DefinitelyNotARobot

Vaush vs. Tim Pool

31 posts in this topic

4 fucking hours?

That's it! You guys have forever lost your right to complain about the length of my videos.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

4 fucking hours?

That's it! You guys have forever lost your right to complain about the length of my videos.

I've got used to it by the way. You're a trooper for being able to sit and talk for that long. Speaking of which, Leo, how do you resist the temptation to go to the bathroom and sit for hours on end talking like that? Is it enthusiasm, passion, total focus and years of XP that drives you and keeps you away from physical needs? @Leo Gura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

4 fucking hours?

That's it! You guys have forever lost your right to complain about the length of my videos.

i like the lengthy ones, i listen to it as podcast anyways

 

 

can't really listen to tim pool, but let's give it a try

Edited by PurpleTree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually was a pretty interesting debate. They kept it relatively civil and talked about quiet a few things. Tim Pool, as expected, had quiet a few stupid takes, but he performed better than I thought he would. Vaush called him out on a couple of things, like, but they generally couldn't come to any consensus. Tim Pool always went back to having a "let's agree to disagree" mentality. The only times he agreed with Vaush were when his world view wasn't being challenged.

A good example of this was how Tim Pool was talking about how critical race theory was "racist against white people", because it implied that white people had an inherent privilege, just minutes after talking about intersectionality, somehow failing to draw a connection between these two concepts. His interpretation of CRT literally was: White people = bad, black people = good! He then pulled out like 2 isolated examples of companies making their white/male employees write apology letters to black people/women.

He also was very biased when it came to the current protests. First he acknowledged that the protests were mostly peaceful, then went on talking about how the big bad news "lied" to us by "refusing" to call the mostly peaceful protests riots! Vaush made a few good points about the fact that we don't know who was responsible for the violence that DID happen. Like was it 100% on the protesters? Or could it be, that MAYBE some of the cops initiated the violence in some of those cases? Like COULD it be that the cops started the violence by being violent first? We also know that it's a common practice for cops to dress up as a protester and initiate violence so that these "violent riots" could be disbanded. But yet again Tim Pool just agreed to disagree.

Vaush too could have performed better on a couple of points. Like when they were talking about how bad Trump handled the pandemic. He made a couple of weak points there. I am 3 hours in and they are still discussing the pandemic. It's getting a little heated right now, but I guess that Tim Pool will just go back to agreeing to disagree.


beep boop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

It actually was a pretty interesting debate. They kept it relatively civil and talked about quiet a few things. Tim Pool, as expected, had quiet a few stupid takes, but he performed better than I thought he would. Vaush called him out on a couple of things, like, but they generally couldn't come to any consensus. Tim Pool always went back to having a "let's agree to disagree" mentality. The only times he agreed with Vaush were when his world view wasn't being challenged.

A good example of this was how Tim Pool was talking about how critical race theory was "racist against white people", because it implied that white people had an inherent privilege, just minutes after talking about intersectionality, somehow failing to draw a connection between these two concepts. His interpretation of CRT literally was: White people = bad, black people = good! He then pulled out like 2 isolated examples of companies making their white/male employees write apology letters to black people/women.

He also was very biased when it came to the current protests. First he acknowledged that the protests were mostly peaceful, then went on talking about how the big bad news "lied" to us by "refusing" to call the mostly peaceful protests riots! Vaush made a few good points about the fact that we don't know who was responsible for the violence that DID happen. Like was it 100% on the protesters? Or could it be, that MAYBE some of the cops initiated the violence in some of those cases? Like COULD it be that the cops started the violence by being violent first? We also know that it's a common practice for cops to dress up as a protester and initiate violence so that these "violent riots" could be disbanded. But yet again Tim Pool just agreed to disagree.

Vaush too could have performed better on a couple of points. Like when they were talking about how bad Trump handled the pandemic. He made a couple of weak points there. I am 3 hours in and they are still discussing the pandemic. It's getting a little heated right now, but I guess that Tim Pool will just go back to agreeing to disagree.

You made whole rant about Tim Pool disagreeing, did Vaush agree with his opinion and change his own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Claymoree said:

You made whole rant about Tim Pool disagreeing, did Vaush agree with his opinion and change his own. 

Don't get me wrong, Vaush too had a couple of weak points and stupid takes, but I think that he was more willing to defend them than Tim was with his points. Tim had a few good moments here and there, but he didn't really have any strong points. He was mostly just offering different perspectives on problems which was cool, but the points themselves were not that convincing. He was being too vague at times. And Tim, presumably because he's the host of the show, was the one who changed the topics most of the time. He would just go: "Well I guess our morals disagree here." and go on talking about another topic.

Vaush definitely had better debates in the past. He had a few weak moments in this one. Not because his points were "bad", but mostly because I know that he could have made better points.

I guess the problem with Vaush is that he's too reliant on his data. He often uses statistics and data to defend his points. He is petty knowledgeable when it comes to interpreting and questioning the data he is confronted with, but all of this falls away in a debate like this. This shows that he can't purely rely on his arguments, because it gets messy real fast. Suddenly both sides make arguments without having any data to back it up.

Anyways I think you are right, I could be more critical of Vaush. I'll write an update as soon as I've finished the podcast.


beep boop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched the first hour. I think Tim really wants to come across as a reasonable person that has an intellect and a logical argument. I also think that Vaush was very restrained. 90% of the hour I watched was Tim going on offense trying to frame and Vaush deconstructing and countering. Generally, Vaush exposed the flaws and inaccuracies in Tim's framing - such as with CRT. 

I actually think Tim has a lot of truth nuggets and their is overlap from a meta view (such as Tim's views on toxic capitalism, need to help the lower class, having incentives to motivate people and reduce playing victims). This all as value, yet is partial and Tim is immersed within partial truths - such as refusing to acknowledge systemic racism and privilege. Yes, this can get exaggerated, yet Tim uses exaggerated examples as the norm - such as his framing of CRT. I think one of Vaush's  best analogies was how conservatives framed homosexuality as "child abuse" in the 1990s. . . Another analogy would be framing the theory of evolution as scientists promoting a "survival of the fittest" Mad Max world. That would be a gross distortion of the theory of evolution.

I appreciate how civil the discussion was and this type of thing is great for educating people. If no one reaches out to reasonable conservatives to help them, they will never be exposed to different views and insights. They will be immersed in an echo chamber of PragerU, Ben Shapiro, Tim Pool etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim Pool isn't a bad guy. I think he's just legitimately dumb. 


Hark ye yet again — the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event — in the living act, the undoubted deed — there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there's naught beyond. But 'tis enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

I also think that Vaush was very restrained. 90% of the hour I watched was Tim going on offense trying to frame and Vaush deconstructing and countering.

I agree. I think Vaush can do better in a discussion like this, especially when it comes to presenting ideas and arguments in a more offensive manor. He came off as being slightly more defensive than usual, but he still did a good job at defending his ideas.

I guess Tim Pool is a different beast from the average right-winger Vaush usually debates.

35 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

This all as value, yet is partial and Tim is immersed within partial truths - such as refusing to acknowledge systemic racism and privilege.

I think this is partially why he came off as being so vague. It's hard to pin-point his exact positions when he is being so passive about a lot of issues. Like they had an half-hour discussion about Trumps handling of the pandemic, with Tim Pool making arguments FOR why Trump did a good job. Vaush then made a few good points against Trump's handling of the pandemic and Tim Pool just went: "Well I never said that I had an opinion on this. I don't know if Trump did a good job." Okay? So why did you just spend like 30 minutes defending Trump?

This is my problem with people like Tim Pool. Not knowing something is fine, even for a political commentator. Neither do I have a problem with offering different perspectives to a topic. It's important to get out of your echo-chamber as you've pointed out. BUT the problem is that Tim Pool actively defends a certain position, just to back out by saying that he never agreed with the position to begin with... after defending it for like 30 minutes... That's like arguing against LGBTQ rights just to go: "Well I mean I never said that I disagree with having LGBTQ rights. What do I know?"

I just think that that's just an irresponsible thing to do, especially for a person as influential as Tim Pool. If you want to act as a political commentator you should at least know what positions you hold. If you don't know, just admit it from the start. No shame in it. You could do a lot of damage by being so careless about the statements you make. Discussing politics without any intent/direction just gets real messy and unproductive.

I don't know why he did it though. Was he being purposefully vague, or as you've pointed out, just too immersed within those partial truths? There is a time and place for partial truths, there is also a certain attitude that should come with trying to explore different perspectives.

I DO think that Tim had a couple of decent points here and there, but they got mixed up with a lot of non-sense. It was kind of difficult to follow him on some of the points because of it.

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

I appreciate how civil the discussion was and this type of thing is great for educating people.

I couldn't agree more. I really enjoyed this discussion simply because of how civil it was (it got kind of heated when it came to Trump though). It made me happy to see "some" genuine discourse. So many political discussion derail into complete utter chaos and end up being nothing but a shouting match. Tim and Vaush generally seem to have had a great time. I think that that's one of the most important things which we often forget when it comes to politics. It's the "human component". No matter how theoretical it gets, politics is still about people. And it's important to meet each other, not as enemies or rivals, but as humans. Having a down-to-earth, eye-to-eye discussion, being able to laugh with each other despite of ones disagreements, etc.

I mean we can citizen each other, but it doesn't necessarily has to be done in a bad-faith attempt to "destroy" the other persona.


beep boop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing Tim Pool to Vaush is like comparing cardboard to timber. One is fake and the other is solid gold. 

 


INFJ-T,ptsd,BPD, autism, anger issues

Cleared out ignore list today. 

..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DefinitelyNotARobot During the first hour, Vaush made a few comment about how important it is for right-wingers with lots of followers to be responsible. I think Vaush is well aware that Tim's audience is 4X his own and that this is an opportunity to reach a huge right wing audience. To me, Vaush looked a bit uncomfortable, hesitant and nervous. A different orientation than when he is home ripping apart garden-variety right wingers. I think Vaush is at a higher intellectual level and held back - which is a good thing. When Vaush goes on offense he can come across as arrogant, aggressive and patronizing. When he gets frustrated with a caller unable to converse at his intellectual level, he can have emotional outbursts and even resort to name-calling. 

On Tim's show, I think it is a good look for Vaush to calmly deconstruct and reveal gaps and inaccuracies in Tim's frames with higher level reason and logic. Vaush didn't come across as arrogant or "smarter" than Tim. Vaush seemed mature to me and at times he even got Tim conceding - yet seemingly thinking he was creating the more nuanced framework. This takes some humility since the intention of the "higher" level person is to "pull up" the other person without claiming credit of victory. 

In terms of SD, it would be like a green/yellow person pulling up a blue/orange person. The blue/orange person has realizations, that are already obvious to the green/yellow person. Yet the green/yellow person doesn't take credit for it and doesn't try to come across as being superior. For example, if Tim expands a bit saying things like "yea, that's a good point Tim that adds in some nuance to a complex system" (even though it's totally obvious to Vaush). This is better than "You finally get a f---ing simple point Tim. Maybe this won't be a waste of my time after all". That wouldn't come across as well. Yet that's the attitude Vaush often devolves to with his callers. Sometimes intellectuals can get frustrated conversing with people not on their level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

In terms of SD, it would be like a green/yellow person pulling up a blue/orange person. The blue/orange person has realizations, that are already obvious to the green/yellow person. Yet the green/yellow person doesn't take credit for it and doesn't try to come across as being superior. For example, if Tim expands a bit saying things like "yea, that's a good point Tim that adds in some nuance to a complex system" (even though it's totally obvious to Vaush). This is better than "You finally get a f---ing simple point Tim. Maybe this won't be a waste of my time after all". That wouldn't come across as well. Yet that's the attitude Vaush often devolves to with his callers. Sometimes intellectuals can get frustrated conversing with people not on their level.

It seems that in terms of being yellow one might let go of that want to feel superior in favor of truly caring for the other's development. I can see how a green perspective is contracted: It seems like caring for the other at green is value signaling as one does not let go.

Is it humility that one lets go of one's self-importance?


Life Purpose journey

Presence. Goodness. Grace. Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now