the many bad patterns of thinking humans resort to. Twitter prioritises short, quippy and wrong """"hot"""""takes, which promotes the types of behaviors worth exploring under a philosophical/moral/whatever lense.
Delaniac: Starting from the near-universal presupposition that bestiality is bad, what exactly makes eating meat any less horrifying? Shoe: Something something nature Everyone: That’s not an argument Shoe: So you’re saying you all think bestiality is good? Weirdo this is why people need to learn pragmatics
@@KingBobXVI Not just reading comprehension, but an honest, good faith reading comprehension. That's the thing with shoe0nhead, she's dishonest. She obviously comprehends what she reads, at least enough to mangle it slightly enough so that she can reinterpret what is being said in order to dishonestly present a new interpretation, and then she just ejects from the criticism and pretends like "online freaks spend too much time analyzing everything she says".
It's similar to how you may say you do not like candidate one, so the response to you becomes, "So, you're a supporter of candidate two," as if to assume the choice is only between two things, that there are two teams and you must choose one.
I think shoe may hold somewhat more progressive positions, but she still holds a fundamentally reactionary mindset, and her thought process didn’t actually change.
yes, exactly! it's the lazy "this is obvious so if you disagree with me you're stupid" mindset. i think a lot of people start there tbh, because it takes a while to realize that humbling yourself and acknowledging that you do not know everything leads you to be curious and learn more
@@cjboyo unfortunately she's only been getting worse, she's been doing this shit for years and it works pretty well for her so I doubt it's ever going to stop
Yeah she reminds me a lot of right wing reactionaries in her need for a swarm of "illogical libs" to performatively fight against. It sucks that this style of "discourse" (I mean really it's just tribal self congratulatory circle jerks with no actual substance) is so popular.
I would be empathetic if she was a child or someone just having a casual conversation offline. She is an adult who makes a living by politically influencing her audience.
@@juliaschiero659 Ah okay. Wait was she whining and asking for empathy? I thought she just kinda rolled her eyes and moved on. I'm not gonna go on twitter to check because that place sucks. Is she petitioning for sympathy now?
@@butHomeisNowhere___ Hi. I don't know relevant info not said in this video, but my guess is that Julia is only referencing this: 14:35 in the video. I found it really intresting, so if you happend to miss it, I recommend watching it again.
@@RunBayou Exactly. Another issue arises when somebody has already explained their side of an argument and the counterarguer asks reductive, repetitive questions in order to make it seem like there are holes in the person's explanation that aren't actually there. When questions "are" asked, they aren't asked with sincerity. Debates on the internet have always been about putting on a performance, acting like you're in the right and running in circles.
@@imsotiredofthiscrap2341 I had a reddit argument where I explained someone's comment to someone who didnt understand it and a different person told me, "no shit, sherlock." I was obviously confused; it'd be like teaching a kid 2+2 =4 and having someone come up to you and be like, "duh, dumbass." I tried explaining that. They then went onto say some stuff that didnt make sense, actually showing how they misunderstood the original conversation I was having with not them AND THEN followed it up with telling me not to reply with some bullshit about how I was just explaining it to someone who didnt understand it!
Imo it's at least partially bc of the character limit It IS possible to have nuanced discussions, but the format of twitter heavily discourages that. Thoughts become more pithy and less nuanced, often removing context in the process.
@@kat8559 This combined with the speed at which discourse takes place and the constant pressure to update your feed with the correct takes. It’s much easier (and arguably more powerful) to characterize the opposition as weak/deviant than to think question your own stances and admit mistakes.
@@cashnelson2306 Context makes it worse. Twittertard saw a person who was sad about their hearing aid being broken and ended up doxxing them along with like several other people only because they were trans.
dang, when i saw the shoe tweet i was just like "huh, twitter users DO like to hound people for sources and stuff like that even in situations where it's clearly not appropriate or necessary, what an amusing tweet based on no specific examples at all" the context makes it,,, less good i think
I'm very curious. Could you give me an example of a situation in which it would be inappropriate to ask for a source to a claim? This doesn't make sense to me. Sure you shouldn't always expect someone to have a source. But I don't see how it's inappropriate to ask. Don't get me wrong. I know what you mean. And I think the average person feels the same. I just think it's wrong. I think it's a bad idea to ever just accept the idea that something is true because it's true. You might give an example like "the sky is blue". Do we really need a source for that? I suppose not. But it wouldn't be inappropriate to ask for some kind of argument or source as to how you know that it's true. In fact , you could argue that the sky isn't blue. We just perceive it that way because of the way our eyes interact with what the sky consists of and how the atomical make up of the sky interacts with the earth below it. I cant think of a single assertion that you couldn't question beyond what most people would see as the ontological or epistemological truth. Humans have a bad habit of seeing things as concrete because of social bias that reinforces said belief. In our history it is made evident that these biases are often completely bullshit.
@@couldyou4745 The thing here is that most humans don't like argueing. Yep, that's it. People don't like to debate and put in question their knowledge because that means they've been taught wrong or maybe because they have bad experiences at argueing or they don't have time, even some people just don't like argueing because they suck at it. Hence, they are not used to being asked sources, because they never did. They never questioned what the teacher was saying in that math class where they were taught that (a+b)² = a² + 2ab + b² or why it's needed to learn the multiplication sheet. They also didn't got interested in just questioning and debating, asking for basis and scientific evidence. People are more simpler that you think. Most of it.
@@couldyou4745that kind of thinking tends to derail conversations tho. Don't get me wrong, citing sources for claims is very important and asking for one isn't necessarily bad, but nitpicking every point of an argument is counter productive imo. Like I remember seeing a tweet once that basically said, "Women are complex beings with lives independent of men" and somebody responded asking for a source. Do you see how asking that isn't in good faith?
There is so much iconic reaction image potential. I especially like the girl smiling alongside the words "I don't need to think" and the tired desperation in the face of the person saying "Don't challenge me pls I'm too sexy"
She was unable to understand that people were engaging with how her argument was bad, not that what she said was wrong. Notice how NO ONE actually told her she was wrong? They just said her argument was bad. I can say: "The sky is blue, and it's blue because I wanted it to be." I said something that is correct (the sky is blue), but the argument I made for it (because I wanted it to be) was incorrect.
I see why her going off on her separate tweet tangent doesn’t make sense Bc I understand the point of the original question. BUT I don’t fully see why her argument was wrong. Like I kinda do, but not really.
Her argument wasn’t “wrong”, it was just bad/not solid. In philosophy, an argument is comprised of a premise, inference, and conclusion. In its most basic form, her argument was “eating meat is natural, beastiality is not, therefore beastiality is wrong” Her conclusion was fine, bestiality bad. But, the premise and inference is shaky. The reason she drew this conclusion is like this. Premise: natural is good, therefore unnatural is bad Inference: meat-eating is natural, beastiality is not Conclusion: therefore, beastiality is bad The premise is the part of the argument that doesn’t work. Natural isn’t always good. Unnatural things can be good. In philosophy/logic argumentation, it can be strange to get used to the idea that an argument with a correct conclusion can be bad. But that’s how we can dissect someone’s arguments further and see how well they actually stand up.
@Floofzy Kitty From what I can see of the tweet responses to her “natural argument” Joel used in the video, they didn’t exactly tell her she had a bad argument, they mocked her for it. A good lesson in what happens when you mock ignorance.
Sky's not blue though. It's transparent. It only appears blue in the morning, and that's because of how sunlight interacts with the gaseous composition of the atmosphere at that particular time of day.
Twitter user: Well that's a strange tweet. Maybe I should look through the conversation and see where this all started in order to inform myself before making a rash opinion Twitter: you've hit your daily tweet limit.
I used to watch Shoe during the gamer gate era, and she hasn't really changed since then. She still acts like an edgelord looking for validation, back then it was from anti-sjw's, now it's to look like a "cool" liberal. She also still uses the tactic that she used back then by taking things out of context and controlling the narrative. I honestly don't know why people still give her the time of day
Because her content was and still is tailor-made for the ocean of vocal anti-intellectuals that this entire video was dedicated to. Most people don't care about and definitely don't want to have thought experiments about the ethics of industrial meat consumption vs beastiality. They want to see 2 sentence dunks that they find funny. It's literally just a giant trope high school movie drama circle but online and not self-aware
@@fury5500 Honestly, I don't think she's a grifter, because that would imply she *does* like feminists. I think she still believes the culture-war bullshit about "feminazis" and "SJWs" from the TH-cam Skeptics age because she seems to be a genuinely un-thoughtful person who puts very little critical thinking into her beliefs
@@ratboy7118 her track record shows it though? She said that catcalling isn't a big deal, called the woman in the NYC catcalling video fat so she doubts she would be catcalled, said that women just aren't as funny as men, and said the pink tax wasn't real.
People do not want to be confronted with critical thinking. Beastiality is horrible because it includes sexual assault, but so is our current treatment of farm animals which ALSO includes sexual assault. People mindlessly want to defend slaughterhouses because they like burgers, but don’t want to be confronted with the idea that it’s closely related to beastiality.
Being able to just say "You know what - I'm not sure. I'll have to think more about it" is a truly liberating thing to do lol. But more than latent worry that an act is comparable to beastiality - I think its much more that when you say something like that that feels immediately self evident - you feel /dumb/. lol, like the one that got me wanting to be like "BECAUSE ITS UNNATURAL" was the philosophy/logic 101 question: "if two twins around the age of 30 with no chance of producing offspring want to have sex - is that wrong? if so, why?"... And truthfully, I didn't have any answer that satisfied why I had such an overwhelming "ick" response to why it was bad. It's an interesting question because it strikes at how we think about sexuality... But at the time it's difficult to not have the gut feeling of "I must be really fuggin stupid if I can't argue why incest is wrong". That's what I imagine you are seeing. But its fascinating, because I think you can see the appeal of just being a reactionary.
Just a thought on that twins question: I think it's rare for people to have been introduced to the concept that 'morally wrong' and 'that makes me personally feel disgust' are separate things. Reminds me of a while back when there was a snickers ad with two men kissing, and a lot of people got mad at some article saying, 'I don't want to see that'. I actually defended the article, because they were being accurate in their argument, and not condemning the ad itself as wrong.
@@AlexReynard Precisely. We often don't think about our ethics and morals beyond "this is gross and I don't like it." When you ask why, it seems like it should be obvious, right? It's wrong because it's gross, and vice-versa! But people consider gay people gross, and therefore wrong. People consider other races gross, and therefore wrong. This is such a great video that really discusses how we refuse to actually *think* about our moral system beyond personal discomfort. This is why there are so many bigots; they've never had to give a reason beyond "I don't like it." And if you ask someone to provide reasoning on *why* something is wrong, they can't understand why you wouldn't mindlessly agree with them that the icky thing is wrong. So, therefore, you must also be wrong and icky and support these bad things! Instead of, you know, considering that the "opposition" might actually be looking for a thought provoking conversation and are not just some horrible, immoral person. It really limits actual discussion when people can only throw out accusations and are unable to contemplate their reactionary feelings.
I use an appeal to obviousness online all the time. The difference is so have no substantial platform, and there’s no time to thoughtfully debate every idiot online. But I still want to push back against the idiocy in some ways. So I just call them idiots lol Not saying this is a good to do even without a platform, but I definitely understand the impulse. It’s just probably significantly more important you don’t act that way when you do have a large platform. And also, the people I usually call idiots are engaging in the anti-intellectualism that Shoe is here.
I think my answer to that question would have to do with the power imbalances and psychological effects of incest. But idk, maybe there's a more complex argument for or against.
I think this is a general issue with Shoe and why she was an anti-SJW. She uses her gut reaction to things, and constructs her opinions based on that and just goes with it even if it's flimsy. She will only change her mind when it's been clear for some time that she's wrong, at which time she will update her opinion without really dealing with the consequences of her former opinion.
For someone seeking social justice, the aim of any discourse should be to recruit people to take action to make changes possible. Any discussion outside of pushing actual action and change is masturbatory and should be mocked. I'm sick of hearing people spout their ideals. That's where the "SJW" mocking came from. Less talk, more action. No one is going to mock someone who can produce even limited results. Building one home for a homeless family or tutor one low income kid for free. If you can change the world and post the results, people will come to your side. If you just want to have philosophical discussions about how eating meat and having sex with animals share a moral space, you can fuck right off with that useless shit. The left wants to be like the right, they want punditry and slogans. Sure, it's easy to just say things online, but if you want easy answers, join the side of the political spectrum that represents preserving tradition and the status quo. Being conservative is easy. It requires nothing but stagnation.
But the entire point of Shoe's anti-SJW videos was pulling apart the bad arguments of the SJWs. I think too many people think that if you are against racism and sexism, you have to be an SJW, but that clearly isn't true. In order to be against racism and sexism properly, you should have a deep understanding of the issues, which by definition SJWs don't.
The most disheartening general realization of my life: (US) anti-intellectualism begins in public schools -the very place that, on paper, ought to be diametrically opposed to it- with the typical "teacher" who happily vilifies or pathologizes (e.g., oppositional defiance "disorder" or conduct "disorder") any young, curious mind that dares to ask questions for which the teacher doesn't readily have a _good_ answer -like "why should I participate in this daily ritual of pledging allegiance to a flag?". That's where, I think, the anti-intellectual attitude is first seeded in the minds of most; they see that one peer/kid get kicked out of class for asking a question, intuitively pickup on the fact that it was due to the teacher's discomfort with being unable to answer the question, and come away with the understanding it's wrong to "make" people uncomfortable with questions, that "nice" people don't "make" others feel embarrassed.
Oh god. Was in high school history class. We were shown a video on ancient Egyptian stuff. Afterwards, purely because I'd learned a cool thing and I wanted to share it, I stood up and said how recent evidence of water erosion patterns on the sphinx show it might be way, WAY older than the pyramids. My teacher told me, in slightly more polite words, to sit down and shut the fuck up. In a way that conveyed, 'I am also the football coach. I don't want to be here. None of you want to be here. So let's get through another day of going through the motions because it's easier.' And oh fuck oh hell oh jesus, that last line about, it's rude to "make" someone embarrassed, by "making" them feel dumb... [deep, pained sigh of knowing EXACTLY what you are talking about]
I wonder if this is why I feel so alienated from the way people think and argue on social media? I was home schooled, so all this is very new, strange and disturbing to me.
@trapd00rspider makes me think of the first paragraph of Charles Peirce's 1877 _The Fixation of Belief_ : "Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one’s own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men."
@trapd00rspider I would argue that this shows two major problems in schooling that both lead to this issue. The kids that genuinely want to learn are being shut down because they’re smarter than the teacher, and the kids that don’t are being forced into learning far more than is necessary for everyday life, while not being taught actually important things, such as critical thought process, how to file your taxes, first aid, what the constitution does and doesn’t protect (like how the first amendment gives Facebook and TH-cam the right to censor their content, not remove it), etc.
Letting people get away with saying "its not that deep bro" and walking away really has ruined online discourse, hasn't it edit: these replies make me wanna die
When it comes to online arguments, there's two groups that stand out the most: 1) The ones who HAVE to be right. 2) The ones who have to act the most chill/blasé as possible. 2 is definitely a more recent phenomenon than 1, but they're both equally annoying. And left Twitter is chocked full of both.
I'm not on Twitter and never have been. Everything I know about Twitter is from people dissecting how awful it is on sites other than Twitter and I'm perfectly happy with that decision
@@theomegajuice8660 All social media is toxic to some degree. Social media allows people to be shitty and not fear any consequences plus how execs can have ridiculous policies
And not only that, but that making a bad argument for a true premise *is still a problem* because extending that argument is liable to produce bad things. Like how extending the naturalist fallacy can result in Social Darwinism. It seems like people think rhetoric exists to justify what we already do, and not draw new conclusions that ought to change our behavior. It’s like they think the arguments are a means to perform agreement and moral indignation.
That's what I like to call out all the time. I agree with the claim they are making but the logic is so utterly broken that I end up brutally dissecting their argument anyway, which either leads them to believe I'm disagreeing with them or get so confused that they don't know how to respond. Either way it gets some pretty interesting - and sometimes hilarious - responses.
Really this is a case of false premise, the naturalistic fallacy is a false premise thing. In standard form it would be “1. Bestiality is unnatural and slaughter is natural 2. What is natural is what is good 3. From 1 and 2, bestiality is morally worse than slaughter”. The same type of bad argument with Boolean Logic 101 premise examples would be “1. Socrates is human 2. All humans are philosophers 3. From 1 and 2, Socrates is a philosopher”
17:30 This is how a question becomes a contaminate, how critical thinking becomes a disease that needs to be stomped out Equating thinking critically to a disease low key sounds more dangerous than anything else he had said in the video
Twitter is a very practical evolution of the bread and circus industry. There's no need to hire a clown anymore, we can just make them out of each other.
Hey don't badmouth bread and circus ! At least that one actually provided bread. This is much worse, it's just circus, 24/7, and not even good circus...
@@blede8649 In that context, the bread is also kind of a distraction. It basically means "As long as the people are fed and entertained, we (leaders, politicians, etc.) are free to do whatever we like."
This perfectly illustrates what I find so strange about Twitter. On the surface, it seems like people there are deep in the trenches of internet discourse. But in reality, they're only toying with these ideas, not actually contemplating them. They take the risk of looking bad in an argument, but never the risk of feeling bad about an argument.
That's the reason she blocks anyone she deems capable of calling her out and pointing her mistakes. Instead, she baits outrage or shock and then bullies people
She's never been the brightest. She's entertaining and somewhat charming which is how she attracts her viewers. This applies to many "anti-intellectuals." They're entertainers.
She's done one debate in her entire youtube career vs Karlyn Borysenko, a "why I left the left and support Trump" conservative grifter. It went terribly, Shoe floundered at making decent arguments for basic lefty principles like raising the minimum wage or supporting universal healthcare. I don't know why she bothers inserting herself into the disk horse so often, her arguments are terrible and she can't handle any pushback whatsoever. It'd be better for everyone, Shoe included, if she just stopped.
@@bcw1313 So much this. I think that training ourselves to think more critically is good, and addressing nuance is good, but sometimes making a simple comment in a thread is, as you said, a drop of blood for piranhas. Like people are just angry and coiled up and ready to spring on anything that in their mind might somehow barely imply that the commenter hasn’t prepared a well-informed, well thought out essay that justifies their line of thinking and therefore doesn’t deserve to participate in the conversation, unless they’re prepared to get chewed out over it. And it does seem to cause a conditioned stress response-after being hit with that same interaction so many times, you can’t let a thought float around in your head without debating yourself over it. And that just takes so much energy when most of the time we’re just out here trying to live our lives and survive, and hoping we have a chance to be the best we can be on top of all of that. I’m curious though about the dog whistles you’re referring to because I didn’t catch onto them? What were they?
Two thoughts: 1) I completely misjudged the intent behind the tweet that started the situation too, right up until you reframed it. As soon as you did that my approach to the question changed entirely. Like you I'm no mind reader, but I wonder if that may also be what Shoe did. 2) I spent entirely too long staring at the emojis in Shoe's tweet, repeating "globesockrose" faster and faster.
Your argument re: the moral difference between meat eating and bestiality doesn't work even sans consequentialism. The person who sexually assaults an animal could just say "it's not the suffering of the animal I take pleasure in, I just like fucking animals, and their suffering as a consequence of that is unfortunate but not central to my intentions." Which...is exactly the meat eater's situation. The difference is far more banal and morally irrelevant: fucking animals is gross and tickles our intuitions of disgust a lot more than a tasty burger does, even if meat eaters wouldn't be willing to do the torture and slaughter themselves.
I completely agree. The train of thought seems to get cut off at the concept of “well I’m not the one hurting the animals, so I’m not exacting any pleasure from their suffering”. Paying a middleman to abuse and kill animals doesn’t magically absolve anyone of causing harm. They wouldn’t do it if you weren’t there keeping them in business.
To add to that: The act of bestiality is extremely taboo, so a consequentialist would simply argue that someone doing it is, just by being willing break such taboo, is probably also going to display other anti-social, and likely more dangerous to humans & animals, behaviours. A rule-utilitarian would also argue that a society where sexual intercourse with animals a regular occurrence is abhorrent one, for a host of sociological and health related reasons. Therefore fucking animals should be condemned more harshly than eating a burger, something that is totally normalized in our current society.
Yeah, as Big Joel was making his argument I was thinking "what about someone allowing an animal that is in heat to fuck /them/..?" If the animal is the active party, it's still dubious as to whether it actually consents or not but at the very least it's clear that the human isn't getting off on the animal's consent being taken away. Another counter argument - what about people who enjoy playing the dominant role in CNC scenarios? Big Joel's argument is that since both eating meat and performing bestiality violate consent, then it's not the consent that matters, it's only that the human *enjoys* violating the animal's consent. If all that it takes to be repulsive is to enjoy the idea of taking away someone's consent (whether or not there IS consent), then surely a dom in a CNC roleplay is just as repulsive to Big Joel as someone who commits bestiality... Love Big Joel for his wisdom and hot takes, but this particular argument felt a bit sloppy...
This reminds me of one tweet where someone said that in a very hypothetical scenario, they would want to try the taste of human flesh if the meat was given consensually and ethically. And then everyone on twitter branded her a cannibal who wanted to do cannibalism irl as opposed to like....this being curious about the taste or just saying something weird.
I mean, you COULD try asking from a person who is about to have an operation to remove one of their organs to try to eat it. They would look at you weird, but hey.
I was very disappointed when you said “I can imagine being in her shoes” and then the cartoon did not depict Big Joel inside a shoe on top of shoeonhead’s head
That is excruciatingly true and now I am miffed as well.
same :(
Holy guacamole, I just wrote a comment expressing the exact same sentiment, only in a significantly more cringy way, lol!
@@dildonius +10 points for using the expression "holy guacamole".
every animal has a mind, humans are herbivores, sticking ur hands into a cow stuck in a r@&# rack or paying someone to molest them for you is all just as bad as bestiality
The desire to "not be wrong" produces some of the most robust defense mechanisms going all the way up to imagining alternate realities and version of events.
I think you will find that there are five lights.
ahhh, the mandaellah effekt
th-cam.com/video/-ohPfo69rWk/w-d-xo.html
@Egor Lobaskin Yeah, Shoe is basically a communist now, according to Sargon.
Hillarious how nobody likes Shoe.
"Let's say, hypothetically, for the sake of argument"
She pulled off the well known technique:
"I'll draw myself as the giga chad and you as the wojak".
looks like someone was drawn as the wojak
@@qing7902 we all have been drawn as a wojak at some point, whether we know it or not
@@Chillerllfax
@@Chillerll we all have BEEN soyjak at some point in our lives.
Maybe the Soyjaks are the friends we made along the way
I think it's also important to point out that the way Shoe responded to this situation is exactly the type of behavior that is encouraged and rewarded by Twitter as a platform. So if there is a true villain here, it is Twitter.
Always has been
there's no other possible conclussion, I'm being serious
probably because bitching about politics on twitter is annoying
I mean, she won though. It was the most efficient move for her to win the argument. Actually engaging with their arguments wouldn't have netted her much positives as just labeling them as weird. Offense is better than defense. Defending her point would be tantamount to screaming at the void, whether she was right or wrong.
@@heavenlysenju9948it’s not about “winning”, it’s about engaging in a conversation. that’s what the whole video is about.
Please do not blackmail me into animating your videos again. Please have mercy
please do mr joel of large, this was great and greatly improved by this
We have your children kekekek
Great work though!
But you did so good.
Mothcub, I'm not trying to objectify your animations, but is it my birthday? 'Cause thems got dat CAKE.
My comment was lost on the Patreon version so I will say it again: thank u for the vid meat boy
Oh hey, you're that guy that made the really amazing video on Golems! I loved it!
You also made the amazing videos on haunted houses, depths, and areas designed for violence. Man, all the videos you put out are pure bangers.
Thank you for the vids beard boy
Are we all not meat boys Jacob? Are you not of the flesh?
@@wendigaro438 I have armour so I'm canned meat
Absolutely fucking love your videos, Jacob. When I'm rich enough, you'll be one of the main reasons I will subscribe to Nebula or Curiosity Stream or whatever it is. Great to find you in the comments here, it's only increased my fondness for your content.
love that “harm a cow” is illustrated by making a cow watch The Room
I mean, that’s not too different from how cows are actually treated in factory farms.
is this a thing that was actually in the video? i didn't notice. what time?
@@RilianSharp 3:55 and I'm DED 🤣
@@suzbone
thank you
@Jerms_McErms I agree, and I'm a Lynch fan!
Great example of people who enter into a complex, layered discussion and confidently stop at step one.
Some people are incapable of hypotheticals and open minded questions
Most influencers such seek attention not intellectual discussions
where's the complexity? it's not that these people don't think, it's that you have trouble differentiating between what is obvious and what isn't.
@@shum8104 the complexity is explained in this video from 2:17 to 5:11
If step 2 is "yoo why did you argue that sex with animals is bad in the wrong way" then like
Go to a different staircase man😭
"Twitter is 90% someone inventing a guy and then getting mad at them." -Whoever said that originally, roughly paraphrased
Yep, that checks out.
That seems reductive. You don't hear about 90% of Twitter, you hear about the most attention grabbing bits of Twitter. It's kind of like with the news, you don't hear about almost every kitten stuck somewhere high, but you sure hear about almost all school shootings, one would hope that there are a lot less school shootings then kittens being kittens however.
It's not to say what you hear about isn't important, it just means you can't extrapolate the ratio of trapped kittens to school shootings based on news coverage.
I think we can all agree that 90% is a hyperbole. But even if you take it as more literal, there can be an argument that the number of tweets is not an accurate representation of “the amount of twitter”. Instead, it’s the posts that get the most attention, which influence and are experienced by the most people. These tend to be the extreme arguments mentioned
Taking your news argument, whatever stories that are covered most represent the news, which doesn’t necessarily represent reality. Similarly, the most popular, extreme tweets, represent best the common experience of many twitter users but not necessarily the opinions of most users
@@Taekwondobbk I wouldn't even necessarily say that it represents the common experience of most twitter users, as much as it might reflect the infamous moments that can at times occur, but are not the average day and even more so reflect the view of twitter from those not on twitter, since it's what they hear about.
Like how many ppl not on twitter know of the at minimum whole week of lesbian flags with dinosaurs on it that spawned from someone saying it looked boring and why there weren't any dinosaurs on it.
I find it weird and ironic that Twitter, a platform that was designed for short and quick status updates ended up giving birth to a community that often engages in long discussions and arguments even though Twitter by design wasn't meant for it.
pretty sure long form discussion became more popular when character limit was increased.
it used to be much smaller.
@@bitterjames yea back then it was all just insults. now there is the added dimension of explaining why their insults are justified.
@@env0x 😂I dont want you to just know youre wrong, I want you to feel bad about it too
I think a part of it is the character length is just enough to make a point and just short enough that you will spend an entire day clarifying and misunderstanding those points
Not being able to express yourself fully in one take seems like a breeding ground for misunderstanding
Downvoted for not putting a shoe on your head at any point, perfect vid otherwise
Maggie Mae Fish 😍
I thought we were supposed to wear the shoe.. so,. I can take the shoe off now?
yeah but Mothcub twice puts a shoe on shoe on head's head.
Also downvoted for not putting a shoe on her head.
@@ironmilutin 5:26
I really wish we could all feel okay with the prospect of being wrong, and be nicer to those who admit they’re wrong
Oh, no no no no, if we're nice to people who are wrong, even to those who change their mind, we might actually have the ability to cooperate and build a better society. That would be horrible, and to see such a day would destroy me and my beliefs as a person. Instead, I will insult you and try to make you feel as though you are beneath me as some lesser human.
@@jeffreykirkley6475bro can you imagine if people were actually nice to eachother and were actually cool to hang around??
Ugh makes me sick to think about it
@@jeffreykirkley6475im angry at you for stating your feelings, i wish to insult and besmirch you as an individual rather than coming from a place of understanding.
It is sorta coded into us. We don't want to feel wrong because it makes us feel like we have been ostracised by our group. So we then grab at whatever to avoid that feeling. That's why I think its hard to admit when you're wrong. At least for me, it's hard, though I try to.
@@JohnDaker35p i'm not sure about the feeling of ostracisation, it feels to me more like "someone could use this to get power over me", like if you let them, they can bring up more of your mistakes over time until they have a collection and intentionally (conscious or otherwise) form an image of you that puts you beneath them, and not defending yourself makes it worse. obviously the easiest way to beat that is to say/show "i was wrong and corrected myself, stop treating me like i didn't"
there are plenty of people out there terrified of being wrong and will jump on a mistake to put you down like it's a reflex, just be confident in yourself and move on. brush yourself off, take action as needed and if they're lurking like a vulture, just focus on the task and act calm. if necessary, tell them to quit dragging it on or point out that they're really fixated on it
It's annoying how, when the question is posed, "Is X worse than Y?" SO many people tend to argue "So you think X is ok??" "So you think Y is ok??"
Bro no we're arguing *which* is *worse*...
Well, you can try to use best instead of worse or how do you compare X and Y, because I think when you say best or worst you are not illustrating where you are or what's your expectation, which prompts people to immediately think "you'll have to do one of those things" which is exactly the opposite of what you want with the question and is dumb, because you didn't even say anything about that - which is kinda on you, in this hypothetical situation. You also kinda have to define best, worst and how you are comparing things.
Maybe both things suck or both are great, which isn't usually how those questions pose it, seemingly for most people. You simply removed too much information when you made the question I'd say.
And there's also a lot of times no way to answer a comparison of this type. "Is football worse than volleyball?" For instance. Sounds undecidable in general.
@@VeteranVandal The problem is there really isn't a better way to word it. Personally, best way I could word it is "which one would make you feel worse/better if you did it?", but then the problem is it's feel, and it's also kinda the same thing as you mentioned.
@@xaf15001 I think it's a case of maybe there are better questions or just change the framework to something measurable. What saves more lives, X or Y? What's more energy efficient? Among many other possibilities.
@@VeteranVandal The question is interesting precisely because it's immeasurable. It forces us to confront the fact that there's a lot of things wrong with the meat industry and some people will only understand on those terms. The scientific community has been screaming about factory farming increasing the risk of pandemics and even after a very deadly (and predicted) pandemic those warnings are still ignored. Using numbers won't help the original point. It can lead to a different interesting question, but you just get to the answer and apply your opinion on top of it, ignoring the forest for the one tree you decided to put your focus on.
@@VeteranVandal wouldn't changing to the word better imply far more interest in doing what is being talked about then worse? You other suggested addendum makes sense, but I don't understand your reasoning for your first.
Made the mistake of starting to watch this on loud with the windows open. Safe to say I reached for my headphones pretty quickly.
F
it's always nice to see my favorite TH-camrs commenting on each others' videos.
For The Algorithm!
Lol!
Yeah god forbid somebody finds out you watch Joel
I just realised my windows are opened... I'm at the end of the video
It’s like when kids say “This game is stupid and I hate it anyway” when they lose.
Well, Twitter IS a pretty bad site lol.
Not really but kinda
like what america just did in afghanistan, and previously in vietnam?
@@Ass_of_Amalek 'Vietnam was not a war, it was a conflict, thereby the US never lost the Vietnam War!'
--- canon line for apologists
Kids? I still say it. 😂
A great video on one of the many reasons I left twitter. No one ever engages an argument in good faith, it's just an endless swirl of people posturing at each other
I have to give it to Joel on this one. I imagine it’s hard to put yourself in someone’s shoes when their shoe is on their head 😔
Classic good one right there
good one night lord
Good one mate
get this man into a comedy club 💀
So true
Twitter has taught me that I can agree with someone's conclusion, & still think *their argument sucks.*
yep. and I think reversing that sentence basically explains all these misunderstandings: just because I think someone's argument sucks, doesn't mean I don't agree with their conclusion.
Good point... it reminds me about a fallacy called Ad Logicam...
@@SeSdesc what's that about?
@@kittykittybangbang9367 Don´t know if you have ever experienced that a person uses "ad hominem" "straw man" or points out any logical fallacy just in an attempt to shut the others person argument or to say that is false just because is a fallacy... Well, that´s called an Ad logicam.
It´s even in the definition of fallacy. Is not a lie, is a deceiving argument.
"All cats have fur, Blacki has fur, Blacki is a cat"
"A bear has fur too, that doesn´t show that Blacki is a cat, so it´s not a cat"
"But Blacki is my grandma´s cat"
See or im really bad at explaining?
@@SeSdesc yeah I see it
I feel like the point when you understand that "Globe, Socks, Rose" emojis stand for particular political ideologies, is the exact point you need to step away from the internet and go live in the wilderness for a month.
I thought the globe thing is wikipedia because the next word he uses is source
I thought it was just a bunch of random emotes she threw in there because she has no argument
god fuck this place imma find google and turn it off
I mean... that’s the point of emojis? I have certain emojis I use with other friend groups that have an inside means. Same idea as using shorthand words (iirc, afk, brb, gtg, etc, etc) yes I meant to put etc twice.
You know what movie character is most underrated? Rocket from City of God.
In the middle of a turf war between different gangs and the police, does he get involved? As cool as robbing and killing and being apart of the culture is, no. No he does not. He just walks away and keeps his hands clean.
Being one of the few characters alive by the end of the film, that proves to be the right choice.
It’s a choice we can all make.
"Every debates will always end up in 'I'm right. You're wrong. Fuck you.' situation. Always."
- A wise man
To be fair, the lines between a Debate, a Conversation and an Argument can blur real quick when there's a disagreement.
I can't count how many times I was in the middle of what I thought was a light Conversation only for the person I'm talking to to Pull out the "Why are you trying to start an Argument?"
If it ends like that from all involved it's an argument not a debate, in my opinion
I disagree, but change the sentence into 'every debate on twitter' and I would agree
I disagree. I’m right. You’re wrong. Fuck you
Except for the shortest ones, of course.
Clickbait title: JOEL DEFENDS BESTIALITY
Good for joel
@Stephanie -They Them- and nothing of value was lost
@@jacobcordova3825 no not good very bad
,,most people understand its wrong" MOST ahhh yes we have to consider these very few poor souls that dont, being considerete and acomodating has its limits as every other thing in this world i imagine it after 10 year, ohhh beastiality and pedo are preferences and sexual orientatation we have to think about them too
Joel is defending "beeshcheeality"! Please get the speeling right!
"Murder is bad and Airheads are delicious" -- Solid life philosophy right there
based and truepilled
It took me a second to realise they were some kind of sweet, and thought Joel was going to try and convince us to eat wireless earbuds
Damn right
Airheads bad actually
“Anyone can be a killer. You just have to forget the taste of sugar”
A quote from an ex-hitman in Naoki Urasawa’s Monster.
Twitter is not about a conversation it’s about performing a particular persona where other accounts/people/personas act as props for you own characterization
Twitter is a networking tool. It is not meant for discussing philosophical disagreements. Idk why people have such a hard time understanding this.
@@creepyjesus1471 well that's the thing, nobody is there to discuss anything, they're there to state their opinion and get clout from people who agree with them
It's basically a ventriloquism act.
Truest statement I've read in ages.
twitter is whatever you want it to be lol. youre free to use it however you want or not use it at all.
Libs of Tiktok does something similar. She will make a non controversial statement about protecting children (something most of us agree on) but then structures the rest of her arguments in a way that accuses a minority of grooming. Then, when people of that minority get rightfully pissed off, she and her fans will frame those people defending themselves as groomers, because the only person who could possibly oppose their very specific idea of "not grooming" is a groomer themself. The key is to subtly distort a controversial and taboo concept (for example, "grooming"), so that every rebbutal sounds like ramblings of a mad person. They redefine the concept of grooming through a very right leaning lens and act like that's common sense.
How do you redefine the concept of grooming and what entire “minority” is shorty accusing of grooming
Google will tell you that in like 45 seconds@@1Kai11
I love the word "anti-intellectualisim" because that ecapsulates PERFECTLY everything I despise about modern discorse. It is designed to PREVENT intelegent reasoning.
Yes although twitter as a platform and social media in general is not conducive to intellectualism. So my argument is that if the platform is designed to be shallow why would you expect it to be deeper?
Idk man, religion has been around for a long time...
@@pokemasterx4244 but why was the platform designed to be shallow? sure, it wasn't meant to be used by physicists to discuss entanglement, but why is social media particularly egregious, and how do we fix it?
@@Helperbot-2000 anti-intellectualism has indeed been around forever, but you missed the point of highlighting the current iteration of anti-intellectualism, and how it is a problem, even without religion, and why?
i wonder what features specifically make modern discourse particularly anti-intellectual? what makes it so hard for people to really confront the real issues of the modern world? from what I've seen in my own life, is that when I've had a hard time really grasping serious point's about the nature of religion, science, and economics, i usually just get far enough to listen to a couple of people who i trust, and then stew on that point for about a year, before moving onto the next huge topic. i really do think becoming someone who THINKS is an incredibly hard process, and that most people really aren't courageous enough to step outside their own headspace, and learn about why they are not who they thought they were.
I just love the juxtaposition between Big Joel's fantastic and eloquent writing style and the repeated use of the term "horse fucker"
Doesn't matter if the writing style is eloquent if the overall argument is absolutely preposterous. The answer IS incredibly obvious. The reason behind the answer IS incredibly obvious.
@@MGsubbie🫸🪨⛰️
@@MGsubbiecope
@@numbdigger9552 Yeah, vegans constantly have to cope with reality, I know.
@@MGsubbie you're a vegan? Sad...
To be fair, that one guys comment about debate culture being disastrous was pretty accurate, even if it's not accurate in the way he meant it. The reason arguments like shoe's are so common is because 99% of online discussions are less about actually discussing complicated moral questions and more about winning the debate and proving your answer is the correct one. Shoe's strategy of cutting the conversation off from the original context and then framing things so as to make anybody who disagrees with her seem like they're pro-beastiality was honestly pretty well calculated and a pretty effective way to "win" the discussion. She's basically just using the online debate meta and that meta happens to be anti-intellectual.
Wouldn't classical debate culture be about winning anyway though, rather than about discussion anway? In that sense it's got the same goal as online debate stuff, the rules are just different on how to win because the judges are using different standards and operating in a more fractured context.
Yeah, I think there's nothing 'special' about it. These kinds of 'framing' strategies are so abundant in modern society, and it's not even a surprise that someone in twitter happened to perform it.
based
@@projotce dialectic is about uncovering truth through reasoned debate. In a "classical debate" both sides present their view and then compare and contrast until they find an underlying solution. Neither side is trying to be correct at the beginning, they are trying to be correct together at the end
@@projotce This is a very old critique. 2000+ years ago, Socrates was railing against Sophists who he felt were more interested in developing their rhetorical skills than reaching the truth of the matter. He was annoyed that the philosophical culture of Athens was based more around winning arguments than seeking deeper truth. I think the existence of pseudo-intellectuals who love debating will always be there.
I know I'm commenting a tad bit late (the video is 2 years old as of now) but I need to thank you for this video. It changed how I think about things, it taught me to dig deeper even into things that seem obvious, to not only know that things are certain way, but also to know WHY they are a certain way. It was an extremely valuable lesson I didn't know I needed, and I'm glad I've learned it. Thank you Big Joel
fire vid. "the fact that she couldn't assemble a thoughtful position becomes evidence of her moral virtue" is such a thing that so many people do and is literally worthless to engage with
this is the thought process of conservatives
Assembling thoughtful positions is the *only* thing that matters. I literally don't care what people think as long as they believe it for the right reasons.
I got to this comment right when he said it. It was a cool moment. I see Christians do this all the time when I try to have a discourse with them about religion. It's..... Frustrating
@@salt5364 this is the thought process of most people who care about politics.
@@thebeatleswin1 honestly, you're right.
has shoe replied “bru its not that deep why are you writing fanfic” yet
gaslight gatekeep girlboss 😭😭😭
@@mizjulio shoe has that real girlboss energy, like Thatcher
I actually agree with that response though, i think ultimately lacks perspective on Twitter as a platform to pull so much from 3 tweets. Shoe and Joel’s opinions are almost identical to eachother, I just think shoe worded it really poorly and made 2 clap back tweets because that’s what’s popular on Twitter.
This feels like kind of a petty video, the main indecent of this whole situation is based of the fact she used the word “natural”
I mean what humongous joel said made sense. Natural is a vague term and it doesnt necessarily means “good”. While it is true we are not natural animal maters like there is literally no point in doing it other than some sick and twisted reasons therefore bad, it is still not answered if meat eating is bad or good. She just said it is natural which honestly means nothing.
Shut up shoe is hot
the 21 minutes and 11 seconds of "twitter is 90% someone imagining a guy, tricking themselves into thinking that guy exists and than getting mad about it"
That's so true holy shit
This's exactly why I can't stand Destiny's whining about lefties.
@@mechanomics2649 destiny is the reason i deleted twitter, wish people would stop giving him attention though, she gets more and more insane because that’s how he stays relevant.
This video is just an extension of that and I guarantee a majority of you lot are now at least a bit more upset about a conversation you weren't even apart of on a different fucking platform
I think that's through sheer fear, I think Twitter's created a terrible environment where some people are so scared of looking bad that they'll even invent up people to be mad at, I think it's kinda depressing. It almost seems like paranoia
Dude ty for making this. I had this idea in my mind since middle school, about how much debate is influenced by people avoiding uncomfortable sensations within themselves, and really how this needs to be taken into account at the center of any conversation if there is an attempt to build a robust picture of what is taking place in the conversation
Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called “Ego”
- Nietzsche
That's called cognitive dissonance
Mothclub’s animation is so fitting for Big Joel’s sweet and calmer voice! Great work!
The magical land of Twitter, where a difficult question about morals gets you immediately accused of beastiality.
People are terrified to go into serious discourse and think cuz they're worried about what other people will think about them for it, and as a result they're quick to label other people for it so they can continue to look good in the eyes of the people they're with, I think that's what's happening, everyone thinks everyone else is quick to label and that makes them do the same, a self perpetuating cycle
Maybe choose a different comparison than beastiality
Tbf all of the beastie people are on Twitter.
Why are you cretins so determined to stan for fucking shoe, what the actual fuck
@@Nefariousbig dsmn bro look, that horse looking kinda thick isn't it? 😳🐎
This art and animation makes me so happy. It's just so whimsical and humorous, never fails to make me smile
thank mothcub for that!
agreed, mothcub is fantastic :D
ShoeOnhead was actually first known online to me because she was associated with the online atheist/skeptic movement, mostly because she dated "armored skeptic". She did get more popular with the anti-feminist stuff, but really she started as essentially anti-religion.
Man I used to watch both shoeonhead and the armored skeptic. I thought the armored skeptic was cool because… he was right. Sometimes. He would combat harmful Christian ideologies like "gays are bad". But now I realize he only really did that to create some sort of argument that Christians as a whole are horrible, and not just Christians, but all religious people in general. He wanted to push the narrative that it is stupid to believe in something beyond life. And even as a young impressionable preteen watching shoeonhead, sometimes I still had the thought "wait, why is this wrong? She says enbies are cringe, but why? In what way? Are they hurting others?" Ultimately I still watched and believed her because I saw her as someone who was older and cooler than me. So any fallacies present in her arguments, to me, were just ways she was wiser. She didn’t need to explain herself because CLEARLY she knew things I didn’t know. Turns out she didn’t know much at all.
@@offbranddorito9668 Nah nah it's bullshit to say she doesn't know much at all. She's knows not much at all as much as the next person knows not much at all. She's pretty based in alot of ways. But she also has a lot of dumb ass takes as well. I can't think of a single person who I couldn't say the same about. I think she's really just an average person who happens to have a large platform. For every intellectual I can think of , I can also give you an example of something they said that I think is stupid. What you did here is so common. We find individuals that largely confirm our biases and or make arguments that appeal to our sensibilities and sway our beliefs in a certain direction. We then put these people on a pedestal and this makes us more inclined to trust them and adopt their opinions of things that we weren't previously sure of. But if said individual comes out and says something that is diametrically opposed to a core belief , we suddenly think so much less of them and this causes us to move in the opposite direction. This is bad. We should all be able to accept that literally everyone is totally and painfully wrong about some things. Considering all of reality , we all know very little. We are just pathetic dumb humans after all. Including me. 👽
@@offbranddorito9668btw , does the armored skeptic claim that Christians/religion enjoyers are bad? Or just that religion is a net negative for society? I was never a fan of his. But I had a friend who watched him often when I was at his house. I never got the feeling that he hates Christians/ religious folk or thinks that they're all necessarily bad people. But more so that the world would be a better place without religion. Maybe I am just not as familiar with his work as you are. I'm genuinely curious.
@@couldyou4745 It's really hard figuring out what his world view is, because I very much doubt he has one. He seems to hate all religions, sure; but he was also borderline pro-Trump... though, that could be because he was so anti-BLM & Antifa? Supposedly he chose to be the knight guy (Armored Skeptic) because that way he wouldn't show a skin color, so he could talk shit about BLM without being called racist? Which kinda went out the window after his face reveal. Though sometimes he'll say performative things like "I don't just want to bash Christians..." before going off on a rant, I get the feeling he's a grifter, but I'm not a psychologist.
If you go to her TH-cam channel and sort by oldest, you don't find many anti-religion views.
I remember YMS posed a similar question on a stream and people got so mad about it he had to make it clear that he doesn't support beastiality and we should just really be thinking about the treatment of animals in a world where factory farming becomes the standard in almost every country that becomes developed.... one of my friends was even like 'did you know Adam from YMS supports beastiality' like no, that's not what he said, he was having a discussion with his viewers fam
Adum wants to be part horse not fuck horse parts. He's a good boy.
YMS?
Yms?
Yeah, but like, dude still gave Escape from Tomorrow a 7. So we'll never truly know
@@JCOdrjones Woah he did.
I feel like people need to understand the difference between criticizing someone's argument, and disagreeing with the underlying point the person is trying to make. Case in point.
Yes
The not good argument also meant we were moving away from the actual topic
Which was not-so-secretly "If you don't like bad things happening to animals, don't you think not killing them would be good?"
@@misterscorpius1446 but they taste so good :(
(Tryna go vegetarian lol. The only meat I eat now is chicken, and I usually don't even eat that. Kinda feels gross now; but it's a work in progress, and if I quit cold turkey (no pun intended lol), I'll probably just relapse, so I think I'll do it gradually and integrate good, healthy recipes into my life so it's stable :3. Plan is to be a full vegan of course, although I think cheddar cheese might be a particular weakness, as well as pretty much all cheese lol)
The problem with nuance is that it doesn't give you clout.
@@lyrablack8621 I decided to go vegetarian when I was 9, and have been vegan for 4 years now. After this long, I just see meat as corpses and not food. People always ask me if I'd eat meat in a survival situation and I say I'd try, but I'd probably just throw it up immediately if I could get it down in the first place.
Chicken was my last meat too, then McDonald's got rid of the chicken selects and I was like, okay then, guess I'm completely vegetarian now. That was 14 years ago. Probably the only decision in my life that I have absolutely no regrets about.
"Through this paradoxical logic the fact that she couldn't assemble a thoughtful position becomes evidence of her moral virtue. Because unlike these freaks she doesn't even need to think that she's right. She doesn't need a good argument. She already knows the truth."
Thank you for putting into words the horrible feeling I get when I'm trying to challenge people who claim themselves morally virtuous without providing any real arguments rather than silencing and mocking dissent.
An issue that encourages this type of reaction as well is that in places like Twitter if you cannot argue well you are treated very poorly, as if it's proof you do not believe something for a good reason or what you believe is wrong. People forget that being able to articulate yourself well in an argument/debate especially in a text format is a skill that you have to develop. There are people who are very good at arguing and very articulate that use it to dominate people who are not. I've seen plenty of bigots that are more proficient at debate than others push marginalized people and allies into reacting the same way as Shoe. Being good at debate is useful but it is not a virtue itself.
Agreed
@@williampounds5191 Oof, well said
This is exactly what Ben Shapiro does about queer people, especially those of us who are trans.
@@williampounds5191 which is a lot of what makes "academics" on the right so convincing. They're not smart or right, they're just better at words than the minorities who have emotional responses to the harm done to them. Its what made assholes like Steven crowder so popular bc he essentially didn't have to argue with his "change my mind" series when he caught average people off guard and unprepared
lovely video but one simple critique, when you saidyou can imagine being in her shoes, why were the shoes not on her head, thats just a missed opportunity imo
mothcubs art and big joel's essays go together like the lovely swirls of a marble pound cake
Curses, you've made me hungry.
@@swank2035 Okeedoke: th-cam.com/video/anZCbX21P-0/w-d-xo.html
Me: I hate Twitter and all the inane discourse on it
Big Joel: here’s a 20 minute video on a couple of tweets
Me: thank you, king. 10/10. Can’t wait.
You go meta and the new discourse may have some appeal. Big Joel is good for recycling media crap into something to enjoy thinking about.
Typical wonan
so true!
same, but also, I spent a huge amount of time on twitter. that I hate. But I can't stop
This is the only way I can bear to experience Twitter lol
It's fascinating how a discussion started by a vegan ended with them being accused of bestiality apologetics. Few people are more strongly opposed to bestiality than vegans.
Yeah, often people say "Just let people eat whatever they want, it has nothing to do with morality" and I'll respond "then it's okay if I eat a human baby?" So many will completely miss the point and think I'm saying eating human babies is better than eating an animal and I just have to put my palm to my face.
Source?
Yeah, I'd call it reductio ad absurdum, or proof by contradiction, an argument form that goes back at least 2000 years. I wonder how many people are being deliberately obtuse vs genuinely horrified that you'd eat babies
@@thomasbishop7284 I'd say it's probably them not understanding. Factory farming is often compared to the Holocaust and many people think it's offensive to compare the two even though there's a group of holocaust survivors advocating for animal rights because they see the similarities.
@@tonicmale2145 That makes no sense, that is like saying "people don't advocate for racism" and then asking for a source.
Appeal to incredulity is one of the most under appreciated logical fallacies in that we just let it slip with ourselves and with other people so often that I don't even think we know how to catch it most of the time. But I try to be very attentive to it nowadays. Noticing when someone tries to pull a "my argument normal, your argument ridiculous" instead of actually making a case.
Yes I'll agree with the position
I genuinely think one of the most damaging things twitter does to ~the discourse~ is the capacity for people to just remove all context from it. Or social media in general. It's a lot more difficult to remove context to a large number of people face-to-face unless you go through the effort of setting up a whole thing.
Without context I would have assumed that tweet had nothing to do with veganism and was part of the pro anti shipping nonsense
True. You know how hard it is to make a factual claim _and_ cite a source on Twitter? Arguments have to be short and pithy, and typically uncited. May as well be making an argument on 4Chan.
I think this illustrates a big issue. Too many people don't give much thought to moral issues. They follow what they were shown to be morally correct instead of giving any thought to it. Yes, murder is bad but why is it bad? Only when you start to ask these questions will you develop beliefs based on thought instead of tradition.
As David Hume said, you cannot derive an ought from an is. Thus, you cannot use reason alone to develop moral judgements.
@@lastnamefirstname5289 wha, why not? I sincerely don't get it.
@@extrahourinthepit pure logic is not enough to develop a moral/ opinion. If you had a being that only knows logic, and no emotion, it would probably do some pretty fucked up shit. I feel a mix of emotional and logical response would be required for a thing like this.
@@someman66
Reason alone can absolutely be used to decide whether something fits within a moral framework or collides with a set of values. That is what machines do every day: take a set of rules to go by (which values essentially are) and determine if something breaks them. If you search for a file it decides whether the files it examines break the rule of not fitting the search parameters.
They just need to be given a set of values because machines operate based on the goals we give them. Every day you feed your machine 60, 74 and 82, and you'd be very unhappy with it should it have its own take on whether it would be best for those numbers to be added together, sent to the text editor as ASCII values, sent to the display as RGB values, etc.
A machine cannot make its own goals not by nature but by definition, because the goal is inherent in the reason and way it was made, and if those were not to exist neither would the machine itself.
So, if we consider the set of values we have, or any subset of it, as a given, we can absolutely use reason alone to decide if something goes against it. The insinuation that we can't almost smells like a last ditch effort at defending a belief that logic doesn't back.
@@extrahourinthepit Relying solely on reason or logical values is what leads to thought experiments where AI machines end up culling humanity to preserve whatever sum required to achieve sustainability. The goals you talk of should still be decided by people, because people are vessels that can marry both emotion and logic when exercising human morality and decision making, because they involve values that reason cannot quantify.
I don't use twitter, but this got me to understand why people argue like this and get defensive and mad. I do this too and I feel kinda disappointed with myself for it. This was really an interesting watch
Pretty much everyone does it without realizing. Noticing that you do it is how you’re able to stop it, so it’s good to recognize that
Everyone does this to an extent every now and again, it's just super enchanced by social media. It's like we''re arguing against the 'idea' we have of the person rather than an actual person.
Twitter is really great at making people argue about stupid ass shit
people get into arguments then get nervous when they realize the whole thing is taking place in a very public way so they start playing to the crowd. its not even a leftist thing or a political thing necessarily its just political subjects bring people to that point more quickly.
@@fajitariñho True, people tweet like they're screaming into the void and then shit their pants when the void starts talking back.
It always sucks when you find a horribly thought out argument, and they end up agreeing with your conclusion.
That initial tweet by shoeonhead helped solidify my decision to log on out my political twitter. Art and porn twitter is all the twitter I need, thanks.
truuuuuuue
As if those two things aren't political either.
@@TheBlarggle Only a good point if you think terminally online political statements and ameuter porn or people drawing cute OCs is equally political.
Tho to be fair, I try to avoid obvious politics in porn and art too if its negative. Black or trans artists supporting each other, good politics. Porn with socially conservative vibes seeped into it, bad politics.
@@TheBlarggle "everything is political" is a fake leftist narrative and I live to see it stomped out
@@ileutur6863 Okay but art is fucking political ya dopes. I didn't say "Everything is political". SLYKM mentioned porn and art(arguably the same thing), both of which are involved in politics. Like, learn to fucking comprehend the shit you read, and if you have trouble, ask a question, don't just fucking assume shit.
love mothcub’s animations. the rest was alright too.
thank u mwah mwah
@@mothcub here ⭐ a golden star for you, our lovely artist
@@mothcub Your work is always perfect. Thanks for being awesome!
I would say another big thing about anti-intellectualism on Twitter is that its always about dunking on someone rather than having an actual conversation. Sure you do have threads discussing about things, but in most cases its just "Youre either with me or against me" mentality.
I miss when intellectual practices were cool.
ratio
"you're either gay or homophobic
"you're either a BLM supporter or racist"
yeah i can def see that
Hence why I despise Twitter. I don't believe anything "intellectual" can ever take place on Twitter, the entire website is basically designed around the very concept of just being.. brain-dead garbage.
It's all revolevd around "trending", hashtags, what can generate the quickest amount of controversy, immediate and cheap validation of your ego, etc. And with a severely reduced character limit, you basically can't articulate a good argument or anything that's actually worth listening to. Sure you can use those "extended" posts or whatever they call it, but noones ever going to read it, because again it's all about "quick and easy" statments that are easier to digest for mass consumption to get those likes and retweets.
Making Twitter the perfect breeding ground for virtue signaling, whining and people trying to shout louder than each other, no more coherent than the rambling texts you get from your pissdrunk mate on the weekends.
@[ERROR]
There was a time?
Severe misunderstanding of why bestiality is wrong. It ain't because "animals can never enjoy sex with humans". Animals can be observed mounting humans for sex of their own volition, but in the same way that "well the kid said yes and had fun" isn't a justification for pedophilia, it still doesn't justify bestiality whatsoever. Why? Because the issue at its core isn't whether or not the animal/kid has the capacity have a "good time" in the moment, the issue is an incapacity for the category of living beings in question to reliably give informed consent, and the implications of harm that can have outside of the of the scope of one specific sexual act. A child's decision making capabilities are impaired by insufficient cognitive development, and a dog's decision making capabilities are impaired by being irreconcilably intellectually inferior to humans and lacking spoken language. We don't have any way of discerning whether an animal even "likes it" outside of physical arousal, which as any SA victim can tell you, does NOT imply consent and enjoyment. There is also intense power imbalances at play in both cases, which while not enough to make things illegal on their own (bosses having sex with employees is frowned upon and against most company guidelines but not illegal, for example) when combined with the previous issue of mental incapacity, compounds to form an extremely high chance of harm.
Sex is by nature a very psychologically vulnerable act, with far reaching consequences on the recipient's mind depending on the circumstances. While there may be some exceptions where animals or children do it with adults and somehow turn out fine, we as a society *cannot take that risk for the sake of some creep's perverse pleasure*, because there's no way to judge when it will and won't be harmful to the person/animal with a sufficient success rate. Certainly not reliable enough to justify doing it just for sexual or romantic gratification!
Additionally, "this act is morally equivalent in a vacuum, but highlights a particularly bad thing about the person in question" is an EXTRAORDINARILY shaky thing to base as drastic of a difference as complete legality + industrial commodification of the immoral act (in meat's case) vs complete illegalization and intense social ostracization of the act (in bestiality's case), and reeks horribly of vibes-based morality. It also greatly misunderstands the average zoophile; while there is sadists among them who do enjoy the thought of inflicting suffering, the broad majority do genuinely and wholeheartedly believe they are engaging in consensual sex, and derive pleasure from the act within that context. It's a failure of their twisted moral code, not a sign of sadistic malice that would indicate horrible things about their inborn nature or whatever. It certainly does indicate that they are capable of doing horrific things with exposure to misinformation and faulty belief systems, but most human beings are capable of that. To contrast, most meat eaters do genuinely understand that being killed for food hurts an animal! There is no room for the excuse of ignorance or delusion unless you literally don't know about the existence of factory farms.
It also calls into question what should be done about sadistic meat eaters; the vegan obsessed carnivore weirdos who say "yeah and I like thinking about the sadness in the cow's eyes while I eat it". Should the legality or illegality (alternatively, morality or immorality) of meat eating be determined by whether or not someone is sufficiently somber and regretful while they have their burger? If someone does feel apathetic towards or even enjoy the suffering inherent in meat, seeing the cycle of suffering as more "primal" and "natural" (as some particularly disturbed hunters do), have they crossed over into moral equivalence with zoosadistic bestiality, and thus should be punished accordingly?
Really weak way of addressing this particular moral issue, which belies a complete misunderstanding of the core principles of sexual morality. The very concept of defining such heavy moral questions based on what you "feel like it implies about the person" is bad enough, but building that on misinformed culturally-derived assumptions (dogs can never enjoy sex in any context, zoophiles are sadists rather than delusional, etc.) makes it so much worse. The phrase "it should be obvious" shouldn't even be a THING in a discussion of ethics. Building a moral worldview off of "common sense" is extremely bad practice on account of our morals and common sense being defined chiefly by our collective culture and personal biases rather than objective fact.
While it might not really have bad consequences in this specific case because the conclusion that bestiality is reprehensible IS the correct conclusion, maintaining these same moral standards on other topics could lead to some extremely bad results! The phrase "Sodomy is bad for everyone involved, and their eternal souls. I think that's obvious" being spoken in 1920 comes to mind- a case where going off what you or your culture accepts as obvious fact could have terrible results. Building off appeals to common sense when discussing ethics is a bad enough habit in building a moral worldview that it reflects poorly on anyone doing it.
Coming to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons may not have immediate negative consequences, but its really important that the record gets set straight to prevent knock-on negative effects from the maintaining of a faulty ethical foundation.
This is why we shouldn't argue whether something is normal or weird, but if it's actually good for us. What's weird today could be normal tomorrow and vice versa but that alone doesn't determine whether it's good or bad for us in the long run.
very interesting read. thanks for putting in the effort to share your ideas, even if it's buried in the replies of a years old youtube video 👍
@@Foxfac3 Thank you!
Tldr. It is wrong
@@Jcaeser187 But since I didn't read it. All I have is your words to prove it's wrong. You could be lying for all I know.
Moral philosophy aside, this just drives home why arguments in a giant open forum with strangers where it is so easy to divorce posts from their original context are bad. Whenever you lose an argument, you can just take something to your corner and have people who take you on good faith agree with you. It's bad for everyone.
Also, you should get some oil for your hair. It helps the frizz a lot, I got some recently and I like it.
Ooh, disagree.
Some of my most cherished arguments have been on giant open platforms with strangers jumping in.
The distinction is that twitter murdalizes nuance in the way it breaks up conversations due to its format.
Forums which allow for longer form writing allow you to double check context and quote easily.
They also allow others to jump in with things you might not have known or thought of in the heat of the moment.
Thoughtful people can use such forums to keep each other honest and keep arguments on track.
In this regard, YT comments are actually better than twitter, albeit still not ideal.
Coincidentally many of the comments on this video are doing the exact same thing!
@@rainbowkrampus I'd also add that gamification of posting with likes and reacts ruins any discussion because the authors are pushed to just write things that do big numbers and readers can just skip reading the posts that got "ratiod" regardless of the quality of the posts themselves.
@@rainbowkrampus Oh, absolutely, proper forum threads were far better. It's a shame the format's changed so much.
@@GreatGodSajuuk I agree that this can be a problem. But then it really comes down to the community kinda elevating their interactions above the content of the main site.
When a community forms around bringing their own expertise and curiosity to a forum, you generally have a great source of discourse.
When a platform tries to turn this process into a game and generally only has one direction of communication, you get toxic platforms like twitter.
Talking to anti-intellectuals and people with an intense dislike of philosophy and/or pondering is frustrating for this exact reason. They will resort to anything in order to stop themselves from questioning even the smallest thing.
IKR?
They have no intellectual curiosity, no desire to learn or grow. It’s unfathomable to me.
It really looks like they'd rather die than eat crow. If that's the case... then I'll shed no tears when they perish.
Yeah... I definitely have some people around me that are like that. Many people just look at me funny when I get the least bit analytical about anything, as though they can't see where it is even relevant. Which on my end is like "Come ON. This is already dull, right away. How can you not have anything to say about this?"
People tend to frown on certain avoidant behaviors, flat-out. But some conversations really aren't worth having with certain people. I cannot respect the point of view of a person who resists questioning their own views. There's no room for talking if there is no room for questions. That is more their choice than mine. So many things I would love to discuss with so many people. But I can tell, they don't really want to go there.
I've broken it down for people. A few somewhat understand me. I am constantly thinking things over. Sometimes I intentionally contemplate things that are very painful and scary for me, so when the time comes for real, I can have the clarity to make the distinctions I will need to make. I will be able to challenge my feelings on things when I need to. Or that is the hope. Less 'intellectual' people do seem to understand that. But I can see it is still a foreign concept to them... like, it's still just too much, even if they respect it.
My biggest kite shield from these sorts of frustrations is my focus on my own curiosities. I look at those who never delve into anything the way I will delve into even the most mundane things, think of all of the amazing experiences I have because of that - the things I am able to understand and utilize to bring more fulfillment into my life and sometimes even help other people... and I just think they're missing out. Those thoughts become like my best kept secrets. I see my path, I know my tool kit. And I see what they step in, that I avoid suffering myself. I don't need to make more comparisons. That's kind of the point... because I have a mindset that advances me, and I see purpose in continuing to build on that. Other people's progress becomes less relevant to my own.
If ever I see someone with a negative trait that really, deeply bothers me, I ask myself why that is and remind myself that I too am a people. I can't always change them, but I can make sure I'm not picking up those same flaws. It shows me a weakness that I, being similar to them in many ways, could catch. I can see they don't see in themselves. I might not either, if I'm not careful. I could go to try and change them, and then my turn to change would still come to nullify whatever progress I had believed I was making by engaging in that.
It's a matter of what serves the better utility to me. What brings me those irreplaceable things in life. I think if all I see are people disappointing me, and it's making me unhappy a lot of the time, then it's probably time to focus less on them and more on me. If I am to consider myself intellectually curious, then that's what I'm going to act on. And I'm going to seek the avenues that best allow that aspect of my nature to flourish, not place myself where I'm going to be dragged down and forced to wrangle with my worst attributes in order to move forward. Those are big losses. That stuff takes time to recover from.
Rather than wishing for others to be more like what I personally wish to be (and believe has that universal value,) I strive to embody as much of that as I can, because I think that ultimately brings more of that into the world than trying to make people move in a direction that they don't want to move in. If I believe myself to be making the right choices for myself, others may occasionally see similarities between us and take a little of my ways into themselves. Others will see what I have, and want it too. And if not, at least I myself am still okay, and probably not completely alienated from the people around me.
I have to be honest with myself, too. I don't know or see everything. And in fact, I have always reveled in my inner world... of taking things apart and seeing how they work, studying other people to try to understand their experiences and choices. It's a point of endless fascination for me. So of course I think "What do you mean you've never thought about that?! How can you not?"
Other people may just not experience the same things as me when it comes to the structure of their inner thoughts. And maybe it works for them. But here we see the flipside of that whole mindset that other people have their ways, and I have mine. It's natural to want to question it more, if that is your predisposition. My lesson, the one I had to learn to get a handle on the suffering caused by this, was the notion that there are more worthwhile answers than I'm ever getting out of a dull person. And arguing with them only makes me duller.
One thing worth noting... these people still know what's up. When there's a tough thinky-thinky problem that nobody solves, these same people defer to me. I'm torn on this. On one hand, maybe the spark will catch. But on the other hand, it's a lopsided relationship for me. One where my emotional needs aren't met, while I am compensating for a weakness they have, that I don't.
@@differentbutsimilar7893 yeh, thinking about ourselves and how we think about things is crucial to both understanding ourselves and understanding others.
Seems everything just circles back to "treat others the way you wanna be treated"
Oh Joel, this is a wonderful discussion. You said something that stuck with me in an earlier video, about someone being a "fundamentally incurious person" and I think that is very applicable here. Not being willing to engage with the material is something I also struggled with, and am thrilled to see it talked about online in this form.
folding ideas said that about doug walker
@@sobbing_horse oh my gosh you're right! Thank you kind stranger!
that was a bad argument she made, but honestly, when you first described the original thought-provoking tweet, i imagine it got a LOT of replies like shoeOnhead, people just saying their gut feeling response without caring if they were well-justified or not.
It was usually the response I got, when I found myself living that Lisa Simpson dietary activist type life as a kid. Most people just HATE being made to think about what they’re doing. Especially ethical concerns. ESPECIALLY second or third order ethical concerns. That’s that. No matter what it’s about. So yeah, I fully concur with your prediction (but also don’t care to go look)
It’s not a thought provoking question to anyone though. All living things eat meat even herbivores eat meat when given a chance. We are literally built to eat meat and is one of the reasons we dominated the earth was because we got more nutrients from cooked meat then raw meat. Bestiality serves no purpose and is quite literally unnatural. Only sexual pleasure is gotten out of bestiality and often results in one or both animal and humans being hurt physically. To compare them is so stupid.
@@bojangles3518
You kinda missed the point, pal.
@@bojangles3518 1-natural =/=good, literally something that is said in the first 2 minutes of the video. 2-Plenty of animals commit sex acts with other species, as well as rape, infanticide and incest.
@@marreco6347 you missed my entire point. Something natural doesn’t mean right but it still serves a purpose so it is automatically a better option then the latter who serves no purpose.
Secondly you don’t consider animals intelligent enough to consent so why should there actions matter? Do you pee your pants because a baby pees there’s?
The argument is comparing the two and a evil act with purpose is better then a evil act without purpose.
Edit: most animals don’t see another animal as another animal, they don’t have a sense of self so to them they are trying to spread their seed or be breed. They don’t know that having sex with other animals won’t bring them any closer to the reason behind their biological need to breed.
To me, the most interesting part is that when she removes her argument from its original context, the context kinda secretly creeps back in. She says, without context, "oh wow, people want me to PROVE that horse-fucking is bad?" and gets replies from people basically saying that obviously it's bad to needlessly harm animals. The people who don't know that the original question was meant to make people think about veganism are unintentionally making arguments for being vegan, and they don't even realize that's what they're doing.
"oh wow, people want me to PROVE that horse-fucking is bad?" like gurl that was the point of the original exercise
memetic cannibalism is inevitable when you have self interested actors seeking to repurpose them.
"are unintentionally making arguments for being vegan" -- "gets replies from people basically saying that obviously it's bad to needlessly harm animals"
if that were the argument the commentators were unintentionally making in veganism's favor, then it is a bad argument... as, meat-eating isn't necessarily needless, and we (as omnivores) gain from eating meat. Nonetheless, something can both be 'necessary' and morally wrong. At that point, you'd call it morally gray.
@@nyanshadow4491 Surely the fact that it is possible to survive while not eating meat means it is needless, it is a choice. Like, we aren’t hunting gazelle for survival, we’re choosing to raise and kill animals when we could live perfectly healthily while, you know, not doing that.
@@washada what bugs me, is that most of the time vegan don't understand that some people can't be vegan... I can't digest most legumes and beans (even some vegetables and fruits if I eat to much of them) without being in pain and most meat and cheese substitute are made with those. So if I were to go on a vegan diet, I'd have to take supplements (which can also be hard to digest). We could reduce greatly our meat consumption for sure but we can't stop it completely...
I never thought I'd hear the phrase "horse fucker" said seriously, repeatedly and in context.
You must have not been harassed by TERFs who conflate furries (people explicitly ADVOCATING FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS who are by definition NOT animal rapists) and actual animalfuckers lol
Like, that's technically a good thing I guess, but,,,
Personally, I don't think shoe's original argument was bad. We have evolved as omnivores to eat meat. We have most certainly not evolved to procreate with animals. Further, murder is not natural as humans are, by evolution, social creatures. Murderers are often exceptionally anti-social people due to extenuating circumstances (e.g. negative life experiences or psychological conditions). It may not have been the most relevant argument (as the question was about morality not how natural it is), but I think that it was fundamentally valid.
I don't know if a lot of people realize this, but this is an absolutely perfect analysis of a real-world example of the strawman argument and why it's bullshit and needs to be called out.
Bruh, its 3 emojis
@@experimentalwhateverchanne2312
yes. But those are three emojis which are obviously supposed to represent a certain group of people. A group of people that Shoe vehemently despises, blatantly mischaracterizes and villainizes to her (comparatively) massive, biased and easily influenced audience. I‘m sorry, but you seem like the kind of person who‘d look at animated CP/loli, and defend it by saying that it’s „just a picture, bro“
Edit: to anyone who sees this, please don’t replicate my behavior here. It’s childish, worthless, and doesn’t really solve anything. I was just making things worse. Being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive
@@KeDe1606 You are the perfect example of a person who gives terrible analysis, couches it in a long-winded paragraph, and smugly moves on to the next commenter to own.
@@TeamSprocketI agree to an extent about the insult at the end, and the general vitriol with which KeDe1606 wrote their comment, but I feel obligated to point out that their analysis wasn't that far off. In terms of being an example of strawmanning, KeDe1606 is right in that its not "just 3 emojis", its meant to represent a group whose participation in the discourse shoe is purposefully misconstruing in order to garner support for her argument.
@@TeamSprocket ... and what is it that you're doing, exactly? What are you trying to say with your comment? You just came in here, insulted me, refused to elaborate on any of the points you've made, and left.
What do you mean when you say that I "couch terrible analyses on long-winded paragraphs"? Are you referring to the first part of my comment? When I explained why I thought their statement was false? I honestly thought I did a pretty decent job at explaining myself. If anything, I'd say it was way too brief. And if you're referring to the last part, the unneeded insult, then... eh? I guess you're right? I just randomly threw it in there at the end, because I was feeling really angsty at the time.
I'm not saying this to defend my previous comment/actions. I regret that I wrote that. A lot. It was a mistake, especially that extremely juvenile last remark. I was just being a hurtful POS. There's no denying that. I'm honestly glad that someone called me out for it. I just think that you... shouldn't have been the one to call me out. Or, at least, the way you decided to call me out was very much not befitting of the situation, and is honestly a bit ironic. We both created a caricature of our "opponents", based on a single reply, and then insulted said "opponent" based solely on that caricature. Hey, but at least you didn't "couch a terrible analysis on long-winded paragraphs", so at least you got that going for you! ... I guess
Little aside, but this particular response caught my attention: "you have some of the weirdest people post on *your* threads". She really did manage to make it seem like it was her conversation to begin with.
I’m glad I get to learn about Twitter from vids like this and never ever have to set foot on the platform myself
99% hot takes and reactions to hot takes that generate more reactions and more hot takes, ad nauseam. But you can simply ignore all of that and just follow cool people who make cool stuff, and then the experience isn't so bad. Like every big website, most of the content/people suck, but you can cater your feed to be pleasant and enjoyable with some extra effort.
twitter really isnt as bad as these kinds of videos make it out to be. like yeah shit like this sucks but like there's also a lot of good things on the platform
Because you’re too soy
@@paultoc2657 huh
@@paultoc2657 > he says while simping for Shoe
Lot of people in the comments doing exactly what Shoe did and missing the point of the video.
?
Bro got a satanism symbol as the pfp and is talking about missing points
This is just blatant "anti-sjw-esq" rhetoric from her, shocking i know.
Mischaracterize what people are saying, trivialize it, make it a "no brainder" and then bully the person/group.
Call it force of habit
Shoe really hasn't changed, and she's not what I'd consider "left" in any meaningful way. She's a conservative who wants healthcare, that's it. That's what she's been since 2016 and what she still is 5 years later. I'm not going to say she should be removed from the internet or anything, but the leftists who have platformed her the past couple years brought in a shrieking reactionary gremlin whose sole contribution has been lobbing grenades into The Discourse for clout(ie that pridefall moment back in may). They should probably consider why that is, how to avoid repeating it, and just maybe stop treating her with kid gloves while platforming her to large left audiences.
That is an old 4chan thing. Deflect the discussion into a moral tangent, then weaponize it and strawman the opposition.
That woman clearly is permanently browsing /pol.
@Joëlle Weetjewel i'm not using twitter that much. You might be right.
@@Africa893 she isn’t a conservative. This is a bad take. She doesn’t have socially or economically conservative takes. For example she believe black and brown people deserve rights, She likes a lot of socialist policy, and she believes in gay and trans rights.
She is very left for America. She would probably be center left of America wasn’t so fucking conservative.
I could get into it more, but to call her a conservative is wild. I agree she hasn’t changed is a problematic figure, but Brie f a problem and being a conservative aren’t the same thing. Obama was a war criminal and Joe Biden is a plagiarist and supported and was proud of racist policy.
That doesn’t make them conservatives. At least not American conservatives. Clinton was more economically right than Nixon. But he was still socially left.
I love it when Large Joel talks about tweets.
Joel of remarkable size
Jumbo Joel
I had intended to gaze upon the horizon before me, but a substantial Joel of ponderous heft had beset upon my vision in its entirety.
You mean Meat Boy?
World’s Largest Joel
I love this new "I saw a tweet so bad that I had to make a 20 minute philosphical video about how morally fucked it is" series Big Joel has started
Thought slime also made a ten minute video about a single word tweet the other week. It's clearly the way forward for breadtube.
@@medes5597 we are evolving
Tweet deep reading and analysis is the way forward for humanity
Because fucked tweets like this are a perfect illustration of the many bad patterns of thinking humans resort to. Twitter prioritises short, quippy and wrong """"hot"""""takes, which promotes the types of behaviors worth exploring under a philosophical/moral/whatever lense.
Honestly Twitter is such a cancerous platform and anyone who goes there for intellectual discussion, please give me what you smoke
Can’t focus on the video because I find the lil animated butts unreasonable funny and lose my shit every time I see one
My
Butt
Is
Big
My butt is big
My
Butt
Is
Big
My butt is big
My
But
Ma ma ma my butt
Delaniac: Starting from the near-universal presupposition that bestiality is bad, what exactly makes eating meat any less horrifying?
Shoe: Something something nature
Everyone: That’s not an argument
Shoe: So you’re saying you all think bestiality is good? Weirdo
this is why people need to learn pragmatics
based
Is this pragmatics? Or just basic fucking reading comprehension?
@@KingBobXVI Not just reading comprehension, but an honest, good faith reading comprehension. That's the thing with shoe0nhead, she's dishonest. She obviously comprehends what she reads, at least enough to mangle it slightly enough so that she can reinterpret what is being said in order to dishonestly present a new interpretation, and then she just ejects from the criticism and pretends like "online freaks spend too much time analyzing everything she says".
It's similar to how you may say you do not like candidate one, so the response to you becomes, "So, you're a supporter of candidate two," as if to assume the choice is only between two things, that there are two teams and you must choose one.
Now you're the one engaging in a strawman
I think shoe may hold somewhat more progressive positions, but she still holds a fundamentally reactionary mindset, and her thought process didn’t actually change.
yes, exactly! it's the lazy "this is obvious so if you disagree with me you're stupid" mindset. i think a lot of people start there tbh, because it takes a while to realize that humbling yourself and acknowledging that you do not know everything leads you to be curious and learn more
That’s pretty much exactly how I see her. I think she’ll eventually grow out of it, but unfortunately that’s not 100% certain
@@cjboyo unfortunately she's only been getting worse, she's been doing this shit for years and it works pretty well for her so I doubt it's ever going to stop
Yep. She is not a nazbol or anything but she still kept the anti-sjw mindset.
Still, she is better.
Yeah she reminds me a lot of right wing reactionaries in her need for a swarm of "illogical libs" to performatively fight against. It sucks that this style of "discourse" (I mean really it's just tribal self congratulatory circle jerks with no actual substance) is so popular.
It baffles me to this day how you got the most wholesome ilustrator on the internet to animate your bestiality discourse video
I would be empathetic if she was a child or someone just having a casual conversation offline. She is an adult who makes a living by politically influencing her audience.
empathetic about what?
@@butHomeisNowhere___ about shoe on head's behavior.
@@juliaschiero659 Ah okay. Wait was she whining and asking for empathy? I thought she just kinda rolled her eyes and moved on. I'm not gonna go on twitter to check because that place sucks. Is she petitioning for sympathy now?
@@butHomeisNowhere___ Hi. I don't know relevant info not said in this video, but my guess is that Julia is only referencing this: 14:35 in the video. I found it really intresting, so if you happend to miss it, I recommend watching it again.
@@Bisquick I'd say who ever talks about it cares in some way. Otherwise they'd just ignore it.
“I don’t like thinking about what I say, please don’t ask me questions about the statements I make.”
-everyone on the internet.
The thing is, people seem to hate follow up questions more than counterarguments. It's easier to attack an argument than defend yourself perhaps
@@RunBayou Exactly. Another issue arises when somebody has already explained their side of an argument and the counterarguer asks reductive, repetitive questions in order to make it seem like there are holes in the person's explanation that aren't actually there. When questions "are" asked, they aren't asked with sincerity. Debates on the internet have always been about putting on a performance, acting like you're in the right and running in circles.
@@imsotiredofthiscrap2341 I had a reddit argument where I explained someone's comment to someone who didnt understand it and a different person told me, "no shit, sherlock." I was obviously confused; it'd be like teaching a kid 2+2 =4 and having someone come up to you and be like, "duh, dumbass." I tried explaining that. They then went onto say some stuff that didnt make sense, actually showing how they misunderstood the original conversation I was having with not them AND THEN followed it up with telling me not to reply with some bullshit about how I was just explaining it to someone who didnt understand it!
Why is everyone only taking away twitter = bad from this? That kind of interaction can unfortunatley be found everywhere on the internet.
I think because political discourse on Twitter has been infamous online to where people take away this thought
Imo it's at least partially bc of the character limit
It IS possible to have nuanced discussions, but the format of twitter heavily discourages that. Thoughts become more pithy and less nuanced, often removing context in the process.
@@kat8559 This combined with the speed at which discourse takes place and the constant pressure to update your feed with the correct takes.
It’s much easier (and arguably more powerful) to characterize the opposition as weak/deviant than to think question your own stances and admit mistakes.
different formats generate different particular kinds of badness
kinda like what McLuhan was getting at
That's right Jay, the internet = bad
Someone I know on reddit was doxxed by a twitter user over a broken hearing aid. A HEARING AID.
Were they the one that broke it? Those things are like... $10,000!
suspiciously vague description there, almost certainly more to the situation than this
@@cashnelson2306 Context makes it worse. Twittertard saw a person who was sad about their hearing aid being broken and ended up doxxing them along with like several other people only because they were trans.
dang, when i saw the shoe tweet i was just like "huh, twitter users DO like to hound people for sources and stuff like that even in situations where it's clearly not appropriate or necessary, what an amusing tweet based on no specific examples at all"
the context makes it,,, less good i think
I'm very curious. Could you give me an example of a situation in which it would be inappropriate to ask for a source to a claim? This doesn't make sense to me. Sure you shouldn't always expect someone to have a source. But I don't see how it's inappropriate to ask. Don't get me wrong. I know what you mean. And I think the average person feels the same. I just think it's wrong. I think it's a bad idea to ever just accept the idea that something is true because it's true. You might give an example like "the sky is blue". Do we really need a source for that? I suppose not. But it wouldn't be inappropriate to ask for some kind of argument or source as to how you know that it's true. In fact , you could argue that the sky isn't blue. We just perceive it that way because of the way our eyes interact with what the sky consists of and how the atomical make up of the sky interacts with the earth below it. I cant think of a single assertion that you couldn't question beyond what most people would see as the ontological or epistemological truth. Humans have a bad habit of seeing things as concrete because of social bias that reinforces said belief. In our history it is made evident that these biases are often completely bullshit.
@@couldyou4745 The thing here is that most humans don't like argueing. Yep, that's it. People don't like to debate and put in question their knowledge because that means they've been taught wrong or maybe because they have bad experiences at argueing or they don't have time, even some people just don't like argueing because they suck at it.
Hence, they are not used to being asked sources, because they never did. They never questioned what the teacher was saying in that math class where they were taught that (a+b)² = a² + 2ab + b² or why it's needed to learn the multiplication sheet. They also didn't got interested in just questioning and debating, asking for basis and scientific evidence. People are more simpler that you think. Most of it.
@@couldyou4745that kind of thinking tends to derail conversations tho. Don't get me wrong, citing sources for claims is very important and asking for one isn't necessarily bad, but nitpicking every point of an argument is counter productive imo. Like I remember seeing a tweet once that basically said, "Women are complex beings with lives independent of men" and somebody responded asking for a source. Do you see how asking that isn't in good faith?
mothcub’s animation/drawing style has so much flair and personality🥺 I’m in love w it🥰😍
There is so much iconic reaction image potential. I especially like the girl smiling alongside the words "I don't need to think" and the tired desperation in the face of the person saying "Don't challenge me pls I'm too sexy"
She was unable to understand that people were engaging with how her argument was bad, not that what she said was wrong. Notice how NO ONE actually told her she was wrong? They just said her argument was bad.
I can say: "The sky is blue, and it's blue because I wanted it to be."
I said something that is correct (the sky is blue), but the argument I made for it (because I wanted it to be) was incorrect.
I see why her going off on her separate tweet tangent doesn’t make sense Bc I understand the point of the original question. BUT I don’t fully see why her argument was wrong. Like I kinda do, but not really.
Her argument wasn’t “wrong”, it was just bad/not solid. In philosophy, an argument is comprised of a premise, inference, and conclusion. In its most basic form, her argument was “eating meat is natural, beastiality is not, therefore beastiality is wrong”
Her conclusion was fine, bestiality bad. But, the premise and inference is shaky. The reason she drew this conclusion is like this.
Premise: natural is good, therefore unnatural is bad
Inference: meat-eating is natural, beastiality is not
Conclusion: therefore, beastiality is bad
The premise is the part of the argument that doesn’t work. Natural isn’t always good. Unnatural things can be good.
In philosophy/logic argumentation, it can be strange to get used to the idea that an argument with a correct conclusion can be bad. But that’s how we can dissect someone’s arguments further and see how well they actually stand up.
@Floofzy Kitty From what I can see of the tweet responses to her “natural argument” Joel used in the video, they didn’t exactly tell her she had a bad argument, they mocked her for it. A good lesson in what happens when you mock ignorance.
Sky's not blue though. It's transparent. It only appears blue in the morning, and that's because of how sunlight interacts with the gaseous composition of the atmosphere at that particular time of day.
I’ve been wanting a green sky my whole life, and now I discover it has been YOU thwarting me this whole time?!?
Twitter user: Well that's a strange tweet. Maybe I should look through the conversation and see where this all started in order to inform myself before making a rash opinion
Twitter: you've hit your daily tweet limit.
Shoeonhead is anti-intellectual? 😱😱 who would’ve ever thought that. Wow, totally shocked now
what do you expect from someone who puts shoes on their head
@@Pllayer064 at least a little soul
@@johnbaldwell3395 I see what you did there! Solemate. 🤗
@@Pllayer064 you take that back, Vermin Supreme is a scholar and a gentleperson. sh0e is neither.
I used to watch Shoe during the gamer gate era, and she hasn't really changed since then. She still acts like an edgelord looking for validation, back then it was from anti-sjw's, now it's to look like a "cool" liberal. She also still uses the tactic that she used back then by taking things out of context and controlling the narrative. I honestly don't know why people still give her the time of day
I was gonna say. I watched her sparingly even before gamer gate, and she hasn't changed all that much since then either.
Because her content was and still is tailor-made for the ocean of vocal anti-intellectuals that this entire video was dedicated to.
Most people don't care about and definitely don't want to have thought experiments about the ethics of industrial meat consumption vs beastiality. They want to see 2 sentence dunks that they find funny. It's literally just a giant trope high school movie drama circle but online and not self-aware
@@justheretocommentokdontwan685 But she has a video with the title that women aren't funny. So how is she the exception?
@@justheretocommentokdontwan685 Is she really though? 🤔
@@justheretocommentokdontwan685 nah
That's basically shoeonhead's entire internet existence, "I'm not even going to argue with you crazy feminists because it's obvious"
@@justheretocommentokdontwan685 She still does the whole dunking on feminists. It's just less often
She's a grifter, she just does what she does because she peaked in high school and is desperate for male validation on the internet.
@@fury5500 Honestly, I don't think she's a grifter, because that would imply she *does* like feminists. I think she still believes the culture-war bullshit about "feminazis" and "SJWs" from the TH-cam Skeptics age because she seems to be a genuinely un-thoughtful person who puts very little critical thinking into her beliefs
@@fury5500 pretty sexist to say she's just acting for men huh?
@@ratboy7118 her track record shows it though? She said that catcalling isn't a big deal, called the woman in the NYC catcalling video fat so she doubts she would be catcalled, said that women just aren't as funny as men, and said the pink tax wasn't real.
I actually don't know why everyone is so mad and disgusted by this video?
because they’re offended by the prospect that they have to defend their position for some reason i think
People do not want to be confronted with critical thinking. Beastiality is horrible because it includes sexual assault, but so is our current treatment of farm animals which ALSO includes sexual assault. People mindlessly want to defend slaughterhouses because they like burgers, but don’t want to be confronted with the idea that it’s closely related to beastiality.
Being able to just say "You know what - I'm not sure. I'll have to think more about it" is a truly liberating thing to do lol. But more than latent worry that an act is comparable to beastiality - I think its much more that when you say something like that that feels immediately self evident - you feel /dumb/.
lol, like the one that got me wanting to be like "BECAUSE ITS UNNATURAL" was the philosophy/logic 101 question: "if two twins around the age of 30 with no chance of producing offspring want to have sex - is that wrong? if so, why?"... And truthfully, I didn't have any answer that satisfied why I had such an overwhelming "ick" response to why it was bad. It's an interesting question because it strikes at how we think about sexuality... But at the time it's difficult to not have the gut feeling of "I must be really fuggin stupid if I can't argue why incest is wrong". That's what I imagine you are seeing.
But its fascinating, because I think you can see the appeal of just being a reactionary.
Just a thought on that twins question: I think it's rare for people to have been introduced to the concept that 'morally wrong' and 'that makes me personally feel disgust' are separate things. Reminds me of a while back when there was a snickers ad with two men kissing, and a lot of people got mad at some article saying, 'I don't want to see that'. I actually defended the article, because they were being accurate in their argument, and not condemning the ad itself as wrong.
@@AlexReynard Precisely. We often don't think about our ethics and morals beyond "this is gross and I don't like it." When you ask why, it seems like it should be obvious, right? It's wrong because it's gross, and vice-versa! But people consider gay people gross, and therefore wrong. People consider other races gross, and therefore wrong. This is such a great video that really discusses how we refuse to actually *think* about our moral system beyond personal discomfort. This is why there are so many bigots; they've never had to give a reason beyond "I don't like it." And if you ask someone to provide reasoning on *why* something is wrong, they can't understand why you wouldn't mindlessly agree with them that the icky thing is wrong. So, therefore, you must also be wrong and icky and support these bad things! Instead of, you know, considering that the "opposition" might actually be looking for a thought provoking conversation and are not just some horrible, immoral person. It really limits actual discussion when people can only throw out accusations and are unable to contemplate their reactionary feelings.
I use an appeal to obviousness online all the time. The difference is so have no substantial platform, and there’s no time to thoughtfully debate every idiot online. But I still want to push back against the idiocy in some ways. So I just call them idiots lol
Not saying this is a good to do even without a platform, but I definitely understand the impulse. It’s just probably significantly more important you don’t act that way when you do have a large platform. And also, the people I usually call idiots are engaging in the anti-intellectualism that Shoe is here.
I think my answer to that question would have to do with the power imbalances and psychological effects of incest. But idk, maybe there's a more complex argument for or against.
@@oo4758 But the premise is that they’re twins. If they’re twins in equal standing, with no power imbalance?
I think this is a general issue with Shoe and why she was an anti-SJW. She uses her gut reaction to things, and constructs her opinions based on that and just goes with it even if it's flimsy. She will only change her mind when it's been clear for some time that she's wrong, at which time she will update her opinion without really dealing with the consequences of her former opinion.
seems like she just wants to be right but doesn't care to actually put in the time and effort of researching things to see what's _actually_ right.
What consequences???
Having an opinion shouldn't have consequences.
For someone seeking social justice, the aim of any discourse should be to recruit people to take action to make changes possible. Any discussion outside of pushing actual action and change is masturbatory and should be mocked. I'm sick of hearing people spout their ideals. That's where the "SJW" mocking came from. Less talk, more action. No one is going to mock someone who can produce even limited results. Building one home for a homeless family or tutor one low income kid for free. If you can change the world and post the results, people will come to your side. If you just want to have philosophical discussions about how eating meat and having sex with animals share a moral space, you can fuck right off with that useless shit. The left wants to be like the right, they want punditry and slogans. Sure, it's easy to just say things online, but if you want easy answers, join the side of the political spectrum that represents preserving tradition and the status quo. Being conservative is easy. It requires nothing but stagnation.
Not on its own but when you create content for thousands of people about your opinions and how "right" you are then it has some consequence.
But the entire point of Shoe's anti-SJW videos was pulling apart the bad arguments of the SJWs. I think too many people think that if you are against racism and sexism, you have to be an SJW, but that clearly isn't true. In order to be against racism and sexism properly, you should have a deep understanding of the issues, which by definition SJWs don't.
The most disheartening general realization of my life: (US) anti-intellectualism begins in public schools -the very place that, on paper, ought to be diametrically opposed to it- with the typical "teacher" who happily vilifies or pathologizes (e.g., oppositional defiance "disorder" or conduct "disorder") any young, curious mind that dares to ask questions for which the teacher doesn't readily have a _good_ answer -like "why should I participate in this daily ritual of pledging allegiance to a flag?". That's where, I think, the anti-intellectual attitude is first seeded in the minds of most; they see that one peer/kid get kicked out of class for asking a question, intuitively pickup on the fact that it was due to the teacher's discomfort with being unable to answer the question, and come away with the understanding it's wrong to "make" people uncomfortable with questions, that "nice" people don't "make" others feel embarrassed.
Oh god. Was in high school history class. We were shown a video on ancient Egyptian stuff. Afterwards, purely because I'd learned a cool thing and I wanted to share it, I stood up and said how recent evidence of water erosion patterns on the sphinx show it might be way, WAY older than the pyramids. My teacher told me, in slightly more polite words, to sit down and shut the fuck up. In a way that conveyed, 'I am also the football coach. I don't want to be here. None of you want to be here. So let's get through another day of going through the motions because it's easier.'
And oh fuck oh hell oh jesus, that last line about, it's rude to "make" someone embarrassed, by "making" them feel dumb... [deep, pained sigh of knowing EXACTLY what you are talking about]
This is exactly why I loathed school.
I wonder if this is why I feel so alienated from the way people think and argue on social media? I was home schooled, so all this is very new, strange and disturbing to me.
@trapd00rspider makes me think of the first paragraph of Charles Peirce's 1877 _The Fixation of Belief_ : "Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one’s own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men."
@trapd00rspider I would argue that this shows two major problems in schooling that both lead to this issue. The kids that genuinely want to learn are being shut down because they’re smarter than the teacher, and the kids that don’t are being forced into learning far more than is necessary for everyday life, while not being taught actually important things, such as critical thought process, how to file your taxes, first aid, what the constitution does and doesn’t protect (like how the first amendment gives Facebook and TH-cam the right to censor their content, not remove it), etc.
I watched this 3 years ago when i was much younger, and barely understood it. And now im back, and i understand it too much.
Letting people get away with saying "its not that deep bro" and walking away really has ruined online discourse, hasn't it
edit: these replies make me wanna die
Online discourse is pointless, grow up.
When it comes to online arguments, there's two groups that stand out the most:
1) The ones who HAVE to be right.
2) The ones who have to act the most chill/blasé as possible.
2 is definitely a more recent phenomenon than 1, but they're both equally annoying. And left Twitter is chocked full of both.
Wilful ignorance is neither new, nor remotely as impressive as its practitioners believe.
@@ahobimo732 Yeah but I just think it's waaaay easier to get away with on the internet bc of the way social interactions happen here than irl
@@Avossk Yep, that's one of the great ironies. The internet simultaneously revolutionized and poisoned human communication.
I hate twitter and yet im constantly pulled back into its discourse.
It’s addictive
I'm not on Twitter and never have been. Everything I know about Twitter is from people dissecting how awful it is on sites other than Twitter and I'm perfectly happy with that decision
@@theomegajuice8660 Based and antitwitterpilled
@@theomegajuice8660 All social media is toxic to some degree. Social media allows people to be shitty and not fear any consequences plus how execs can have ridiculous policies
Too accurate
This is what happens when people don't understand that it's possible to make a fallacious and/or false-premised argument for a true conclusion
(applauds the shit out of that, because goddammit this is such a necessary idea)
Actually never thought about it like that
And not only that, but that making a bad argument for a true premise *is still a problem* because extending that argument is liable to produce bad things. Like how extending the naturalist fallacy can result in Social Darwinism. It seems like people think rhetoric exists to justify what we already do, and not draw new conclusions that ought to change our behavior. It’s like they think the arguments are a means to perform agreement and moral indignation.
That's what I like to call out all the time. I agree with the claim they are making but the logic is so utterly broken that I end up brutally dissecting their argument anyway, which either leads them to believe I'm disagreeing with them or get so confused that they don't know how to respond.
Either way it gets some pretty interesting - and sometimes hilarious - responses.
Really this is a case of false premise, the naturalistic fallacy is a false premise thing. In standard form it would be “1. Bestiality is unnatural and slaughter is natural 2. What is natural is what is good 3. From 1 and 2, bestiality is morally worse than slaughter”.
The same type of bad argument with Boolean Logic 101 premise examples would be “1. Socrates is human 2. All humans are philosophers 3. From 1 and 2, Socrates is a philosopher”
I don't know how I ended up here but clearly this is not the video or community for me. Yall mfs crazy
17:30 This is how a question becomes a contaminate, how critical thinking becomes a disease that needs to be stomped out
Equating thinking critically to a disease low key sounds more dangerous than anything else he had said in the video
The important question that this debate fails to address is: Is it okay to have sex with a hamburger...
Food for thought.
You made me think of that one Spongebob episode where Spongebob fell in love with a Krabby Patty.
Food or Thot?
Yes
Answer: No.
Yes, food play/fetish exists i guess
Twitter is a very practical evolution of the bread and circus industry. There's no need to hire a clown anymore, we can just make them out of each other.
Why even bother trying to divide the public to make them easier to conquer, when they're dividing themselves...
Hey don't badmouth bread and circus ! At least that one actually provided bread. This is much worse, it's just circus, 24/7, and not even good circus...
@@blede8649 In that context, the bread is also kind of a distraction. It basically means "As long as the people are fed and entertained, we (leaders, politicians, etc.) are free to do whatever we like."
@@GuerillaBunny I know, what I was saying was that now they don't even need to feed us to keep doing whatever they want...
@@blede8649 This is tragically true. Hell, many of the "hungriest" vote for the people withholding the "bread"...
i am in love with this art style, it’s so adorable
Mothcub!
@@0.-.0 me
@@mothcub Love your content
her channels slaps too!!!!
This perfectly illustrates what I find so strange about Twitter. On the surface, it seems like people there are deep in the trenches of internet discourse. But in reality, they're only toying with these ideas, not actually contemplating them. They take the risk of looking bad in an argument, but never the risk of feeling bad about an argument.
I feel like that's the reason why she doesn't do debates.
That's the reason she blocks anyone she deems capable of calling her out and pointing her mistakes. Instead, she baits outrage or shock and then bullies people
She's never been the brightest. She's entertaining and somewhat charming which is how she attracts her viewers.
This applies to many "anti-intellectuals." They're entertainers.
She's done one debate in her entire youtube career vs Karlyn Borysenko, a "why I left the left and support Trump" conservative grifter. It went terribly, Shoe floundered at making decent arguments for basic lefty principles like raising the minimum wage or supporting universal healthcare.
I don't know why she bothers inserting herself into the disk horse so often, her arguments are terrible and she can't handle any pushback whatsoever. It'd be better for everyone, Shoe included, if she just stopped.
@@bcw1313 So much this. I think that training ourselves to think more critically is good, and addressing nuance is good, but sometimes making a simple comment in a thread is, as you said, a drop of blood for piranhas. Like people are just angry and coiled up and ready to spring on anything that in their mind might somehow barely imply that the commenter hasn’t prepared a well-informed, well thought out essay that justifies their line of thinking and therefore doesn’t deserve to participate in the conversation, unless they’re prepared to get chewed out over it.
And it does seem to cause a conditioned stress response-after being hit with that same interaction so many times, you can’t let a thought float around in your head without debating yourself over it. And that just takes so much energy when most of the time we’re just out here trying to live our lives and survive, and hoping we have a chance to be the best we can be on top of all of that.
I’m curious though about the dog whistles you’re referring to because I didn’t catch onto them? What were they?
@@anonymoususer7780 “disk horse” I love that!
Shoe's main problem is being terminally online
And playing devils advocate for beastiality is not terminally online?
And making bad arguments a habit.
Two thoughts:
1) I completely misjudged the intent behind the tweet that started the situation too, right up until you reframed it. As soon as you did that my approach to the question changed entirely. Like you I'm no mind reader, but I wonder if that may also be what Shoe did.
2) I spent entirely too long staring at the emojis in Shoe's tweet, repeating "globesockrose" faster and faster.
Yeah me too
well that was dumb of you
Your argument re: the moral difference between meat eating and bestiality doesn't work even sans consequentialism. The person who sexually assaults an animal could just say "it's not the suffering of the animal I take pleasure in, I just like fucking animals, and their suffering as a consequence of that is unfortunate but not central to my intentions." Which...is exactly the meat eater's situation. The difference is far more banal and morally irrelevant: fucking animals is gross and tickles our intuitions of disgust a lot more than a tasty burger does, even if meat eaters wouldn't be willing to do the torture and slaughter themselves.
This basically.
i had the same thought. i feel like this had to cross joel's mind when writing it, seems pretty intuitive
I completely agree. The train of thought seems to get cut off at the concept of “well I’m not the one hurting the animals, so I’m not exacting any pleasure from their suffering”. Paying a middleman to abuse and kill animals doesn’t magically absolve anyone of causing harm. They wouldn’t do it if you weren’t there keeping them in business.
To add to that: The act of bestiality is extremely taboo, so a consequentialist would simply argue that someone doing it is, just by being willing break such taboo, is probably also going to display other anti-social, and likely more dangerous to humans & animals, behaviours. A rule-utilitarian would also argue that a society where sexual intercourse with animals a regular occurrence is abhorrent one, for a host of sociological and health related reasons.
Therefore fucking animals should be condemned more harshly than eating a burger, something that is totally normalized in our current society.
Yeah, as Big Joel was making his argument I was thinking "what about someone allowing an animal that is in heat to fuck /them/..?" If the animal is the active party, it's still dubious as to whether it actually consents or not but at the very least it's clear that the human isn't getting off on the animal's consent being taken away.
Another counter argument - what about people who enjoy playing the dominant role in CNC scenarios? Big Joel's argument is that since both eating meat and performing bestiality violate consent, then it's not the consent that matters, it's only that the human *enjoys* violating the animal's consent. If all that it takes to be repulsive is to enjoy the idea of taking away someone's consent (whether or not there IS consent), then surely a dom in a CNC roleplay is just as repulsive to Big Joel as someone who commits bestiality...
Love Big Joel for his wisdom and hot takes, but this particular argument felt a bit sloppy...
This reminds me of one tweet where someone said that in a very hypothetical scenario, they would want to try the taste of human flesh if the meat was given consensually and ethically. And then everyone on twitter branded her a cannibal who wanted to do cannibalism irl as opposed to like....this being curious about the taste or just saying something weird.
yeah, I had a similar discussion with some friends recently.
I mean if you were that curious about what human meat tastes like, guess what you're made of.
I mean, you COULD try asking from a person who is about to have an operation to remove one of their organs to try to eat it.
They would look at you weird, but hey.
@@razi_man If I ever get an amputation I'm 100% trying that shit, like when else are you gonna get the chance
@@dalmationblack Tastes like pork.