💰 Grifter Vaush / @VaushV / VaushVidya / IrishLaddie / Ian Anthony Kochinski - Horse Cock Enthusiast, Larpy Violent Revolutionary, Sex Pest, in his 100th pedo scandal

Both did better than I expected but yes I agree that Alsup would have done even better with another partner, Striker gets triggered way too easily. It was funny at the beginning Vaush thought he had the debate in the bag and suddenly Alsup starts quoting studies and he needs to rapidly type more studies that agreed with him. In fact, they moved the goalpost on data, they didn't just wanted studies they wanted ANALYSIS, which is basically someone else telling you their conclusions based on the data presented. If that's what they want, why even debate at all? They will always be "correct" as long as they parrot whatever opinions more experts have on a given subject. Makes you wonder how would Vaush look if he was a streamer in the 1970's where academic consensus was that homosexuality was pathological and transgenderism meant you were full on schizophrenic.
 
a recap of the stream for those who don't wanna bother watching 3 hours of shitshow: Striker and Allsup make their points, Vaush laughs nervously, adds nothing to the conversation, Destiny moves the goalpost, talks very fast, both guys ask for data, both guys don't read said data
not that Striker and Allsup are perfect by all means but i don't see how anyone could side with the cucks on this one

The most predictable thing in the world happened. The progressives demand sources, receive those sources, and say that they disregard those sources. This is every single debate they do.

In fact, they moved the goalpost on data, they didn't just wanted studies they wanted ANALYSIS, which is basically someone else telling you their conclusions based on the data presented.

This was the wildest part. Those guys are supposed to be the analyzers, they're the ones who are supposed to take the data and give their interpretation based on it. That is the only reason to have the debate, not playing a card game trading images of dudes they like. Parroting analyses is what people make fun of them for doing. This is evidence that they don't actually look at the studies, they read the headlines and dust their hands like that's all folks.

This is why they love playing the debunking game, oh you have this source? Well I googled for 10 seconds and found this guy wrote a whole study about how he disagrees, so that means the topic is up for debate, which means you lose. When backed into a corner they always fall back on the topic being too complicated and nobody knows anything and also everything is subjective and made up anyway. It's easy to win when you're just position is just trying to say every certitude is actually chaos, and because it's chaos we can do whatever they want because it's magic and on the right side of history.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Both did better than I expected but yes I agree that Alsup would have done even better with another partner, Striker gets triggered way too easily. It was funny at the beginning Vaush thought he had the debate in the bag and suddenly Alsup starts quoting studies and he needs to rapidly type more studies that agreed with him. In fact, they moved the goalpost on data, they didn't just wanted studies they wanted ANALYSIS, which is basically someone else telling you their conclusions based on the data presented. If that's what they want, why even debate at all? They will always be "correct" as long as they parrot whatever opinions more experts have on a given subject. Makes you wonder how would Vaush look if he was a streamer in the 1970's where academic consensus was that homosexuality was pathological and transgenderism meant you were full on schizophrenic.

The cold war also had a significant number of academics demanding Soviet world domination. I'd imagine Vaush would have fitted right in with that miserable lot.
 
Striker and Allsup didn't perform that well but it's important to note that Destiny and had no real solutions on hand to some problem both say they care deeply about, systemic/institutional racism. As silly as Striker/Allsup's solution is, separate systems based on race to govern themselves, it leaves no room for systemic racism and Vaush said something very odd in response to this by pointing out that in majority black Ferguson with majority black cops the black people there were still being discriminated against and failed to explain how a group can discriminate against itself.
 
Both did better than I expected but yes I agree that Alsup would have done even better with another partner, Striker gets triggered way too easily. It was funny at the beginning Vaush thought he had the debate in the bag and suddenly Alsup starts quoting studies and he needs to rapidly type more studies that agreed with him. In fact, they moved the goalpost on data, they didn't just wanted studies they wanted ANALYSIS, which is basically someone else telling you their conclusions based on the data presented. If that's what they want, why even debate at all? They will always be "correct" as long as they parrot whatever opinions more experts have on a given subject. Makes you wonder how would Vaush look if he was a streamer in the 1970's where academic consensus was that homosexuality was pathological and transgenderism meant you were full on schizophrenic.

The debate reflects the quagmire I feel about obtaining knowledge these days. You have to rely on experts telling you what is true. You can't walk into the marketplace and ask the right questions like Socrates did anymore. (I mean, you still can to obtain basic philosophical truths, but knowledge of most science, history, and sociology will illude you.) Even if you dig deeper into a study, trying to figure out how experts obtained knowledge, you can only go so far. If you are a layman, you do not have the training to properly obtain and interpret data, so you have to trust experts to some degree. Thankfully, good experts talk about their limits and how more research could be done in a given area.

To Destiny's credit, he said similar things thorough his "career". He does not debate people he considers conspiracy theorists, like flat-earthers or Fringe Elements, because they try interpreting data with neither the right training nor the most scrupulous intentions. As a layman, you have to agree with experts most of the time. You really have no choice. When a conspiracy theorist reinterprets studies differently from the experts who did the studies themselves, you have no answer except asserting the experts. Either the conspiracy theorist is an expert themselves or is a self-appointed hierophant. (Even if you like flat-earthers or Fringe, Destiny's overall point stands.)

Source of Destiny's opinion, in his own words, at 13:30 for those interested.

The problem is your knowledge is limited to academic consensus of the time. Suppose the impossible, that Vaush was an honest layman disco dancing his ways through the 70s. He would have to agree with experts that being gay and trans were mental illnesses. The people who refuted those old ideas were not layman activists like Vaush but experts themselves. While you generally have to follow experts, you can at least keep a certain distance, because their knowledge is always incomplete and will most likely be proven wrong in the future.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
The debate reflects the quagmire I feel about obtaining knowledge these days. You have to rely on experts telling you what is true. You can't walk into the marketplace and ask the right questions like Socrates did anymore. (I mean, you still can to obtain basic philosophical truths, but knowledge of most science, history, and sociology will illude you.) Even if you dig deeper into a study, trying to figure out how experts obtained knowledge, you can only go so far. If you are a layman, you do not have the training to properly obtain and interpret data, so you have to trust experts to some degree. Thankfully, good experts talk about their limits and how more research could be done in a given area.

To Destiny's credit, he said similar things thorough his "career". He does not debate people he considers conspiracy theorists, like flat-earthers or Fringe Elements, because they try interpreting data with neither the right training nor the most scrupulous intentions. As a layman, you have to agree with experts most of the time. You really have no choice. When a conspiracy theorist reinterprets studies differently from the experts who did the studies themselves, you have no answer except asserting the experts. Either the conspiracy theorist is an expert themselves or is a self-appointed hierophant. (Even if you like flat-earthers or Fringe, Destiny's overall point stands.)

Source of Destiny's opinion, in his own words, at 13:30 for those interested.

The problem is your knowledge is limited to academic consensus of the time. Suppose the impossible, that Vaush was an honest layman disco dancing his ways through the 70s. He would have to agree with experts that being gay and trans were mental illnesses. The people who refuted those old ideas were not layman activists like Vaush but experts themselves. While you generally have to follow experts, you can at least keep a certain distance, because their knowledge is always incomplete and will most likely be proven wrong in the future.
In today's age of the internet there is literally zero excuse for hinging on an "expert's" approval for whether a piece of data is interpreted properly or not when you can teach yourself those things. For gathering the data yourself, yeah, if you wanna do actual fieldwork and collect data, a layman is gonna have to expend a lot of time and effort on collecting the data himself and any monetary expenses will be funded completely from the layman's pocket, but if you just are poring through data and studies collected by other people, then it's no problem. And yeah, I know there's a lot of just dumb shit on the internet, so if you absolutely want to make sure that what you're learning from has the stamp of approval from someone with an important piece of paper, it's still so damn easy to get college textbooks (through less than legal means most of the time I'll admit) for free on any subject that you want to study, including textbooks about the bare basics of what you need to know in order to conduct, understand and interpret data, statistics, manuals for the programs they use etc.

And this is just if you don't even have any higher education, I don't know how much of a clownshow college programmes have become in the US if they don't have courses on at least basic statistics and data collection. I majored in 2 foreign languages and I still had courses on statistics and data collection despite the fact that I never needed that knowledge for any of my papers, but I got interested in other fields of study after I got out of uni so I at least had some foundation to work from which I built on by reading textbooks I got from places like libgen.

Finally, I'm sure you've heard that researchers are finally freaking out because most studies in a lot of fields can't be replicated. I always figured it was the case because of all the baffling papers I've read where they collect multiple pieces of data, all of them disagree except one, then they run with it saying that it somehow also proves their whole hypothesis, it's motte-and-bailey argumentation on supposedly peer reviewed journals. I don't even go the obvious route of saying that researchers are doing that because they have to suck the dicks of woketards, my hypothesis as to why this is is because researchers are sadly pushed to pump out studies regularly, quality be damned, or lose funding, while in fields like pharmaceuticals they're basically forced to do "mercenary" work for whichever private pharmaceutical company is funding them. Example - here's our new drug, prove it's good, here's money, I don't care how much you have to twist data and change how you conduct the experiment in order to get the "correct" outcome.
 
The debate reflects the quagmire I feel about obtaining knowledge these days. You have to rely on experts telling you what is true. You can't walk into the marketplace and ask the right questions like Socrates did anymore. (I mean, you still can to obtain basic philosophical truths, but knowledge of most science, history, and sociology will illude you.) Even if you dig deeper into a study, trying to figure out how experts obtained knowledge, you can only go so far. If you are a layman, you do not have the training to properly obtain and interpret data, so you have to trust experts to some degree. Thankfully, good experts talk about their limits and how more research could be done in a given area.

To Destiny's credit, he said similar things thorough his "career". He does not debate people he considers conspiracy theorists, like flat-earthers or Fringe Elements, because they try interpreting data with neither the right training nor the most scrupulous intentions. As a layman, you have to agree with experts most of the time. You really have no choice. When a conspiracy theorist reinterprets studies differently from the experts who did the studies themselves, you have no answer except asserting the experts. Either the conspiracy theorist is an expert themselves or is a self-appointed hierophant. (Even if you like flat-earthers or Fringe, Destiny's overall point stands.)

Source of Destiny's opinion, in his own words, at 13:30 for those interested.

The problem is your knowledge is limited to academic consensus of the time. Suppose the impossible, that Vaush was an honest layman disco dancing his ways through the 70s. He would have to agree with experts that being gay and trans were mental illnesses. The people who refuted those old ideas were not layman activists like Vaush but experts themselves. While you generally have to follow experts, you can at least keep a certain distance, because their knowledge is always incomplete and will most likely be proven wrong in the future.
The bar for being an expert is not as high as you think.

The biggest hurdle to understanding certain papers in the soft sciences, is statistics and how they work. And the majority of those papers don’t involve particularly high level stats concepts.

What determines experts as being experts in the soft sciences more than anything is, pedigree and familiarity with studies.

Degrees are in some sense, a meme if you can manage to be auto-didactic at least. So the real hard work, is really just getting down into the weeds and reading a shit load of studies.

Whatever analysis “experts” have needs to be understood and should not be tossed away. But, its not impossible or unviable to object to academic analysis provided you can put up a similar rigor in your own analysis.

Something that could be challenged would be if someone claims,
“This study demonstrates a systemic bias against black people because they are disproportionately targeted by police in this way.”

You could ask for if they did controls on say socio-economic status (depending on the study), and that might be able to explain some of the disparity. You’re not really trying to disprove them, you shouldn’t, but its important to press them to provide more information so that you can get a better gauge on the situation. Thus allowing you to modify their analysis as appropriate.

If the study controls for socio-economic status, and the disparity shrinks somewhat then the original claim should probably be,
“This study demonstrates a systemic bias against black people because they are disproportionately targeted by police in this way. Even when controlling for SES there is still a clear disparity in how the police treat black people in comparison to white people.”

TL;DR
Read studies, learn basic stats. Engage with the “experts” and understand all the nuances behind their analysis.

The bar is really not that high if you’re determined enough or have the space.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
The debate reflects the quagmire I feel about obtaining knowledge these days. You have to rely on experts telling you what is true. You can't walk into the marketplace and ask the right questions like Socrates did anymore. (I mean, you still can to obtain basic philosophical truths, but knowledge of most science, history, and sociology will illude you.) Even if you dig deeper into a study, trying to figure out how experts obtained knowledge, you can only go so far. If you are a layman, you do not have the training to properly obtain and interpret data, so you have to trust experts to some degree. Thankfully, good experts talk about their limits and how more research could be done in a given area.

To Destiny's credit, he said similar things thorough his "career". He does not debate people he considers conspiracy theorists, like flat-earthers or Fringe Elements, because they try interpreting data with neither the right training nor the most scrupulous intentions. As a layman, you have to agree with experts most of the time. You really have no choice. When a conspiracy theorist reinterprets studies differently from the experts who did the studies themselves, you have no answer except asserting the experts. Either the conspiracy theorist is an expert themselves or is a self-appointed hierophant. (Even if you like flat-earthers or Fringe, Destiny's overall point stands.)

Source of Destiny's opinion, in his own words, at 13:30 for those interested.

The problem is your knowledge is limited to academic consensus of the time. Suppose the impossible, that Vaush was an honest layman disco dancing his ways through the 70s. He would have to agree with experts that being gay and trans were mental illnesses. The people who refuted those old ideas were not layman activists like Vaush but experts themselves. While you generally have to follow experts, you can at least keep a certain distance, because their knowledge is always incomplete and will most likely be proven wrong in the future.

The idea is that you don't actually have to go along with academic consensus if the consensus isn't that way for scientific reasons. Racial science isn't not practiced because it is wrong, it's because it is politically incorrect. We see this by the destroyed careers of scientists who bring it up even offhand. We could have more research and data between the aptitudes of men and women if people didn't have their careers torpedoed simply due to bringing up that differences may exist. Science works in tandem with journalism and both seek to legitimize each other, for journalists they want science to reinforce their agendas and scientists need journalists to add popular support for their fields of study, and this is how both of them get paid.

Pretty much the entire problem we are in right now is that all experts can be bought, all experts have an agenda, and there's not enough hours in the day to parse through every academic field and sort through the hundreds of internal squabbles they have going on at any given time. This is why to say there is any academic consensus is an absolute lie, even in the climate change field there are disagreements and refutations and debates. The History community is absolutely wretched, but none of them can hold a candle to the bickering of Philosophy academics.
So for anyone to point to academic consensus, that just tells you they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and probably haven't ever picked up a book. For Vaush at least we know this is 100% the case.

Where the Nationalists win is they actually have a plan for tomorrow, something you can work towards right now, from a political angle. Not ethical, not philosophical, not ideological, purely politics. Vaush and Destiny (and the majority of progressives) are still pointing to ghosts they are trying to convince us exist, the Nationalists can say "fine, let's take your nonsense at your word, then segregation is the only answer and we can do that right now." If white cops and white people are the problem, fine then just put them over here and the black people over here.

Then the argument devolves into one of economics where they will say the black area needs financial support and reparations and everything to make up for past injustice or whatever, but this is the zone you want them to be in because now you can actually debate history and economics rather than political theory and pop psychology.

See, at that point the revisionist history and the "why" doesn't matter, this is where you get stuck in the muck and where the war of experts spirals. Just talk about here is problem X, here is solution Y. That is where the Progressives lose, because the only actual political solution they have is "give everyone 15 trillion dollars and make owning property illegal." You don't need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of anything to succeed in these, just realize when they are trying to lure you into the fog of chaos and unknowing and understand they are doing that because it's the only way they can get you confused and look foolish in front of a crowd, which is as close as they can get to winning.
 
Vaush has expressed his sadness at r/chapotraphouse being banned from reddit.

 
Ostatnio edytowane:
The bar for being an expert is not as high as you think.

The biggest hurdle to understanding certain papers in the soft sciences, is statistics and how they work. And the majority of those papers don’t involve particularly high level stats concepts.

What determines experts as being experts in the soft sciences more than anything is, pedigree and familiarity with studies.

Degrees are in some sense, a meme if you can manage to be auto-didactic at least. So the real hard work, is really just getting down into the weeds and reading a shit load of studies.

Whatever analysis “experts” have needs to be understood and should not be tossed away. But, its not impossible or unviable to object to academic analysis provided you can put up a similar rigor in your own analysis.

Something that could be challenged would be if someone claims,
“This study demonstrates a systemic bias against black people because they are disproportionately targeted by police in this way.”

You could ask for if they did controls on say socio-economic status (depending on the study), and that might be able to explain some of the disparity. You’re not really trying to disprove them, you shouldn’t, but its important to press them to provide more information so that you can get a better gauge on the situation. Thus allowing you to modify their analysis as appropriate.

If the study controls for socio-economic status, and the disparity shrinks somewhat then the original claim should probably be,
“This study demonstrates a systemic bias against black people because they are disproportionately targeted by police in this way. Even when controlling for SES there is still a clear disparity in how the police treat black people in comparison to white people.”

TL;DR
Read studies, learn basic stats. Engage with the “experts” and understand all the nuances behind their analysis.

The bar is really not that high if you’re determined enough or have the space.

Biology is often considered a hard science and the amount of bullshit and retardation that can go into biology as a field of study is almost as vast as the soft sciences which form around it.

Most science papers in general are not difficult to understand, especially when it comes to issues that directly impact humans. I'd argue that the reason most people say that laymen can't get in on that shit is because of wider vocabulary. Reading some of that shit (and trying to get in on some of the theories) can be especially tough when you don't actually know what half of the summary means. Looking for truth and lies doesn't take a genius science man, it often takes a very basic line of questioning and a little common sense. Anybody can get in on science as long as they actually understand scientific theory (Find problem, ask question, make hypothesis, find evidence/do experiment, make analysis). That's the entire point.

Experts are just people who've been there longer than you and dedicated more of their time to the subject. Their job is to get information, analyze it, and then put it in a way that other people can understand. The job of people reading is to look at what is presented, ask more questions, provide counter thoughts, hypotheses, theories, and any other number of responses in discourse. It is then the job of the general scientific community (people who understand scientific theory) to design experiments and put those ideas (and the information itself) to the test.

You don't have to go that far, but asking questions in good faith is a pretty good start.

The reason science exists as it does is so that literally anybody can ask questions and have them answered with evidence based on the real world. You trust experts based on how trustworthy the expert is, and try to find the truth based on the information they can provide.
 
Looks like destiny and vaush’s brain dead audience are in the cope phase:
IMG_20200701_011008.jpg
 
Clip from the debate: Vaush Struggles with what Defunding the Police Means (note Destiny's reaction)

















Clip Pre-Debate: Vaush's Legendary Debate Strategy

 
In today's age of the internet there is literally zero excuse for hinging on an "expert's" approval for whether a piece of data is interpreted properly or not when you can teach yourself those things. For gathering the data yourself, yeah, if you wanna do actual fieldwork and collect data, a layman is gonna have to expend a lot of time and effort on collecting the data himself and any monetary expenses will be funded completely from the layman's pocket, but if you just are poring through data and studies collected by other people, then it's no problem. And yeah, I know there's a lot of just dumb shit on the internet, so if you absolutely want to make sure that what you're learning from has the stamp of approval from someone with an important piece of paper, it's still so damn easy to get college textbooks (through less than legal means most of the time I'll admit) for free on any subject that you want to study, including textbooks about the bare basics of what you need to know in order to conduct, understand and interpret data, statistics, manuals for the programs they use etc.

And this is just if you don't even have any higher education, I don't know how much of a clownshow college programmes have become in the US if they don't have courses on at least basic statistics and data collection. I majored in 2 foreign languages and I still had courses on statistics and data collection despite the fact that I never needed that knowledge for any of my papers, but I got interested in other fields of study after I got out of uni so I at least had some foundation to work from which I built on by reading textbooks I got from places like libgen.

Finally, I'm sure you've heard that researchers are finally freaking out because most studies in a lot of fields can't be replicated. I always figured it was the case because of all the baffling papers I've read where they collect multiple pieces of data, all of them disagree except one, then they run with it saying that it somehow also proves their whole hypothesis, it's motte-and-bailey argumentation on supposedly peer reviewed journals. I don't even go the obvious route of saying that researchers are doing that because they have to suck the dicks of woketards, my hypothesis as to why this is is because researchers are sadly pushed to pump out studies regularly, quality be damned, or lose funding, while in fields like pharmaceuticals they're basically forced to do "mercenary" work for whichever private pharmaceutical company is funding them. Example - here's our new drug, prove it's good, here's money, I don't care how much you have to twist data and change how you conduct the experiment in order to get the "correct" outcome.
The bar for being an expert is not as high as you think.

The biggest hurdle to understanding certain papers in the soft sciences, is statistics and how they work. And the majority of those papers don’t involve particularly high level stats concepts.

What determines experts as being experts in the soft sciences more than anything is, pedigree and familiarity with studies.

Degrees are in some sense, a meme if you can manage to be auto-didactic at least. So the real hard work, is really just getting down into the weeds and reading a shit load of studies.

Whatever analysis “experts” have needs to be understood and should not be tossed away. But, its not impossible or unviable to object to academic analysis provided you can put up a similar rigor in your own analysis.

Something that could be challenged would be if someone claims,
“This study demonstrates a systemic bias against black people because they are disproportionately targeted by police in this way.”

You could ask for if they did controls on say socio-economic status (depending on the study), and that might be able to explain some of the disparity. You’re not really trying to disprove them, you shouldn’t, but its important to press them to provide more information so that you can get a better gauge on the situation. Thus allowing you to modify their analysis as appropriate.

If the study controls for socio-economic status, and the disparity shrinks somewhat then the original claim should probably be,
“This study demonstrates a systemic bias against black people because they are disproportionately targeted by police in this way. Even when controlling for SES there is still a clear disparity in how the police treat black people in comparison to white people.”

TL;DR
Read studies, learn basic stats. Engage with the “experts” and understand all the nuances behind their analysis.

The bar is really not that high if you’re determined enough or have the space.
The idea is that you don't actually have to go along with academic consensus if the consensus isn't that way for scientific reasons. Racial science isn't not practiced because it is wrong, it's because it is politically incorrect. We see this by the destroyed careers of scientists who bring it up even offhand. We could have more research and data between the aptitudes of men and women if people didn't have their careers torpedoed simply due to bringing up that differences may exist. Science works in tandem with journalism and both seek to legitimize each other, for journalists they want science to reinforce their agendas and scientists need journalists to add popular support for their fields of study, and this is how both of them get paid.

Pretty much the entire problem we are in right now is that all experts can be bought, all experts have an agenda, and there's not enough hours in the day to parse through every academic field and sort through the hundreds of internal squabbles they have going on at any given time. This is why to say there is any academic consensus is an absolute lie, even in the climate change field there are disagreements and refutations and debates. The History community is absolutely wretched, but none of them can hold a candle to the bickering of Philosophy academics.
So for anyone to point to academic consensus, that just tells you they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and probably haven't ever picked up a book. For Vaush at least we know this is 100% the case.

Where the Nationalists win is they actually have a plan for tomorrow, something you can work towards right now, from a political angle. Not ethical, not philosophical, not ideological, purely politics. Vaush and Destiny (and the majority of progressives) are still pointing to ghosts they are trying to convince us exist, the Nationalists can say "fine, let's take your nonsense at your word, then segregation is the only answer and we can do that right now." If white cops and white people are the problem, fine then just put them over here and the black people over here.

Then the argument devolves into one of economics where they will say the black area needs financial support and reparations and everything to make up for past injustice or whatever, but this is the zone you want them to be in because now you can actually debate history and economics rather than political theory and pop psychology.

See, at that point the revisionist history and the "why" doesn't matter, this is where you get stuck in the muck and where the war of experts spirals. Just talk about here is problem X, here is solution Y. That is where the Progressives lose, because the only actual political solution they have is "give everyone 15 trillion dollars and make owning property illegal." You don't need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of anything to succeed in these, just realize when they are trying to lure you into the fog of chaos and unknowing and understand they are doing that because it's the only way they can get you confused and look foolish in front of a crowd, which is as close as they can get to winning.
Biology is often considered a hard science and the amount of bullshit and retardation that can go into biology as a field of study is almost as vast as the soft sciences which form around it.

Most science papers in general are not difficult to understand, especially when it comes to issues that directly impact humans. I'd argue that the reason most people say that laymen can't get in on that shit is because of wider vocabulary. Reading some of that shit (and trying to get in on some of the theories) can be especially tough when you don't actually know what half of the summary means. Looking for truth and lies doesn't take a genius science man, it often takes a very basic line of questioning and a little common sense. Anybody can get in on science as long as they actually understand scientific theory (Find problem, ask question, make hypothesis, find evidence/do experiment, make analysis). That's the entire point.

Experts are just people who've been there longer than you and dedicated more of their time to the subject. Their job is to get information, analyze it, and then put it in a way that other people can understand. The job of people reading is to look at what is presented, ask more questions, provide counter thoughts, hypotheses, theories, and any other number of responses in discourse. It is then the job of the general scientific community (people who understand scientific theory) to design experiments and put those ideas (and the information itself) to the test.

You don't have to go that far, but asking questions in good faith is a pretty good start.

The reason science exists as it does is so that literally anybody can ask questions and have them answered with evidence based on the real world. You trust experts based on how trustworthy the expert is, and try to find the truth based on the information they can provide.

I understand these sentiments. Social science is not rocket science, and you should not blindly take experts for their word. But, as a layman, your knowledge and ability to interpret data has limits. You need a certain deference and knowledge of your limits.

My broader issue is how knowledge is harder to obtain directly through your own senses and experiences. More than ever before, you must rely on various mediators like academics, journalists, and politicians to learn about the world. I would not call this hearsay, but you end up relying a great deal on what other people say. Even learning basic statistics demands, to a certain degree, taking an "expert" at his word. Our biggest challenge in this information age, I think we can all agree, is discriminating between good information and bad. Either way, I am bothered by how dependent we are on mediators (or "experts") for information.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
>reads the full abstract

Hey, at least they got that they only read the first page.
I fucking love that so instead of reading and understanding whats going on in a study they just read the fucking abstract. Now their views make a lot more sense. Cause anything can make sense if you don´t have to justify it with methodology and data. If you just read the abstract then whats the fucking point?`The rest can be make believe or just misinterpretation of data to form a narrative. Its like people who only read the headline instead of the article.
And even if you have a peer reviewed study that supports your argument so what? Social studies in 2020 is a fucking joke.
An simple study that supports your argument means nothing if its not done correctly.
 
I fucking love that so instead of reading and understanding whats going on in a study they just read the fucking abstract. Now their views make a lot more sense. Cause anything can make sense if you don´t have to justify it with methodology and data. If you just read the abstract then whats the fucking point?`The rest can be make believe or just misinterpretation of data to form a narrative. Its like people who only read the headline instead of the article.
And even if you have a peer reviewed study that supports your argument so what? Social studies in 2020 is a fucking joke.
An simple study that supports your argument means nothing if its not done correctly.
This is exactly what I was going to bring up. Only a few years ago, academia and the peer review process had a big scandal in which several fake studies were put forward that were made as ridiculous as possible to see how bad the problem of bias in academia and the peer review process was. They all got through because they catered to far left social justice beliefs. Academia is corrupt and biased, and every study should be read through and analyzed, not taken at face value.

But Vaush doesn't just appeal to studies. Half the time he appeals to the simple fact that they exist, not anything in them. He says these studies are absolutely authoritative but doesn't explain their methodology or the numbers they got. It's pure begging the question and appeal to authority.

The Prosecutor's takedown:
This guy has a few cowish tendencies himself, mainly his large ego for the size of his channel and insistence that all these much bigger Youtubers secretly watch him and respond to him without naming him. Maybe Vaush does, but when he said that Hunter Avallone is, it was because of Avallone's reply to some very common criticism of him. It's not like Pros was unique in taking Fagallone to task for calling all his old friends fascist and practically licking Vaush's shoes on their stream together.

Nonetheless, he has quickly become my favorite way to ingest Vaush's bullshit. He's concise and gets to the heart of whatever the argument is about. He also seems to actually know what the fuck he's talking about in regards to the legal system, unlike most people on either side of these debates. By contrast, people like Sargon's lackey PSA Sitch who make reply videos to Vaush ramble for hours while rarely having a point.
 
Also why do they think Nazis aren't even European? The most successful white nationalist movements in the world are in Europe, especially the eastern countries.
 
I understand these sentiments. Social science is not rocket science, and you should not blindly take experts for their word. But, as a layman, your knowledge and ability to interpret data has limits. You need a certain deference and knowledge of your limits.

My broader issue is how knowledge is harder to obtain directly through your own senses and experiences. More than ever before, you must rely on various mediators like academics, journalists, and politicians to learn about the world. I would not call this hearsay, but you end up relying a great deal on what other people say. Even learning basic statistics demands, to a certain degree, taking an "expert" at his word. Our biggest challenge in this information age, I think we can all agree, is discriminating between good information and bad. Either way, I am bothered by how dependent we are on mediators (or "experts") for information.

The point here is that any field where you absolutely need to know the minutiae of details probably isn't going to be political. If this were a debate between engineers or scientists, fine. The thing is, you don't need to be a well-researched expert to participate in 99% of the sorts of things we are talking about. In fact, the people who demand more granular details are most likely trying to argue away from the facts.

An example would be racial IQ. It is undeniable that IQ effects behavior in a multitude of small ways, it is inarguable that those many small things can amount to a bad situation in peoples' lives, and it is without question that black people have a significantly lower average IQ. This cannot even be debated, this is true. The studies are there, there's loads of studies, there's loads of independent analyses that back it up. Really anything beyond that as a citizen does not matter, the why does not matter, we can come up with solutions. We have tried every solution, none of them seem to work.
That has similarly been well documented, you don't need a PhD to be familiar with it. Where it gets dicey is when they try to argue the why, and say "well YES there are more black people in prison, but that's BECAUSE _________" and that becomes their political policy, and that policy will land squarely in the lap of white people. Then the avalanche of speculation and insane details and interpretations come to guilt people into thinking they owe all black people one 10 trillion dollars, and that's their argument for the white person as a citizen.
But all you need to say is "I do not owe black people 10 trillion dollars for being criminals," and they literally have nothing.
You do not need to have a binder filled with 15 social scientists to know their solution is both retarded and destructive. We might as well say "everything will be better if black people become slaves again." I can craft an insane tornado of speculatives and suppositions and interpretations to sell them on that, and as a citizen all a black person has to say is "I don't want to be a slave." And that's the end of it.

All anyone needs to do is remember, no matter what, that people like Vaush and Destiny are not, in fact, political. What they are doing is not coming up with policy or laws or a 5 year plan. They don't actually give a shit about that and they're hoping they can gish-gallop you into forgetting that. Every position they have boils down to "you should change as a person, you owe it to (group X.) Just say no, just say you don't want to change. Done. You can apply this to everything. Everyone has that power, and it is their mission to make you forget that.

The best part is, dopes like Vaush can fall prey to this very same logic. I've seen it before with leftists, they start our straight and with a little bit of Progressive and Marxist dialectic applied you can convince them to be bisexual, or full on gay. You can actually make a political case that being straight doesn't exist and it's all conditioning, and they will come out the other end like "welp, that makes a lot of sense, I guess I better go suck a dick!" It never enters into their mind that they just don't want to get fucked in the ass, it's just a web of weird logic.
Trannies especially have latched onto this to try and nag leftists into fucking them for praxis.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Wstecz
Top Na dole