The "your fans are attacking me" card is such a dirty silencing tactic. The accuser doesn't have to provide a shred of evidence, yet if you challenge the accusation, you look like the bad guy. If you agree not to respond to the accuser anymore, you're implicitly saying the accusations are valid. If you refuse, you look like the bad guy. It's a lose/lose situation.
Im a centrist Just gonna say what was said at 48:25 and your reaction, is you trying to escape the right-wing spell But you have a following now, you can't really change now understandably. You gotta put food on table somehow in this economy. And you technically aren't selling your people out like Candace Owens or anything So just do you
Physics teacher: Let us consider a frictionless ball going down a slope... NonCompete: Do you think you can learn anything by thinking about unrealistic hypotheticals? You have to base your analysis on objective data. Marx and Engels listed two sources of objective data, and hypotheticals are not one of them.
40 minutes in and I'm tearing my hair out. Half of Philosophy is metaphore and allegory. People aren't literally chained in a cave, there is no literal runaway Trolley, there is no literal machine that makes you happy. These are all thought experiments that investigate our feelings and sense of morality.
wait... I wasnt supposed to tie people to trolley tracks and cut the trolley brakes? edit: the better version of the joke: "You are a moral philosophy teacher, do you tie people to trolley tracks to keep your job?"
@@sluttyMapleSyrup it's almost like NC thinks he owns his wife as the paternalistic master and that she's too docile and passive to argue for her own dignity. How hierarchical
@@daffyuser Don't worry, his behaviour is the most toxic masculinty in my opinion, it's like assuming his wife cant argue for herself (which she cant, that's pretty clear) but he makes it because she is such a poor poor marginalized frail vietnamese woman, and he, the white knight come to beat down on the bully, is the only one who could ever save her from herself. It's so disgusting, everytime he has been on vaush it's because "mah wife's feelings hurt". That is some serious saviour complex, abandonment issue hellhole weirdo toxic masculinity shit. You are probably good bro/brer/brex
Luna calling a queer man a pedophile isn’t homophobic (even though she’s also said the LGBTQ+ movement in Vietnam is a colour revolution lmao) but calling a Vietnamese nationalist a propagandist is apparently racist.
Polish nationalist being anti lgbt whole left gets its wrong Vietnamese nationalist being anti lgbt calling them counter revolutionaries lots of people are ok with it. Poland was under the control of three European empires for two centuries who all tried to erase their culture and language. A lot of polands far right is the way it is because of that but the left makes no excuse for it’s problematic behavior but they do when the colonized anti gay people are poc like Luna.
@@alexalexandrov9684 I wouldn't call noncompeat and his possy of inbreads the hole left but the online left has an large minority of people that are total simps for any poc persone no matter what they actually say or belive Their brains just shut down when they see poc cas their minds have brakns rotted by Liberal Idpol otherwise they might be totally reasonable people
@Nobody Luna doesn't hold any anti lgbt positions, nor did she say vietnamese lgbt activism is from foreign agents or whatever. Your projecting something (known weirdo)Maupin would say onto Luna.
How did this guy miss the point so thoroughly? Non-Compete seemingly doesn’t realize that Vaush is asking about why a moral position is good or bad and Non-Compete continually thinks Vaush is giving his moral position.
He was fishing for a good clip. Notice how he says "I got everything I needed" before he hangs up - the ONLY reason he was in the debate was to get a clippable moment he could burn for clout.
Shark30zero put it kinda funny, something along the lines of "he actually doesnt understand he's in a simulation right now, like vaush put the vr headset on him and he thinks its real, he thinks vaush is actually arguing from his own position" maybe I just think this is way funnier than it actually is, but I just had to share this
To be fair, Vaush's hypothetical wasn't grounded in reality, yours was. NC wanted something that can be mapped onto reality, Vaush was giving hypotheticals about time traveling and shit
He's clearly not saying he never engages in hypotheticals. If you disagree with him on the validity of the hypothetical, explain why. This is why debate culture is so toxic, everything is about proving someone to be stupid quickly instead of actually understanding an issue.
@@maximusstirnimus5210 “if you disagree on the validity of the hypothetical, explain why.” How can NC and I disagree on the validity of Vaush’s hypothetical? NC rejected V’s hypothetical, and by NC’s definitions almost all hypotheticals generally, out of hand without even hearing the hypothetical or engaging with it in the slightest. Which is exactly my point. NC resoundedly rejects a foundational tool of philosophy, used by every single philosopher I’m aware of as well as Marx. What’s more, NC changes his mind is willing to use hypotheticals himself when he arbitrarily deems them acceptable/convenient. “This is why debate culture is so toxic, everything is about proving someone to be stupid quickly instead of actually understanding the issue.” In what way is that what I’m doing? Because at least by your description, it sounds like your behavior so far has the same or more “toxicity” and “debate culture”-ness compared to my one comment. I don’t think NC is a stupid person. But he’s definitely being stupid on this issue, purposefully or not.
@@zen_tewmbs Once again, he never said he was against all hypotheticals. You do realize it's possible to create a bad hypothetical? Particularly if the point of the hypothetical is to illustrate a larger point, but the concept of the hypothetical doesn't apply equally in more general ways.
@@maximusstirnimus5210 Except the entire time he kept saying “I refuse to engage with hypotheticals, this is idealism” and couldn't explain why he thought it was a bad hypothetical. He literally dismissed it on the basis of it being a hypothetical.
@@maximusstirnimus5210 “do you realize it’s possible to create a bad hypothetical?” Yes, I do. That is also irrelevant, because NC didn’t say “that hypothetical is not applicable to this situation and here’s why”. NC repeatedly interrupted Vaush to say that he would not engage with any hypothetical that wasn’t “grounded in material reality” - which by NC’s definition, is almost every hypothetical used by Marx and every philosopher I’ve read. It’s directly what NC said, and the direct consequences of what he said. So two questions. 1) Do you have even a single instance of NC engaging with a hypothetical presented by Vaush, and NC then saying it is not applicable to the situation because of any reason besides a variation of “that wouldn’t happen IRL”? 2) you said “This is why debate culture is so toxic, everything is about proving someone to be stupid quickly instead of actually understanding the issue.” In what way is that what I’m doing? Because at least by your description, it sounds like your behavior so far has the same or more “toxicity” and “debate culture”-ness compared to my one comment.
LMAO Vaush: *tries to force him to pick a standard for moral positions by asking why things are bad* NonCompete: *can't keep up and starts breaking down* Vaush: It would be nice to have an ethical system you could apply to answer these questions, right? NonCompete: No
Defending your wife: Usually pretty morally good. Defending your wife's terrible takes: Okay we're slipping here. Defending your wife calling someone a kidler didler by calling your opponent a kidler didler: The plot has been lost Batman, go home.
Luna Oi seems really cowardly and manipulative to me. Her weird tangeants and victim blaming reminds me of an abuser from my life, and some Theramintrees stuff. Wouldn't be surprising if her boyfriend is being manipulated.
The fact that he misunderstood you so thoroughly and then said you were unironically "supporting Nazis" is almost unbelievable to me. How can he miss every point so completely and be unaware of it?
It's like a perfect overlap of being stupid, feeling stupid, and responding with dishonesty People will do the craziest shit if you make them feel stupid
@@rainbowkrampus Well, Noncompete has such a fragile ego, he once went on an insane rant against RU-vid support bots (lmao, he screenshotted it on his own twitter as if it would make him look good) where he seemed utterly convinced that Trevor Noah, a liberal comedian who almost 100% certainly has no idea who he is, had a personal vendetta against his channel. Why? Because he uploaded some video accusing Noah of being some kind of anti-worker neolib based on an old comedy bit he did poking fun at a worker's protest in Africa, and the video got DMCA'd. It's almost guaranteed that what actually happened was just another generic instance of capitalist PR bots mindlessly taking down anything that resembles bad optics, or bog standard copyright trolling by the algorithm servants. No plausible scenario involves Trevor Noah, a wildly bigger public figure, giving the slightest thin shit about some nobody tankie. But that's the thing: For people with such inflated egos, everything is about them, even as the air in their heads makes their self-esteem incredibly fragile.
@@PancakemonsterFO4 Guilt by association, a favorite tactic of dishonest moral purity crusaders (oops, that's redundant, that's all of them) to facilitate witch burning. Can't criticize the argument? Just cite vague proximity to a thing you've already predetermined to be Bad.
Non-compete's mistake was not acknowledging how much emotional attachment he has to the given topics. It's so obvious he came here to defend his partner.
He should have just made it about him trying to defend his partner. That's like normal human behavior. The issue was trying to pretend his position was based on leftist theory. Then he showed how fucking little he actually knows about about a lot of things.
That's the classic tankie move, isn't it? Pretend all your emotional biases are empirically reasoned theory so you can have the aesthetics of intellectualism with zero of the effort.
Yea. NC : "Please can you stop making videos of my wife. We have had alot of harassment and i will pressent the usernames and printscreens of the worst offenders" Vaush: "i cannot prommis i will never critizise her. But i could possibly choose my words better and i will of course ban all racists shits that is harassing Luna and you" NC: "sounds fair. Will email the details, goodbye" Would have been a waaay better outcome.
Anyone could respect someone defending their partner. The man's a coward for going in under the guise of wanting a constructive discussion. Obviously obsessed with his image.
"we're not getting anywhere" is a great code-phrase for "you didn't immediately submit to my bad faith argument and now I don't want to reflect on your valid response."
@@E.J.Crunkleton I don't think I have any social responsibility to be civil to people who imply that I'm a pedophile by misrepresenting and quote-mining me either. That's just being a normal human being.
@@E.J.Crunkleton Don't you think it's kinda absurd to say it's you social responsibility to be civil to fascists and people who falsely accuse you of pedophillia? Clearly you don't believe this
I had some sympathy for what he said about Vaush's communication style possibly encouracing harrassment and that he could maybe go a bit lighter on that but that went out the window so fast when he refused to apply the same logic to Luna. Holy hypocrite.
Yep. "I'm okay with being mean to people" might seem like a toxic attitude until you have a bird's eye view of what's really going on. Nothing wrong with boiling a bad egg.
But… she did quote the video. You’re lying and you know it… Secondly, Vaush lied and said the clip was “spliced together”. How do you all see him lying and just go along with it? This is a cult of personality, I guess. Hang on to that parasocial pleasure while you can kids.. so cringe..
@@TurtleChad1 Can’t we have a civil discussion about basic facts? Idk what a tankie is I’m not very online. Isn’t EJ an Anarcho-Syndicalist? Either way, it’s very strange to just ejaculate “GO BE A TANKIE” because I insisted that facts are facts and lying for a cult of personality is wrong.. but okay.
That was hillarious, he is simping so hard for his wife. Which i would not mind if she wasnt smearing someone for being a pdf-file. I went and watched the video..and it litrally cuts him mid sentence. Its disgusting really...wonder if he could file for defamation.
@@charliekowittmusic Vaush was right, though. The clip literally cuts him off mid-sentence. She quoted a clipped fraction of his actual argument meant to make him look bad. That’s a fact.
People like this NonCompete person are really scary for me. He clearly knows all the philosophy vocabulary, had exposure to lots of the concepts and narrates them very confidently, but he barely understands anything about it. He doesn't even know the difference between dialectic and ethics, he has no idea what idealism is... The scary thing is I can easily see myself being duped by someone like him, if i knew a little bit less about the subjects.
@@jamespace5429 Noncompete is much more competent than Jordan Peterson. They're similar in how they abuse vocabulary but Noncompete is just better at doing it.
People like NC are always problematic when allowed to "thrive", and it's not about what he said in this video, but rather the idea that he was a hardcore right winger until only a couple years ago. Similar with Shoe on Head or any number of these goofs. If you are not being fundamentally brainwashed by your parents, anyone who instinctively goes right wing and then switches, but wants to be a public figure.... Is suspect as can be, because one, they have already established that they can't be trusted to not be easily tricked? Like imagine someone in real life you know that strongly has an opinion against all logic for years and then they switch that opinion entirely? Great you changed your mind, but holy crap nobody should ask your opinion about anything. Guess who I don't look to for opinions? People who can't functionally process information.
This is why video essays can sometimes be just as dangerous as they claim debate to be. There's nobody to challenge the video you already spent hours watching unless you spend the same amount of time rewatching the video with someone critiquing it.
Okay I know the hangup is funnier, but can we talk about how Noncompete got stuck on correlation and responsibility like two minutes in? He just kept repeating that Luna got hate after Vaush discussed her, in spite of Vaush explaining how that was likely an inevitable consequence of him discussing her, rather than his language or community being racist towards her. Then he got stuck on the stepchild thing, as though Vaush was supposed to agree that it was somehow inciting racism. And then finally just being stymied when Vaush admitted it was vitriolic (while not conceeding it was racist or irresponsible, because...how?) but said he was fine with being mean. Plus he kept saying he'd proven that Luna was getting harassed when he never actually presented ANYTHING. I believe him, but what is Vaush supposed to do about harassers without knowing who they are or what they're saying, despite his best efforts to find out? Clown shit from minute one.
Ya I suppose if you are stuck in a competitive all or nothing mindset it's hard to understand the value of being kind yourself when it's not likely to cause others to do the same
We can also talk about how EJ tried desperately to twist Vaush's words on policing his community into clutching his pearls that Vaush's community would need any policing at all. Pathetic attempt at a catch-22. "Oh you need to police your community? That's pretty Y I K E S Y!"
@@FantaLiteBrav what if the racism doesn’t come from the community? What if it’s kiwi farmers who hate both parties but track the bigger platform because being a neet is a hell of a drug. Wasn’t this already addressed?
@@FantaLiteBrav also Vaush had like, a group of people go check on the people who were harassing Luna on twitter and ended up proving that literally none of them were part of his community, I'll see if I can find the tweets again
Hypotheticals are like stress testing planes. You aren’t going to fly a jet through the worst possible storm on earth but it might be useful to see what might happen if you do. You can learn if, when, where, how, and why it breaks. Same thing with your ideas, hypotheticals let you identify weak points and flaws that might slip you notice otherwise. This is basic philosophy you don’t need a PHD to get that.
"No because stress testing planes is a material thing and not hypothetical so it's materialist not idealist" - NonCompete who missed the analogy's point because analogies are idealism!
That's not the only thing he doesn't understand here. Vaush pointed it out directly to him as well. "Using intuitive morals is what leads to mass slaughters then being post hoc justified instead of prevented altogether." Also, I watched the Ben Burgis commentary of this exchange and he used the term "Sam Harris Marxist" to describe how NC was trying to frame dialectical materialism, referencing that Sam Harris believes science can tell you what morals to have instead of science providing information to which you can better decipher how to apply your morals and ethics. NC literally keeps saying over and over that the framework of thinking (dialectical materialism) somehow reveals what's moral or not and doesn't even understand with a critical theory even is it seems. In the fighting game community, we call this 'getting exposed', i.e. he walked right into that hyper telegraphed super finish.
"The material conditions will dictate what's acceptable or not" is the most ominous shit I've heard in some time. Please don't let these people gain any more social traction.
What's weird is people on Twitter trying to justify this framing with this idea that material conditions can be defined in such a way so that it's literally impossible for bad things to be justified. As if you can just stretch the definitions a bit to make internal and external morality the same thing.
I can't really see what's wrong with that statement. Our material conditions is the basis for moving up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. As an example, a woman might find it preposterous to sell herself for sex and wrong, but if she has a hungry kid and an empty bank account she might overcome that initial moral dismissal of sex work and do whatever she has to fed her kid and make money. What's a more clear example is looking at worker's rights and salaries in western countries. They have all but gone up and that increase in material wealth (and workers rights) are seen as the "new" acceptable standard for society. No one is gonna find it fair to be paid 50% less than others in the same field of work. Material conditions does indeed inform our idea of what is acceptable or not in our societies.
@@lameduck3105 Forecasting the conditions for when an action is and is not acceptable is what an ethical framework is for. I personally think it's always acceptable for someone to "sell their body" in this way. The distinction between assault and self-defense is more illustrative. Assault is what you enact physical violence upon someone without the proper justification. Enacting physical violence upon someone with the intent (and reasonably likely outcome) of protecting yourself or someone else is a justification for violence that is prescribed by the ethical framework. To simply say, "the material conditions will dictate what is justified" is just another way of saying you intend to post-hoc justify whatever attrocities you commit in the fulfillment of your goal.
I was subbed to Non-Compete and unsubbed when Vaush fans came to his stream to peacefully discuss with him. They were banned although they were so respectful. And the 2-3 out of 100s who were not respectful were shown on stream as an example how bad Vaush fans are. Even Non-Compete fans criticized his mods for this sneaky stuff. Good job to the Vaush community.
Idk if that’s true? Did this happen after the conversation with Vaush? Because before I saw some Vaush viewers in his comments and he seemed okay-ish with it
This dude really showed his ass when he just kept harping in on one thing said about his wife. This wasn't a good faith debate on his part, just him airing his grievances.
Yeah like, just say “I don’t like you being mean to my wife” instead of “you don’t understand that dialectical materialism dictates you be nice to my wife”
yeah and what's funny is if you look at the comments on his reply video the comments are along the lines of "wow i love how you are always acting in good faith really exposed his bullshit" kind of sad yet funny at the same time
Here's the thing about that hypothetical situation. NC would have been correct if Vaush's logic was "I can conduct a single unrealistic hypothetical situation under which this would be ethical, therefore it is ethical in the real world." But that was nowhere close to the argument he was making because he's not an idiot. NC literally could not understand the difference between using hypotheticals to illustrate a point or explore nuance and basing your entire worldview on hypotheticals. The saddest part of all of this is that NC will walk away from this not recognizing how little he understands and this entire exchange will instead become evidence of how unreasonable Vaush is. There's a real problem today where very few people are willing to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong about something. That's why flat Earthers act like everyone else is too stupid to understand their nonsense when they fail to convince anyone
We use hypotheticals all the time. How does he and his wife decorate their house? They just randomly buy shit and throw in places or do they come up with ideas and make hypotheticals about where to put shit by what would look best where. I watched one of his videos to where he states what is wrong with the Left and in it he said Vietnam went through a peaceful transition which is not true. It is apparent neither he nor his wife who were not alive during that time have never talked to those who went through it. Re-education camps were not pretty. They created farming community zones up in the highlands on indigenous land and it failed miserable. Others were outright killed. Southerners were distructed by the North. According to the Peace Treaty over the US leaving a North and South were supposed to remain independent countries. The NLF thought they were get to form the new Southern govt but then got betrayed by the North who then unified which was supposed to be after the South had a stable govt and then both countries decided to have the vote. Nope, the North just did a big FU, nullified the political power of the NLF and put people from the North in charge. Foreigners were told leave or we make you leave and NC stated this was voluntary but necessary for decolonization and then implied that this happened and thus now then left foreigners in. He COMPLETELY ignored their economy tanked and due to mid 80s reforms of allowing foreign business in they turned their economy around. I am not really impressed with him.
@@DevinMacGregor His takes are 100% just Luna's regurgitated when it comes to Vietnam. He doesn't *dare* disagree. Check Voosh's video on her, it's either here or on The Pit, I forget which, just. Holy shit the cope when it comes to the Vietnamese love of free market. 'NO! THE SURVEY WAS LIIIES!', it's absolutely absurd.
@@Revan058 Yeah, I saw that. I do not think he was ever a capitalist either. Just some western dude wjo has a kink for Southeast Asian chicks. My late brother in laws oldest is in Vietnam. He likes them because they can be more submissive than western women. I know of people who like to go to the girly bars in Thailand.
Hypotheticals are used to determine whether there are inconsistencies in an ideology or ethical system - not necessarily to determine which course of action would have the best empirical outcome. Dont understand why he couldn't comprehend this
Actually, you’re incorrect. If using that hypothetical as a *starting point* is the means by which you arrive at your conclusion, it is Idealism. This is a fact which is not debatable.
Haha exactly! Or when Vaush has a good counter argument and hes just like " anyways we arent going anywhere with this ". I can see it in his eyes, the panic, hoping Vaush would actually move on.
I hate it when people use words like "marginalized" at incorrect contexts. It just turns it into a buzz word. Luna is not from a society that marginalizes her for her ethnicity. This is not to say she doesn't experience racism over the internet but these are two different but related concepts.
What Noncompete doesn’t realize is that he already is utilizing an ethical system, just subconsciously. Because we all do, it's literally unavoidable, so we might as well take the time to sit down and sort through it. Morals should be applied to situations and be proactive, not responding to situations and be reactive.
He had absolutely no concept of what vaush was talking about and it was agonizing to listen to. "It depends on the material conditions", ok, how do you decide whether something is good or bad once you know the material conditions? Don't understand why he can't make that additional step
Vaush shouldn't lecture people about moral systems because he acts like an asshole all the time. I don't believe he cares about socialism at all because he can't take 2 seconds to notice the humanity in another person.
17 minutes in I feel like this dude only wanted to talk to vaush because he was offended on his wife's behalf. He's clearly fishing for vaush to apologize or give some sort of admission of guilt. Its almost comedic how you can tell that vaush's stone-faced refusal to take any responsibility for the harassment is clearly frustrating him but he is trying to still remain calm.
100% my interpretation too. There were a few clues: 1) The number of times he said "I don't know what to tell you". Like, that phrase CAN say a lot, but when you keep saying it, maybe you just have nothing good to say. 2) His clear excitement - later on - in dragging the conversation into really arcane theory debate just because Vaush brought up a hypothetical, while also refusing to allow any philosophy that is "idealist" (read: something I haven't read before). It was never about the hypothetical. It was because he didn't like the hypothetical and he needed an out. 3) How he went from a detailed dissection of things Vaush has said and how that incites online hate, to..."no, she didn't TECHNICALLY say that!" You don't get it both ways. You can critique someone's implications and/or the wider context and consequences of what they've said, OR you can be an idiot right winger who says "words have a dictionary definition and that's that!" You don't get to do both. Unless you're a dishonest fuck defending his wife with no regard for truth or equal treatment.
It certainly highlights a very concerning lack of empathy for minorities and other POC. It's almost like all of Vaush's talk about socialism and equality is just a grift.
@@E.J.Crunkleton 100%. I've been a not very invested, but consistent watcher for a couple of years now. But this whole thing sucks. Vaush not to be trusted. He just introduces chaos for the purpose of succeeding in the attention economy.
I was honestly having trouble understanding Vaush's perspective on this drama until Noncompete started trying to explain away Luna calling Vaush a p*do. He completely lost me as soon as he did that.
Yeah that's basically why Vaush has this take at this point. A lot of bad faith people are gonna do what they want at this point so fuck em. It's not pretty or the most productive but it's also not unwarranted.
I love the harassment thing slowly shifting from “your viewers are harassing people and sending death threats” to “you should be more responsible for what you say about marginalized people” to “you're just being mean and I don't see the utility” to desperately make something, ANYTHING stick. What a weasel lol, just come out and say “I'm mad you insulted my wife,” it'd be way less patronizing and sad.
@@checkeredcheese What? I was talking about EJ's claim that Vaush's community is harassing Luna/EJ and when pressed on it he had to water down the claim several times to try and smear him. I'm not saying Vaush was harrassed if that's what you thought.
When NonCompete couldn't own up to the fact that Luna called Vaush a pedophile, I lost all respect for him. It's unfortunate because I liked him and really liked a lot of his videos, especially the ones inspired by Kropotkin. I was excited by this discussion because I thought it would be fruitful and would result in agreement. I was very very wrong.
I loved when you kept asking him 'why?' enough times he ended up saying that he believes oppression is bad because Marx and Engels thought so. I guess he hated thinking so much that he just based his entire moral framework on whatever some other guys said. And called you an idealist the whole way through
EJ calling hypothetical philosophical exercises “idealism” should immediately discredit him for literally everyone in his audience that has actually read Marx - though I doubt they exist.
don't worry, Emerican makes sure the only theory their audience knows is that which they are being fed through the puppet videos. the videos in question can be good, but i sure as hell won't be watching them any time soon.
I had a whiplash when NC went "idealism bad" then going on misusing the term idealism when he actually means thinking and imagination. Thats basically an all gas, no breaks leap before you look mentality.
He wasn’t calling philosophical hypotheticals themselves idealist he was saying that The construction of an ethical system off the back of abstract ideals/hypotheticals not rooted in the concrete social conditions of the world is idealist. Which, according to the Marxist tradition, is overwhelmingly true. Whether vaush wants to admit it or not his notion of utilitarianism is textbook idealism and thus is extremely incompatible with dialectical materialism.
@@KikomochiMendoza but EJ was correct. To create a political system based on ideas, I.e rationalism, as opposed to material experience, I.e empiricism, is idealism. Marx was a radical empiricist and EJs ultimate point about how Vaush’s approach to coming to the ultimate conception of a political system, I.e the idea that rational debate gets you closer to the truth, is 100% idealism and in a sense anti-Marxist. It seems rather ironic that Vaush would openly admit that “idealism” means different things in different contexts when pressed for a definition, but then confidently claim that “hypotheticals” could never fit into a definition for idealism Edit: I'm surprised I didn't point it out earlier, but I want to reiterate that thinking and imagination is philosophical idealism... If you were to name things that contribute to idealism you would point to functions which are necessary in the formulation of ideas, i.e the mind. If you were to name things that contribute to philosophical materialism, you would refer to the senses as the means of experientially investigating the material world
It's so painful seeing him not knowing what the fuck idealism is. I saw that concept on my first fucking semester in college, and he doesn't even know the difference between a hypothetical and idealism
It's funny because an Idealist would probably use EJ's misunderstanding of Idealism as support for Idealism. "You see, the subject's perception limits his knowledge. By opining on a subject he is unfamilar with, his mind creates assertions to support his speech, independent of what could be considered "objective"".
Seems like he just came here with a bone to pick and to defend his partner and spin it like it was some anti-racist personal responsibility moral policing. Like when Vaush said “you’re obviously closer to this than I am” and he said “well yeah I recognize that she’s a PERSON” kinda just shows your dishonest intent. Just go out and defend your partner if that’s what you want to do but don’t act like it’s anything different
I don't think it's dishonest if it's obvious to everyone involved. He had PF on his stream too but he didn't feel forced to talk directly to Vaush in that case.
@@Turalcar I think it's dishonest in it's presentation, like "I came here because you insulted muy wife" vs "I came here to explain to you how insulting my wife hurts socialism and Marx said so"
It's incredible that someone could make a whole video series about a hypothetical anarchist society and then impune other people for being "idealistic".
Im still amazed how often vaush is clipchimped. I think part of it is he kind of has the Obama pause/separation of words so it's really easy to cut the clip off with a natural sounding ending
@@veganvanguard8273 obviously. i don't get why anyone would think this could be a legitimately fruitful conversation when it's literally a guy defending his wife.
Yeah I had no clue who he was unfortunately before this so the moment I heard he was married to Luna Oi I was like “Oh shit is that the whole reason he’s here”
"I'd like to have a conversation in good faith" Immediately overstates Vaush's responsibility for the actions of his audience, then underplays the responsibility of Luna for her own tweets 🙄 Ok, I could maybe give that a pass as it's his wife But the complete inability to comprehend hypotheticals BIG red flag
I think the ‘useless’ part was the stinger. That’s a more harmful word than most swear words and slurs in many cultures (as social responsibilities are often the most valued thing in many third world countries as the data shows)
@@totenwache88 but how is NC gonna get people to knee jerkingly attack Vaush if he doesn't try to frame this as racist and interprets his words in good faith ?
You mean like when Luna was talking about human consciousness and Vaush started screeching about how she's wrong about class consciousness even though that's obviously not what she was talking about
@@SefirothPH yea totally comparable to being called a pedophile... also, he wasnt quoting her and using the quote as an argument. it was a fuckin live video reaction lol it is so irrelevant
18:49 NonCompete: I'm using hypotheticals here 29:35 NonCompete: I'm not an idealist; I'm not gonna talk about hypotheticals that don't have a bearing on the actual reality.
Man, it sucks that your basically-identical comment to mine (and made before mine, it looks like, yay independently coming to the same idea) didn’t get any attention.
Just going off the first 20 mins, it's clear his only reason for doing this,is him being upset his wife got minorly insulted. Just be blunt about it, instead of trying pretend you want to have a constructive discussion.
Idk I think he has pretty obvious points. 1. Platforms come with responsibility. Where as Vaush is dying to be he next Destiny and doesn’t care who gets hurt. 2. Vaush didn’t understand the concepts enough to even discuss them, hence he used knowingly fallacious arguments and lobbed insults at Luna. “Marxism-Leninism isn’t revolutionary. My evidence? You can get a PhD in Capitalist countries”. “I’m not an Idealist. And Marx’s Dialectical Materialism doesn’t exist as commonly understood. My evidence? Marx had a doctorate and thought a lot.” I think it’s pretty normal to be upset that someone you thought was a like-minded comrade attacked your wife for the lulz and the clicks.. look at the comment section. This cult of personality likes it. This makes real Socialists with respect for the struggle quite sad. Those who are just mindlessly consuming content and calling themselves Socialists aren’t Leftists at all, just capitalist consumers.
@@charliekowittmusic Hey um... I have this package here that says "Open soon: Live Specimen". Was told it's some grass for you to touch or something, I'm not sure
That moment at 40:30 spoke volumes to me. When dude starts in with "where are you getting this from?" it really cements the fact that he doesn't understand what any of these words mean.
The difference between when Vaush hung up on MrGirl and this situation was that here they were in the most crucial part of the debate instead of going off topic because of inappropiate jokes and about to start the most central part of the debate which was the ideology that drives EJ. And, let me ask you, what do you do when you're a content creator and someone bigger than you just spews nazi bullshit in a debate you specifically requested? Of course you capitalize on it, a mask-off moment from a supposed socialist? That's huge! (Of course, he wasn't actually defending that ideology). But instead he declared it was enough and hung up because he was already scared and used it as an excuse to chicken out from a conversation that made him look bad
It is so intellectually and morally bankrupt to bring up a topic that has so much red tape and then just bounce because they are incapable of doing "the thing." My god dont ask for it, if you cant systematically articulate a clear framework about something, dont talk about it. It is one thing to go on twitter or whatever and make statements passively or directly supporting a topic. It is another to be debating the topic and outlining perspectives, arguing both for and against the facts . . . with facts. Example: You can most definitely DEBATE slavery was good WITH THE INTENTION OF DEBUNKING IT during a debate while someone articulates the proper social response toward it which is that we shouldn't allow it . . . as a pure form of performative satire to expose the mindset. In the theoretical and on a debate stage, one doesnt have to commit to BELIEVING the argument . . . just that you did your due diligence to understand the perspective to fairly argue the points. This is seen in mainstream forums and debate stages. "Devils Advocate" Non-compete? I dont think it was that, his good faith evaporated quite quickly with his feels. This sort of benefit of the doubt and commitment to intellectual honesty, integrity should not be extended to certain discussions. No one in the public eye would ever attempt it be it for optics or bad exposure. You will NEVER hear a TedX talk about childrens underwear.
why do we even feel the need to constantly defend the easily defensible mrgirl shit like the only ones with a problem with it aren't just destiny and his goons?
@@malum9478 mr girl was creeping on underage girls so Vaush hung up . Noncompete rage quit. I don’t know how hatewatchers and destiny dorks can think these 2 are comparable
@@thefatherinthecave943 yep. My take was that Mr Girl actually thought vaush was a paedophile, and was trying to bait him to admit what was an "acceptable" lower age to find kids "attractive". Vaush saw this was going haywire and hung up. But tbh, vaush should have hung up before then. But maybe we wouldn't have seen how sick Mr girl was...
Vaush: Obviously gives an answer he not seriously believes so that NonCompete is able to get the problem with his position. Nobody: NonCompete: Actually believes that answer was what Vaush believes.
It’s so weird cuz even a smart person who didn’t realize Vaush was doing a stress test would ask clarifying questions, not just hang up. Why would NC, who seems fairly good faith, even fathom that Vaush deadass holds reactionary positions?
I remember watching EJ’s vids back in the day and, even tho I generally liked him, I did get the distinct sense that he was a guy who found some kind of spiritual fulfilment in moving to Vietnam and distancing himself from the West, and as a result he never really arrived at his positions through anything other than intuition or aesthetic,
why i get the feeling NC thinks Marx is the only Philosopher worth reading? it’s like he can’t wrap his head around some very basic stuff like utilitarianism or empiricism without tying it up to some up to some marxian jargon, like DUDE, Marx didn’t literally wrote about everything, he was an economist, if you only based your entire worldview on Das Kapital you’re gonna be left with some serious blindspots
@@amellirizarry9503 yeah but if he'd actually read Marx and his best buddy Engels he'd understand how stupid some of the stuff he and Luna said is anyhow. They wrote a lot about a lot of stuff and it's actually really good and worth reading but the comments him and she have made show they haven't read that stuff beyond a few fun quotes.
Isn't it shown that people who can't understand hypotheticals are often very intellectually weak? Like being unable to consider hypotheticals means you can't make decisions based on critical thinking that requires consideration of outcomes and systems.
It's a core attribute of an authoritarian personality, demonstrating a lack of introspection. But in this case it might be more due to him realizing he couldn't defend his position, and he was desperately trying to keep from painting himself into a corner.
I’m pretty sure there must be a part of the human population that does not have the mental resources to engage in hypothetical thinking, just like some people do not have an inner voice, and some do. I am inclined to think that those capabilities may be related , but that’s just a (hypothetical) thought
Literally anyone can understand hypotheticals. Every day we consider hypotheticals such as "is it going to rain?", "should I eat this or that?" "What is the best way to get from place A to place B". These are hypotheticals based on the material reality. Thinking about what would happen if aliens came down or if people had 6 arms and 4 legs is pointless unless you're a fiction writer.
@@matheusvillela9150 the reason people say "if aliens came down and did x" is to simplify the question. The "aliens" don't have the baggage of human history, so we don't have to consider other aspects, only their action and effect. As vaush said, the point of a hypothetical is to isolate variables. If you're asking "why are the aliens doing that" then you've missed the point of the question.
@@Froggsroxx Variables can't be isolated, though, because they only exist in relation to each other. This sort of hypothetical thinking not grounded in reality but in pure abstraction is what ancaps base their ideology on.
@AN8m8f8n11 Thought Slime unironically thinks capitalism lead to slavery. Like, cool NC and TS' heart is in the right place, but when you come, you fucking come correct. Being ahistorical (in slime's case) or making up definitions to words to support your uninformed view on philosophy, theory and critical frameworks (NC) is not coming correct.
@Jeremy Capitalism did lead to chattel slavery though, it was intentionally fostered by the owners of industry. I don’t mean to say that Chattel Slavery is only possible under capitalism, just that in this instance capitalism made it possible.
@@xXRickTrolledXx I would say incentivized that specific form of slavery or exploitation but not like “made it possible” just a pedantic thing slavery was plenty possible under monarchies or tribal systems and those systems did plenty to incentives free labor from marginalized and powerless groups
@@xXRickTrolledXx This is akin to saying "It's light green not bright green". The slave trade and slavery existed long before capitalism was invented. Entire civilizations were ravaged by it. Making a distinction isn't meaningful and he didn't say chattel slavery, he said slavery because you don't need capitalism to incentivize dipshits to do dipshittery. Capitalism sucks, yes, but you don't have to be ahistorical to point out how it sucks.
16:25 This is fucking ridiculous. The way he GENUINELY expects you to remember every single word you speak at ALL times is ACTUALLY insane. I know DAMN well he couldn't be held to the same standard.
“Do you think idealism means when you construct hypotheticals? Have you read Capital? It is full of hypotheticals.” - Yes Lol he’s unwittingly doing the work.
@@charliekowittmusic It doesn’t matter if a hypothetical is based on material conditions. By their nature hypotheticals are a perfect form. Like the difference between Triangles and triangles. The perfect form Triangles has never been observed outside of the mind. They may exist, and understanding the form is useful. But we do not interact or experience them outside of the mind. We interact with triangles, which do not fit the form Triangle.
The cope stream NC and Luna had after this debate was truly amazing. They even brought Professor Flowers on to help fuel their cope sesh. Everyone please go watch Demonmama’s coverage of it. It’s great.
That moment where they attack people who use the term “cope” as toxically masculine and ableist only for NonCompete to *immediately after* make a joke about Vaush being molested was so fucking funny, I’m surprised the overwhelming hypocrisy didn’t cause them all to melt lmao
This girl’s entire argument, boils down to "morals and ethics can only be determined after the fact", which, ironically, is exactly the same as saying "history is written by the winners". Which completely destroys his argument that only history can tell you something was moral or ethical. This guy wonders why the entire Internet comes in craps on him and his wife with them takes like this.
I’m honestly so tired of this “poor marginalized person victimized by Vaush’ community” thing. Professor Flowers, for example, got to come on here and spew racist and fascist talking points for hours, and then go on Twitter and play victim and milk the situation for months. It’s annoying. In all actuality, I see Vaush and the community talked badly about all day long. He trends on my Twitter damn near daily and it’s always people saying awful things. I’ve seen zero racist comments to these so called oppressed people, but I’ve seen a lot coming FROM them. It seems like a lot of people thrive on the victim mentality, and guys like this eat it up because they want to feel like they’re fighting for something. Meanwhile leftists on Twitter get to openly express genocidal beliefs day in, day out. I’m not able to feel much sympathy for these people tbh. I don’t know who the woman in question here is, but I’ve seen her type all over Twitter, and I can say that in regards to professor flowers who loves to play victim, I’m not about to feel sympathy for someone who advocated for being able to kill me because of my skin color.
@azimuth they don't. Off the top of my head I can think of at least a few black and indigenous content creators who have both talked to and defended Vaush publicly.
NonCompete is SO dogmatic, though. Every other sentence starts with "Marx and Engels said... Marx and Engels wrote..." It's like a fundamentalist citing the Bible. "Genesis says... Matthew 3 says..."
@@chasesigler9885 I physically cringed when he asked Vaush to cite a source on an ethical statement. Like, it's pure appeal to authority, you're not allowed to believe something unless a dead guy wrote it in a book.
@@Necroskull388 yeah thats a go to move for people who grew up in religion and I think this religiosity is still in non-compete which makes him appeal to authority so much
Honestly your ability to take giant optic hits is admirable. The fact that so many people on the left actually can't handle the idea like "The jews did have disproportionate control of the banks, but it doesn't justify the holocaust" once again shows that most hate towards you is completely unjustifiable, and many leftists don't have a good grasp on race issues. Massive respect.
@azimuth Im not doubting you, but since this was the line that ended the debate, do you have stats refuting the line spouted by Vaush? My google fu is weak and Im not sure how to phrase the question correctly to get the right stats. If Vaush was incorrectly assuming that line was true, it shows harmful ignorance on his part.
@@bagz8388 we were literally forced into banking but that uplifted both us and the gentiles in those countries Then we got blamed for the treaty of Versailles even though its terms were about par for other peace treaties: it was only notable since it ended a WORLD war
@@nackskott12 Marketers I get being brain dead. But attorneys was always the big surprise for me. And honestly after RGR, Sidney Powell, and worse, I think a mid-life career switch to law can't be that difficult.
NC didn't lay this out very well, but he was getting at how both east Asian women and non-white ESL speakers are often infantilized by racists, and he sees Vaush's "stepchild of Vietnamese government" comment as adjacent to that racism. But really Vaush's point is always about how _indoctrinated people in general_ tend to be less mentally developed if they cannot examine their beliefs critically.
i very much understood what he was saying, it just seemed like a reach. Kinda like the h&m kid in the monkey t shirt being black, and people saying that was racist. its like…i get it but youre forcing it lol
What's more important is how the right wingers in Vaush's audience interpret that, because I really doubt they will pick up on that nuance. The whole point is that Vaush attacks people in more vulnerable positions than he is in himself without compunction.
@@zetizahara NC also admitted to having right wing hate watchers. All political commentators probably do. Using that logic, no leftists but white hetero (Vaush is pan but ya'll never care) cis dudes should post any content. Even if you could prove harassment from Vaush-specific trolls, asking Vaush to somehow control trolls is silly, that's the antithesis of what trolls _are_ even. Luna Oi's ideas were flawed, which is reason enough for critique. And she did call Vaush a pedophile. Like it's gotten to the point where Vaush has his own name blocked from Twitter so he doesn't get notified when he's mentioned because so many people repeat that lie. All he did was try to clarify what the clip missed, he didn't make it admit bullying him. Regardless of whether he's a white dude, he very well could have. Let's not pretend this is about empathy, because that stops according to whether or not you like him, or anyone else. The idea of not engaging ideas according to a creator's visible and invisible identity is so absurd. You are ultimately responsible for your safety and well-being online. By that I mean using the platform's anti-bullying tools when you can and taking care of your mental health. But when you put your political work out there, having a discussion about it is not outside the realm of expectation.
The type of people that would go around and make racist comments on people's channels would do that regardless of how mean or nice Vaush (or any content creator) is to the guest in question.
honestly, yes. and if you aren’t willing to accept that, you shouldn’t be going on larger platforms and exposing yourself to potential harassment. if you can PROVE it is the platform’s specific fault (i.e encouraging racist harassment or fostering a community environment where that is acceptable) then you can be upset about it, but neither luna nor NC can do that, because that’s not the case for vaush’s platform
I used to watch a bunch of his videos before I found Vaush. They were funny and eye-opening, like the one about copyright. Got my first red flag when he started talking about re-education centers.
These are the kind of people that cause the "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd to say stuff like that. The whole point of the hypothetical was to test out his lack of grounding for an ethical framework. A large part of time this guy was talking in absolute terms like "you can't JUST sit around and think about things" like that's AT ALL what vaush is saying when he said hypotheticals are useful. It's like saying "knives are useful" and then I turn around and say "YOU CAN'T GROW FLOWERS WITH JUST A KNIFE!!". But you can trim them so they grow better, and remove the dead parts. So when vaush brought up a factual statement about the banking system to TEST his moral framework(not because vaush thinks it's a good point), this guy heads for the hills because all he heard was vaush say "all bankers are Jewish". I see this guy as an intellectual COWARD. He is way too afraid of hurt feelings to really assess hard topics and has no business having a platform. If you hear a fact, you challenge why it's not a good supporting fact or why it's inapplicable to the situation, etc. You don't just act like reality should care that it offended you. Ah, it doesn't matter. Either way this guy ran because he came to challenge vaush and ended up getting challenged and failing miserably.
Is NC even really an anarchist? If he's getting his theory from Luna, and he is THIS dumb about... everything, then can we say he even knows what anarchism is?
Dude was there to fish the clips. As soon as Vaush said something slightly clipable he dipped. Too bad, Vaush made a career debating and dismantling Nazis. The clip is gonna be worthless.
@@ticker0157 Twitter is stupid. Cowardly folks like ThoughtSlime just paint out a dishonest picture of people he just doesn't like due to his ballooning ego.
There's a trend when Vaush asks philosophical questions in debates or disagreements the opposition that they always assume it's gonna be a gotcha or in bad faith.. he just wants an answer.
I kind of thought NonCompete's whole thing was how we should stop battling each other and focus on the system holding us down so I'm surprised to see him engaging in spectacle
I think there was one point where I took issue with Vaush. EJ definitely mischaracterized Vaush’s comment by claiming he said that Luna was a stepchild of Vietnam rather than a stepchild of the state. It was pretty dumb to defend the strawman there tbh. I think it’s important to distinguish a given nationality from the state/government, and defending that statement even if it wasn’t the actual statement made looked pretty bad.
@@nickkennedy9034 Agreed, but the issue isn’t that it was mean. The issue isn’t even the comment Vaush initially made about her being a stepchild of the state. The issue is that he defended EJ’s strawman version, which focused on her nationality itself rather than commenting on the state. The strawman version is an attack on her Vietnamese-ness rather than her indoctrination. I think the correct response should have been to acknowledge that if he *did* word it in that way it would have been bad, but that wasn’t what he meant, and then when the actual clip was played, he could have exposed EJ for lying.
@@xXRickTrolledXx Clear in the actual clip, where he doesn't actually call her the "stepchild of Vietnam". In EJ's strawman version, which he defends until he realizes that it was not what he actually said, it is a pretty shitty way of phrasing it. I don't think Vaush is a racist, but I do think the phrasing (which again, is not one he actually used but still defended) is one that intentionally or not invokes bigotry, and its something I think he should consider. I say all this as someone who still overall sides with Vaush in this drama.
@azimuth lmao I think you are confusing Prof Flower with Luna, and to be fair, Prof Flower suspiciously doesn’t consider being called anti-white an insult.
39:23 he protests hypotheticals and then makes a hypotheticals. And also, the phenomenon of wanting is purely hypothetical. Someone who doesn't deal with hypotheticals would say, "I have or I don't have. There is no want."
@@rainbowkrampus Like, I get going for Aliens is kinda abstract and weird, but if you want a more grounded hypothetical to work with, just ask for it instead of dismissing it immediately.
Remember, whenever you realize that you've been proven wrong instead of acknowledging it you should just say "I don't have anything else to say about this, so let's go to something else".
I use to watch Noncompete quite a bit but holy crap was he was absolutely braindead when it comes to philosophy in this debate. His definition of idealism basically redefines dialectial materialism as anti-intellectualism. I wish I could just put it down to being too personally attached to the subject matter (the real subject matter) of this debate, but there were too many red flags when it came to prettttty basic shit.
I'll be honest, I've heard alot of these debates. But non-compete is the only one that genuinely annoys me. Like so many of these debates are against bad actors. But just because you keep a civil tone. Doesn't exclude nitpicking info and trying to set up a false narrative. Like this is gonna sound really bad. But the conspiracy theorist who literally had no point. Was less annoying than this guy
