I watched that youtube channel, he has an interesting video about christianity in videogames which is interesting, but going back to his main stitch i highly recomend you to react to his video about "how to radicalized a normie" thats absolute gold react material.
Just chiming in to say I also love the analogy. And I also can't stop thinking of it like that scene from Overlord where Ainz starts casting a huge list of buffs before an important fight. (Ainz Ooal Gown Vs Shalltear Bloodfallen part 1)
41:30 To quote Heinlein: "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.” Would you like to know more?
Another one is "errare humanum est, sed perseverare autem diabolicum", or in english, making mistakes is human, repeating the same mistakes is diabolical (more or less). Only by learning from one's mistakes, there can be improvement.
48:32 I will 100% disagree with this idea. I believe pacifism is truly negative cause it will allow negative acts to transpire. Violent actions are required to stop evil acts, as you mentioned earlier. As people mentioned, violence is a tool and the intent behind them is what makes it positive or negative.
Yes, and people need to have a more balanced view of violence instead of viewing it extremes, pacifism and negative violence and having these be the only choices. Also, watch out for people who "grey" extremes into lesser extremes as they have the same logic as people who propose "c0mmon s3nse g_n l@ws."
It depends entirely what you mean by "pacifism." If you mean someone who doesn't INITIATE violence against others, then I would call that person extremely moral. A complete rejection of all violence of any kind, even when the violence that would stop it is less than the harm the violence itself would cause? Yes, I agree with you. (I would also call someone who practiced that kind of "pacifism" a coward patting themself on the pack.)
Mentis gave quite the hit of nostalgia with his video because I remember all of those tactics being used against me when I questioned the cathedral back in 2012
It starts with excluding certain people from being a target of comedic ridicule. After that you can't criticise, disagree. You must put them on the pedestal. If only they could take that joke in the first place...
@@SoMuchFacepalm That's the difference. You will never convince someone of something they don't want to believe. People have to be open to changing their mind and even then they have to convince themselves to believe it. Despite claims to the contrary, people are rarely open to changing their mind.
@RaptorTroll360 Violence as a goal is not inherently evil, but a necessity against an overwhelming force like a state that has a monopoly on force. I despise Mao Zedong in all things, but he was correct in one, "A revolution is not a dinner party"
9:40 - "Honestly I wouldn't want to be president" Not wanting to be the president should be the first requirement to be president, or any political office, IMHO.
Trivia: that's a thing in "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Zaphod Beeblebrox becomes president by modifying his brain to become unaware of a conspiracy he is part of, and is pivoted on him becoming the President of the Galaxy.
Remember the one Emperor of Rome, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, bro was a farmer and became dictator and then returned to farming in 16 days. Bro didn't want it, just wanted to farm.
The debate over violence just reminds me how sheltered some people are. When a farmer is going out on the field with his gun with the intent to kill any animal that is attacking his flock at night, the sheltered people would say he is being negative and the farmer should try to "scare" away the predators before pulling out his gun. For anyone with a shred of common sense for a person living on a farm, if needed a farmer will kill predators on his farmland without hesitation. Some may not but it really depends on the goal of the farmer and no one would say the farmer is committing an evil or negative act protecting his property. Nevermind it's also common knowledge with farmers or people in the middle of the USA to intentionally kill some predators or even herbivores because their population is too high and can damage the land. But what do I know, I just pay attention to things that aren't just my world view.
Especially if you bring up the topic of wild boars. The sheltered city-folk Libs see them as "cute piggies and how dare you moider them?" Meanwhile they're anything but "cute."
AndyPants had his video taken down because it was falsely flagged for "hate speech". All he did was correctly CRITICIZE a company. CRITICIZM should be considered to be "fair use" and PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, be it on internet or other uses. It is ridiculous it has come to THIS LEVEL.
Violence as a tool is neutral depending on what goal it is used to achieve, violence as a goal itself is evil. People who can't think in hypotheticals struggle with understanding this.
On the violence thing, think of it like this: Action exists, multiple purposeful actors exists, rivalrous resources such as the bodies of actors exists, and conflict over rivalrous resources exist. So, we should have a set of intersubjectively justifiable norms to resolve conflict, which itself should not engender conflict. Argumentation is the only reliable means of resolving conflict, and argumentation requires owning your own body (otherwise, I could enslave you and tell you to be silent). Anything that violates self ownership is conflict inducing, and self ownership is the only norm governing the use of our bodies. From this, use of violence is bad by default, because it violates the norm of self ownership, the norm which exists because the alternative is slavery for everyone. If you disagree with the norm to begin with, then your body is a rivalrous resource to be controlled by others, violence can be enacted against you to enslave you, and you will be compelled into silence. There are of course exceptions, but such exceptions apply either because of the aforementioned use of argumentation (we agree violence is OK in defence of another for example), or because they apply to something that is not a purposeful actor or is not a rivalrous resource (an animal that is not someone's property can have violence put upon it for example).
To add, we can use reciprocal rights theory to justify why violence towards animals must still be limited. E.g. we shouldn’t torture animals because they wouldn’t do that to us. However animals don’t have property rights because they are themselves incapable of respecting it.
In a perfect world your logic works. However, "we should have a set of intersubjectively justifiable norms to resolve conflict, which itself should not engender conflict" isn't possible. There will always be those that want to violate others self ownership and have no fear of societal or moral backlash. Moreso, many cultures and beliefs have violence promoted within their texts and wish to enact it on others. How do we dissuade these groups? If we paint all violence as inherently bad then do we employ "bad" individuals to counteract other "bad" individuals? Would this create a moral conundrum when reviewing our own ethical practices? At what point do we then label everything as inherently bad? Personal ownership, freedom of movement, nations, speech, these are all upheld due to the threat of violence to some level. Are these all bad actions?
10:05 - Yeah Vic Viper's the name of the ship from Gradius. I didn't know there was a crossover of it in Zone of Enders, but they are both Konami games after all. :)
If you can't take criticism in your profession or in a relationship you won't survive. Your business won't succeed and your relationship will crumble. Criticism is an opportunity to see your faults and fix them. Noting more, nothing less.
I've had friends who were so warped and left wing I was scared of them, cuz it felt like they were insane. This wasn't a friend-friend, more like a friendly acquaintance though.
Very true, the irony is often it’s the same people making both errors. They’ll harass people claiming it’s just criticism and then call harassment when they themselves get criticized
@@megarotom1590 Not error, intentional. If the 2 concepts can be confused for the other then they could flip flop between the 2 to and use whatever benefits them the most.
@@frogjupiter That's a theme with postmodernist ideology, feminists are simultaneously empowered and oppressed, and they choose which one they prefer in any given situation. This is what happens when your ideology is based on lies and demonizes those who tell the truth. When you treat the truth as if it is subjective and that there is no objective truth.
Negotiation, empathy and charisma are the weapons that can breed warriors of willpower and create culture of strength if used correcty. I may lack the physical capability to be much of a threat (I can box pretty ok, but I am rather weak), however I have the charisma and empathy to allow others to grow stronger than myself.
Great content! I enjoy listening to your takes on these types of topics. 4:09 When I became old enough to vote, I developed certain views and was convinced that those views were the only correct ones. It didn’t help that I only consumed content that agreed with my views. But then, one day, one of my professors (who had the same views as me, more or less), challenged those views by basically asking, “Why are those views better than these other views?” It was the first time I had to seriously think about why I thought the way that I did, and I suddenly started questioning everything. After spending a lot of time looking into it, I more or less developed the same views that I originally had, but now I was able to support and defend those views. Plus, I became more willing to change my views if someone made a good point that challenged those views. Because of this, I will always be thankful for that professor.
I think an important factor to be aware of, is that the act of ending someone, regardless of villainy, or even nearly but not following through with the act, is for most healthy functioning human beings, a traumatic and self-damaging experience, which is inherently a negative outcome. This is why we tend to leave bad people in rooms to suffer instead of removing objectively negative elements.
I watch Leaflet for her brave straightforward-ness and well argumented reasoning, plus she is a rather entertaining presenter herself. And she is into guns (I wanted to be a gunsmith myself). Lastly, I don't need to agree on everything to enjoy content of all sorts.
11:50 - I have a "friend" who did this to me right before the election. Made major assumptions about me and tried to shame me into voting the way that they wanted. Add on top of that fearmongering as well to boot regarding the whole lunacy behind those wanting to do 4B and that just made me write them off as a manipulative azzhat who doesn't deserve my friendship anymore if this is how they're going to treat me.
The point about violence is good the principle you describe is called the gentleness principal, It states that if someone is doing something wrong you should stop with the least amount of violence necessary.
In terms of violence, there is always a negative consequence, but there often are positive consequences. In terms of the capability of violence there are positive consequences we cannot allow ourselves to give up.
40:42 i feel you Leaf... i have a septum piercing and dreadlocks... So i often get prejudice thrown at me that i don't even stand for. I tend to think about my responses instead of spewing baseless nonsense. xD edit: and also the reason all the rules that have been set in stone so far, is because history was written by the victor.
I’d recommend looking up “why do leftist infighting” it gives you a good picture on why a lot of “leftist” TH-camrs act like this. At least in my opinion
The violence problem is another gun control problem, the people most likely to use violence for unmoral reasons dont care about those morals anyway. The problem is thats the world of violence is larger than the world of words. The correct way to act is to make other people think you are willing to use violence broader that you are actually willing too. To discuss this it also hits on the ingroup outgroup problem too. Objectivity you should be more willing to use violence on an outgroup compared to a ingroup, but with waining social cohesion and trust the ingroup shrinks heightening the level in which you need to appear willing to use violence. In summary violence is true neutral. It is also morally wrong to abstain from using violence
I have a friend who is very pro woke stuff most of the time while I lean more towards the other side. We frequently debate each other on our own personal knowledge and examples we see all over, sometimes it can get heated, but we have a silent agreement to never resort to ad homonyms. Cause we know getting petty like that will never convince the other side of your argument it'll just make them dig their heels in further on their own view points. We all need to behave like adults if we want to have any meaningful conversations in this world.
Ive lost everyone ive known this way, i tend to be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but terrible in practice, the few that listened to my advice got things done and left me behind, the rest said “but you dont” and continued to fail, then blame me. So now, ill just sit back and watch the world unravel, im tired.
For some reason, I had a very strong "I don't remember QAnon involving any time travel" -reaction. Paused the video, gave it some thought. Then I remembered the incident - I had to look up the details - but hundreds of people gathered in Dallas to meet JFK junior when he comes out of hiding. He died in a plane crash back in 1999. Well I guess that wouldn't necessarily require time travel - but basically time travel isn't out of the question, considering the level of Skizoposting we're dealing with.
Qanal was a pressure release valve/data collection operation, the exact same playbook as the Russian Bolshevik TRUST project, made to create a fake anti-communist movement that would basically collect info on all potential dissidents to then game-end them en masse. Qanus couldn't stop repeating the whole "TwO mOrE wEekS" and "SiT bAck AnD enJoy ThE sHow" gayest most retarded and obvious psyop I've seen thus far, and I've dug through centuries of psyops.
43:08 Wouldn't your logic about violence apply to almost any evil act? For example: "You might have to lie to prevent something worse from happening. Therefore, lying is morally neutral". "Nicholas Cage had to steal the declaration of independence to prevent the world from ending. Therefore, theft is morally neutral".
Breadtuber/socialist group work United against capitalism altright group blah blah blah I think I know what happened when Lenin did all socialist group after the Russian civil war.
I have to agree with the notion that violence in of itself is bad, As In: "Overall Violence". but it's necessary in some cases. Calling it neutral ignores certain factors. Like the victims of violence, even if you exclude it in civilized society and want to mainly focus on warfare. Let me reiterate that good can come out of using forceful means, depending on the situation. What makes it bad is how indiscriminate Violence truly is, even if it is controlled. Yes it can target the truly villainous or hostile which can lead to a positive outcome, but it even more often than not involves casualties of too many innocents who aren't even particularly involved, especially regarding warfare. I wouldn't go saying that it's completely unnecessary to use violence, despite the tragedies that do happen, but it's certainly worth considering. I can appreciate that even Good Kings in ye old times had to engage in warfare to protect their people. So I get it. It seems like leaf was describing it and the threat of it in service of the defense of one's people and their well-being. Totally fair. But this makes violence very "situational" at best. But outside of that, it's generally more destructive and bad because of how devastating it is and the consequences both seen and unseen are very real. Unseen in a personal way that we can't personally witness. I mean, like how real people are displaced and hurt and left in tight situations because of whatever is going on for them respectively. But what we Do see is usually displayed for us on the news. That discussion really got the brain juices flowing
11:20 I see, I actually dislike people like that myself. I can talk for hours about my beliefs and why I believe those things. The problem is, people can't stand that I actually "know my lane" and can stand on it. Granted I won't talk out of turn as if I know everything, because that's far from true. Still, people usually get exhausted and frustrated with me and resort to subjective talk or they get a little disrespectful of my point of view while stating theirs, sometimes they'll resort to straw manning, and not engaging with what im actually saying. And all I'm trying to do is have a civil discussion/disagreement. If you're willing to challenge my worldview, I shouldn't get in my feelings, of course, but in kind, I should be able to do the same in good faith, but nah, I've always found that it's usually fine one way, but not the other...
Everything in degrees, I guess. On one hand, there are plenty of people who dismiss criticism as harassment. On the other, there’s plenty of people who don’t know what criticism is; complete dumbasses that just think blatant insults with no real substance, or telling someone to off themself, are criticism. These same people will call you whiny if you address actual criticism, or really, address any comments in general. So, it’s good to learn to evaluate things. Learn to see for yourself what’s criticism and what isn’t. Doesn’t hurt to have a little bit of outside input from someone you trust, either. Generally, if a comment points to something objective that has to do with what’s being criticized, and what it says is actually true, then its criticism. If what the person’s claiming is false and easily disprovable, alludes to something vague but they “don’t want to go into detail” for whatever reason, or is just insults with nothing behind them, then it’s not criticism.
23:16 Wait, have you never played Day of the Tentacle? I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend playing it. It is packed to the brim with comedy, partly due to the unique circumstances of the development process on that game to let everyone, even the programmers, try their hand on throwing in some jokes. So almost literally everywhere you look in the game, someone is making a joke or a (90s era) pop culture reference.
I could see the argument of violence being negative by defualt. Because when you use vilolence you need to justifice it. As for example if I would just use violence becuase I want to, it not justified enough to be used and consider negative. With right justification is okay. Like protecting youself from intruder or stop a crime. Violence is hard subject as it part of nature and is very destructive. But is important to use when you want protect or conserve something. Other big problem with violence is once it used it, it forces more violences to be stop. You can stop violences with words sometime but often when violence is used it pushes things to the extreme.
Violence is a tactical failure of negotiation. Morally, violence is not inherently wrong. As violence is not just against another person. Unless squishing an ant is morally wrong.
43:00 This whole discussion here is what I like about your channel. That you are trying to 'Steel Man' a perspective you intially disagreed with and even defended it while discussing it with the chat. And yeah Julio wanted to join in the discussion and was making a semantic arguement. Bad Julio :P
Nah she wasn't really steel manning, more just being slow, what she followed up with was just confused. Approximate play by play: Chatter- 'violence is a negative that gets turned into an overall positive/neutral because of it's effects' Leaf- 'why is violence a negative?' Chatter- 'because violence requires you to harm something' Leaf- 'but let's say there was a person who was abusing children and killing them, is that violence negative?' what Leaflit tried countering with was already answered by the chatter, so it's more just being slow. No significant problem with being slow of course, just that it's not a good 'steel man'.
I am planning on having her watch a few other non-cultural things, but for the most part these are what gets views/ad revenue atm. Which is what Leaf needs for everything she wants to do this year, both in terms of her stream and auxiliary content (like the Fumos we shamelessly plugged in this video lmao)
@Iamcrazy4444 that makes sense! And sounds great to me; I was wondering if Asari ever comes onto the channel? The description says that they're a duo but I've only seen leaf ever since I started watching.
@@jumpingmoose5554 Asari streams with Leaf every Sunday and makes sporadic appearances on stream. She has her own separate career from Leaf's stuff so she doesn't have a massive amount of time to spend on anything else
Yes force is a reality of the world but if force is what reigns supreme and involuntary transaftion is common we return to the laws of the jungle aka a low trust society. I personally believe a monopoly on force is immoral(the state) and should exist like the rest of the free market. Btw foreign power's would strugle in the face of an unrregulated defense industry and and armed citizenry.
I've been in the hole for 8+ years now. Finally finished everything non-cosmetic a few months ago. Sneaking references in when I can into the editing is what gets me out of bed in the morning.
Halfway point where she was talking with a chatter about violence. I think the chatter is saying that everyone deserves a fair justice regardless the severity of the case. Unless being oppressed, provoked, then violence should be by default a negative that of course my humble opinion
is there a way to make your environment adhere to your preferences that does not include the use of force on it and the threat of force or force itself against all who would make it adhere to their preferences should they differ from yours? is good not when things are according to your preferences?
Yes. Homestead your environment. You own your environment, others own theirs. This works with everything from the air you breath to the physical space you're standing in.
@@SoMuchFacepalm and how do you make your homestead and the people within it adhere to your preferences? is part of that not the implicit threat that you will make them leave if they do not? and of course force against things and beings other than humans, but i dont think anyone here is arguing that we cant use violence of those.
@@richardnebelheim9127 "is part of that not the implicit threat that you will make them leave if they do not?" Yes. And they can do the same within their homesteaded property. To be able to do so without initiating conflict is the point of homesteading.
The pacifist arguments made by viewers during this stream made zero sense. In reality, pacifism as an ideology only works if *everyone* believes in it and lives by it. For example: If you have 999 humans believing in pacifism and 1 who disagrees with it (so 1000 in total) and that 1 person goes bad and murders someone, then what are the remaining 998 people gonna do? You can't punish the guy who committed the murder without the use of force. Even just imprisoning someone requires the use of force. So, if the remaining 998 people would stay true to their believe of pacifism they would potentially all die for it. Because the ideology they believe in forbids them from fighting back or punishing the perpetrator. This kind of logic is how civilizations die. The world won't change just because you feel that it *should* change. And if there is even 1 person who disagrees with your ideology then your ideology of pacifism cannot possibly work in reality. Because that 1 individual is gonna use force and you won't have any way to defend yourself without the use of force. Sure, one can say "you should use force only when necessary" but people have different perspectives on when that point is reached. So, no matter how you stretch it pacifism fundamentally speaking doesn't work. The word pacifism honestly shouldn't exist at all because the true meaning of the word is not achivable.
I severely disagree with the 48 min in takes. Its not about if force should be applied as a last resort nor the statement of intent to do it. Its about what other parties actions give one justification to respond with what level of force and in practice all sane people take that approach (in turn proving that its neutral/unaligned/a tool that can be used be it for good or evil, law or chaos, net positive or net negative effects, etc).
You need objective rules for objective behaviors, not morality. Laws exist to protect you from other people's actions, not your actions nor other people's thoughts.
I disagree with leaflit. There's a difference between subjective morality and being dishonest. Under subjective morality your stance should apply to the situation, not biased by who it is or by some intersectional bullcrap. Murder is generally wrong because if everyone did it nothing else could function. We still do justify murder, even under the "objective morality" of religion - it just requires work. Same goes to any generally immoral act, if I(or an average person) wouldn't like it done to me(or them), or if it would disturb public order, it is often tossed into the "immoral" bucket. That is why stabbing someone else's toe into the corner of the table is evil, while doing it to yourself is just stupid.
the violence itself can never be negative its the way its used but even then, you are getting into slippery slope, grey-area, and ultra-political territory violence to stop violence would otherwise be negative, it would be a bad thing to do i agree with that on a very limited view, we should not be projecting ourselves on other people if we ourselves cannot agree on what is good or bad, especially if the justification for what is good or bad is "fuck that group in particular, we dont have to listen to them" towards any group at all
8:13 Trump is too prideful to be controlled by musk, without massive blackmail material i doubt musk has. He might listen to Elon, "this will make us money" is something he will consider, but will use the position exactly likenhis first term. That and if Trump was having mental degradation issues like they claim for Biden, it would likely be his family or someone from hisnlong term inner circle who was guiding him, Musk is to new to the team.
This happened live on stream! Don't miss this and other things that never make it to TH-cam on my Twitch channel! (Link in the description)
I watched that youtube channel, he has an interesting video about christianity in videogames which is interesting, but going back to his main stitch i highly recomend you to react to his video about "how to radicalized a normie" thats absolute gold react material.
"Casting their buffs" never heard it called that, but it is accurate and I will start using it
Combine with that Overlord scene for an extra effect.
I really really wanna -dee- see that
By claiming debuffs and using them for emotional and virtual blackmail
its not a buff though, its trying to claim class advantage
Just chiming in to say I also love the analogy. And I also can't stop thinking of it like that scene from Overlord where Ainz starts casting a huge list of buffs before an important fight. (Ainz Ooal Gown Vs Shalltear Bloodfallen part 1)
41:30 To quote Heinlein: "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”
Would you like to know more?
The Politics of Starship Troopers.
Goated.
*Desire to know more intensifies*
@@MalleusSemperVictor Service guarantees citizenship.
32:33 Like the old adage "pain is weakness leaving the body," admitting you're wrong is ignorance leaving the mind.
Another one is "errare humanum est, sed perseverare autem diabolicum", or in english, making mistakes is human, repeating the same mistakes is diabolical (more or less). Only by learning from one's mistakes, there can be improvement.
Criticism is not harassment
how dare you
hOw DaRe YoU!1!!
StHapH HarRrAszSing MeH! You Bigot!!!
You didn’t have to put it in the comments.
@@oriongear2499yet he did
48:32 I will 100% disagree with this idea. I believe pacifism is truly negative cause it will allow negative acts to transpire. Violent actions are required to stop evil acts, as you mentioned earlier. As people mentioned, violence is a tool and the intent behind them is what makes it positive or negative.
Yes, and people need to have a more balanced view of violence instead of viewing it extremes, pacifism and negative violence and having these be the only choices. Also, watch out for people who "grey" extremes into lesser extremes as they have the same logic as people who propose "c0mmon s3nse g_n l@ws."
It depends entirely what you mean by "pacifism." If you mean someone who doesn't INITIATE violence against others, then I would call that person extremely moral. A complete rejection of all violence of any kind, even when the violence that would stop it is less than the harm the violence itself would cause? Yes, I agree with you. (I would also call someone who practiced that kind of "pacifism" a coward patting themself on the pack.)
Mentis gave quite the hit of nostalgia with his video because I remember all of those tactics being used against me when I questioned the cathedral back in 2012
It starts with excluding certain people from being a target of comedic ridicule. After that you can't criticise, disagree. You must put them on the pedestal. If only they could take that joke in the first place...
You can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.
I dunno, I've been logicked out of some positions. Admittedly, I did a lot of it to myself.
@@SoMuchFacepalm That's the difference. You will never convince someone of something they don't want to believe. People have to be open to changing their mind and even then they have to convince themselves to believe it. Despite claims to the contrary, people are rarely open to changing their mind.
Violence starts neutral and becomes positive or negative from the context behind the violence.
Violence as a tool is dependent on what goals it is used for, violence as a goal is evil.
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
@RaptorTroll360 Violence as a goal is not inherently evil, but a necessity against an overwhelming force like a state that has a monopoly on force. I despise Mao Zedong in all things, but he was correct in one, "A revolution is not a dinner party"
9:40 - "Honestly I wouldn't want to be president"
Not wanting to be the president should be the first requirement to be president, or any political office, IMHO.
Trivia: that's a thing in "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Zaphod Beeblebrox becomes president by modifying his brain to become unaware of a conspiracy he is part of, and is pivoted on him becoming the President of the Galaxy.
That's the general consensus for this sort of thing, actually. People that want to be in power very rarely want it for good reasons.
@@AndragonLeamilei is that rare case
Remember the one Emperor of Rome, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, bro was a farmer and became dictator and then returned to farming in 16 days. Bro didn't want it, just wanted to farm.
@@PhillyCh3zSt3ak Yeah, one of the few examples of a leader taking up emergency power and actually relinquishing it after the crisis was over.
The debate over violence just reminds me how sheltered some people are. When a farmer is going out on the field with his gun with the intent to kill any animal that is attacking his flock at night, the sheltered people would say he is being negative and the farmer should try to "scare" away the predators before pulling out his gun.
For anyone with a shred of common sense for a person living on a farm, if needed a farmer will kill predators on his farmland without hesitation. Some may not but it really depends on the goal of the farmer and no one would say the farmer is committing an evil or negative act protecting his property.
Nevermind it's also common knowledge with farmers or people in the middle of the USA to intentionally kill some predators or even herbivores because their population is too high and can damage the land. But what do I know, I just pay attention to things that aren't just my world view.
Especially if you bring up the topic of wild boars. The sheltered city-folk Libs see them as "cute piggies and how dare you moider them?" Meanwhile they're anything but "cute."
Criticism may bruise your ego but if you humble yourself and be introspective, you will become a better person.
Become President
"Yall are fired."
Quit
Refuse to elaborate further.
She's got my vote.
based and basedpilled
Milei
@@pinkerproductions7420 Would be nice.
“It’s kinda hard.” - Leaflit
Also pacifism is a belief of privilege
“Silence is violence!”
No, silence is golden. And duct tape, is silver
AndyPants had his video taken down because it was falsely flagged for "hate speech". All he did was correctly CRITICIZE a company. CRITICIZM should be considered to be "fair use" and PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, be it on internet or other uses. It is ridiculous it has come to THIS LEVEL.
Violence as a tool is neutral depending on what goal it is used to achieve, violence as a goal itself is evil.
People who can't think in hypotheticals struggle with understanding this.
Violence is not the answer, its the question and the answer is "Yes, god yes"
Criticism = harrassment...sounds like dev?
On the violence thing, think of it like this:
Action exists, multiple purposeful actors exists, rivalrous resources such as the bodies of actors exists, and conflict over rivalrous resources exist. So, we should have a set of intersubjectively justifiable norms to resolve conflict, which itself should not engender conflict. Argumentation is the only reliable means of resolving conflict, and argumentation requires owning your own body (otherwise, I could enslave you and tell you to be silent). Anything that violates self ownership is conflict inducing, and self ownership is the only norm governing the use of our bodies.
From this, use of violence is bad by default, because it violates the norm of self ownership, the norm which exists because the alternative is slavery for everyone. If you disagree with the norm to begin with, then your body is a rivalrous resource to be controlled by others, violence can be enacted against you to enslave you, and you will be compelled into silence.
There are of course exceptions, but such exceptions apply either because of the aforementioned use of argumentation (we agree violence is OK in defence of another for example), or because they apply to something that is not a purposeful actor or is not a rivalrous resource (an animal that is not someone's property can have violence put upon it for example).
To add, we can use reciprocal rights theory to justify why violence towards animals must still be limited. E.g. we shouldn’t torture animals because they wouldn’t do that to us. However animals don’t have property rights because they are themselves incapable of respecting it.
Violence as a tool is neutral, dependent upon what goals it is used for, violence as a goal is evil.
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
In a perfect world your logic works. However, "we should have a set of intersubjectively justifiable norms to resolve conflict, which itself should not engender conflict" isn't possible. There will always be those that want to violate others self ownership and have no fear of societal or moral backlash. Moreso, many cultures and beliefs have violence promoted within their texts and wish to enact it on others. How do we dissuade these groups?
If we paint all violence as inherently bad then do we employ "bad" individuals to counteract other "bad" individuals? Would this create a moral conundrum when reviewing our own ethical practices? At what point do we then label everything as inherently bad? Personal ownership, freedom of movement, nations, speech, these are all upheld due to the threat of violence to some level. Are these all bad actions?
Never heard of Leaflit/Asari but these MentisWave reacts are good. I've watched a few of them now and they're very enjoyable.
10:05 - Yeah Vic Viper's the name of the ship from Gradius. I didn't know there was a crossover of it in Zone of Enders, but they are both Konami games after all. :)
If you can't take criticism in your profession or in a relationship you won't survive. Your business won't succeed and your relationship will crumble. Criticism is an opportunity to see your faults and fix them. Noting more, nothing less.
Cast buffs by claiming debuffs and using them for emotional and virtual blackmail
12:38 "The weak should fear the strong."
I've had friends who were so warped and left wing I was scared of them, cuz it felt like they were insane. This wasn't a friend-friend, more like a friendly acquaintance though.
Friendly acquaintance is a good way of putting it. You should ask people how they define "friend"
I’m glad to see people have started to catch onto when this tactic is being deployed.
Cirticism is NOT Herasment, but at the same time I feel Herassment is not Criticism
Very true, the irony is often it’s the same people making both errors. They’ll harass people claiming it’s just criticism and then call harassment when they themselves get criticized
@@megarotom1590 Not error, intentional. If the 2 concepts can be confused for the other then they could flip flop between the 2 to and use whatever benefits them the most.
@@frogjupiter That's a theme with postmodernist ideology, feminists are simultaneously empowered and oppressed, and they choose which one they prefer in any given situation. This is what happens when your ideology is based on lies and demonizes those who tell the truth. When you treat the truth as if it is subjective and that there is no objective truth.
@@frogjupiter true true
Negotiation, empathy and charisma are the weapons that can breed warriors of willpower and create culture of strength if used correcty. I may lack the physical capability to be much of a threat (I can box pretty ok, but I am rather weak), however I have the charisma and empathy to allow others to grow stronger than myself.
I prefer friends that challenge my beliefs, it makes conversations far more interesting
Great content! I enjoy listening to your takes on these types of topics.
4:09 When I became old enough to vote, I developed certain views and was convinced that those views were the only correct ones. It didn’t help that I only consumed content that agreed with my views. But then, one day, one of my professors (who had the same views as me, more or less), challenged those views by basically asking, “Why are those views better than these other views?” It was the first time I had to seriously think about why I thought the way that I did, and I suddenly started questioning everything. After spending a lot of time looking into it, I more or less developed the same views that I originally had, but now I was able to support and defend those views. Plus, I became more willing to change my views if someone made a good point that challenged those views. Because of this, I will always be thankful for that professor.
I think an important factor to be aware of, is that the act of ending someone, regardless of villainy, or even nearly but not following through with the act, is for most healthy functioning human beings, a traumatic and self-damaging experience, which is inherently a negative outcome.
This is why we tend to leave bad people in rooms to suffer instead of removing objectively negative elements.
these ppl don't discuss. they subjugate
When this happens to you, the correct way to respond is: "I don't care. Tell me where I am wrong."
A nice Saturday, a new Leaflit vid :D
uhm ist kinda bigoted of u to asume to day is saturday
ther are people who still live in 2016
be fukin beter😡
I watch Leaflet for her brave straightforward-ness and well argumented reasoning, plus she is a rather entertaining presenter herself.
And she is into guns (I wanted to be a gunsmith myself).
Lastly, I don't need to agree on everything to enjoy content of all sorts.
Mantis wave is one of my favorite creators
In my opinion his name is Mentiswave not Mantis wave.
11:50 - I have a "friend" who did this to me right before the election. Made major assumptions about me and tried to shame me into voting the way that they wanted. Add on top of that fearmongering as well to boot regarding the whole lunacy behind those wanting to do 4B and that just made me write them off as a manipulative azzhat who doesn't deserve my friendship anymore if this is how they're going to treat me.
25:20 Using the word "Grifting" would imply that they're trying to make money. I would call it gaslighting instead.
Mentis is up there with my bois IH, AltHype, Mouthy Buddha and Braving Ruin.
Bro mouthy buddha videos make me fear the evil in this world lol
0:25 everytime I see that I keep having flashback to the Ainz casting buffs meme
Yeah that's what she is referencing. We tried to include that meme once and it go copyright claimed
Super queer magic.
Triple maximize victimhood.
Greater transphobe.
Repel accountability
The point about violence is good the principle you describe is called the gentleness principal, It states that if someone is doing something wrong you should stop with the least amount of violence necessary.
In terms of violence, there is always a negative consequence, but there often are positive consequences. In terms of the capability of violence there are positive consequences we cannot allow ourselves to give up.
40:42 i feel you Leaf... i have a septum piercing and dreadlocks... So i often get prejudice thrown at me that i don't even stand for.
I tend to think about my responses instead of spewing baseless nonsense. xD
edit: and also the reason all the rules that have been set in stone so far, is because history was written by the victor.
Who is this cute, blue haired-Elven grifter?
Love to see the Libertarian Mentis get the attention it deserves. You love to see it honestly.
I am of the personality type that likes criticism. When valid, it helps me grow; when invalid, it helps me understand the perspective of that person.
I’d recommend looking up “why do leftist infighting” it gives you a good picture on why a lot of “leftist” TH-camrs act like this. At least in my opinion
I hate the fact that the Dingo vs. VicViper fight makes sense in this context.
The violence problem is another gun control problem, the people most likely to use violence for unmoral reasons dont care about those morals anyway.
The problem is thats the world of violence is larger than the world of words. The correct way to act is to make other people think you are willing to use violence broader that you are actually willing too.
To discuss this it also hits on the ingroup outgroup problem too. Objectivity you should be more willing to use violence on an outgroup compared to a ingroup, but with waining social cohesion and trust the ingroup shrinks heightening the level in which you need to appear willing to use violence.
In summary violence is true neutral. It is also morally wrong to abstain from using violence
Whenever I hear Leaflit talk about politics, I swear I can hear a bald eagle in the background.
I have a friend who is very pro woke stuff most of the time while I lean more towards the other side. We frequently debate each other on our own personal knowledge and examples we see all over, sometimes it can get heated, but we have a silent agreement to never resort to ad homonyms. Cause we know getting petty like that will never convince the other side of your argument it'll just make them dig their heels in further on their own view points. We all need to behave like adults if we want to have any meaningful conversations in this world.
Ive lost everyone ive known this way, i tend to be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but terrible in practice, the few that listened to my advice got things done and left me behind, the rest said “but you dont” and continued to fail, then blame me. So now, ill just sit back and watch the world unravel, im tired.
0:48 Type of logic we used as kids when playing tag lol
For some reason, I had a very strong "I don't remember QAnon involving any time travel" -reaction. Paused the video, gave it some thought. Then I remembered the incident - I had to look up the details - but hundreds of people gathered in Dallas to meet JFK junior when he comes out of hiding. He died in a plane crash back in 1999.
Well I guess that wouldn't necessarily require time travel - but basically time travel isn't out of the question, considering the level of Skizoposting we're dealing with.
Qanal was a pressure release valve/data collection operation, the exact same playbook as the Russian Bolshevik TRUST project, made to create a fake anti-communist movement that would basically collect info on all potential dissidents to then game-end them en masse.
Qanus couldn't stop repeating the whole "TwO mOrE wEekS" and "SiT bAck AnD enJoy ThE sHow" gayest most retarded and obvious psyop I've seen thus far, and I've dug through centuries of psyops.
43:08 Wouldn't your logic about violence apply to almost any evil act? For example: "You might have to lie to prevent something worse from happening. Therefore, lying is morally neutral". "Nicholas Cage had to steal the declaration of independence to prevent the world from ending. Therefore, theft is morally neutral".
Not morally neutral. More, doing a bad thing for a good reason
1:04:42 your mom is based
What? she's into guns. that's cool.
She actually did a stream a few days ago on Twitch showing off her guns. The VOD still should be up if you want to check it out.
Women shouldn’t be able to own guns until they get married.
Why?
This is how RoosterTeeth & some of their fans operated. You said the one wrong thing, and you get cast out.
Breadtuber/socialist group work United against capitalism altright group blah blah blah I think I know what happened when Lenin did all socialist group after the Russian civil war.
I DISAGREE WITH THAT! IT SHOUOD BE A BODY PILLOW BASED CURRENCY!
I have to agree with the notion that violence in of itself is bad, As In: "Overall Violence".
but it's necessary in some cases. Calling it neutral ignores certain factors. Like the victims of violence, even if you exclude it in civilized society and want to mainly focus on warfare.
Let me reiterate that good can come out of using forceful means, depending on the situation. What makes it bad is how indiscriminate Violence truly is, even if it is controlled. Yes it can target the truly villainous or hostile which can lead to a positive outcome, but it even more often than not involves casualties of too many innocents who aren't even particularly involved, especially regarding warfare.
I wouldn't go saying that it's completely unnecessary to use violence, despite the tragedies that do happen, but it's certainly worth considering.
I can appreciate that even Good Kings in ye old times had to engage in warfare to protect their people. So I get it. It seems like leaf was describing it and the threat of it in service of the defense of one's people and their well-being. Totally fair. But this makes violence very "situational" at best.
But outside of that, it's generally more destructive and bad because of how devastating it is and the consequences both seen and unseen are very real. Unseen in a personal way that we can't personally witness. I mean, like how real people are displaced and hurt and left in tight situations because of whatever is going on for them respectively. But what we Do see is usually displayed for us on the news.
That discussion really got the brain juices flowing
11:20
I see, I actually dislike people like that myself. I can talk for hours about my beliefs and why I believe those things. The problem is, people can't stand that I actually "know my lane" and can stand on it. Granted I won't talk out of turn as if I know everything, because that's far from true.
Still, people usually get exhausted and frustrated with me and resort to subjective talk or they get a little disrespectful of my point of view while stating theirs, sometimes they'll resort to straw manning, and not engaging with what im actually saying. And all I'm trying to do is have a civil discussion/disagreement.
If you're willing to challenge my worldview, I shouldn't get in my feelings, of course, but in kind, I should be able to do the same in good faith, but nah, I've always found that it's usually fine one way, but not the other...
Everything in degrees, I guess. On one hand, there are plenty of people who dismiss criticism as harassment. On the other, there’s plenty of people who don’t know what criticism is; complete dumbasses that just think blatant insults with no real substance, or telling someone to off themself, are criticism. These same people will call you whiny if you address actual criticism, or really, address any comments in general. So, it’s good to learn to evaluate things. Learn to see for yourself what’s criticism and what isn’t. Doesn’t hurt to have a little bit of outside input from someone you trust, either.
Generally, if a comment points to something objective that has to do with what’s being criticized, and what it says is actually true, then its criticism. If what the person’s claiming is false and easily disprovable, alludes to something vague but they “don’t want to go into detail” for whatever reason, or is just insults with nothing behind them, then it’s not criticism.
I’m no leftist, but I believe telling people to unalive themselves is not harassment if it’s done in an insulting manner.
Real talk, I used to troll through every political YT vid I could find LOOKING for arguments. I learned a lot actually.
23:16 Wait, have you never played Day of the Tentacle? I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend playing it. It is packed to the brim with comedy, partly due to the unique circumstances of the development process on that game to let everyone, even the programmers, try their hand on throwing in some jokes. So almost literally everywhere you look in the game, someone is making a joke or a (90s era) pop culture reference.
Garbage Human: Why can't we just talk?
Flannel Enjoyer: Whatever, dude.
GH: Exactly!
I could see the argument of violence being negative by defualt. Because when you use vilolence you need to justifice it. As for example if I would just use violence becuase I want to, it not justified enough to be used and consider negative. With right justification is okay. Like protecting youself from intruder or stop a crime. Violence is hard subject as it part of nature and is very destructive. But is important to use when you want protect or conserve something. Other big problem with violence is once it used it, it forces more violences to be stop. You can stop violences with words sometime but often when violence is used it pushes things to the extreme.
Violence is a tactical failure of negotiation. Morally, violence is not inherently wrong. As violence is not just against another person. Unless squishing an ant is morally wrong.
I can't even comment as even saying the v word gets my comment hidden.
43:00 This whole discussion here is what I like about your channel. That you are trying to 'Steel Man' a perspective you intially disagreed with and even defended it while discussing it with the chat.
And yeah Julio wanted to join in the discussion and was making a semantic arguement. Bad Julio :P
Nah she wasn't really steel manning, more just being slow, what she followed up with was just confused. Approximate play by play:
Chatter- 'violence is a negative that gets turned into an overall positive/neutral because of it's effects'
Leaf- 'why is violence a negative?'
Chatter- 'because violence requires you to harm something'
Leaf- 'but let's say there was a person who was abusing children and killing them, is that violence negative?'
what Leaflit tried countering with was already answered by the chatter, so it's more just being slow. No significant problem with being slow of course, just that it's not a good 'steel man'.
Also thanks for all the hard work on the edits Crazy and Julio ❤❤❤ -Tomeshi
Where's my sourdough starter
more peak has arrived
I love seeing you react to mentiswave! if you want a break from cultural uploads i wouldn't mind seeing other topics too
I am planning on having her watch a few other non-cultural things, but for the most part these are what gets views/ad revenue atm. Which is what Leaf needs for everything she wants to do this year, both in terms of her stream and auxiliary content (like the Fumos we shamelessly plugged in this video lmao)
@Iamcrazy4444 that makes sense! And sounds great to me; I was wondering if Asari ever comes onto the channel? The description says that they're a duo but I've only seen leaf ever since I started watching.
@@jumpingmoose5554 Asari streams with Leaf every Sunday and makes sporadic appearances on stream. She has her own separate career from Leaf's stuff so she doesn't have a massive amount of time to spend on anything else
Yes force is a reality of the world but if force is what reigns supreme and involuntary transaftion is common we return to the laws of the jungle aka a low trust society. I personally believe a monopoly on force is immoral(the state) and should exist like the rest of the free market. Btw foreign power's would strugle in the face of an unrregulated defense industry and and armed citizenry.
Glad to see Innuendo Studios called out by someone well spoken. I've always found him to be very insufferable
The point you made from 4:03 to 4:08 is the most base thing I've ever heard.
WARFRAME REFERENCE
I've been in the hole for 8+ years now. Finally finished everything non-cosmetic a few months ago.
Sneaking references in when I can into the editing is what gets me out of bed in the morning.
Dan Crenshaw reminds me of Snake from Metal Gear Solid.
NO! THAT IS NOT SOLID SNAKE!
Halfway point where she was talking with a chatter about violence.
I think the chatter is saying that everyone deserves a fair justice regardless the severity of the case.
Unless being oppressed, provoked, then violence should be by default a negative that of course my humble opinion
Rosibellmoo and smugalana do this step by step. Any criticism of them they say is by toxic or bad people.
is there a way to make your environment adhere to your preferences that does not include the use of force on it and the threat of force or force itself against all who would make it adhere to their preferences should they differ from yours?
is good not when things are according to your preferences?
Yes. Homestead your environment. You own your environment, others own theirs. This works with everything from the air you breath to the physical space you're standing in.
@@SoMuchFacepalm
and how do you make your homestead and the people within it adhere to your preferences?
is part of that not the implicit threat that you will make them leave if they do not?
and of course force against things and beings other than humans, but i dont think anyone here is arguing that we cant use violence of those.
@@richardnebelheim9127 "is part of that not the implicit threat that you will make them leave if they do not?"
Yes. And they can do the same within their homesteaded property. To be able to do so without initiating conflict is the point of homesteading.
I was woundering when you would react to this good work
What if I believe I am right and you are wrong?
I don't want a Leaf Fumo. I want a Nun Leaf Mouse Pad with... *eh hem* ... wrist support.
Does Leaflit ...have wrist support?
@@ClokworkGremlinI haven't seen the... full mouse pad, but I'd guess the.. wrist support isn't the biggest? But that's fine right?
@@ClokworkGremlin I'm sure she has enough back end support and/or enough front end support to support me to Ws in Marvel Rivals.
im now hearing some people saying elon musk is putins lil lap dog
The pacifist arguments made by viewers during this stream made zero sense. In reality, pacifism as an ideology only works if *everyone* believes in it and lives by it.
For example:
If you have 999 humans believing in pacifism and 1 who disagrees with it (so 1000 in total) and that 1 person goes bad and murders someone, then what are the remaining 998 people gonna do? You can't punish the guy who committed the murder without the use of force. Even just imprisoning someone requires the use of force.
So, if the remaining 998 people would stay true to their believe of pacifism they would potentially all die for it.
Because the ideology they believe in forbids them from fighting back or punishing the perpetrator.
This kind of logic is how civilizations die. The world won't change just because you feel that it *should* change. And if there is even 1 person who disagrees with your ideology then your ideology of pacifism cannot possibly work in reality. Because that 1 individual is gonna use force and you won't have any way to defend yourself without the use of force.
Sure, one can say "you should use force only when necessary" but people have different perspectives on when that point is reached. So, no matter how you stretch it pacifism fundamentally speaking doesn't work. The word pacifism honestly shouldn't exist at all because the true meaning of the word is not achivable.
I severely disagree with the 48 min in takes.
Its not about if force should be applied as a last resort nor the statement of intent to do it.
Its about what other parties actions give one justification to respond with what level of force and in practice all sane people take that approach (in turn proving that its neutral/unaligned/a tool that can be used be it for good or evil, law or chaos, net positive or net negative effects, etc).
You need objective rules for objective behaviors, not morality. Laws exist to protect you from other people's actions, not your actions nor other people's thoughts.
I disagree with leaflit. There's a difference between subjective morality and being dishonest.
Under subjective morality your stance should apply to the situation, not biased by who it is or by some intersectional bullcrap.
Murder is generally wrong because if everyone did it nothing else could function. We still do justify murder, even under the "objective morality" of religion - it just requires work.
Same goes to any generally immoral act, if I(or an average person) wouldn't like it done to me(or them), or if it would disturb public order, it is often tossed into the "immoral" bucket.
That is why stabbing someone else's toe into the corner of the table is evil, while doing it to yourself is just stupid.
the violence itself can never be negative
its the way its used
but even then, you are getting into slippery slope, grey-area, and ultra-political territory
violence to stop violence would otherwise be negative, it would be a bad thing to do
i agree with that on a very limited view, we should not be projecting ourselves on other people if we ourselves cannot agree on what is good or bad, especially if the justification for what is good or bad is "fuck that group in particular, we dont have to listen to them" towards any group at all
for some reason this reminds me of dev( shortfatotaku)
He did recommend the Gramsci video once? I guess there's a few things that they agree on. I know there's a lot they don't.
do his political ideology tierlist video
I know the thing about anime girls was a joke but it would be funny to see it.
8:13 Trump is too prideful to be controlled by musk, without massive blackmail material i doubt musk has.
He might listen to Elon, "this will make us money" is something he will consider, but will use the position exactly likenhis first term.
That and if Trump was having mental degradation issues like they claim for Biden, it would likely be his family or someone from hisnlong term inner circle who was guiding him, Musk is to new to the team.
13:01 now I know who it is, RIP
I hate Julio. There's all this extra content. But Julio only wants to edit the political stuff. 😢. Julio edit the gun stream she did.
He’s putting it up soon!
13:18 You're assuming we have friends