My wife/student is a bjj blackbelt & winning pro mma fighter. She weighs 120-125 & fights at 115. My amateur mma fighter male teen students she mostly spars with would murder her if they went 100%. My wife’s punches hurt but don’t damage me. If I went even 50% my punches would seriously hurt her. This topic is idiotic and insults female athletes when they are compared to men.
Well they aren't better at giving birth and everything that comes with it. I don't mean that as in woman are only good for giving birth (as a man I think that process should be considered honorable).
@@DigitalGnosisYes, but that is an incredibly broad statement and means nothing for the sotuation at hand and does not negate the fact that it remains a factor for observed disparities between women and trans-women (men), specially in self-selecting samples, such as the pool of contestants in sports competitions.
Cognative thinking like emotionally reacting to a view with "you're disgusting" rather than actually arguing against a position? Seems like your run of the mill lazy thinking to me.
@@The1Waiter-gk4szfemales shouldn’t invade male spaces either. The reason there’s so much focus on the issue of males in female spaces is that women are physically very vulnerable to men. It’s the exact reason female-only spaces were created in the first place.
@@The1Waiter-gk4szIf you look at the history of sport, Men’s sports are open to anyone but obviously few (basically zero females) can compete so WOMEN demanded their own division because it was unfair. 🤦🏾♂️
We could easily say the same about a 10 year old and a 30 year old competing against each other. So maybe there is something more than gender at play here. The issue appears to be relative strength. So what if everyone is ranked and you can't compete against someone more than so many ranks above you. Think of it like a skill/strength ladder where people around you are at the same relative skill/strength. We could add in certain weight groups for each ladder if we wanted to divide it down further. In this case, there would be the highest ranked individuals in the world. There would be the top male and female still. What's interesting is that we've actually seen girls winning state competitions in wrestling. From what I've seen, it's been in the lower weight classes were skill is more important than strength. This goes with the view I hold that in many sports there is a skill/strength ratio and we often go for fairness when competing.
@malirk! They already do that you idiot, you've clearly never trained in martial arts. That's why there are belts. It's far more than "relative strength". Apart from freak genetic anomalies or steroid users, as a general rule men have higher testosterone, greater bone density, larger hearts and lungs, bigger hands/larger knuckles. They are faster, physically larger and stronger (when averages of each gender are compared), carry more lean mass and less body fat and have far higher fight aggression. We only need to look at fighters such as Fallon Fox to see that biological males have a huge advantage even years after transition. There's no need to overhaul everything on the the recommendation of someone like you who is an ill-informed idealist. Keep the genders separate in the professional combat sport arena. We don't need tons of women struggling with CTE because of your dumb suggestion. These sports can destroy your health if women have to fight men.
@@malirk These "ranked systems" woke ppl are proposing will NEVER work in actual sport reality...any person who does or follow actual sport would know that...get that idea out of your mind...is just a useles talking point...
@@malirk Because the parameters that you should consider (if you dont previously separate men and women, as a practical way of taking away most of the biological and historical differences of each person) would be SO MANY that if you want to do a good work the results would be HUNDREDS of different catgories in each sport event and in the end every category would have like 2-3 athletes at most in it and competitions among them would be ridiculous (everyone would be a winner and on the podium) :DDDD Also...many parameters that you should consider would go in different ways (depending from sport to sport) on a "scale" and you willl not be able to know which one to prioritize because they would "cancel" eachother's out or create negative influences on eachother... Also all these "systems" would basically be impossible to use on any TEAM sport where more than 1 ppl is involved in the same team pit against another team...the amount of complexity to take into account would be astronomical...
A self-described "woke person" saying "facts don't care about your feelings" has to be one of the most ridiculously hypocritical things I have ever seen.
Only if you aren't willing to take a troll from the other side dude. Let them get their hits in where they earn them. The guy handled himself well and unlike Chris didn't resort to nasty attacks.
That thing the bisexual guy said about people don't go around with definitions in their head really annoyed me. That's an insight as profound as the sun always rises in the east. Words have denotations and connotations. Of course people don't go around with definitions in their head when they speak, because people use the denotation definitions of words as shorthand when they speak and think. People say and think "A woman is holding an umbrella" so that we don't have to say and think "An adult human female is keeping within the grasp of the five digit end part of her arm a canopy comprised of vinyl and metal designed to keep her dry."
Yeah, practically everything he was saying was semantics and dishonest. He knew what was meant by the questions and could have asked for clarification if Peter is using the terms colloquially or whatever but he chose to be dishonest instead. It's like he was thinking in his head that well technically words are just audible utterances that only have meaning to humans and even then only humans speaking the same language so then no those words don't "mean" anything! Wow, so clever... In reality he's just a dumbass that thinks he's smart by pretending he is so deep and insightful. Like a hippy saying, "dude... like what is water man... like... what IS it, really?" It isn't profound, it is the opposite of seeking the truth in an honest way.
Yeah, it was absurd to propose people have formal, semantic definitions of all the words and phrases they use all the time. Onomatopoeias are sound effects that people understand intuitively, as are quoted or shorthand references. The words depict an idea, and that idea can be expressed in more than words.
@@1337Rellik Yeah some words do mean different things in scientific disciplines, a famous one being theory being much more rigorously tested than the colloquially used version which is more of an idea you pulled out of your ass. But if we're on the street and I were to ask you if you agree with my theory that chicken wings are better when spicy and you say no. Then we argue for 20 minutes until I finally figure out your objection is to my use of the word theory all along because in some settings it means it was rigorously tested, you would be arguing in bad faith and are a prick knowingly being dishonest. That is more or less how this guy approaches this.
Interstingly, the 5th most upvoted comment uner this video is a guy saying that the statement "people don't go around with definitions in their head" is not only false, but "genuinely the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time", because "How does he think people communicate if words don’t have meaning and definition??" Meanwhile you think the statement is as obviously true as "the sun always rises in the east".
"That's just about entertainment." What this young man is telling us is that he wants to see men and boys hurt and diminish womens and girls because he finds this abuse entertaining.
I hope your videos keep getting more traction, support, attention and more subs! I hope this format of street epistemology catches on in schools around the globe!
To do proper street epistemology though, you should be unbiased. It's been mentioned that Billboard Chris had a 1 on 1 interview where Nathan did not. In addition, Billboard Chris is in tons of Peter's videos. So how is it unbiased if you constantly have a recurring view in your video and someone the audience knows? Clearly there is bias when you present the same idea from the same person over and over again. What you're doing is conditioning someone.
Thank you to the wonderful Billboard Chris for all that you do. Let kids be kids! Always. Childhood is so brief and so precious and all children are unique. Also for standing up so movingly for women in sport here. It's really frightening to me that any man can ignore the obvious dangers to the women and girls who are/feel compelled to compete against men with magical laydee feelings.
Why should men care if women get hurt??women don't care if men get hurt or killed. Take granite kitchen tops as an example. Women love them in their kitchens but thousands of men who make them die of lung diseases. Do women limit their desires so men can stay safe? I don't think so! Same with crab fishing, truck driving, diamond mining etc! So why should men care?
Not magical. Is this what anti trans people think being trans is no wonder they dint want to talk to you. You think think the pain, suffering and trauma they go through is some sort of mental illness it isn’t
@@realSAPERE_AUDE People indoctrinating them and telling them they can be either male or female and should take puberty blockers if they're not sure. People attempting to have conversations with children about sex, gender, sexuality, gender identity and sexual and romantic attraction when they still believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and that reindeer can fly.
@@tonyhoffman3309 One particular aspect of the gaslighting was his professed respect for the definitions used by the general public, when the mission of his kind is to force the public to use new and ideologically charged definitions.
So is this guy saying that if he had a young daughter, and she got her nose busted open by a boy in BJJ, he'd just go "chin up love, you really entertained us there!"
Are they also upset that we are less racist and don’t own people as property anymore? Would they like how we dress or the music we enjoy? Why should we care what previous generations would think about the ways we live today?
1:00 There's a distinction between "hot" decision making and "cold" decision making. If it's a choice between different types of asthma medication inhalers, for example, yes, children can make decisions. But these are trivial and have low risk, and importantly, aren't made in the heat of anxiety and distress. By its very nature, gender medicalization is _not_ a cold decision.
@@DigitalGnosis except the language evolved naturally to comport to reality. The language we see today regarding gender is being created by activists and enforced by the State. They also do not have definitions for the terms and it creates more confusion as opposed to clarifying reality.
@@DigitalGnosis how is it question begging? If you have language being changed under the circumstances I talked about and you can’t even define the words you use then it isn’t doing a good job of explaining reality nor is it occurring naturally as language always has. What hard to understand about that?
no, he didn't. He said it WOULDN'T change reality, but it surely would change definitions. Imagine the biology society suddenly gets so woke they change their definition of gender..
Or children suffering from parents or an environment culture which does not accept them if their interests or personality are non stereotypical for their sex.
I actually really appreciate men who will practice with me, but not annihilate me so I can practice more, but I would never want to go into a competition against a man thats crazy
*The only time that I've heard the claim that people don't know the definition of the words that they use it has come from people trying to change those definitions in an effort to try and legitimise their own claims.*
I'm currently learning Russian. The first thing to learning new concepts is learning the definition. Not everything has a direct translation. We learned the definitions as kids and starting associating those words with meanings.
The fact that you asked that question show's you have fallen for the post-modernist mutilation of language. An objective definition denotes an empirically measurable and quantifiable aspect of reality, there's place for both subjective and objectivity in this life, but confusing the two breeds issues beyond belief @@DigitalGnosis
My response to any person whom think children can consent to a sex change I ask them. “Why can’t a child consent to getting tattooed or to having sex with an adult? “ and any sane adult know the answer to those questions.
Well that took a wild turn. Thought the guy was actually really reasonable until he stopped lending his reason to considering the actual issue of fairness in sports.
Because he thinks sports are merely about entertainment (both participating in them and watching them) which is a perfectly reasonable view. Also, we just arbitrarily draw boundaries and they certainly aren't fair. Is it fair that 4'5" men are basically excluded from the NBA because they were born short? Nobody seems to care about that lack of "fairness".
@@user-pn8ke3kf5fnot arbitrary. Based on the fact that males and females are designed for different reproductive roles. Small men can be stronger than men bigger than them. The same applies between women. A small man is still stronger than a bigger woman.
I believe Chris got emotional because he used an example of his daughters and diving and the other guy gave a trolling response. If he didn’t give an example using his daughters and get that response I don’t think he would’ve got emotional because that was uncharacteristic of him.
It was smart though because he proved that when you give them an example that aligns perfectly with their entire communist agenda (women's rights) they just devolve into trolling because they are true fascists at heart. They don't care about any of the things they constantly virtue signaling about, they just want to spite the people they don't like
I don't think it was the example. It's that fact that he's a father of girls, so their safety and happiness is always in his mind, so the attack on women's rights is going to matter to him hugely. It's the thin ice these people are skating on. Fathers love their kids and have the physical strength to protect them. This stuff needs to be sorted out before dads lose their patience.
Francis Aaron is such a hero for me because his music is probably the only way to get young people to listen and then realise this ideology is bogus. Great work also Chris so brave.
@@33greenleafnot sure if this is a controversial take. But I presume the short guy is gay? I wonder if alot of his thinking is a result of not being completely self accepting of his homosexuality.
“Most people don’t have any definition in mind when they use the word woman.” I’m flabbergasted that these words left someone’s lips. If there’s “no definition” of words then “trans” doesn’t mean anything either. “You don’t have definitions in your head when you use words.” 😢😢😢😂😂😂 When people think they’re clever but really aren’t. What does “bisexual” mean then? Why use it to describe yourself, and say “depends who asks.” He is seriously trying to dismantle the ENTIRE structure of every form of communication. Lol.
Yes, was desperate to find out who he was as he really knows his way round the issues, was great when Chris alluded to what he does and finally realised!
Thank you to Billboard Chris and to Peter for their unrelenting and important work on gender ideology. And words don't change reality. You can call an elephant a smurf, but the elephant never stops being an elephant. The young "woke" person is thoroughly confused. How does he know what a tree is? What a chair is? What a table is? Poor chap. I will also add that his stance re: males in female sports is angering and insane.
@@rosemaryalles6043 He does know what a tree is. He merely pointed out that most people don't have thouroughly developed definitions of the words they use. Don't take pity on him, take pity on yourself, you're embarrassingly dumb.
He was just trying to weasel out of losing an argument. Notice how, anytime he might be forced to pick a side in a black-and-white delineation, he finds a way to muddy the waters and give himself an out.
If we’re having a conversation about the moon, everyone has to share the same definition of what the moon is otherwise we’ll all be talking about different objects. Definitions are identifiers.
Not ignorance, but gaslighting, because his kind are actively trying to force the public to use ideologically charged definitions. His alleged passive acceptance of people's definitions is not very honest.
29:30 The injuries Fallon Fox's opponent sustained were not unlike those *found in cases of domestic abuse* which Fox *has a history of.* This "oH. WoMaN gEt iNjuRed in MMA all the TImE!" is a mot and bailey argument, as James Lindsay would say. Why can't these people just be honest and admit that they hate real women.
@@whatsMyNameAgainAgain No accurate. Male and female skulls are different. Male skulls are thicker on the forehead region that has evolved to be used in fighting. Female skulls do not have this. This is why one hit from a male can kill a female. The opposite cannot be said to be true.
Liked this one, thanks for the upload. I wish it was longer but the argument died when woke man started trolling then Chris retaliated with personal attacks. It was right to end it where you did. I’d have really liked to push woke man on his language games. New claim “Biological women can overcome their sporting disadvantage by simply redefining words” New claim “A world without economics would render everything as a form of entertainment/hobby” Of course, unless there are some wise woke men around to help guide us simpletons. Such deep guilt about attending college education, and benefiting from it, knowing those who have attended will live more comfortably than those who haven’t attended. They’re educated with things simpletons just simply cannot understand. It would be a massive weight off their shoulders for those institutions to collapse. It’s so unfair, competition. It’s so horrible humans are motivated by reward. Everyone should be rewarded. College should be available to everyone. No, not later, when they want to. We should be free to do what we want when we want. The faculty, lecture room space, transit, accommodation, stress on trades, noooo all arbitrary. College attendees guilt matters more. Nooo, not a different career path. We should make room for everybody for everything. Every artist on Spotify is a REAL artist.
You got the order backwards. Chris started with the personal attacks with his whole "you're disgusting" rant and then Nathan responded by trolling him with the "facts don't care about your feelings". Nathan acknowledged that people could disagree about the value of sports but he personally just views them as being mostly for entertainment (both personal participation and watching). Which isn't a trollish view. It's actually a pretty reasonable view IMO.
I really, really like and admire Billboard Chris, but I'm a little disappointed that he let his anger get the best of him here. I disagreed with a lot of what the woke guy was saying, but he's obviously intelligent, and he was very civil and well- mannered. He didn't deserve to be insulted like that. And he was a gentleman about being personally insulted (credit where it's due). It's usually the other way around, but this time, the woke person was the more civilized. Also the gentleman in the blue hoodie was very well-mannered, too.
I'm also disappointed in Peter. He should be keeping everyone in check, and ensuring that all follow the game rules. By allowing Chris to interrupt and insult a person who disagrees (with Peter himself), Peter's entire SE project loses credibility.
Agree. He lost the argument with that, unfortunately. I broadly agree with what the young gentleman was saying about sport ultimately being entertainment and we can set up categories however we want. I would have made the argument that the historic categories (well over 100 years) have been setup around differences in biology (sex, age, weight) and experience (novice, intermediate, professional). The issue now is that administrators are arbitrarily deciding that those who do not meet one of the criteria for inclusion (sex) are being allowed to compete (and receive any financial or other renumeration set aside for the winners in that sport) by using a specific definition of the word 'woman' that is at odds with the original usage of those setting up the categories. That is what is unfair - females are losing rewards and opportunities intended for them at the whim of a governing body without any public discussion or agreement to change the classifications.
@@mamabug4629 Chris reflexively argued that sport is not entertainment. It seemed obvious that he was simply taking the opposite position to a person he framed as an antagonist. Consequently, his arguments against sport being entertainment were ad hoc and weak. It was a textbook example of how bad faith discourse leads to terrible, pointless reasoning.
I think Chris’s response was appropriate given the subject matter and this individual’s flippant attitude. You can see how frustrated Chris is with people who don’t argue in good faith and would readily trample woman’s rights in order to hold the woke line. Those who would do harm to women should make men angry.
I agree pretty much 100% with Chris on these issues. But Damn!! I’ve got to say that guy held the woke line quite admirably compared to a lot of his peers.
@@The1Waiter-gk4szwhy do you think that? He did say at least one thing that he explicitly said was trolling but I’m not sure much else was insincere or trolling at all.
He’s a smart guy but like so many others he works backwards from conclusions on this particular topic… whether it be womens in sports, sex being a “spectrum”, what have you… he starts with the approved conclusion and works backwards looking for ways (never really arguments) to make it seem less idiotic. I find it so fascinating to watch a certain segment of the atheist community work so hard to back such a dubious ideology with seemingly zero self awareness…. Really makes me sympathetic to the notion that most ppl need religion and we might be best served promoting a benign, helpful one.
@aldovaneyk agreed. It's a shame that Billboard got emotional and hurled those ad hominems, I also almost entirely agree with Billboard but the other guy made some good points about how language is actually used and that it's possible to have a different perspective on the purpose of sport, all whilst staying calm and listening. If most people we disagreed with acted like that we'd be able to come to mutual understanding much easier
@@DigitalGnosis you made some great points, mate. I was frustrated by their lack of understanding of some of your arguments, but I do believe they were easily refutable 😃. Also, just quickly checked out your page and disappointed by the titles, such as “brain rot” and “Darth Dawkins”; I’ve just been defending you elsewhere for your ability to not resort to insults! But maybe that’s just because it’s RU-vid and easier to get hits that way
@@DigitalGnosis I’m not sure Peter’s audience is radicalised. I think it’s more a case of people simply being attracted to things that reflect what we already think. You may begin to find the same happens with your audience, too, and with that, you become in danger of “audience capture”.
“People don’t go around with definitions in their heads when they use words” is genuinely the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time…and I’ve heard a lot of dumb things, every day, for years. How does he think people communicate if words don’t have meaning and definition?? How do we manage to understand each other?
Everyone (usually) UNDERSTANDS the words they use, but I agree that for many words, they don't have a DEFINITION. Many parents will realise this, when explaining new word to their children. They may either look it up, or they will use example of when the word is used. For many words it is not easy to come up with a good definition on the spot (i.e. not walking around with definitions in their heads). As an experiment, ask friends and family if they can give a (good) definition for the words they use. (don't use "woman")
If you have a child with ADHD which I do, and the doctor asked him to consent to the medication rather than the parents, that would be a huge red flag for nearly every parent, I don't know why there is even a debate here
As a female BJJ practitioner, he’s the type of guy that has no idea of the female experience in his gym. He has no sense of how powerful men are and what it’s like to feel their full weight and feel your ribs bend and nearly break. He doesn’t know the fear that entails or the trust required. Because of this, he has no idea how utterly devastating it would be for a female competitor to be surprised and fight a man masquerading as a woman (often they aren’t told unless they ask). It would be the equivalent of a full grown woman fighting a 10 year old boy and him saying “it depends” if it’s fair. What a disgustingly weak moraled person
@@DigitalGnosis Nice dude...keep telling ppl "you dont understand my point", but NEVER follow with a direct and clear clarification of what is your actual point...so 1 can angage and discuss on the matter... That is the way (for the perfect wokie tactics...you refined them with years of practice in your tiny cultish channel, I guess)! :DDDD
I love seeing you come to visit London, Peter. As always It was great to see your street epistemology play out here. If you get the chance or opportunity, please consider coming up to the Middlands & the North of England, where (IMPO) we haven't had as much wokeism capture yet (outside of the Uni's) certainly amongst millennials & above anyway.
@@drpeterboghossian I work at the University of Nottingham (as a sound engineer) & would highly recommend you visiting Old Market Square (central Nottingham). It is the largest public space in the UK after London's Trafalgar Square & I think an interesting place to consider using for your videos, if you do travel North. Just a suggestion!
“Woke” guy: IF entertainment is all that matters in sport then men playing against women is fine” Pretty intellectually vacuous isn’t it? IF adult physical gratification is all that matters in sexual encounters… then molesting children is fine. He’s not making any argument of his own or dealing with the common positions of others- wish Chris hadn’t gotten upset and called him on this instead bc watching him take the intellectual high ground for such an intellectually bankrupt, trivial statement was a bit nauseating..
So, kiddo there says sports are just for the entertainment of the viewer. Apparently nothing to do with competition. Just amusement for the viewer. if that were the case, sports should be scripted and choreographed. Like an action scene in a movie. For the entertainment of the viewer. That kid is so far gone from common sense and reality on all his answers I have to wonder if he's just trolling. Edit: Now I know he's trolling. Because he's laughing at the situation. The boy is a little bunghole. And a troll.
@@ryangibson7126 Yeah...he said mainly (or mostly...whatever, not rewatching the video)...and that is still SO FAR OFF the actual truth on the matter that is not even funny...
@@dimercampariniare you saying a person can't consider sport mainly something that exists for their entertainment? Talk to any football fan at the pub and you'll have a minor revelation
@@ryangibson7126 you can consider (individually and with your selfish interest only in mind) sport whatever you want... That DOESNT mean that the actual scope and purposes and meaning of sports (and for the ppl who DO that, not simply watch it) are an entirely different thing in actual reality... So, to paraphrase: "Sport doesnt care about your feelings" :DDDDDD
I have to wonder about what wasn’t discussed here with regard to men in women’s sports and the assertion that sports should be for entertainment; what’s entertaining about watching one group of people (women) being consistently beaten by another group (men)? In fact, there already is a form of “entertainment” where that happens, it’s called pornography. Now, given that fact … doesn’t Chris’ abruptly emotional response seem understandable? Chris is face to face with a guy who’s quite smugly stating that he’d like to see female athletes have the competitions that they trained for turned into spectacles where men come in and humiliate and hurt them, possibly even unto the point of inflicting life-threatening injuries. I’m actually very impressed with the restraint Chris had here. As always, Peter, thank you for having and facilitating these conversations and thank you Chris for the work you do as well.
As much as I agree with a lot of Chris' learnt by heart talking points, he definitely lost his cool here and became threatening with the walking up and then the name-calling by saying he was 'disgusting'. Sure, the woke dude had some confused and bad takes, but Chris should always take the high ground and remain calm in representing his side of the argument as to not give gender critical people a worse reputation. Also, Chris can be very smug about his opinions and being in the right himself.
Really enjoyable, but seriously what was wrong with the dude in the black shirt towards the end? He seemed really fair and open minded throughout most of the video, then toward the end, after Chris ha called him out on his attitude towards women sports, started acting like a smart ass (I'm guessing because he knew was morally questionable, didn't like being challenged, and didn't want to ceed the moral high ground?) and being really misogynistic.
He’s probably having quite the battle in his head on that topic. You get more flak from the woke Crowd for being “transphobic” rather than being “sexist”.
He got that way specifically because Chris called him things like disgusting. IF you want to tank an open and honest conversation, ad hominens are the way to go. And that's where BB Chriss went.
As a PhD (psychology) I see that our mixed up kid is living in a world of ideas detached from reality. I heard his BS while at Stanford, and it seemed to me that people simply enjoyed the idea games without taking them seriously enough to put into practice. BUT, things have changed. I even wonder what he means by bisexual
In real life a "bisx woman" is usually a straight woman with the fantasy of going with one of her female friends...a "bisx man" is usually a gay man who wanna sound "cool" and not the usual boring gay dude that in 2023 noone cares about and is concerned with...
I'm also wondering what he means by bisexual, because if a bisexual is someone who is sexually attracted to both men and women and we can't agree on the definitions of men and women then we have a problem. Also I hate to add further confusion to the discussion but I want to explore these terms of sexual preference a bit more because it's something I have previously thought a little about and I think it's kind of interesting. So while sex is binary, I think sexuality is more of a spectrum and it seems to me like terms like heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual etc are obviously good practical labels to have for communicating to others the type of people we are sexually attracted to, but I do think that they are slightly oversimplified terms that try to describe in binary something that is technically not. If a "heterosexual" person is someone who is 100% exclusively sexually attracted to people of the other sex, then I genuinely think that most people who describe themselves as heterosexual are most likely not. Firstly sexual attraction is not binary in the sense that you're either sexually attracted to someone or you're not, there are degrees of attraction. Secondly I think it's very likely that for the majority of men who describe themselves as heterosexual there is at the very least 1 person of the same sex in the world that they would be at least somewhat sexually attracted to. Look at someone like Daisy Taylor for example (google at your own risk, Daisy is a trans woman porn actress), Daisy is a biological male but I think most people would not be able to tell if you didn't know and I think a lot of people who describe themselves as heterosexual would feel at least some sexual attraction towards Daisy, maybe most of them wouldn't want to actually engage in any sexual activity with her if they knew she was a biological male although that's probably partially because a lot of people would be afraid of being labeled gay or bisexual if they did, but either way if they're sexually attracted to her at all then they're technically not heterosexual right? Like I said I personally think that this applies to most people who label themselves straight or heterosexual, that there is at least 1 person in the world of the same sex that they would feel some sexual attraction to. If this is true does that mean that most people are really bisexual? I guess so, but then it seems like the labels start to lose their utility. If I'm a man who's not sexually attracted to let's say 99.9% of biological males then it does not seem helpful to be labeled bisexual, but I guess it would be technically accurate. Sorry for the rant but I'm curious what you think?
maybe the confidence that comes along with the knowledge of an entire hoard of rabid lunatics that are willing to defend your confusion is comforting enough to offset it? ignorance is bliss, after all
He’s not confused. He doesn’t ACTUALLY believe any of these things. He just carefully constructs a set of false beliefs and narrative that he hopes paints him in a good light with those that he wants to remain socially acceptable to/with. I wager 0 out of 7+ billion people on earth would come up with his complicated(fake/made up) combination of belief system and justifications on a range of subjects on their own. It would never happen. It is created by a mass of dishonest and malleable and shifty people who play off of each other to come to a decided on strategic common set of beliefs. Sorry I don’t know a better way to describe it while high at 11pm
Also: how do I know? I was once like him. I used to figure out exactly what needed to be said to fit in as an academic and sophisticated urbanite. Didn’t have to be true, just had to be the right thing to say in the moment. Often the right thing to say shifted and changed year to year, month to month, even sometimes day to day. Overnight you wake up and there would be another truth that was never in question, was a scientific fact, but was now taboo. Then one day I broke and couldn’t take the lying anymore and just started following the evidence and actually searching for truth. Zero woke people in the world do that. Zero. None. It is against the definition and meaning of being woke. They are anti truth. They claim they don’t even believe truth is real or objective because that justifies them ignoring it every time it slaps them in the face. Anyway, I know how their minds work. I was them. It’s psychological and moral illness and depravity. Emptiness. Dishonesty. Truth doesn’t matter, only power and acceptance and being able to manipulate others with morphing definitions and crushing social pressure and punishment. Evil stuff to its core.
The woke person revealed all at the end. HE is the determiner of when things should be fair and not and his entertainment is the only thing that matters.
that guy was very disingenuous in his responses. saying that people don't know the definitions of what they're saying was a load of crock. they just blurt things out without trying to create meaning? nonsense. he was twisting himself in knots to support an irrational ideological position.
Thanks Peter and Chris. People with awful views usually can't see how awful their views are. Its sad. That young man is tremendously bright. He should be able to see all the contradictions in his reasoning, but my guess is his teachers and his peers have clouded his judgement. Also, if you're reading this I'd like you to think about one piece of your argumentation. You suggested that most people don't think about the meaning of words when they use them. The problem with that reasoning is the word woman is a rudimentary word. It's a word like dog, or ball, or da-da or ma-ma. It is so basic that people "see" an image of a woman in their mind's eye. When you think of these basic words you "see" them. We do all know what woman means. Here is where your argument would work. It would work with a large word that people hardly ever use in common speech. I remember Jordan Peterson was on a talk show and he said something about "egalitarian society". I had no idea what that meant, I saw the people in the discussion panel sat there as if they knew what he meant. I've watched that discussion a few times when RU-vid has offered it to me, and I can tell that folks in the audience and some on the panel had no idea what it meant. As I said, I had to look it up and I think most people would. Even people who had taken college level courses years before would likely have forgotten such a word. The word woman is NOT such an obscure example. You're simply lying to yourself.
With utmost respect to your and everyones views here, i would like to point out that i agree with what the guy was saying. And this is coming from the fact that i have some background in datascience, and some knowledge on neural networks (which is a artificial effort to replicate how humans brain works). Trying to keep it brief, we do not have a set algorithm for the process we do in our daily life/ what and how we say things. Thats why we do not readily have definitions of words we use, unless you have to really think about it and are involved in the subject. Our brain uses the same technique to do everything, from speak to drive to recognize faces etc etc. and that is rudimentarily mapping input to output. And you learn by practice, eg. repeating same input (to your brain) again n again with slight variations and recognizing the output it delivers. Thats why you often hear yourself saying its intutive, its basic, it comes naturally, etc. Same is with speaking, our brain tries to identify (categorize) intent and end result instead of going into algorithm/ details of individual words. An example would be : You go to a random female n say : "Woman", her brain might interpret it as "Woman ?" -> "Is he asking me if i am a woman ?" and might respond "yes" Another person, might interpret it as "Woman !!" -> "Is he catcalling me" and might walk away. Basically brain tries to categorize intent, and if the confidence of intent is low she might respond with a question "excuse me ?" And all of this is very dependent on individual circumstances but the point that immediately brain will try to interpret intent instead of focusing on what the word used means. So basically, when you say "We do all know what woman means" in-fact not woman but anything else too a man, chair, tree etc, most of the times we do not know the definition of it but we know how to convey or understand the intent of it. And how to use it to convey an outcome.
Context does not matter for objective biological realities, being a woman is quantifiable within strict specifications of criteria, they will all pass that test. You are talking about interpretation as if 'my truth' matters@@honeyaulakh1
Holy moly, that guy is so frustrating. Doesn't commit to anything, swerves everything. If my aunty had bollocks she'd be my uncle. Can you imagine the utter chaos of a world if it only had people like that in it... I do t think he's actually thought through any of his positions to conclusion.
It's impossible to see in this one sentence each format. Nathan has a channel @DigitalGnosis, he is incredibly well thought through philosophy graduate as you'll be able to see in the long form. He also you can join his live steams and chat and see what you think face to face!
The fact that people call it "care" and say things like "puberty blockers are fully reversable" shows there is little understanding of what these operations/"treatments" entail. Thats to not even mention ppl's awareness of the age that this is happening as well as how long and to what degree gender dysphoria is even taking place before operations and drugs are prescribed.
It’s strange that the one dude was basically saying everything is subjective and then saying “facts don’t care about your feelings” seems like a total contradiction of all his prior arguments he made.
@@DigitalGnosis "In my opinion "facts" are parasitic on "beliefs" which are subjective." Yeah sure dude...actual reality is "parasitic" on the things that are inside your mind...sure...not crazy and ridiculous at all... Create a world with that main view...preach the gospel of wokism...and see what happens (well actually already happening; hope we can reverse it)... (can we get back the asylums for ppl who feel "inner voices" or believe that they can create/shape reality just because they think about it in a certain way? Please...) :DDDDD
@@DigitalGnosis but your point basically demolishes all form of category and protection of women’s rights. If the end goal is entertainment, you could extend that to the workplace. Why bother hiring women? If the end goal is profit, why bother hiring women who have their periods or who may take maternity leave. The entertainment of sport comes from the inspiration you get from watching peak human performance. It shows you what we’re capable of. It’s also a form of war play, for ultra competitive humans to channel that energy into sport. Categories help to create competition so that everyone has a chance to compete and entertain. Women and men are fundamentally different, which is why they need their own categories. A woman unknowingly competing against a man and getting her skull bashed in is completely against the integrity of the sport. I also don’t know who you’re calling alt-right, I didn’t see any alt-right opinions here.
@@DigitalGnosisI agreed with on everything up until you claimed that purpose of sports is entertainment and said we should organize our sporting systems around maximizing entertainment value from sports. imo sports are for competing…entertainment is just a byproduct. but you are awesome, way to go. ignore the comments on here, peters fan base are all like the sign guy, hyper confident in their opinions yet somehow enjoy watching others have the confidence of their opinions tested?
@@patricko9129 I've made this point to others also. I'm a big fan of Chris, but he it himself down in the one towards the end over a rather easy point he could counter (the entertainment one).
Actually I get why BillBoard Chris got mad. Why should he waste his energy trying to have a dialogue? The young man wasn't even able to listen. You would need a long term set of deprogramming to get to this guy. His "defense" or rather his brainwashing involved his having been "conditioned" to parse EVERY word down to finer and finer and finer points. He is, at this point, unable to think in any sort of coherent fashion. He speaks as if he were in a cult ... Which, sadly he is.
@@DigitalGnosis I suppose you didn't repeat his arguments, that would by why. Maybe try watching the video, rather then deluding yourself by imagining things you didn't do.
@@DigitalGnosis is this what we've come to? Billboard Chris, and his associate and I and MAYBE Peter think you don't get it. I am just a random person who is stating what he saw. YOU cannot force your version of reality on others. Delude yourself if you must, but society will not and should not be forced to bend to your self-delusion. More importantly, I would politely argue that the public school teacher and college professors who have sold you this bill of good are NOT doing you any good. They are your enemy. They are enemies to all young people. I would politely ask you to read Johnathan Haidt's book 'The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.' I think it will enlighten you as to how you teachers and professors have been harming you (and many of your peers) with lies about your fragility, your alleged guilt, and you being the subject of never ending attacks that you must always call out. This is very simply mind control. I hope you find a good therapist, one who had NOT been hijacked by ideological dogma.
@@DigitalGnosisAfter just now seeing in the video that you identify as "bi-sexual," it seems clear that you are simply confused and haven't sorted yourself out just yet. Your stance, in the video, appears to be one that is trying to fight the title of simply being gay, which is fine. But it appears that you may have an internal struggle with accepting that. And so you are latching on to this insane notion that men can be women so as to remove yourself from having to admit that you are gay.
@DigitalGnosis, if you like the cock, rock the cock. I'm not gay, but I don't care who you fuck, so long as you are consenting adults. No one cares, man.
Bloody hell, Peter, I live in London and would love to come to see any talk or SSE you do like this, but I never hear anything? Are there any events open to the public? Maybe not but I hate the thought I’m missing out!
I love when people try and use clown fish or some frog species that change sex as a means to justify there claim of transgenderism. Yet they fail to truly understand why these species change their sex. These animals don't transition because they simply want to based on feelings. They change ONLY to preserve their species in a group that is currently one sex. I'd also like to add, that these species are ONLY changing to the opposite sex, because sex is a binary.
Thank you Billboard Chris! There are people in the comments saying they're disappointed in Chris for 'losing his temper' or for 'not being open minded' near the end. I disagree with those people. Children are being ruined for life, and women are being violated in many ways including physical injury and sexual assault. And people are enjoying a pleasant debate on why the think it's okay for children and women to be routinely harmed as a new societal norm for the benefit of men that call themselves women. It's disgusting and dystopian. And I'm happy to see Chris give a strong opinion and stand by it. Would love to see many more do the same. There are some things we should not be 'open minded' about. Child abuse is one of them. Denying half the population any right to safety boundaries and basic human dignity is another. So again, thank you #BillboardChris.
i know, so the "woke" guy thinks it might be 'entertaining' for people to see girls get beaten at sport and not even have a fair chance. entertaining for who? misogynists? that should outrage any sensible person. chris is a lovely guy.
@@robyn2628 Hearing that made my blood boil. I'm a female professional fighter and he believes I should be harmed for entertainment?! I never even considered the entertainment aspect. I fight to compete. I want to know if I can be the best out of women. It's not to get permanently injured so people can be entertained for a brief period.
I want to say thanks to this guy putting his arguments here because without people who are prepared to present opposing views these videos would be pretty boring. It made me a little sad when Chris started making emotional arguments and calling the guy immoral. That's not appropriate in my opinion.
Yeah, I'd have liked for Peter to ask Chris how he knows what the other guy's feelings are. Does he have direct access to them? No. Is it possible that he has misinterpreted them? Yes.
Omg! The guy at 2 minutes is just so afraid to say anything. That's true that he is just if equivocating about anything to make sure that his friends and neighbors don't see him as non-inclusive. It's just a perfect reflection of how sick society is these days that you can't say that mutilating young children is wrong. You just have to say well. There are some circumstances where mutilating children is probably find because they blah blah blah.
The empty and vacuous nature of pretending to be virtuous by allowing children to harm themselves permanently without any idea of what they are doing, is one of the most evil things someone can do.
How dare he say that sports is just about entertainment and laughs about it! The people in the competition aren't primarily doing it for fun, they are doing it to win
I'm confused. Has everyone lost their minds? What Chris said wasn't "ad hom" or "emotional". If someone repeatedly demonstrates themselves as morally impassive to suffering, ambivalent on the nature of truth, to find "freak shows" of men beating woman as "entertaining", it's both permissible and good to judge them as "disgusting". This is the BASIS of society. People don't dispassionately abstain from judgement forever, we have an ENTIRE legal system set up in this basis - to hear people out and then pass judgement. We have emotions tempered by reason. And so does Chris. Chris heard him out, and when he heard enough he passed judgement. Completely fine in my view, completely in line with how society, morality and belief, law and how everything works.
What I most admire about Chris is his courage. Beyond that, he posits the argument in extremely simple, concise language that almost anyone can access. I think debunking the performative aspect and stressing that the ideology depends on regressive stereotypes is a great way to approach the issue. The clueless young man is a poster child for the postmodernist corruption of language, the relationships between words and the real-world realities they denote, whether he realizes it or not. Kudos to Peter.
@@DigitalGnosisyou are wilfully clueless, people like you get really good at ignoring their conscience which is basically a moral map and in return you get to both practice and enjoy your perversions. We see right through you bud.
@@DigitalGnosis I'm not dismissing you, i am challenging your falsehoods lol. You believe anyone can become a woman.. don't chat to me about cognitive dissonance. How about having some intellectual honesty with the rest of the world you hypocritical coward.
@@DigitalGnosis I've said plenty, in fact i exposed the process in which you engage in order to justify or rationalize your evil deeds. Woman's sports will remain solely for biological woman and the abuse of children will become illegal again once the right people get into power. Although here in America we are already seeing bills and laws that are being passed to protect woman and children from wokie cowards like you.
@@DigitalGnosis I'm i talking in code here or should i draw it in cartoons so that your intellect can catch up? You are a coward for the evil that you advocate for by putting woman and children in harm's way.
That would have been a good follow up question..."so do you support excluding TW if sporting organizations decide it? If society overwhelmgly decides to exclude TW from W sports, so you support how society has reached the consensus that TWAM?"
"I don't think people go around with definitions in their head when they use words" ,he sounds like a passenger in his own head . Did people say this kind of stuff before the jabs ? serious question
The young bisexual guy- who seems like a nice guy, with confused reasoning- is very much like many people I know, and where I say confused, I mean things like comparing class to sex in the case of sports- while it's certainly true that someone who is wealthy would have more access to resources than someone who is poor, it's not the same gap as upper body strength between men and women, not is it anywhere near as relevant. If you have a rich boys team and a poor boys team who would you bet on? Probably depends on other factors. If you had a rich girls team and a poor boys team, who would you bet on? Lastly many of his own arguments are qualified by his horizon. Most people- in the world- know exactly what a man is and exactly what a woman is because the ability to recognise someone's sex is an evolved trait, and this is reflected in language.
@@DigitalGnosis"Before evolution" - what on earth do you mean by this? Evolution is a concept and name for what is now known to be a biological and (at its core) mathematical process of adaptation through replication. If you're pinning your arguments on something that is literally pre-genesis like this that's extremely bad faith. And yes clearly animals and pre-humans (whatever those were) could identify the salient concepts of what biological sex was, the proof is in the teeming life in the animal kingdom. My goodness. This is like level infinite deconstructionism.
@@DigitalGnosis What? You didn't even mention semantic drift. You said "What a woman is", that doesn't entail any "semantic drift" at all within, or outside, of the context of language. The concept vastly predates language - so what? Either that or you're making a sophomoric point about use/mention distinction which isn't in contention and it is frankly irrelevant. This is just evasive sophistry. I know you think you're being clever, but you've just cemented yourself in my mind as a 1st year Phil student at best. This is what philosophy degrees hammer out of your head by 2nd year, either that or I can just go back to my original statement - bad faith - i.e. repeated and aggressive misconstruing and legalistic arguments. Either way, waste of time.
@@DigitalGnosis Ok, I was wrong on that, you're well educated. So I am now basically baffled that you're concerning yourself with what I perceive to be this sort of 1st year Phil nonsense. What are these theories on linguistics that you subscribe to and why should I pick them up, what use do they have, in the broad, cultural and political landscape we find ourselves in? I'm afraid your views are simply coming across as a form of esotericism to me. Direct quotes, both from you: "Did people know what a woman is before evolution or modern biology? " "The irrelevant way you mention "what a woman is" when the point at issue is more plainly just "woman"" So I guess I'm whatever you deem to be "bad faith" for saying... erm... exactly what you said. Good job man, totally not a waste of my time. You're at best an exercise in sophistry and pedantry and I stand by that. The OP is clearly pointing to whatever "concept" people had in their heads that was relative to material reality. You can call it question begging but if you're going to appeal to pregenesis in order to radically shift the context, then man, you do you.
@@DigitalGnosis I'll just refer you back to the OP again. "Most people- in the world- know exactly what a man is and exactly what a woman is because the ability to recognise someone's sex is an evolved trait, and this is reflected in language." Since you're not staking a position other than some vague appeals to esotericism and trivial philosophy such as semantic drift - if I'm being charitable I'd just say we're interested in very different aspects of knowledge. You don't even seem to understand heuristic thinking, or if you do, you want to deconstruct it. Being uncharitable: waste of time sophistry, I'll admit my interest was piqued, but this sort of nonsense gets no more of my time. Goodbye.
