Another 12 Lies About Reality.
video description
Then you assume that because you don't like a certain subset of music that everyone else is just enjoying it because its what is popular and not because its good (this is true sometimes but not all the time I agree, however. (and you seem to not acknowledge that actually a lot people don't enjoy it and that's why they are not at that party) a clear and simple bias on music taste and nothing more (some things just are not deep.
And now leftists will cause the fall of civilizations? And according to you liberal (in terms of American politics) ideas are not separated from leftist economics (what. You make some interesting points here, but miss the mark so many times that I couldn't finish the video. Call me an idiot, but some things just logically do not even correlate. Things are just so much more complex than this.
But I do agree that science and religion can and should co-exist. And one does not discount the other. Many great scientists were also religious and continue to be. Overall I just think you have an extremely western-centric world view that ignores the accomplishments of civilizations that existed while ours was merely not much more than a series of tribes and citystates and that same worldview is a perfect explanation for why you think rap is inherently bad.
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Gull
12: 00 - 12: 30 I have a criticism here. Using the scientific method, you actually have ways to measure how right or wrong you are, or rather the likelihood you are wrong, by comparing to the likelihood of your measurable experience being the result of random chance. Of course there are some flaws in this and how experiments are designed and measured, but Newtonian physics is _really_ accurate at human scale and can make very detailed predictions of very complicated physical systems. The same way, when scaling up a lot, special and general relativity proves _exceptionally_ accurate for predicting most systems at larger scales or speeds. The difference is relativity mainly adds to Newtonian physics by adding things it's missing, not saying it's wrong fundamentally, just oversimplified. This means that these are almost guaranteed to not be fundamentally wrong, but they may not be complete and may be an oversimplification of how the natural world works. Also, quantum physics (like quantum electro dynamics) is also incredibly accurate when it comes to predictions, but there are holes in the theories. This points to missing parts, and that our model may be again be an over-simplification.
Older attempts at scientific frameworks had much less predictive power, but some of them still had some. Where they did hold predictive power they were mostly on to something but didn't fully understand it. Very rarely did you have theories that made accurate predictions but were fundamentally wrong without being on to something when comparing to what came before.
reply
12: 00 - 12: 30 I have a criticism here. Using the scientific method, you actually have ways to measure how right or wrong you are, or rather the likelihood you are wrong, by comparing to the likelihood of your measurable experience being the result of random chance. Of course there are some flaws in this and how experiments are designed and measured, but Newtonian physics is _really_ accurate at human scale and can make very detailed predictions of very complicated physical systems. The same way, when scaling up a lot, special and general relativity proves _exceptionally_ accurate for predicting most systems at larger scales or speeds. The difference is relativity mainly adds to Newtonian physics by adding things it's missing, not saying it's wrong fundamentally, just oversimplified. This means that these are almost guaranteed to not be fundamentally wrong, but they may not be complete and may be an oversimplification of how the natural world works. Also, quantum physics (like quantum electro dynamics) is also incredibly accurate when it comes to predictions, but there are holes in the theories. This points to missing parts, and that our model may be again be an over-simplification.
Older attempts at scientific frameworks had much less predictive power, but some of them still had some. Where they did hold predictive power they were mostly on to something but didn't fully understand it. Very rarely did you have theories that made accurate predictions but were fundamentally wrong without being on to something when comparing to what came before.
reply
ansalem12
In my view, when the atheist nerd squad says that all acts are inherently self-interested, they're including selfless acts such as charity. You're not actually arguing against their position because while to you selflessness and selfishness are inherently opposites, in this context selflessness is a sub-category of selfishness, because if you thought you would get literally nothing out of doing something you wouldn't do it. Simple satisfaction still counts for them. They don't think there's no such thing as selflessness, they just look at it from a different angle than you do. Material gain isn't the only form of gain. You might not benefit in any direct physical way from volunteering at a homeless shelter for instance, but I'd bet just about anything you would feel better about yourself for it. The gain is emotional (and spiritual depending on how you define that, such as improved feelings of self-worth.
In short, you're looking at the acts themselves while the atheist nerd squad is looking at the core motivations behind the acts. Their argument, in essence, is that motivation is inherently self-interested regardless of what act we're talking about.
But with all of that said, I don't really find it to be a useful argument to have. It's mostly semantics anyway. Both sides actually agree for the most part, they just don't think they do because of language choices and where they choose to draw the line for what counts as self-interested. You're not having the same conversation as they are despite appearances.
reply
In my view, when the atheist nerd squad says that all acts are inherently self-interested, they're including selfless acts such as charity. You're not actually arguing against their position because while to you selflessness and selfishness are inherently opposites, in this context selflessness is a sub-category of selfishness, because if you thought you would get literally nothing out of doing something you wouldn't do it. Simple satisfaction still counts for them. They don't think there's no such thing as selflessness, they just look at it from a different angle than you do. Material gain isn't the only form of gain. You might not benefit in any direct physical way from volunteering at a homeless shelter for instance, but I'd bet just about anything you would feel better about yourself for it. The gain is emotional (and spiritual depending on how you define that, such as improved feelings of self-worth.
In short, you're looking at the acts themselves while the atheist nerd squad is looking at the core motivations behind the acts. Their argument, in essence, is that motivation is inherently self-interested regardless of what act we're talking about.
But with all of that said, I don't really find it to be a useful argument to have. It's mostly semantics anyway. Both sides actually agree for the most part, they just don't think they do because of language choices and where they choose to draw the line for what counts as self-interested. You're not having the same conversation as they are despite appearances.
reply
Holly
First of all we don't know really know what is real. Facts and your bias opinions shouldnt go together like religion and politics. Not just wrong about liberals wanting to defund police just for killing innocent people just happened to be black and living in inner-citys like its OK the stats show black kill black more how tf does that make it OK for many dirty cops to continue killing and over all creating more problems and costing a lot bc white people n some black people sued there county's or city's over them being crooked on Camera cuz they don't have to abide by laws. LA Viva da Revolutiona and ya it sounds like you don't think we should try to change injustice I know you said that but your excuse is the natural state of the world is why it has been but not always. when 1% of the world has control and mainly makes most of the decisions for the rest we are not a true democracy we are a business capitalism since Reagan probably Nixon. Either way we probably should try to care enough to make it better. Your obviously cool with shit and completely understand why it's just natural haha OMG that is some of the most ignorant way of thinking. Naturally we should want and evolve into a higher level of consciousness then what you said and then denied because it's obviously what you believe. Ya you should either change the name of this too at least facts and my opinions
reply
First of all we don't know really know what is real. Facts and your bias opinions shouldnt go together like religion and politics. Not just wrong about liberals wanting to defund police just for killing innocent people just happened to be black and living in inner-citys like its OK the stats show black kill black more how tf does that make it OK for many dirty cops to continue killing and over all creating more problems and costing a lot bc white people n some black people sued there county's or city's over them being crooked on Camera cuz they don't have to abide by laws. LA Viva da Revolutiona and ya it sounds like you don't think we should try to change injustice I know you said that but your excuse is the natural state of the world is why it has been but not always. when 1% of the world has control and mainly makes most of the decisions for the rest we are not a true democracy we are a business capitalism since Reagan probably Nixon. Either way we probably should try to care enough to make it better. Your obviously cool with shit and completely understand why it's just natural haha OMG that is some of the most ignorant way of thinking. Naturally we should want and evolve into a higher level of consciousness then what you said and then denied because it's obviously what you believe. Ya you should either change the name of this too at least facts and my opinions
reply
TAoW
I mean, sub saharan africans have 19% of their dna from a different hominid, so they're not even close to being us. consider a pitbull and husky have mostly perfectly matching dna and can interbreed, but nothing about them is really similar, and the genetics that count are the observable differences in appearance, behavior, and intelligence. Society and culture and products of the individuals within them reacting to a variety of stimuli, objectively, inferior cultures stem from inferior people. Your counter claim for Argentina being white and a failure is easily explained by a variety of factors which you never delve into. 1 lack of close developed nations to trade with by sea. 2. Jungles and mountains make roads and trains hard to maintain when the bedrock is often hundreds of feet down and most things will sink into it, especially modern farm equipment. 3. Cultures like Italians and Spanish aren't well suited to settling conquered territory en masse. If, say, all who had moved to Argentina were german or english, it would have had a strikingly different result. 4. CIA destabilization and puppet governments. 5. Most indigenous people are a direct financial drain on the europeans, just as they are in the U. S. similar to africans.
reply
I mean, sub saharan africans have 19% of their dna from a different hominid, so they're not even close to being us. consider a pitbull and husky have mostly perfectly matching dna and can interbreed, but nothing about them is really similar, and the genetics that count are the observable differences in appearance, behavior, and intelligence. Society and culture and products of the individuals within them reacting to a variety of stimuli, objectively, inferior cultures stem from inferior people. Your counter claim for Argentina being white and a failure is easily explained by a variety of factors which you never delve into. 1 lack of close developed nations to trade with by sea. 2. Jungles and mountains make roads and trains hard to maintain when the bedrock is often hundreds of feet down and most things will sink into it, especially modern farm equipment. 3. Cultures like Italians and Spanish aren't well suited to settling conquered territory en masse. If, say, all who had moved to Argentina were german or english, it would have had a strikingly different result. 4. CIA destabilization and puppet governments. 5. Most indigenous people are a direct financial drain on the europeans, just as they are in the U. S. similar to africans.
reply
Cavemen
The problem with trying to guilt me by bringing my society and ancestors into it, is they were not thinking about me at really and arent at this moment. Weve been shown that working in our own self interest and for pleasure it better. Social media exacerbates it terribly, now ever crazy in their home town can be on full display and get a bunch of attention and spiral. A majority of us are normal people who dont wanna worry too much and live a regular life because we see the world burning all around us, because of the pessimistic world views and general actual problems. I myself skipped college to get right into IT and my 30k a year at 20 work only 2 days a week. I party and chill, with my other days but Im able to pay all my bills no problem and am looking for more work and streams of income. My friends circle and even just people I know from highschool are a majority like me or in college. Not a tiktok star, serial killer rapper, scoop shooter, tidepod eating degenerate. Btw like 10 people ate tidepods, most of them actual children, but people started calling use the tidepods generation as a joke
reply
The problem with trying to guilt me by bringing my society and ancestors into it, is they were not thinking about me at really and arent at this moment. Weve been shown that working in our own self interest and for pleasure it better. Social media exacerbates it terribly, now ever crazy in their home town can be on full display and get a bunch of attention and spiral. A majority of us are normal people who dont wanna worry too much and live a regular life because we see the world burning all around us, because of the pessimistic world views and general actual problems. I myself skipped college to get right into IT and my 30k a year at 20 work only 2 days a week. I party and chill, with my other days but Im able to pay all my bills no problem and am looking for more work and streams of income. My friends circle and even just people I know from highschool are a majority like me or in college. Not a tiktok star, serial killer rapper, scoop shooter, tidepod eating degenerate. Btw like 10 people ate tidepods, most of them actual children, but people started calling use the tidepods generation as a joke
reply
David
You talk about communism a lot but never rly bring up socialism or democratic socialism or a social democracy. For me personally I think we need a free market system that is regulated to benefit the workers and the customers rather than just the shareholders. Things like housing food and water should be affordable and available to everyone. If u want nice stuff u have to work for it but getting super rich off people surplus value should be lessened. I think billionaires shouldnt exist or there should be significantly less of them. I dont think most people are communists. I think most people just want to have a decent job that treats them alright with good enough pay to just not have to constantly worry about money. Not be super wealthy. But just enough to get by. I think you diagnose alot of the problems in our society rly well but dont bring up solutions which in my opinion would be a mix of free market and socialism. If anyone disagrees Id love to hear why
reply
You talk about communism a lot but never rly bring up socialism or democratic socialism or a social democracy. For me personally I think we need a free market system that is regulated to benefit the workers and the customers rather than just the shareholders. Things like housing food and water should be affordable and available to everyone. If u want nice stuff u have to work for it but getting super rich off people surplus value should be lessened. I think billionaires shouldnt exist or there should be significantly less of them. I dont think most people are communists. I think most people just want to have a decent job that treats them alright with good enough pay to just not have to constantly worry about money. Not be super wealthy. But just enough to get by. I think you diagnose alot of the problems in our society rly well but dont bring up solutions which in my opinion would be a mix of free market and socialism. If anyone disagrees Id love to hear why
reply
Colin
To quote part of a statement you quoted -. Socialists like those in Western European countries put the end result of helping the working classes above ideology. I assume this statement is referring to Scandinavian countries and the problem with such a statement is that countries like Norway and Sweden for instance are not Socialist. I lived there for two years and my best friend is Norwegian. He, like many other Norwegians, detest how Americans have tried to re-define the word Socialism and repeatedly label their country with that system. Sweden once was Socialist but got rid of Socialism because it does not work. It isn't being a good Socialist (something they aren't) that makes countries like Norway work, it is more about their mindset about equalism (this of course this isn't perfect when it comes to immigration and bloodlines.
A big lie Americans tell themselves is that places like Norway and Sweden are Socialist.
reply
To quote part of a statement you quoted -. Socialists like those in Western European countries put the end result of helping the working classes above ideology. I assume this statement is referring to Scandinavian countries and the problem with such a statement is that countries like Norway and Sweden for instance are not Socialist. I lived there for two years and my best friend is Norwegian. He, like many other Norwegians, detest how Americans have tried to re-define the word Socialism and repeatedly label their country with that system. Sweden once was Socialist but got rid of Socialism because it does not work. It isn't being a good Socialist (something they aren't) that makes countries like Norway work, it is more about their mindset about equalism (this of course this isn't perfect when it comes to immigration and bloodlines.
A big lie Americans tell themselves is that places like Norway and Sweden are Socialist.
reply
education
Yeah I cried too when I saw a Rothko, because I knew I wasnt going to get the gallery entrance fee back.
I really like #1 Ive been trying to find or formulate an argument against the Nietzschen will to power philosophy that all life is a mandatory selfish power play, thats such a depressing, uni dimensional view of humanity that is self fulfilling. But its not an easy idea to argue against. The will to power is at the root of all left wing and woke philosophy, they are oppressed because power, they must rebalance the power (read: take all the power because thats all there is in society. They go on and on and on and on and on and on about power, they are blind to anything else. Like Jordan Peterson says, never trust anyone who talks about power all the time because they are ideologically possessed and they are obsessed by power, and you do not want someone like that in power.
reply
Yeah I cried too when I saw a Rothko, because I knew I wasnt going to get the gallery entrance fee back.
I really like #1 Ive been trying to find or formulate an argument against the Nietzschen will to power philosophy that all life is a mandatory selfish power play, thats such a depressing, uni dimensional view of humanity that is self fulfilling. But its not an easy idea to argue against. The will to power is at the root of all left wing and woke philosophy, they are oppressed because power, they must rebalance the power (read: take all the power because thats all there is in society. They go on and on and on and on and on and on about power, they are blind to anything else. Like Jordan Peterson says, never trust anyone who talks about power all the time because they are ideologically possessed and they are obsessed by power, and you do not want someone like that in power.
reply
Dirtyaznstyle
Its a cop out to not hold yourself to your own code of honor and your own moral standard. Just because everyone else does it or its whats popular doesnt mean you should sacrifice your integrity. At the same time you can only hold yourself to that standard no one else. Its easy to justify destroying someone thats different from you. Life and let live, tolerance is a simple thing when all it takes is acknowledgment instead of disregarding and delegitimizing. You dont need an excuse to be how you want to be, you cant teach a sociopath to care they dont have an excuse. Neither do you if youre not one yet choose to act like one.
And how does the subjective not exist? Thats everywhere lol! And 2010 pop was good even though I reluctantly agree hahahaha
reply
Its a cop out to not hold yourself to your own code of honor and your own moral standard. Just because everyone else does it or its whats popular doesnt mean you should sacrifice your integrity. At the same time you can only hold yourself to that standard no one else. Its easy to justify destroying someone thats different from you. Life and let live, tolerance is a simple thing when all it takes is acknowledgment instead of disregarding and delegitimizing. You dont need an excuse to be how you want to be, you cant teach a sociopath to care they dont have an excuse. Neither do you if youre not one yet choose to act like one.
And how does the subjective not exist? Thats everywhere lol! And 2010 pop was good even though I reluctantly agree hahahaha
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
