Watch the full episode: • Destiny on Jordan Pete... To support my work and get early access to videos, ad-free, visit / alexoc Main channel: / @cosmicskeptic
When you encounter tons of homeless people, they get on your nerves. Most are mentally gone, some are violent, etc. Self preservation. Some of us have it 🤷🏿
One shouldn't have strong, dogmatic commitments to any belief. Beliefs should be tentative and subject to change without reservation. Assuming you want your beliefs to reflect the evidence.
Taking this comment in the spirit of "what's the kernal of truth that might be good" rather than "what's any one thing I can nitpick as a mistake:" Wholeheartedly agree! Any belief *subject to evidential disproof* should be held non-dogmatically, with conviction commensurate to available evidence.
I find it hilarious when people say Destiny is unhinged. Any time he gets aggressive he’s just mirroring the other persons energy. They don’t realize they’re triggered by their own reflection.
Nah, Piers would have ate that up. You need to understand the goal for piers IS to make Alex look bad. You only need to see how biased the panels are when they bring on Destiny, and how he tries at every moment to do a gotcha with him.
This highlights an incredibly frustrating and real problem in modern discourse. Person A makes a wild characterization of an event or fact. Person B disagrees with the characterization, not the underlying fact. A then accuses B of supporting the demonized position and thus becomes the subject of derision as some sort of monster who advocates for atrocities. We are soooo fucked.
I'm 65 and have encountered this problem all my life. It's hard for me to tell if things have gotten worse or not or they're just made more obvious by current media.
@@Dovahkiin0117 I agree, more light on it. This obligates us, as we are of the same species, to bring the light upon our own selves to ensure we aren't creating the same problems that bother us when others do it.
I think a lot of this has to do with trust, I don’t think people trust others as much as before. If someone you have low trust in their character says something you don't immediately understand, you generally will be less charitable to them. Especially with so much of our communication shifting online where most people you engage with dont know you.
I once had a discussion about the purpose and origin of Age of Consent Laws. I posed the hypothetical question "So if two people who are under the age of consent engage in an act, who is legally responsible and is there any punishment?" And one of the dudes I was talking to flabbergastedly yells "SO YOU THINK IT'S OK FOR 6 YEAR OLDS TO SHAG!?!?" 😭😭
I think people forget and overlook the fact that some people cant interact with hypotheticals. i almost believe that most of the people that have these wild viewpoints actually just cant understand hypotheticals.
He had an open relationship with his ex, where both could sleep with whoever they wanted. He had a child in a previous relationship. If you dont even know these things, whats the point of bringing it up?@@Thetb93
*ahem* sir, that’s his ex wife. His 2nd ex wife to be precise. Not only that but the offspring was conceived and delivered out of wedlock as the product of conservative values on abortion and a violent mutually physically and mentally abusive relationship. Not sure what influence that may have on your understanding but at least you’re caught up with regard to accuracy.
I agree, these significant changes don't happen overnight. From the time I first began questioning God and creationism and the Bible to the point where I finally came to the realization I was an atheist, was probably 7 years later
Deeply held beliefs. Avoid having them if you can. Or always have it at the back of your head that you can be wrong, and don't make being wrong turn your worldview upside down
On the other hand, the positions I hold are the right ones, or else I would have changed them. I feel like the second part of your statement is way more true than the first one.
Nah deeply held beliefs are fine, good even. There is a difference between strong beliefs and unshakable, dogmatic beliefs which I would argue are weak beliefs because they are not supported with a base of information or experience.
Deeply held beliefs are a double edged sword, they certainly risk you digging in and becoming stubborn in the wrong situations but without deeply held beliefs, you are also highly susceptible to external influence and are at risk of being misled.
@@imbrokeplshalp actually no it isn't. Which is why I put "avoid if you can" rather than "stop having". And as the other comments show, there could be some nuance.
Idk if thats accurate tbh. Think about it like a pot of water in an oven. It is deterministic that no matter what happens, if left, it will turn into steam. It will go from liquid to gas. But it is still a change, even tho its deterministic. We wouldnt call the pot of water unchanging, or call it steam, because its outcome is deterministic.
@@silversalmon9909 The pot of water doesn't change itself or say it changed itself. Changing one's mind requires an evaluator. Under determinism there is no evaluator., only the illusion of such.
If Alex's mind exists and changes, then under determinism, something caused that change. If the name "Alex" references something that exists, then Alex could be that efficient cause. For example, suppose "Alex" refers to a human body with a brain, and that brain undergoes a deterministic cognitive process we'd call "self-talk," and that process results in changes to the brain states we call opinions. Under these assumptions, it makes sense to say that Alex changed his mind in a deterministic way.
@@fieuline2536 What do you mean by "THAT efficient cause"? Are you saying there's a particular causal relationship that has unique properties? Why wouldn't any other cause be THAT efficient cause? We don't say that about anything else that changes, other than in a metaphorical or colloquial sense. We don't, in the rational sense, say the kettle of water changed its temperature. Or that the cloud changed it's direction. Or that the movie changed its plot. That would be to attribute agency (the ability to act and choose) to those things. The "self talk" you refer to is also 100% determined. Under determinism, everything is an effect of physics (as we understand it). No matter how amazing a mind seems, under determinism it is fundamentally no different from a ball rolling down a hill. It makes no more sense to say Alex changed his mind than to say the ball changed its speed.
@shlockofgod You've got a fundamental misunderstanding of what determinism actually means. Under determinism, you can have an opinion based upon the information you have at that point. When you get different information, or someone shows you a different perception on information you already have, you can definitely change your mind. Even the rethinking an argument or analysing your own actions in the absence of other inputs can cause you to change your mind. Being deterministic doesn't stop you from changing your mind or changing as a person, you just don't believe you have control over how you change. It's like a ball rolling of a cliff, running onto a rock and thus it's speed is changed. It can't control if it rolls against the rock or how its speed changes, but it's speed still changes.
Jim Crow segregation (apartheid in Afrikaner) was not "informal" whatsoever and Destiney appears ignorant of it. It was quite top down backup and *defined* by State laws to enforce Segregation.
What do you mean by formal/informal? Jim Crow laws were not universally applied across the United States top down from the *federal* level. I am not fully aware of the history but I imagine one could compare and contrast South African apartheid and the Jim Crow laws. Even though apartheid means segregation in Afrikaner, "apartheid" has a specific meaning which "segregation" doesn't. In terms of top-down, Israel would have more in common with South Africa than the United States did during Jim Crow. The whole idea of "states rights" which is now being invoked by Trump and the Republicans with regard to abortion rights is code for "let the states give or take away rights". I think we would have to listen to Destiny's full argument to really comment properly on it. I haven't watched what Destiny only fleetingly refers to with Alex in this 14 minute video. I don't know what Destiny means by "formal". Did you watch that video?
@@davidwalters9462 While there are clear similarities between Jim Crow and Apartheid, equating them directly overlooks relevant differences. Jim Crow was racist and oppressive obviously. But it wasn't so uniformly applied nor as comprehensive in scope as South Africa's Apartheid. The segregation under Jim Crow was localized and varied by state, whereas Apartheid was a centralized, national system. Additionally, Apartheid involved a white minority ruling over a black majority, which differs from the U.S. context of a white majority oppressing a Black minority following chattel slavery. So, while the systems share apartheid-like elements and are both "bad" suggesting they should be given the same descriptor defies the point of vocabulary.
I've had this same experience in the r/Minecraft subreddit when someone had reposted a cool thingy, but with text on images removed, because the moderators had deleted their earlier post which had text on images. People were hating on the rule (and specifically saying that text on images that is meaningful and profound shouldn't be deleted), and I just pointed out that 'I don't want to defend the mods but the rule is likely in place to facilitate people with vision impairments.' and people got angry. For some reason they assumed I _liked_ the moderators, even though I don't (I have a distaste for them). I even specifically mentioned in my original comment that 'I am unsure whether or not this applies largely to Minecraft (a visual game)'.
11:10 yeah. It's called being charitable to each other, and people don't want to do it. They want to find the worst possible interpretation of your position and ascribe the worst possible intent behind it and attack that strawman. They *need* you to be as wrong as you can be so that it's self-evident that they are right.
I think for online discourse it's a little bit harder to do than it is for like face to face. You and me talking right here I think it's harder to do because it's harder to judge intent online here than it is to judge intent face to face
@@DarksideGmss0513 I totally agree and that's a great point. Which is why I've always felt that there's an even greater need for expressions of charitability in online discourse than there is face to face. If the goal is not to just "own" someone but to have a productive discussion, we need to be willing to spend an extra few words saying things like "I hear you, but", "Is it fair to say that", etc. to signal that we're disagreeing with each other in good faith. Ideally these shouldn't be empty words meant to score points, but for people with sincere intentions, couching your point in this way helps where body language and tone cannot. Hope that makes sense.
Short answer is no. He still supports the vaccine and lockdown measures. Even when confronted with data and experts who say it was an abject failure, he still stands behind the actions that were taken. The most concession you'll get from him is hedging which he actually talks about in this conversation, where he will say "well, that was the best course of action we could make based on the information we had at the time" ignoring that there WERE TONS OF DATA AND EXPERTS WARNING THIS WAS A BAD IDEA who were all fired as anti-science bigots.
@@rakino4418 The issues people have with him is that he is fully in lock-step with everything that comes from democrat aligned media. He initially dismissed lab leak as insane conspiracy theories, uncritical support for lockdowns and vaccine mandates, all of which he ultimately maintains to this day.
If you don’t know something, why start forming beliefs about it? Why generate opinions? Just leave it at that”I don’t know” and allow yourself to seek what is true and what is not true. A belief is an assumption. It is imaginary. Someone who is genuinely seeking the truth will not settle with belief because they have come to that point where they are not willing to settle for that sedative, because that’s all that belief is.
The ability to change one's mind when presented with evidence or perspective that hadn't been taken into consideration while forming one's original opinion is how we continually learn and grow throughout life. An apt discussion. After watching the these fellows' respective segments with Jordan Peterson, I came to appreciate the comparatively humble approaches to debate employed by both Alex and Destiny.
@@danielgadomski5129 So by calling a white man a black woman the assumption is that you're denigrating him. So in other words something is wrong with black women? got it. you're not at all racist and sexist.
Thanks destiny for the distinction between mass murder and genocide. You've really contributed to the intellectual inheritance of the human race there. Great job. It's so sad people just arent capable of your rigor and subtlety.
Destiny is right, I know it sucks, when facts don't agree with you feelings, and you have to reconcile that in your head hence leaving dumb comments like this. But to most rational people, the definition of words matters, and if you're going to specifically go OUT OF YOUR WAY to misuse and misinterpret the definition of words like "genocide" to further your dipshit agenda, then don't cry when people correct you on it. The sad thing is, there is actually a valuable conversation to be had around the rules of war and Israels conduct in its war on Gaza, but that conversation can never be had when people like you are around, because you will just scream the most retarded most "big" words like genocide and the whole conversation becomes a cesspool. Ironically, you're doing the people of Palestine a disservice by outright lying about what distinctly ISN'T a genocide happening in that war.
@@tjmbv8680 My point is that this shit happens in normal relationships too. I'm sure she would leave him anyway, even if they were in closed relationship. After all, Destiny is an asshole who spends all of his time debating people or reading news. The other guy probably just gave her more attention, that's all.
@@Vierdix I think the nature of open relationships led to the outcome he faced. From what I know, Destiny's X abandoned her previous boyfriend almost immediately after Destiny came over there. The foundation of an open relationship is built on short-term sexual gratification and pleasure; where even in a monogamous relationship if a girl seemingly dates a guy for shallow reasons like wealth, there's at least an incentive there to start a family, strengthening the reason and motivation for the relationship in the future.
@@wadenator8512 Well, I've never been in an open relationship and never will be, but from my understanding, those people perceive love and sex completely differently than we do. I think it's a bit ignorant to judge their relationship purely through our lense, and by using our very limited knowledge of their personal dynamics. Of course what you say could be true, but we don't know that. The same situations happen in regular relationships anyway, so I find it questionable when people blame solely the relationship style without taking into consideration other factors and potential reasons.
My conviction against coof didn’t come just from my belief that it came from a lab but the governments authoritarian response to it coupled with where it fell in the election cycle.
Love the points brought up later in this vid. It's obnoxiously easy to take a point at face value, such as the statement "Inc*st is not necessarily bad". In a random setting, you could expect to hear people respond by "wow you WANT f'd up children then , huh" or "oh so you WANT a brother and sister to smash" They addressed these situations quite nicely, and what could be done on the part of the audience. However, why would they do this? I think, what should be instead done is modifying your statement. For example, "Now, I think Inc*st is AWFUL personally, though in spite of how I feel, it seems as though there are niche/rare cases where it may be excusable." Of course, people can still retort, though you're less likely to run into the objections raised before. This is part of my idea that like honestly, we (generally) already have what's true. We just need to find the best ways to present said information. It's really all about presentation at this point.
Destiny Genocide/nuking Gaza. Your message combines words AND context - you cannot separate them and not expect your message to be incorrectly received. Whether you care if the message is correctly/incorrectly received is a different matter. Before conveying a message, one must consider the purpose of doing so.
The irony is what Destiny describes occurs a hell of a lot more often with the left than the right, yet for some reason he thinks the opposite. Whichever side prioritizes feelings over facts is going to fall into this sort of logical fallacy more often.
You believe that the left is the side that prioritizes "feelings" over facts more? Can you show me where on the left you see people believe in a imaginary man in the sky, believe that all academic institutions and all scientists are bought and paid for by "the elite", believe the election was stolen because they disagree with the result, dont believe in climate change which is supported by virtually all of todays scientist. When is the right EVER on the side of "facts over feelings" when they are literally lockstep behind ideas that are against science and academia on almost every single issue xD
I really do try to like Destiny. He's pretty smart, but he tends to be disingenuous when he's wrong, and uses manipulative rhetoric to skew the truth. He didn't hedge his bets initially, that was a work in progress. He mocked people for even suggesting it might have come from the lab. At best he uses plausible deniability, which is something we typically observe in Politics and Journalism. So he's in good company I guess.
I dont think he is as smart as people give him credit for. He is manipulative with debating and the information he gets. I was in the middle east during 2014-2018 and his whole Muslim Ban is wrong or Trump abandoning the Kurds. I worked with them and knew some of the situation. If I say it, him and his fans would dog pile and say I am wrong or anecdotal.
But it didn't come from a lab. The consensus is overwhelmingly on the side of it having come from the wet market. Why are we acting like it's settled that it came from the lab?
@harshdeshpande9779 have you watch the hearings with Fauci? Just look up them on here, its been going on since 2022. Turn out even the US was part of it, why china stated it was the US military fault.
@@harshdeshpande9779 The consensus was also that you couldn't catch the virus once you got the jab. We know how that consensus went. The problem with saying it's consensus in this case, is that the consensus wasn't through peer review, it was nothing more than a hypothesis that was politicized as fact. The lab leak theory has more growing evidence. The high contractable rate for this novel virus in humans compared to others like Sars or Mirs suggests it could be a catalyst of gain of function, as it is incredibly rare for such rapid mutation. After all, it's a Pandora's box if it definitely turns out to be a lab. Which would explain why the powers that be were so slow to examine that avenue.
@@harshdeshpande9779 The consensus was also that you couldn't catch the virus once you got the jab. We know how that consensus went. The problem with saying it's consensus in this case, is that the consensus wasn't through peer review, it was nothing more than a hypothesis that was politicized as fact. The lab leak theory has more growing evidence. The high contractable rate for this novel virus in humans compared to others like Sars or Mirs suggests it could be a catalyst of gain of function, as it is incredibly rare for such rapid mutation. After all, it's a Pandora's box if it definitely turns out to be a lab. Which would explain why the powers that be were so slow to examine that avenue.
@@John.T.collateral damage implies that the innocent civilians were not the target. It implies that there was a military target and the civilians were caught in the crossfire. This isn't the case. The civilians were the target. Arguing that it is "collateral" because "it was a tactical attack to end the war", implies that the Holocaust wasn't a genocide either.
"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." Hiroshima was not a genocide because the aim was not to annihilate all Japanese people. The aim was to force japanese government to surrender, and to showcase US new "toys" in the process.
@@maskingtables Pal, are you genuinely clueless? Or you just hate the USA? One target was a bridge. The other was munitions factories. Prior to the drops, The USA pleaded with every relevant Japanese diplomat for them to stop waging this war and dropped leaflets warning the Japanese civilians to leave a list of cities. Both targets were on this list. Furthermore, the goal was to end the war- not the Japanese people themselves. During this same war, The Germans were carrying out an actual one. Are you actually suggesting these actions are equivalent?
Smelled that something was off from the get-go. Military grade lab nearby, "top level" experts on it instantly saying it couldn't come from a lab and even going on Joe Rogan to deny that the technology existed that would allow weaponizing this kind of thing... yeah. Peak Prosperity did a very good video on the scientific part of it all very early on in 2020.
Tell me how is it uninformed to believe the most widely accepted theory that the virus came from animal meats in unsanitary conditions instead of escaping from a laboratory, where contaminants are highly contained?
One of the biggest changes of mind I've experienced was triggered by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which not only removed the last vestige of allegiance I felt toward my country's government, but also prompted me to dig deeply into the literature about 9/11. The upshot of that deep dive, stretching over several years, was that I morphed from a hater of Islam (at least its more militant versions) to a 9/11 truther, utterly convinced that 9/11 was an inside job brilliantly, diabolically designed to provide a pretext for serial war in the Middle East--to engender just the sort of visceral hatred to which I had initially succumbed.
@@MartinDlabaja I think channels should do as they please. I also feel that I have the right to not watch someone that I do not trust. Especially when that person espouses lies and, shills for the Israeli zionists and pretends that there's no active genocide or apartheid in Gaza.
The problem you both have is this. You are too logical in your thinking. Most of the time that is a good thing. Unfortunately, it can also be a callous way of thinking , it can be cruel. We are humans, we are NOT a black box logic machine. Both of you need to understand that actually sometimes , logic is NOT the answer. You need to be a bit more human, and a little less robot like. Then maybe you will understand that even if for example strictly speaking Israel is not committing suicide, it's still fucking cruel. Basically both of you need to grow a heart!
4:50 Sorry, but this is my biggest complaint with the atheistic/sceptical mindset. What Alex said sounds exactly like the ideal of reasonable/rational thinking, but it leads to an extremely close minded outlook. An example on this exact same topic - Sam Harris has said multiple times that even if anti-vaxxers turn out to be right, they were still wrong because the way they got to the right answer was the wrong type of thought process. The implication is that Sam, and Alex in his own example, were never wrong and in any instance could never be wrong because they thought in the correct way. That is a problem.
That is not what that means. This is actually a distinction commonly made in epistemology (a branch in philosophy that studies the nature and structure of knowledge). There is having a true belief and then there’s having a true belief that is justified for the subject (the person) to have. Surely having a belief that turned out to be true isn’t enough to be justified in having it (for example, imagine that I believe everything I hear because I am gullible such that a bunch of my beliefs turn out to be true purely because I have so many gullibly adopted beliefs). The point here is that you can believe something that is true but be wrong in how you arrived to it and therefore you ought not hold that belief. If I believe my wife is cheating on me because I all of a sudden think all women (which includes my wife) are evil, cheating gold diggers and as it so happens, due to mere coincidence, my wife is in fact cheating on me (my belief was true), surely I am not justified in believing such a thing. The issue is not with the belief alone that my wife is cheating but rather my epistemic connection or relation to that belief, namely that, I arrived at that belief in an unwarranted way and am thus wrong in having that belief. Failing to clearly respect this distinction releases you to the view that there is no such thing as an unjustified true belief and that all beliefs, even if I arrived at them solely by wishful, biased, and gullible thinking, as long as they happen to be true, are justified and thus you collapse the distinction between justification (a normative constraint that concerns persons) and truth (a proposition’s relation to the world).
@@AbstractMan1 It is exactly what it means. Your critique is focussing on the idea that there are justified belief/truths and unjustified belief/truths depending on the information a subject used to arrive at either outcome. That is correct but it sidesteps the issue I am pointing out. If in your example Sam Harris or Alex arrived at the belief their wife was cheating on them and did so by using an evidenced based approach and analysis of currently available information, they would view that belief as justified. Worse, (and this is where my argument comes in) even if it turned out that their wife was not cheating on them they would actually still be correct. Pointing out that some beliefs are justifiable and some are not doesn't negate my argument. If the thought process you used to justify your belief is inherently faulty then yes you ought not to hold that belief. However, if your belief turns out not to be true then you must concede that the logic behind your justification of that belief may have been faulty. Alex and Sam are doing the opposite of this. And it is something I have seen them and others in the atheist/sceptical space do on many occasions And to reverse your final point, If you place a higher value on the justification of a belief than on whether that belief is true or not then you open the door to the mindset I am describing in Alex and Sam. Where, because they believe the logic of their justification to be faultless, they can never be wrong. This is the crux of my argument, and really it doesn't have much to do with epistemic truth. It has everything to do with the idea that there is a specific way of thinking about a problem (rationalist/materialist/objectivist in this case) and that so long as you think this way you aren't ever really wrong. Even when your beliefs turn out to be false.
@@JackDeLad You said, “However, if your belief turns out not to be true then you must concede that the logic behind your justification of that belief may have been faulty.” This right here is a trivial statement that tells me you aren’t grasping the criticism I’m making. Of course it can often be the case that someone’s reasoning process MIGHT have been faulty. But the possibility of that does NOT mean their reasoning process WAS faulty. In fact, someone’s reasoning process given their noetic equipment, their propositional and empirical evidence, etc might have NOT AT ALL been faulty yet their belief turned out to be false. In which case NO, they ought NOT admit their reasoning process was faulty. And conversely, someone’s reasoning process might have been all out of wack yet they harbored a true belief in which case THEY STILL OUGHT NOT BELIEVE IT. And I don’t know what “justified truth” means here. Beliefs are justified. Truth is just a property of certain propositions. I also don’t know what “rationalist, materialist, objectivist” has to do with anything here. Rationalism (a supporter of which would be a “rationalist”) is a philosophical school of thought that holds some a priori knowledge to be substantive or that we are born with some innate concepts. Materialism is a position that holds either the mind is material or that all reality, to include the mind, is material (more accurately, it is called “physicalism”). And I have no idea how you’re using “objective” here. If you mean it in the standard sense, surely there are truths independent of minds? Surely it is true that 2 + 2 = 4 even if no minds are there to apprehend or beleive it? And finally, if your criticism is simply that people should not be arrogant and think they can never be wrong… I mean what is that. What a trivial criticism. The rest of what you said doesn’t serve that basic criticism that Sam Harris and Alex O’Connor would never deny. Of course they think it’s possible for them to be wrong… in fact, you even conceded that they knew this when you talked about Sam saying “even if the anti-vax belief was right” (in which case pro vax Sam’s belief would be wrong [wrong = false belief]). Surely you don’t think Sam was saying “even if anti vax belief was true, the anti vax belief would still be false”??? An explicit and shamelessly contradictory statement that Sam Harris and Alex O’Connor, who both have academic, philosophical education, would never made. It’s 100% clear that the statements you attributed to them were discussing justification, which can obtain or fail to obtain with a given belief.
@@JackDeLadAlex is giving hypotheticals here. In a real world scenario, if approached with something that he was shown to be wrong about, I believe Alex could be trusted at a minimum to assess whether there WAS a flaw in his logic that led to his belief, if not outright admit or diagnose that problem. He’s done so multiple times even when his conclusion has not been shown to be false. Looking at his history with atheism, he’ll be the first to admit that certain arguments he placed a high value on when he was younger, he admits are actually weak or easily debunked by apologists. In that was he admits that while having the correct process to reach a conclusion is important, it is not above scrutiny and he is capable of making that mistake. All he is pointing out here is that it’s possible to use the correct process and arrive at an incorrect conclusion. Which is absolutely true. For something as simple as “if vax is safe we should use it” “vax appears to be safe based on available data” “therefore we should use it”, changing one claim in that line of reasoning based on new information means that the conclusion changes and you were wrong, but it does not invalidate the process you used to get there.
He sounds so reasonable yet he's so motivated by working backwards from his conclusions for his justifications. He is by definition an "ends justify the means" thinker. Harm for good.
That’s the conclusion he must at all cost find justification for despite the fact that absolutely no one thinks those people didn’t have plans to go home and have dinner as usual that day.
did you ever ask this guy why he celebrated the death of the father that took a bullet meant for trump? I'm not able to stomach listening to Destiny long enough to find out
If that upset you, surely trumps making fun of paul pelosi and calling for "his 2nd amendment people doing something about hillary" should put you way over the line of ever liking him right? Surely xD
So because I don't have absolute proof that it it's harmful just suggestions that it's harmful I'm going to assume it's perfectly safe What exactly are you allowing to be applied as evidence Do you have any ability to determine a tricky situation where someone might be attempting to deceive you I mean can you spot a salesman at all?
Can you spot when people are trying to sell you on a conspiracy theory? So you’ll watch their content and buy their supplements and whatever else they’re trying to sell?
i watched the debate about gaza. he was arguing semantics and missing the larger point: the fact that it is even close to a genocide ( and then we can debate the finer points of this) means it needs to stop, and in particular the us needs to end funding war crimes (it doesn’t need to be a genocide to be a war crime).
@@aalokshah8655he’s for a 2 state solution. He went on pro-Israel podcasts in Israel and fought back against some of their positions. He just doesn’t believe it’s a genocide and that Israel has the right to defend itself.
@@alenvaneci if that’s where the terrorists who want to attack you operate, then yes, it does. And they purposefully operate out of those areas to use civilians are human shields.
In 2020/2021 the covid vaccines had to be given emergency use authorisation. In 2050 the fact will be the same, covid vaccines in 2020/2021 had to be given emergency use authorisation. This fact will never ever change.
Nobody would ever deny that fact, though. However, just because it was given emergency authorization, doesn’t mean that there were no tests done. It just means it didn’t go through all of the trials that most medication’s would go through. There were still tests done on it. it took an entire year before the vaccine was being safe to give to people even with emergency protocols.
Sometimes I like Destiny but his answer here is terrible. He’s basically saying “I never have to change my mind because I never make up my mind unless I know I’m right.”
@@RichardWilliams-bt7ef if you thought you could be wrong or unresearched on topics he discuses would be bad. You should have some certainty in your argument by making sure you are constantly. Right unless you just want to spread Propaganda.
@@demolisher-ng1dh Both you and he are missing the point. He could answer honestly by saying “I haven’t changed my mind on anything in a long time.” But instead he feels the need to justify why that’s the case, when in fact we all think we have sufficient knowledge to feel our opinions are justified.
Personally I find him genuine. Even things I disagree with I feel like he explains them well enough to where I don’t think he’s an idiot. I think he’s more inclined to admitting when he was wrong or didn’t have all the information compared to a lot of people. Personally our deep core values are mostly the same. He uses the word “retarded” a lot, which I love. I specifically refuse to stop saying it because it’s become a gate keeping word on the left. They hear someone say “retarded” and automatically they view you the same as a nazi. I think the left needs aggressive people like him that actually examine evidence. They’re admittedly kinda boring, but he live streams him researching topics and shows you his process. He gets crapped on by both sides. I’m a big fan, but understand what you mean.
Because he is quick-witted, more than capable of logically defending his positions, and open for conversation with anyone. I also disagree with some of his takes, but let's be real, he is a good political commentator.
@@ragdoll_x_music The people who don't listen to what he says, but rather how he speaks, think that way. We know this because they never address the actual points he makes, but rather peripheral details about his romantic life, child, rate of speaking, jaw movement, education, career, etc.
Did he approach certain conversation in a careless way, or didn't show up or was he completely unprepared, so he shouldn't be taken seriously? Are you trying to say "why would serious people agree with him", which is valid, hopefully leading academics and policy makers have better people to take seriously by an online political commentator. If by serious you mean generic population that is watching youtube while having lunch and want to hear something about politics and social issues in a casual manner, I don't see why would they not consume his content in a serious matter. Most of his stuff is reading materials online, preparing for a debate, which is a fine content to consume if you want the point of view of someone learning about a topic and forming an opinion infront of your eyes. And finally if you mean why other big content creators would engage with him - well it is their job and they should be engaging with variety of personalities with variety of ideas. Do they question why serious people would take him seriously is poorly formulated at best. At worst you mean why would anyone listen to a non academic on an academic topic, which disqualifies most online content creators. Oh why would anyone agree with him, which assume moral superiority in a black and white world, which of course is an unrealistic and ignorant position. It is fine not to agree with him or to hate him or to say he has negative compound impact on serious people became of such and such opinions he is championing. But this is not what you are saying. Hope that offers some food for thought, it is a philosophy channel, and I think we all enjoy a bit of a investigation and looking deeper into sometimes banal sounding questions. All the best.
The more I hear smart people like Alex and Steven talking the more. I feel like I’m slipping into fascism. It just seems like a lot of people are just too stupid to be trusted with something as important as voting for our future leader when they don’t even know how to form, things like general principal positions about the things they care about.
you can take issue with the legitimacy of uninformed perspectives without believing in far right authoritarian ultranationalism, perhaps an egalitarian authoritarianism or a moral technocracy instead?
Uhhh fascism doesn't help uninformed voters, Anakin, it's what we're trying to avoid from uninformed voters in the first place. What needs to change is that we need to inform the voters more effectively and on a larger scale. We need better education (especially in the US holy shit), systemic change towards everyone having their needs met, and a ruthless excising of religion from politics (I say this as a Christian) because nothing else is such a powerful tool for manipulating voters.
@@JainaSoloB312 I agree with you. I think if we implemented all of those policies, it would make America a better country to live in. But there’s a reason we haven’t done that already. It’s because a lot of Americans don’t value education. They don’t understand that when you use tax money to invest in our children it will end up saving money in the long run. If children are given good resources from 0 to 5 they will be far less likely to commit crimes or be a burden onto other people. but unfortunately, a good half of the country would rather die than give any of their money to help anyone else. Even when their religion has them it’s a good thing to do. I don’t think getting rid of religion will truly fix the problem. If people followed that religion, we wouldn’t have such an issue with giving children, easy access to healthcare food and education.
Destiny's opinion about himself and how open he is to changing his mind, is delusional. Rarely have I seen a person less willing to argue in good faith.
So he thinks mandating vaccines to millions upon millions of people without long-term safety data - is a normative position? In his Peterson debate, he said the science regarding vaccines was 'settled'. Me thinks he should stick to gaming.
Because the science of vaccines and the normative question of mandating or not mandating vaccines are two different things, you can’t derive an ought from an is so science won’t help you there
@@SweptDust5340 take your own advice. The “me thinks” phrase, also known as “methinks,” is an archaic or humorous way to express “it seems to me” or “I think.” It originated from Old English “thencan,” meaning “to think,” and was used as a substitute for “I think” in formal or poetic language. Its not a sign of someone using language immaturely or sloppily, its a deliberate word choice that is actually a sign the person is older, generally speaking.
@@MrKrackas it’s the sort of thing i would have said when i was 12 because I wanted to sound quirky. I promise you speak like that in any serious workplace and the rest of us will think you’re mentally challenged
this is actually word for word the oposite of what he said, its incredible. His statement was that he educates himself on everything and he remains open minded about topics of wich he has low conviction (most topics relatively speaking) so he technically doesnt have huge changes of mind often. Are you an actual bot? were you at all thinking when writing this? were is this take coming from?
