Ves

Member
  • Content count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ves

  • Rank
    Newbie

Personal Information

  • Location
    Texas
  • Gender
    Male
  1. That's a good point too! We're essentially the same, just with more complicated/abstract problems from a more complicated society.
  2. I didn't know exactly what category to put this video in on the forum. The people in the video are at such a low level of development that all their values are centered around immediate basic survival; it's very eye-opening because it shows that people at lower stages on the spiral (if that's the model you're going with) really cannot care about higher values.
  3. Well, the people who are going to engage in the debate have to form some coherent mental picture of the world in order to then argue about how we should change them (well, at least if they are going to use reason, but some level of reason is required for it to have any sense of meaning at all. More importantly, we have gone through the western enlightenment and most people are now going to form/change their beliefs with varying levels of logical thinking). Currently, it seems that one of the most effective ways to do this is to use statistics and the social sciences, and it seems like the best way to access these things is via the internet; either in articles or directly on the study databases. I'm not really sure how it could be any other way; people have to read articles and statistics in order to get familiar with the current data available about the topic. Unless by "pursue truth" you mean Destiny should become enlightened and realize there are no real problems in the world apart from our ideas about problems, and thus Destiny no longer feels the need to convince anyone of anything at all. At which point, I would wonder what the point of browsing the politics section of the forum is. If you mean Destiny should find out what is true about things like gun control and systemic racism and simply be content that he now knows, then I have other issues with that that I will give if this is indeed what you mean.
  4. He sort of evolved into this role over time on Twitch and it's what he's most known for, now. I imagine it would be possible for him to undergo some massive rebranding, but he enjoys having debates. Not every debate he has devolves into these hilariously insane insult matches, either (for instance, his in-person debates seem to be much better and his conversations which are less debate-oriented tend to be less inflammatory). I'm not sure what his questionable drives and priorities are, unless you mean he finds it enjoyable to have these crazy heated shit-talk-fests at times. EDIT: I now realize I should have just multi-quoted in a single post. Whoops.
  5. I believe he makes this very argument in the video as well! As an attempt to kind of temper the original one. Of course, they hated it for the same reasons, but if we're being totally honest, most of the people who appear already despise Destiny so much they would never agree with him on any issue.
  6. I don't really expect anyone to watch this (its six hours long), but this is a truly horrific shit show At some point, Destiny argues that if we can use old child pornography which features people who are now adults, with their consent, to help pedophiles not offend, then we should (since it seems to do only good things, without creating a market or any new child pornography). Every person in the video is wholly incapable of having any nuanced thoughts and they all are just perpetually angry and insult him for hours.
  7. Destiny has gone on two more times since then I think, along with an in person debate panel hosted by JLP. He has crazy patience. There's a classic clip from the last one (with a clickbait title): https://youtu.be/XZbROikHd_Y
  8. I thought that this was a nice video, as a contrast to a lot of debates Destiny has which devolve into yelling and insults. It's likely because it's not exactly a debate; it's more of a conversation really. The editor gives the videos sensationalist titles in order to increase the view count. He really conforms the examples he gives and the way he says things in order to be relatable to how Lauren Southern thinks about this issue. This was very shortly after he watched her debate with Hunter Avallone. I think Destiny is much more effective at talking about trans issues than many of the other people on the left.
  9. I currently live in Austin and have bad no power for 48 hours so far (I assume I will have no power until Friday). Luckily my house insulation is fairly good, and it never got below 45⁰ inside — which happened at the lowest point, 7⁰ outside. Some people have below freezing temperatures INSIDE their house. I've been trying to save battery power so I haven't been able to read much news, but apparently Texas was told to winterize their power grid in the 80s and 2011 when similar events (though less bad) happened. Maybe they will do it this time; Governor Abbot has been putting on a big show, at least. Unfortunately, apparently a lot of our elected officials are tweeting nonsense like, "It was our increased reliance on wind turbines, which froze over, that caused this!" When the problem is their current natural gas and coal power systems simply don't work in below freezing temperatures. Carports have been collapsing on people's cars in some apartment complexes, I've seen lots of videos on /r/Austin of pipes bursting in the ceilings of apartments, flooding the apartment of the people below (with cold water, too — on top of the fact that they have no power and below freezing temperatures outside). It's hilarious to say "Damn, that sucks. You're just being a big baby about being unable to leave your flooding apartment because your car was destroyed by a carport (and the roads were too icy to drive on anyway)" What, exactly, is the point of forming utility companies if not to provide us power? What is the point of forming a government if it is not going to regulate any of the utility companies, nor help us after their unregulated power grid collapses?
  10. I think I sort of agree. He heavily focuses on logic often times during his debates, but I think that's something that's necessary for a debate. If someone just really loves trump, despite having no reasons to do so, there's not really much to talk about... they cannot be convinced (and they cannot convince you by simply saying "bro, I just like him"). It's also really difficult if someone apparently believes two contradictory things. Are you supposed to refute the belief you don't agree with? Are you supposed to agree with the belief you do agree with? Either case is kind of silly since they believe the opposite as well. That's sort of why he was hyper-focused on Vaush's conflicting beliefs. Destiny also particularly despises people who are blatantly inconsistent. I'm not sure if all systems have contradictions. I could have a system with two axioms, and assuming I chose them well, it would be consistent. The problem is, such a system would likely be much too simple to be applicable to the """real world""" (or to do much of anything). And, of course, the axioms I choose don't have any objective standing: they're in some sense arbitrarily chosen.
  11. There's a huge amount of history between Destiny and Vaush that you're missing if you haven't watched Destiny's content before. I'm actually surprised they made up after Destiny's Twitch departnering... Vaush says he believes this, but it seemed fairly unclear throughout the course of the debate what he actually believed. First, he said it's fine to legally participate in a capitalist system. Destiny replied that you then can't criticize any capitalists then as long as they are legally participating in the system. Vaush seemed not to agree with this, but when Destiny asked him for an example of bad things for a leftie to do under capitalism, he couldn't really come up with anything. I think that Vaush generally believes that you can participate in capitalism as a leftie, but would want you to do better. I generally don't agree with Vaush's idea that, supposing it's being a landlord is immoral, it's fine for you to be one because someone else will come and replace you if you don't. I'm not sure if I agree with Destiny that the online left is just as bad as the online right in terms of misinformation. The Gamestop stock misinformation was pretty bad (Destiny is actually going to compile a write-up soon of all the misinformation that was pushed, vs. what actually happened), and there's a lot of stupid people on Twitter, but Vaush correctly says that the right has legitimate QAnon people in office around the country. Destiny did say that he thinks 'in real life', people on the left push less misinformation, he just really despises the online socialists. Destiny is salty about misinformation on his side, say with the Breonna Taylor case, because when he goes to talk to his mom (a conservative) he has to be like, "yeah, okay, this was wrong, and this is also wrong, but this stuff is definitely true, please believe me." He also just despises misinformation. I've experienced similar things with my dad (although, usually, his version of the left's facts are what people like Alex Jones' says that the left is saying). All in all, I usually like Destiny, despite the fact the can be extremely toxic when he's mad. His takes are usually fairly informed. He doesn't always angrily debate random people, he also talks to experts, talks to local political people, has streams where he does research, etc. Recently, he's been doing a lot of canvassing and trying to get active in real-life politics. His work in Georgia was probably decently influential since there wasn't any need to sway a huge amount of votes!
  12. A big problem with social media is that people only post violent protests or the ones where police are using a lot of force. Then people come to believe that all over the country, the police are consistently extremely violent towards the BLM protestors (and that the protests are overwhelmingly violent riots). That being said, I've been reading more about it while typing this post (from this website), and it does seem that BLM was met with force more often than other, prior protests. There's too much data to summarize in a post, but it does at least seem that BLM was treated worse than previous protestors. Although, It seems very weird to compare police response towards BLM across the country, which involved Trump's federal agents and the constant pushing of the 'BLM is insanely violent' message, to a single riot at the Capitol, where the police are far outnumbered and in a completely different environment. For one, we have wayyy more data and a situation with changing circumstances and surrounding rhetoric that takes place over months in the former case, whereas we have only a single riot for the latter case. I think one thing which is fair to say is: if it were BLM doing this, the national guard would have been called much earlier and most likely preemptively (as it had been in the past) because Trump hates them, but I'm not sure the Capitol police were all that sympathetic towards the MAGA rioters. The rioters formed a MASSIVE crowd, completely surrounding every inch of the building and totally outnumbering the police officers. There are videos such as this one where officers are dragged away from other Capitol police members and beaten in front of them. It seems more likely that they were simply doing the best they could. So BLM probably would have been 'treated worse' for doing the same thing, but only because there would have been a much larger military/police presence, which would have had the manpower necessary to hold them back. Even then, I wouldn't take 'treated worse' to mean a mass execution or mass beatings of BLM protestors, just to mean that the police/national guard would have stopped them from entering the capitol, perhaps by deploying more teargas or by other means. That is to say, they would have been treated pretty much the same as the people in this riot would have been, if there were more police presence.
  13. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html Twitter explicitly gives their reasoning behind their decision to ban him in the blog post. It makes more sense to explicitly argue why you believe the factors they listed fall outside of Twitter's 'Glorification of Violence' policy (also linked in the blog post) instead of a bunch of unnecessary posturing. I don't understand what you expect to gain from telling people to 'just admit they hate free speech' and asking, in bad-faith, to tell you how exactly Trump's tweets violate Twitter's TOS.
  14. Dr. K is a twitch-streaming psychologist who incorporates a decent amount of spirituality in his content (he trained as a monk before studying at Harvard). There's too much to just post one video, so instead, I'll post his channel https://www.youtube.com/c/HealthyGamerGG Every time he talks to someone (he normally talks to big streamers/YouTubers) he seems completely focused on understanding their perspective, and finding solutions that work within it, no matter who it is. It's very nice to watch.