IRAN MOGGING | INTENSE DEBATES | ALLAHU AKBAR

Thank you. I No. They were soldiers They were soldiers

Soldiads

They were soldiers They were

Soldatists

Soldat I'm

I'm going to

They were

They were soldiers

And they were

They were soldiers

D'n't my

D'n't my

T'letypola

Oh

Oh, they were soldiers It's my own They were

Soldathe

I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm going to about love.

They were soldiers.

They were, soldiers,

They were, soldiers,

They were, soldiers,

They were they were soldiers They were soldiers

I got there were

Soldiers

They were soldiers

They were soldiers

I go over Love I'm going to I'm

about love

They were

soldiers

And they were

They're not They're They're

They were They were soldiers

D'emn,

D'n't my

They were

Soldatty,

They were

I'd

I'd more not

I'd more not

I'd be

They were soldiers

They were soldiers

They were soldiers They were soldiers

Soldiades

They were soldiers

They were soldiers, soldiers They were soldiers

They were soldiers

They were soldiers

They were soldiers

Soldaday

They were soldiers soldiers Soldiers

They were

Soldaday

They were

Soldaday

They were

soldiers

They were

They were

soldiers They were soldiers Soldi

Soldiers They were soldiers

Soldi

Soldi I'm soldiers

I I'll govary

about love

They were soldiers

And not going to go to

home

They were soldiers then they were

soldiers

give me

give me

my

they were

they were

I'm

I'm I soldiers I'm

I'm I'm

I'm I'm not

They were

They were

soldiers

They were

They were soldiers They were soldiers

They were soldiers

They were soldiers

They were soldiers, soldiers They were soldiers

They were soldiers

They were soldiers Oh, they were and what a lot of them?

Oh my God. and the one of the you know the

and

I'm

a

I'm going to I'm

a

I'm

I'm The I'm not I'm

I'm

I'm and the uh...

I'm going to

I'm a

no and I'm going

I'm

I'm on

and and I'm going to

I'm

a

man and the oh a

and

I'm

a I'm going to be. I'm going to be. and uh...

I'm

I'm

and

I'm

and

I'm and oh

and

I'm

and What's up, everybody? I have a lot of energy because I slept last night for the first time in many days.

I, if you don't know, I'm a chronic insomniac.

Why? Because I have to be nerfed in some way

by the CIA. They nerfed me.

Because when I have full arrest, I become a

fucking machine. I can literally do fucking anything.

I have unlimited energy,

unlimited swag, unlimited

RIS, unlimited,iz, unlimited everything, unlimited, aura, unlimited willpower, unlimited strength, unlimited energy.

There's nothing that can get in my way for any goal when I have slept properly, right?

But when I, you know, I have to be nerfed a little bit.

That's just how it is.

I have to be, I have to be taken down a notch.

I guess it's to humble me, or it's the CIA or whoever's doing it.

I'm sure they find it very amusing.

But

today's

the confronted chairman, okay?

Now I'm trying to get a hold of Jackson

but I think

he's running around in China somewhere

or he's sleeping, I don't know, but we're still going to have it.

It's going to be great.

We're going to be doing our confront the chairman today.

We're going to be a lot of intense debates.

And it's going to be original high-level original infrared content

that you can look forward

to for tonight's stream.

It's going to be lit as fuck

if you're missing out on this

you must be retarded

type of shit, you know?

It's going to be a wonderful night. It's going to be a wonderful night

it's going to be a wonderful time now

I don't know if you guys know this

for those that know

I'm going to be gone this weekend

there's going to be a big

ACP cult meetup

for a cult ritual just like cult There's going to be a big ACP cult meetup or a

cult ritual

just like

cult activities

you know

cult stuff

cult rituals

whatever

so I'll be

I might

do an

IRL stream

this weekend

we'll see

but

uh

yeah I talked to carlos

carl said he might want to do it with me

or he messaged me he said uh you know he's down to cohoes with me so

yeah looking forward to carlos anyway guys

let's talk about

the Iran War.

Let's get some crucial updates

about the Iran War.

First of all,

nothing has changed

by way of the fact

that it has just become

it's

it's

it's it's uh

an abject

absolute disaster

but uh

it's incredible what the ovan is saying actually if you see this this is pretty insane

this was on the jo rogan podcast by the way ones if you you think Joe Rogan is fucking overrated

and just kind of fucking boring.

But anyway, we have to pretend like the Joe Rogan

podcast matters because

you know, it's just one of those things.

What do you think is going to happen? You think we're going to be okay?

I hope so. Of course. I don't know.

Do you think about it?

I'm confused. I can't believe we went to this war.

When we started bombing Iran, I was like, this can't be true.

And what about Lebanon now?

I know. Israel's invaded Lebanon.

Yeah. Yeah. And it's invaded Lebanon. Yeah.

Yeah. And it's like, just fucking

stop it. What do you need?

Well, they're trying to...

Supposedly, they're trying to stop

the terrorists. That's crazy,

though, if you're the fucking

terrorists.

You don't know what I'm saying like if you want to stop them fucking stand

in front of the fucking mirror

and start there

I mean

people talk about you know

who which demographics I mean, people talk about, you know, which demographic is going to be more open to anti-imperialist consciousness.

The signs are everywhere.

The signs are everywhere.

Anyway, I want to show you guys some news.

You know, it's a bad day for people who fed jack at the acp it's a bad day because

supposedly supposedly uh you, let me see.

There's any veracity to this.

Supposedly, Trump is considering firing Tulsi Gabbard.

Well, if Trump's going to fire Tulsi Gabbard, what...

Hold on.

I thought Tulsi Gabbard had the full backing of the

Deep State and she was loved by the intelligence community. If this happens, I mean, is ACP no longer a Fed

sciop because Jackson met Tulsi Gabbard seven years ago? Is there, the seven years ago when Jackson met Tulsi Gabbard seven years ago?

Is there,

is the seven years ago when Jackson met Tulsi Gabbard and went surfing with her?

Does this change anything?

If she's like no longer working for the government,

I don't understand.

I, I, so, okay, we have a theory.

If she gets fired and ACP still exists, then the theory that, you know, ACP is a Fed Psiop, it's over, right?

Fuck, I sound like a fucking millennial. I sound like GameRanks. I should stop.

I sound like game ranks.

Game racks.

You know what I'm talking about on YouTube?

The guy who's like,

so, uh, if you like playing video games,

you can go ahead and, uh,

play, uh, some Sky Skyrim and, uh...

Guys, the minute I become millennial, just shoot me straight up.

Just get rid of me.

I don't deserve to exist anymore.

I mean, I start sounding like that and shit.

Yo, Sparrow, what's going on, bro?

Appreciate you.

What's up, Sparrow?

What's up, Sparrow?

You want to know the biggest slop candidate in politics right now and this is like super impromptu it's just like random as fuck is james fishback Just the biggest slop politician

in America right now.

The definition

of a slop politician

is James Fishback.

That guy just fucking

his whole existence

is just pandering

to the X algorithm.

That's all he is.

He literally is just

a ex-panderer.

He's literally a fucking Tung-Tung-Tung-Sahor candidate.

Fucking complete absolute slop politician.

I'm so fucking sick of seeing that guy.

Yeah, Iran is still mugging the fuck out of the entire U.S. Empire.

Let's just, like, talk about how we're well past four weeks.

I think we're even coming up on five weeks.

It's been, what, 32, 33 days?

And Iran is straight up, has the straight of Hormuz closed

and it's happening

it's just happening Iran is just

mugging the fuck out of the so-called free world

fuck the free world by the way

and

nothing has changed by way of this.

I know everyone wants the debates to start.

Just don't worry.

By the way, in other news, this post that I made, by the way, this specific post, for some reason, a lot of

Episcopalians are upset by it.

Then there's other people who are calling

me crazy. They keep calling me crazy, crazy, crazy.

Okay.

As a man whose pseudonym

is named after the mad Arab lovecraft's Abdul al-Hazrad, the mad Arab, please don't call me crazy. It hurts my feelings a lot. I clearly value being perceived as a sane person. I value... I have such deep respect

for what passes off

as sanity

in today's civilization.

Please don't call me

crazy.

It bothers me

and hurts my feelings

so, so much.

RTSG just shared something hilarious. Oh, RTSG just shared something hilarious.

Oh.

But I have been advised, legally speaking, notravator.

Who gives a fuck, though, right?

Anyway, um... a fuck though right anyway um yeah we have a lot to cover tonight there's actually quite a bit quite a bit why a bit why the fuck is sniko talking about bosnia

does anyone explain why sniko's talking about bosnia

is there any reason to just like

bosnia is with the resistance

this is the most pointless tweet of all time.

You know,

can I fucking say something that it really grinds my fucking gears?

I'm sick of the ex-Yugoslav nationalists on all sides.

The LARPERS.

Every single ex-Republic of Yugoslavia, somebody who's vehemently anti-NATO, of course I am, of course I'm anti-NATO, every participant in the Yugoslav war should feel ashamed.

That's literally where we get the term Balkanization from

every single side was retarded in that war

and everyone should feel deeply ashamed

and these Bosnians are larping

just like Serbs were larping.

Everyone was fucking larping and killing each other.

I have no respect for petty Balkan nationalists at all.

I don't know the small country fucking nationalism is cancerous.

I don't know why

Sneko's talking

about that though.

I have no idea.

You guys

have you guys

seen Jesus

motorcycles

that it's

pretty remarkable.

I'll show

some of them to you

right now.

He's been on a roll

and he's been going viral as fuck

multiple times independently,

if I might add.

Teen Hutt!

At ease, soldier, but not really

see there's a drone up that way i'm going to need you to lure out operations

your mission should you choose to accept it

and you will accept it

you don't have a choice.

First of all, at what point,

Jesus' motorcycle deserves...

Johnny, what's up? He needs to be hired by some actual media company.

And, like, this guy is he's people think a i is just all slop okay try making this shit yourself it's actually pretty hard right so the

fact that he's doing this at this level of quality this is why we were never anti-AI in principle, right? Because let me actually

say something. I don't want to jump on this discourse, but it's like, look, why does Iran make use of

AI so much? Well, because AI has given non-state or counter-hegemonic actors, I should say, the same tools that are at the disposal of Hollywood and the entire imperial state machine in its unlimited budget, those same tools can now be in the hands to make counter-hegemonic propaganda at the same quality.

And that's what I said in 2023, and it's just fucking true. The fact that Iran is using AI, they're making the same type of content. The fact that this type of content is being put out and made,

it just goes to show.

Anyone who's sitting here saying,

oh, this is taking away from real artists.

Okay.

Then I put the challenge on quote-unquote real artists

to make anti-epstein propaganda.

Sparrow. I challenge

so-called real artists

to make, in video

form, anti-epstein propaganda like

this. But you want to know why

they can't because they don't have the funding to.

Why? Because that kind of funding only comes from institutions. Institutions but you want to know why they can't because they don't have the funding to why because that

kind of funding only comes from institutions institutions which are zionist and which are aligned with

the hegemony so to be honest i mean being anti-a-i in principle is just reactionary and then

there's actually subhuman retards who will sit here and go,

oh, this means you support all these AI companies and this means you support Silicon Valley.

And it's like, are you retarded?

Like, can you not separate a technology from, you know, the institutions that obviously gatekeep?

I mean, you put it, if it was up to me, everything would be open source.

There would be no Silicon Valley, right?

But how can you say

that AI is reducible

to Palance here in Silicon Valley

when it's just a new technology that China

can use and pretty much anyone can make

use of, provided they have enough

resources, which, you know,

we don't.

But anyway.

It's the age of the draft.

Private Allen my son.

Ready.

Look at a point.

But what about my social security?

You don't get it anymore.

Now off you go to the minefield.

Cheer up, son.

The light at the end of the tunnel is approached.

Targeted elimination of the schoolhouse sector is complete.

Due to your bravery, your family gets to eat this week.

Oh, no, no.

I'll give it to your wife myself.

Operation.

Filling.

I'm fighting for Jeffrey.

I'm fighting for Jeffrey.

I'm fighting for Jeffrey! I'm fighting for Jeffrey. I'm fighting for Jeffrey.

I'm fighting for Jeffrey.

That's some high quality stuff, I'll have to say.

Who says AI can't be art, right?

Absolutely it can. Right? Absolutely again. This is quite interesting.

Trump destroyed the favorite symbol of the Zoroastrian Larpers.

Remember when Trump said he would target Iran's cultural sites?

We'll get used to seeing things like this as long as this war continues.

The people who are selling this war, the warmongers, they say, don't worry, we will rebuild.

Whatever infrastructure is being destroyed, whether it's bridges, medicine factories, medical clinics,

all the stuff we've seen in the past few days,

factories, steel mills.

We'll rebuild it all.

Great. Will you rebuild stuff like this,

too? Do you want to travel back?

Way into the past and resurrect our

ancestors and have them reconstruct this type of stuff,

or these things may be irreplaceable? I'd like to know your answer. Let me know in the comments,

warmongers. Remember when Trump said he would target Iran's cultural sites, we'll get used to saying

things like this as long as this war continues.

The people who are selling this war, the warmongers, they say, don't worry, we will rebuild.

Whatever infrastructure is being destroyed, whether it's bridges, medicine factories, medical clinics, all the stuff we've seen in the past few days, factories, steel mills, we'll rebuild it all. Great. Will you rebuild stuff like this too? Do you want to travel back way into the past and resurrect our ancestors and have them reconstruct this type of stuff,

or these things may be irreplaceable.

I'd like to know your answer.

Let me know in the comments, warmongers.

Remember when...

Wow. wow

guys i'm so sad today i'm in such a sad mood

i'm just so sad i I'm so... Just kidding.

I don't give a fuck.

Anyway, guys,

um...

I'm never sad.

I'll never be sad ever.

You understand?

This is a...

This is an emotion

of weakness.

I don't have feelings. You know, I don't know. It's just like, I've been, I've been literally awake for fucking like two days and I finally got sleep last night. And I'm just kind of sitting here like, what did I go through all of this for?

Billfo was like, now that I've actually gotten a hold of myself, I'm like, why the fuck does this keep happening?

It's just existential.

Guys, what do you think?

Is John Kiriaku a fed?

I have no idea.

I have no way of telling.

I have no way of telling. There's something about him

that's a little off, just like Professor Jiang. But I, all I could, the only, um,

complaint I could have about him is that he's popular, to be honest. All right, well, I have to, I would be irresponsible of me not to show you this in the interest of being completely unbiased. This was from a left com.

ACP is not only not a communist party, but they aren't even left wing on the bourgeois Z

spectrum of politics.

It's a far right party,

most similar to Mussolini's fascist

party. And of course,

we can't forget the follow-up.

I would even argue that they're worse than

Mussolini because they didn't make Italy a puppet state while ACP wants China and Russia to take over America.

Well, I'm glad this guy is, you know, engaging in defensism of the fatherland

against the imminent threat of a takeover

by Russia and China,

which ACP is facilitating.

I'm about to be 30 years old

and nothing has changed in five years.

Nothing has changed.

I mean like, is this Groundhog Day?

That's like, it's just kind of like, I'm at that point.

I just see this and it's surreal.

I'm like, is this Groundhog Day?

Like, what has changed in five years?

Has anything changed at all?

Is there anything new under the sun?

We are fascist.

We're far right.

We're Mussolini.

We're not on the left, okay?

All right.

I guess so.

I guess if you say so.

You've been saying it for five years, so if you just keep saying it, it'll be more

true.

It'll be more and more true the more you say it we're just kind of gearing up guys for the debate that we're about to have don't worry

don't worry don't worry we're just building it's called building context it's called building up

context It's called building up context.

But, uh,

I've been thinking about this. I thought about this the other day,

which is that I am starting to have the memory of a goldfish because I'll go back to arguments that I made two years ago and I'll be like, nothing's changed.

Like nothing has changed.

This has been the same thing for five years. Like nothing has changed.

This has been the same thing for five years.

And the biggest hot topic on left Twitter right now is whether or not AOC should be backed.

You know, all these so-called Marxists and leftists talking about whether AOC should be defended or not.

Should we support AOC?

Should we not?

To be clear, I want to be absolutely clear about why I spend a lot of years saying that, you know, we want to just divorce from leftists entirely. We don't want anything to do with them. What was correct and incorrect about that view, but why I made that view in the first place.

Now, to be hyperbolic for the purposes of actually communicating the point, if you were to hear from a community, let's say there's a community you came across and that this community was arguing about whether or not babies should be eaten.

Now, to be fair, roughly 60% are saying they shouldn't, but 40% are saying you should eat babies, right?

Or let's say there's like a discourse that you stumble upon where they're like, you know, should we just poop on the sidewalk? And it's 50-50 split down the sidewalk.

And it's 50-50 split down the middle.

Now, is it enough to say that I'm one of the anti-poop partisans in this discourse?

Is that enough to say? Or at what point you have to just realize that on a qualitative level, I don't want to be part of a discourse where this is still being debated. I don't want to be part of a discourse where the question of whether we should vote for Democrats or not, is even still being considered or debated.

Because even if you're debating against that position, what it comes across to me is it's

like you still have not underwent this qualitative change, this qualitative break that's necessary. You haven't taken the red pill.

You haven't realized that this leftist discourse is just fundamentally rigged and at best it is

institutionally captured materially and financially by the Democratic Party and that the vague perception of this open society of this open discourse that this is like oh this is the they this is the big other yeah that's just

because the democratic party has a lot of fucking money and has the and it's like the it's an

institutional state actor of course there's this perception of grandeur a lot lot of these DSA and whatever types

will constantly appeal to the

argument that, well, we don't want to be a

microsect or a cult.

You know, we have to go with the flow. We don't want to be a

microsect. We don't want to be a cult.

We don't want to be a sect sect. We want to be a cult. We don't want to be a sect.

And it's like, well, the perception that you have that your DSA, Democrat, Millew,

is anything but a cult itself is just because they have more money and they have more resources and they have

power they have the backing of the state at no level whatsoever does that boil down to them

being more fundamentally key word is fundamentally popular.

Now, of course, the more popular thing to do is just acquiesce to the authority that rules us at the barrel of a gun.

But if we're ever going to get to the point where we recognize that we live under an occupation and that this is a regime that rules us by force,

we have to stop pretending that the passivity of the masses, the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do participate in politics are going to go blue or red, we have to stop pretending

that that reflects some authentic state of consciousness among the masses, rather than an imposed

condition of occupation. And you may say this is sectarian language.

Well, I beg to differ.

There is a growing contingent of Americans, and as much as you want to crucify them on the label of being far right or being part of this or that comprehensive ideological

milieu they are it is fundamentally pre-ideological and it is a spontaneous form of

consciousness among the american people that is rapidly growing which is fundamentally disaligned with the hegemony, which is

fundamentally waking up to the fact that we live under an occupation. Now, spontaneously, this

takes the form of a thousand, a million different types of obscure conspiracy

theories. I agree.

But you can't reduce the

phenomena to a comprehensive

ideology. Oh, this is fascism.

This is the far right. This is X, Y, and Z

ideology. No, it's not. This is

materially the manifestation of growing segments of the u.s

population disaligning with the state and that's a fact disaligning with the hegemony now the spontaneous

form with which they disaline could be a million different things,

but the disalignment is immaterial fact. And these are the masses that we should tap into.

Otherwise, we commit in the sincere and genuine sense of the word as it's been used

historically the error of tailism tailism would precisely mean going to democrat voters and acquiescing to

the democratic party because this is where we're meeting them where they're at, right?

Tailism is not being politically incorrect. And by the way, I have a message to the fat ass Santa Claus Ascatar Bear.

Ass Hat Bear, asshole bear. Santa Claus Asatar bear As-Hat bear

asshole bear

Listen

Santa Claus

We are not politically

incorrect

Because we're trying to

pander to the masses

You have yet to understand That the onus still remains upon you and every other professional

petty bourgeois Libthard Lickspiddle who works in HR departments and has bullshit meaningless

jobs that you think somehow matter,

to prove to us,

us and the masses for that matter,

that we should give a flying shit about any of your politically correct tone policing.

By default, this is a brutal, fucking ugly world.

By default, this is a world where our language reflects reality. By default, we tell politically incorrect jokes. By default, our instinct,

just like your instinct, the one you repress, is to reflect the world through humor through honesty through brutal language without any regard for political correctness that's our default setting you liptards have failed in colonizing our minds with your political correctness.

Proving what's up.

We're not acting the way we are because, oh, this is how working class people act, so we should emulate their behavior.

That's not what we're fucking coming from.

This is our default setting.

You may feel like you're extremely cowardly, politically correct, tone policing world of falsehood and living in this fucking bubble is somehow a default setting. But that's because

your class background, your professional petty bourgeois, you literally work in work environments

where everyone's a fake fuck. Now, I get it, you've become so accustomed to these fake fuck bubble

retard environments that you genuinely think this is the natural

default setting for people who live in America. But I promise you for the majority of people,

it's not. And all the people that smile at you and walk on eggshells around you because they don't

want to use the wrong language or hurt your fucking feelings are going home, sharing Instagram reels with each other that are deeply anti-Semitic,

deeply racist, deeply bigoted, humor.

And it's just like complete memes that are fucking completely, you know, I guess, are abhorrent to you and unthinkable.

You'd clutch your pearls like an old grandma at a fucking Woodstock concert or some shit, right?

To put it in the hippie language, you might be comfortable understanding.

Mordor, what's up with the five?

Yeah, we're not engaging in tailism by having the tone and sentiment and the tone that we have.

The onus is on you to prove the material necessity of your tone policing and fake

psychological disposition that we're supposed to emulate and and adopt. Why should we adopt your personality?

Why should we adopt your political correctness?

It has yet to be proven to any

of us, why we should give a flying

fuck about any of it.

If something is funny, it's funny.

If something is

real, it's real. If something, if there's a more matter of fact,

blunt way of putting something, there are most certainly circumstances in which

stop getting your fucking panties in a bunch crying about it. Okay.

I'm not saying that we're going to go to a formal, you know, I'm not saying every setting it's appropriate to be politically incorrect.

I'm just saying it's like people go out of their way.

They'll dig up tweets that I made years ago and they'll be, oh, my God, and they're clutching perils.

Hey, literally kill yourself.

Like, what are you doing?

Like, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what.

You're crying over a tone and language and all this kind of stuff.

Hey, just go kill yourself, you know.

Hey, in a video game,

you know what I mean?

Like, I don't know what to tell you.

With all that's going on in the world,

if this is material to you,

you are fundamentally bourgeois,

and it's as simple as that.

If this kind of stuff is material to you, you are bourgeois.

And that's how I end the story.

But, no, okay, back to my original point.

Tailism, in the meaningful sense of the term tailism okay tailism refers to ignoring the advanced developments among the development of the consciousness of the masses which now takes the form of this broad

conspiracism slop.

I agree it's slop, but guess what?

It reflects a material disalignment with the system.

That is what Marxists

have to be at the avant-garde of.

Not fucking incrementally

pushing some old pedophile liberal

Democrat who loves AOC more and more

to the left, whatever that fucking means.

That's some Menshevik nonsense.

The Leninist view is you go directly to the segment of the masses

that is ready to fucking throw down.

For Lenin, that was the Russian peasants.

For Mao, it was the Chinese peasant.

For us,

yes, it's the people watching Professor Jong, Tucker Carlson, and even Candace Owens, and whatever.

That doesn't mean we don't educate the masses. That doesn't mean we don't

educate the masses. That doesn't

mean we don't distinguish

ourselves

from those people that I just mentioned.

But

where there are material

manifestations of material disalignment with the system, that's where we have to be.

That's what it means.

Anything else is Talism.

This is the true meaning, by the way, of having a principled Marxist position.

You go to the masses who are the most advanced in the development of their consciousness,

but the advanced development of the consciousness of the masses is not

measured by how superficially

educated they are. I'll show you a

fucking dozen, dozens

and hundreds of college professors

superficially well versed in the vocabulary,

the vernacular, the language of marxism which are

simultaneously in their material disposition fundamentally reactionary zionist and bourgeois

advanced doesn't mean who can recite superficially the dead letter and the dead text.

Who can talk about transphobia and homophobia and put pink hats on or something.

That's not what it means to be advanced.

What it means to be advanced is to be disaligned with the system

the more

that the system loses its grip

on the minds of the masses

the more advanced

the masses are along the path of finally adopting what we Marxists call

the revolutionary consciousness. And mind you, the revolutionary consciousness precedes the

proletarian consciousness.

So whoever calls us tailus and uses this gibber language they don't understand because they're 15.

I don't want to be part of a discourse that's still debating about this, though.

But maybe we have to.

It's been five years.

I am perfectly capable of self-reflection on the fact that it's been five years.

And somehow, yes, it's true, the pipeline to the American Communist Party, it's still coming from the left significantly coming to from the left i would say uh there's some from the right for sure but the pipeline is primarily still coming from the left

let's pause.

Why is that happening?

Well, because who's putting out the constant barrage of introductory level educational

content to Marxism in general?

It's not us.

It's the deprogram people.

It's all these other YouTubers with their fucking stupid, retarded YouTube essays.

And they're the ones making constant documentaries and content.

Thank God we have Eddie.

Eddie's the one guy we have, but the overwhelming majority of the space of how do I read people to just warm up to communism in general is being monopolized and dominated by people who don't know what to do with the attention that they're getting.

Our pipeline is still coming to a huge extent, I should say, from that direction.

Not entirely, not 100%.

I'd say maybe 60, 70% is coming from that direction.

Now, brothers and sisters, I would say comrades, but come on, it's a little too much larp.

Brothers and sisters, we need to

learn from that. Okay, we need our own documentaries.

We need our own content. We need our own short form

small introductory level stuff,

specifically YouTube documentaries.

Uh... stuff, specifically YouTube documentaries. You know, I'm going to just tell

the RTSG guys.

Guys, everything you make

that you write,

you can turn it, even just use

AI to make the images for it

or whatever you have to do

you could turn that into a video script no problem

if you can't read it you can have AI read it

it'll go viral don't worry

uh infrared we wanted to do this for sure.

I mean, maybe we could do it with infrared.

Honestly, I think we're at the point where

infrared is probably willing to recruit video

editors and video producers

for documentaries

but that honest to God that has to be the move

logo is 100% right the more I think about it

every single day the reason why

the pipeline is still coming from the left for us is because the introductory content to Marxism is still being monopolized by YouTube video essayists.

We have to get on the YouTube video essay game.

We have to get on that shit.

We have to get on the YouTube game and flood YouTube with video essays and simple educational content that teaches people the basics of Marxism.

And we will then consolidate our own pipeline independently

and, uh,

yeah,

so that's why.

If we can do that,

my friends,

and I'm talking about a media network,

we already have Jackson, who's doing news.

If people could help me with infrared, who would want to do that, and then if RTSG could start doing it, and then others start doing it, we create a media ecosystem on YouTube and fucking dominate the video essay game when it comes to Marxism.

Introductory level content to Marxism, communism.

If we do this, we will never have to spend another minute of our life ever again arguing with Democrats.

We will never have to argue with furries.

We'll never have to engage in the same arguments we've been doing for the past five fucking years.

You understand?

We have to create a media ecosystem where we are actually introducing people to Marxism, Leninism.

And we are the ones

defending the USSR at the basic

level. We can't be too

sectarian. We can't make our content about

this is how we're not Hakeem.

This is why Hakeem is wrong.

This is why second thought

is wrong. Okay. why Second Thought is wrong. Okay.

If we want to distinguish

ourselves from Hakeem in Second Thought,

let's do it in a positive way. Let's just show

at the most introductory

level how we positively

comprehend things.

And let the burden be put

upon them to distinguish themselves

from us negatively, right?

If you're just making content

saying this is why Hakeem's a retarded

bastard, you're a fucking leech.

You're no longer, you're no different than

the infrared

or ACP ankle biters who cannot

make content of their own and just fucking

bite our ankles, because

these are subhuman retards. They're just not smart.

They're not intelligent. An intelligent

person understands

if you have a problem with the way the space is being monopolized and dominated, do it yourself better.

You set the fucking example. You do it yourself better. Don't focus on the clashing and the negativity.

If they want to debate, let them debate.

Video essays dedicated to taking down Hakeem or something or wherever

the best demarks, whatever these years.

By the way, these Europeans are dominating the space.

Okay?

Americans need to get on it

and put out American, you know, less European biased content about Marxism. We are so behind on that, though, because I look at, I've been looking on YouTube there's some of

these video essays about Lenin about their production value is so fucking good it's

incredible it's quite incredible production value but you want to know the one

advantage we have.

They are ethically barred from using

AI for visuals

and stuff. We can.

We can use AI for video visuals

and everything

understand what a

profound advantage that puts us in

in terms of the volume of content we could put out

and there will be a sizable amount of people that condemn us as unethical, but that's just us

filtering out all the lip-tards.

We will be getting the masses.

We will be getting

just, we'll be

capturing so many fucking people.

Lenin Dubois,

what's up?

So that's how we're going to, you know,

launch that assault.

Want to give a one minute example now

and Kat clips it immediately.

Intro to communism from the popular center, right?

No, I don't think I can't.

No, I don't want clips.

We don't need clips.

We need long-form documentary content.

We have a lot of...

No, we need clips.

Keep up the clip game

for sure but let's also start thinking

about long form video essay shit

because that's uh

that's what creates communities

honestly the long term

long form video essays are what

create

communities logo is right logo set he gave us the best video essays are what create communities. Logo

is right. He gave us the best advice.

You know, you could think of.

Europa, the last battle, created the entire far right

and 4chan. Besides Jeffrey Epstein, right?

If you use AI, they'll say it's AI,

gelcrum, that's not true at all.

If you use AI to write your script, yeah, it's slop.

If it's shame, if it's just like all AI, then yes.

But if you use AI to help with editing and help the visuals, that's not going to be seen as slot by anybody.

You have to combine manual and automatic, you know?

I'll say this, you know.

Uh... I'll say this, you know, the space is open, the space is hot for video essay shit.

You know, I see so many people in the community launching podcasts. We don't need podcasts. Nobody needs podcasts. We need video essays. We need educational material. Introductory level. Just teach people basics about

Marxism. ABC's a Marxism. ABC, why is China socialist? Make a video response to someone

claiming China's not socials.

Like, do what we do on X.

Fucking turn that into YouTube essays.

We don't

need

more podcasts.

We don't need more podcasts. We don't need more podcasts.

And, you know,

we don't need people sitting in front of their camera yapping.

We need content that is like documentary style, you know.

So this applies to ACP.

And it also applies to you if you're trying if you some of you genuinely want to get into the media space my genuine advice to you if you want to if you want to break into the media space work on video essays and get good visuals and all that kind of stuff.

And if I watch it and I think it's good, I'll fucking boost it.

I'll give it the boost that it needs if I think it's good.

If I think it's terrible, I'm going to critique it and tell you to fucking make it better.

And then when it's good and I say, okay, this has a chance of going on the algo, I'll boost it.

By the way, why am I stingy when it comes to using infrared to boost small creators.

Because if I can, if I think something is going to entirely depend on infrared forever,

I'm not going to boost it.

But if I see that there's promise and that we could give you the boost that you need to reach a wider, wider audience,

I have no fucking problem mobilizing this army

to get the shit off

its feet

if it actually has promise.

There's shit that I... I'm not saying this

I don't always

I very

very rarely make a

decision about this anyway because I very rarely

have the time to even check

this kind of small content out.

But I'm

telling you like I'm not I want to see you grow and succeed if you have the chance to, is what I'm trying to fucking say. And if I see good content and good shit, I have no fucking problem, uh, you know.

Doing what we can.

I'll even tell Jackson, we could just do whatever we can to juice it and boost it.

But it has to be fucking good.

Not just in the sense that I have to like it.

It has to be good. Like I see this going viral.

This will be viral as

fuck, right?

RTSG podcast. I haven't, I haven't listened. It sounds pretty cool.

Yeah, I mean, podcasts that are non-video podcasts,

they probably have some potential.

You know, people are on their long car rides, listening to stuff.

But what there's a gap in the market in right now is video content, 100%. video essay content.

That's educational, introductory educational.

Some of y'all are slacking on that. I'm not going to lie.

We are, look, you want to do self-criticism of our entire community?

Self-criticism is we don't have the...

We're not the best at introducing people to communism we're very good at

combating the far right shutting them down but are we good at introducing people to communism

we're not the best we're getting there but we're not the best. We're getting there, but we're not the best.

Eddie is the best in our...

Yeah, I mean, ACP.

I'm talking about

infrared, though.

I'm talking

just about

infrared.

We are not the best.

We are already

very esoteric.

When the minute

you become initiated

in our community,

you already have taken

a red pill

of some kind.

And we need to find a way to lock in on introducing people to our shit.

Right.

So that's my sermon, but now we're going to get to the good part of tonight's stream.

Facebook groups. Look, nothing will beat documentaries. I'm just telling video essays and

documentaries. Nothing's going to beat that. Nothing. And it's just got to

take any topic.

Mao killed... Okay.

I'm sure Volta will help scripting.

You just make a video saying debunking

the myth that Mao killed 60 million.

Debunking Francois Dicuder.

Debunking the... Likeeter. Debunking the

whole lot. Like just make shit like that

it will fucking go viral. Pump it

out constantly. This or that

myth. This retarded anti-communist

myth. The Kattenma... I don't know. YouTube might ban

you if you deny the Katten Massacre.

But just keep launching nukes.

The myth that communism was a failure.

The myth that this or that.

Because Hakeem will make videos about the USSR and say it was in beautiful social democracy

and his videos are successful

but

you know

instead of complaining about how they do it, let's just do it better.

Finball used to do this shit that's why he used to own the space

Matter of fact

Almost everybody comes from Finball

When you think about it

Everybody comes from Finball

All right, what was my title last time on ticot oh fuck you know what guys the ticot prompts

how do we make those you put it down like new york city

add a theme

okay not a theme

uh how do i Okay, not a theme.

How do I add something to the scene?

Like, how do I add an image or this, right? Ah, wait, no.

Hold on.

General. on. General? i'm trying to figure this shit out So this is what scenes mean.

All right.

I don't know what scenes fucking mean.

I don't know how to add some shit.

To the layout.

Ah. Within TikTok LiveSudeu, just like ad source text. Okay, hold on.

Where's ad source?

That's the problem.

Where's ad source? That's the problem. Where's ad source?

Because all there is is ad scene.

Where do I find ad source? Rename at theme, duplicate, seam switch layout set hotkey project live view how do i add a source

i wish somebody would help me i wish somebody would help me

fuck nobody knows how to do this shit

bro one person doesn't know how to do this is crazy Yes, I'm on desktop TikTok Live Studio. What the fuck?

How to add text.

In the scenes menu, add text.

Huh? Everybody. the scenes menu add text huh everybody my name is Ira Bowman

I am a live host

with Gravitus queue here on

TikTok nobody gives a fuck

and today I'm going to teach you something I actually

just learned how to do myself.

I learned how to add text and make it scroll and be able to hide it or share it whenever

I want, update it, all those things.

I'm going to teach you that in this video right now.

If you are on your computer and you are using TikTok Live Studio or you want to record from your computer, I'm going to share with you this technique.

So first things first, make sure you have TikTok Live Studio app loaded on your computer.

I do.

Make sure you're logged in.

I have it.

Once you are, the very first thing that you're probably

going to see is the tool

bar. No, I don't need that. This

is an old-ass fucking video.

And you're going to see this little pop-up box.

Huh? So this is

in here, but I'm just going to

I don't have the ad source button.

TikTok Live Studio, no ad source

option.

Why? Let's set up TikTok Live Studio in 2026.

Okay, fuck this retard. I hate everybody.

Settings. All right, I don't think there's a way to do this, guys. The chat Chbidiza doesn't fucking know anything, all right?

Fuck's sake

There's no way to do it

For me at least

So nobody dare bitch at me

That I don't have fucking

Because everyone's always saying Oh you, you know, you just got to make the, uh, the, uh, the,

there's no ad source button.

Holy fuck, long guy.

There's none.

There's nothing.

Like, I'm not retarded, right i'm not a little retard there's no ad source button there's a scene all I have

okay I need to make a scene then

let's try

thank you Amirio

maybe that's it

uh

okay

unlock

okay yes unlock the scene ah I had to unlock Okay unlock Okay, yes

Unlock the scene

Ah, I had to unlock the scene

Nobody told me that

Notice nobody told me that

Not a single person told me that

Uh

All right I'm going to make something really quick on Canva uh all right

i i'm gonna make something really quick

on canva

you put it down

like new york city

oh

oh Oh Oh

Oh

Oh

We got it You put it down like New York City.

Oh, we're gonna, I'm making some good shit.

All right.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

We good.

We good.

This is some good ass shit.

Oh, this is gonna be some good shit. Nah, no, no, for real, for real, for real, for real.

This is, this is gonna be, you know, some good shit.

For sure.

Whoopsie. Oh, this is going to be, yeah, this is going to be good.

Why didn't you do this before?

Because I didn't have time, bitch. Yeah.

Yeah.

Y'all gonna see this shit this final ass product transparent background and this is gonna be good

you put it down like New York City all right image ad Hell!

Yeah! Hold on, this shit is not good.

Hold on, I shit is not good.

Hold on. I got to fix this shit. Uh... Hurry up!

Hurry up!

Hurry up!

Hurry! Hurry! Hurry!

Hurry! Hurry! hurry

we don't have time

we're't have time

running on the time hurry up

this one get rid of this shit

had a source. Hey! Hey! you put it down my new york city

all right what the fuck is this alert Alright

What the fuck is this?

Alert.

Put that shit away.

Don't fucking need this.

Okay, I have to like be here

You put it down like New York City

Hold on I'm gonna make it like a podium

Make it like a podium

Alright y'all, we good

We're going live

Go live

Uh Go live.

Uh... All right.

All right, y'all.

After so much pain and trifling... And...

Yeah!

We good!

So you don't see the full thing.

It says debate communism

and we're good

you guys you miss me so much

didn't you? I was gone

I was away for so long

I was away for so long

and here we are

everybody who's not ACP is so long. And here we are.

Everybody who's not ACP is... Nothing.

Anti-ACP sentiment is rooted in the federal government.

It's spread by the Mossad.

It's spread by the CIA.

It's completely astroturf by the MI6, CIA, and Mossad.

That's a fact.

This guy named is Stalin is based.

You better be an op or your band forever.

Hello? Hello? better be an op or your band forever. Hello.

Stalin's a pedophile.

Based on what? Based on Jeffrey Epstein's

associate Simon

Teabagg, Montefere, who is in the associate Simon Tebag

Montefere

who is

in the

Epstein

Blackbook

who completely

made that up

so

what a

pathetic

disgusting thing

what a

pathetic disgusting case of projection when that was itself created and made up by simon c bag t-bag montefere why don't you stream with carlos where is carlos Okay, I'll tell Carl, I'm going to call him right now.

Don't use bad words.

Don't use bad words. Got to call Carlos.

Couldn't connect.

Why can I not connect? You know, Thank you. I literally am trying to fix it as quickly as I can.

On Zip we're fucking good with this fucking mic.

Frank T, the ACP is a right-wing party.

Based on what?

Go ahead. Define right-wing. Define right-wing.

I'll define right-wing.

The right-wing were the people

who stood for the Ainschen regime

during the French Revolution, sat on the right aisle of the parliament.

The left wing was the party of revolution who were against the status quo and against the system.

We are against the status quo and system more comprehensively and more consistently than any so-called leftist that you know of.

So calling us right-wing is nonsensical gibberish, you Zionist.

You are a zionist, is the problem.

A zionist defines right-wing, based on how friendly or mean they are, based on Theodore P...

He's an Epsteinite, Theodore Adorno, his authoritarian personality compass, where he defined right wing as having a closed personality and not wanting

to eat ass long guy what's up theodore adorno defined being right wing based on not wanting to

eat ass instead of uh being a shill for the status quo, concrete status quo, the concrete state and machine.

Not the abstraction of, oh, you don't want to

comprehensively

mutilate people's

janitalia

by force or something

that makes you right wing

what are you talking

about Frank T

you pathetic

simpleton

where do you go

where did he go

are you the best what do you Where did you go? Where did he go?

Are you the best... What are you talking about with small businesses?

You're just jibbering with some nonsense gibberish.

Where's Frank T? You Zionist?

John Pork. You're not John Pork.

You're not John Park. You're calling us Larp. You're talking nonsense.

They're neo-fascists who always mention the global banking elite and spew anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Hello Zionist Frank Rieck. Frank T.

Ah! Frank T. I got restricted for bullying and harassment.

How do I lift this for 10 minutes?

Okay, we'll, we're going to survive.

We'll be the long march.

The 10 minute long march.

I'll be nicer.

I'll be kinder and I'll be nicer.

I immediately got attacked.

All right, I'm going to rephrase that.

All right, there's a new me.

There's a new me.

Well, Frank, we have many disagreements.

You claim that speaking of a banking elite,

Ha-ha, speaking

of a banking elite is a

fascist, did you

read Lenin's

imperialism, the highest

stage of capitalism?

Go ahead.

Open up Lenin's imperialism, the highest state of capitalism.

Shall we do it together, Frank?

Because you're such a literate, well-read genius.

Lenin, Imperialism, the highest

stage of capitalism.

Okay. We'll open it

up together. Hmm.

Banks and their new role.

Finance capital

and the finance oligarchy.

Huh? Okay, so Frank, it looks like capital and the finance oligarchy, huh?

Okay, so Frank,

it looks like Lenin's a fascist, because he's talking about the financial oligarchy.

Ha ha!

Even he's talking about pasticism,

ha! Quite anti-Semitic,

if you ask me.

Don't mind my voice,

guys. TikTok just restricted me

for 10 minutes

because I'm bullying

and I'm mean.

So I'm just a friendly guy now.

No, I'm just friendly

because TikTok restricted

my live visibility for bullying and harassment.

So I'm just a nice person now.

Don't worry about me.

I'm not a threat to anyone.

Anyway, Frank, where'd you go?

If I end it and restarted, does my restriction go away?

I can't do this for 10 minutes.

If I end it and restart, does it go away?

Greenplace, tell me.

All I have to do

is restart it, really?

Oh, no. Yeah, no, it doesn't go away.

Well, I'm just

wholesome. I believe in

all the

wholesome things.

There's a guy that wanted to debate MMT.

I don't...

Who wants to debate MMT?

It's probably...

Sounds boring.

Uh, come to TikTok.

Whoever wants to debate, honestly.

Wait. wait oh wait hold on oh wait hold on oh you can request okay i was going to say all right uh who All right.

Who?

Let me look at, I'm going to read the chat, people who are saying things about, where did Frank

I think we scared him away

I'm not a psychopath

I promise

I think we scared him away

Frank is gone forever

he'll never come back after Mickey Mouse

after Mickey Mouse.

After Mickey Mouse hit him with the Lenin thing, he'll never come back, right?

Well, he got what he wanted.

Is ACP positive on LGBT rights?

First of all, you live in France.

What of what relevance is it to you when you live in France?

And what do you mean by that?

Fuck is Carlos.

I'm once you're again.

Hey, what's up, man?

You're live, you're live, you're live, you're live, you're live! You're live!

You want an emergency thing?

Uh, I don't know how because I'll tell you how

you have to fucking go to the co-host

All right hold on

Co-host and then tell me what to do

I'll invite you

All right

I just invited you

Okay

I can't

I can't accept any invites

All I can do is invite you

I can't accept anything

Oh

Yeah because I'm on

No no

Because I'm on desktop I can no, because I'm on desktop.

I can't, I can't, no, it's not, it's just desktop versus mobile.

I invited you and that's, oh, you're on desktop too.

Oh, you're on desktop?

Yeah.

You're on the live studio?

Yeah.

What the fuck?

Well, why is this working then?

Why is this working then?

It says, it says, it says infrared lives contains things that people might find.

Yeah, I got restricted for the next 10 minutes.

Oh, my God.

All right.

All right. All right.

Hello.

What's up, bro?

You have your sign.

I have my sign.

It's kind of redundant.

Yeah.

But you're on desktop, you're on the

what? I'm on the live studio, bro.

It's an app. You have to download the app.

For mobile or for desktop? Because I'm using the same thing

no desktop can you increase your volume

your mic

and also there's super there's a lot of feedback on your end

what the hell yeah I don't know

is this better yeah on your end. What the hell? Yeah, I don't know. What the fuck?

Is this better?

Yeah, way better. It's way better.

Yeah, way better. It's way better.

So for the next five...

How long has it been, guys?

Their feedback is really bad, by the way.

I know it's horrendous.

I don't know what the fuck to do with it.

Let me see if I can get

fucking some earphones. I'm going to

look like a fucking pilot. What the hell? It's okay.

It's okay. It's okay. Jesus

Christ. For the next five minutes, I'm restricted.

Next six minutes.

Next six minutes.

So with the next six minutes, we're doing a long march.

Until I'm freed from Larry Ellison's prison.

What did you do?

I, uh,

I, uh, I, uh, I, uh, I was calling people some names I don't know any juicy ones no no just the Z word just kept, but in a really aggressive way, I called someone a Z word.

I'm still getting people that are requesting to join here.

I think you can just fucking speak with them

while I get this fucking...

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

So, can you get the earphones zone?

Yeah.

All right, they just dropped out.

The next one that pops up, I'll get them.

There's people that have, mine was growing by viewers, but after, bro, this feedback is like, I'm going to.

Oh, it's so bad.

I'm muted.

What are you talking about?

1, 1, 1, 1.

No, you need a mute.

You need to mute my, on the studio, you need a mute.

What's coming out of your speakers?

And it's going into your mic. and it's going into your mic one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one all right how about now

whoa what it's still the same thing the same exact same thing exact same thing all right up. Let me change the, where the audio comes out.

I think you have to do it on the end of TikTok.

TikTok.

I didn't hear this.

TikTok.

TikTok.

Audio makes her.

Audio makes it.

Oh. audio makes sure audio make sure oh

hello

hello

hello

hello

we're good

can you hear me

the feedback's gone I can't hear Can you hear me?

The feedback's gone.

I can't hear you now.

You now.

Yeah, because I fucking muted myself.

Hold up.

It's your mic.

All right.

I thought I was excited for a second.

I thought the feedback was gone.

I wonder what this looks like on TikTok. Come.

Carbara kid! With the 25!

Yo, hello?

Hello?

Hello, hello? Can you hear me? I can't hear you though.

Your speaker, you need to do the opposite. You need to get rid of the speaker and then enable the mic and remove the speaker.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

Talk?

Talk.

It's still... Carlos, the speaker, you need to mute your speaker and just enable your mic.

All right, bro. Take it easy. I'm not fucking tech advanced.

No, I can't hear you.

This is the worst.

I can't hear, bro.

Bro, I cannot hear anything. No?

How about now?

How about now?

Hello, hello.

The feedback's still the same.

Feedback's still the same.

It's actually much worse.

It's actually much worse.

Significantly worse feedback.

Go to your audio mixer.

Okay.

Okay. Do you see where it says audio?

Do you see where it says audio?

Yeah.

All right. All right. Okay. yeah all right all right

okay go down

do you see what says speaker

for co-hosting creators

for co-hosting creators

scroll all the way down

scroll all the way down

yeah

okay put that, put that.

Okay, put that.

To anything else.

To anything else.

I'm going to look like I'm fucking working at a...

Oh, I can't do it.

These are like the call center

uh

go to speaker for co-hosting creators

and try to put it something else

all right what about now

hello hello hello hello no

no it's still what about no

what about no hello go to your audio go to your audio

yeah and just mute that just mute that actually let me.

You just don't want to lose aura with the headphones. I know, I know.

Who cares?

Who cares?

All right.

What the fuck?

I can't, I can't, why can I fucking hear him through headphones?

You have to go to audio? You have to go to audio?

And change your...

Change.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Now there's...

This is really bad.

This is really...

What the fuck, bro?

How do I do this?

General science.

Default microphone.

Hello.

Hello?

Hello?

They are we good?

No, we're not good. No, we're not good.

Togle echo cancellation.

It's on.

The mic is on.

The mic is on?

The echo cancellation is on.

Not for me.

Not for me.

When I talk, I hear it through your speaker.

When I speak, when I speak it coming from you.

What about no?

Hello? Hello?

Hello?

Yes, it's the same.

It's the same.

Jesus Christ. Bro, I don't, I don't know. Hello.

Are you an op?

Yes or no?

No.

I literally

disconnected Carlos.

It told me to disconnect

Carlos and I just did.

We don't have a lot of time left. That's why. This is not working.

So I wanted to co-host it with Carlos, but here's the problem. This is what I realized from doing it with Eddie. When I do the co-host,

what ends up happening is that we can't even bring people on.

So let me call them and just tell them. You cannot have guests on when you're co-hosting.

No, I tried it.

We tried it with Eddie.

It didn't even work.

Bro, I just remember something.

When I did this with Eddie,

when you're co-hosting, you can't bring on guests.

So to do multi-guest, one of us,

you have to, if you're on desktop,

you can't join my stream as a multi-guest.

So we just can't, can only on what he was probably on mobile himself

did you join his or he joined yours?

Yeah, or or, yeah, and if you're on desktop, you can't join mine through multi-guest,

which means we can't have more than two people.

And we can do it together.

We just can't bring other people.

That's fine.

If you want to... I just send you an interview me.

Let me know.

No, no, this is to co-host, Carlos.

This is the co-host.

This is not...

I'll just mute myself when you speak.

No, but we can't bring on guests.

If we do a co-host together, we can't bring on guests.

So how would I be able to...

We can't.

We can't We can't

Zemina Luli fuck off

Like what the fuck

Oh my god It's because of the two desktops

Uh

Yeah

You have to do it on mobile.

Yeah, you have to join through your phone.

It'll work.

I'm multi-guessed.

Yeah.

My fucking Wi-Fi's ass.

Yeah.

I guess we can't, man.

We can't do it.

We tried our best.

We tried our best.

No, I'm streaming. We tried our best.

No, I'm streaming.

I'm streaming it.

No, because I'm in a green place.

Do you understand?

I'm streaming it on kick as well.

Yeah.

Watch it.

Join us, yes.

I just TikTok Live Studio won't let you you tried it with Eddie it just doesn't work

because of the desktop

yeah

all right I see you bro

there's nobody in show Q

it's literally a party people

like that are just joining like Jesus

it's like a clown show everyone just like

I just want to join what we're only having

ops who are anti-ACP join right

you know there's some we're only having ops who are anti-ACP join, right?

You know, there's some groups and sects that are like,

I just like having a circle jerk.

And they just like talking to each other and just like patting each other on a back,

on their back, right? right you know like i don't

see the purpose of doing that online at all k c mcgregor okay you're australian infrared guy for

sure all right it's not going to happen.

Anyway, the ACP is the only new thing that's happened to the U.S. left in 10 years.

Everything else is a dead end.

And this is the only path.

This is the only way forward.

Okay?

Now, if you can't see that, if there's something about that, that's too confusing to you, and you want to instead go off of what?

YouTube videos, like by a guy who literally sounds like this.

My name is Brandon.

And what's the substance of that video?

It's been comprehensively debunked.

Every single anti-ACP thing you've ever seen on the internet has been comprehensively debunked.

Test it.

Test a single claim that's made about our party against the chairman of that party, which is me, by the

way, and see if it can hold

to scrutiny.

The ACP is the only thing.

This was the most horrific so far.

I mean, we can turn it around for sure.

So far, this is the most horrific TikTok we've ever done.

First of all, right off the bat, we get restricted.

And then Carlos joints. and then for 25 minutes, we are in purgatory.

And so we've had a very rough start, everyone, but we're back now, and we're good now.

It was quite horrific, quite bad.

And, you know, y'all should

just drop 20 subs because you feel bad for me.

You should just drop the 20.

Just drop 20 subs because you feel so. I'm just kidding.

I'm just kidding. Anyway.

Uh, where are all the anti-ACP cultists?

And I have to say something to these TikTokers.

When I'm muted on your end, it's because

I chose to mute you on your end,

because you're not the revolutionary subject.

If you are an infrared fan,

it's like, what are you even doing on TikTok?

We're here to get anti-ACP people, all right?

All the people that are here that are not on the green place, it's just kind of like...

You're basically larping as TikTok viewers. You're not real TikTok viewers. You're basically larping as TikTok viewers

you're not real TikTok viewers

you're basically just

green viewers

who move to TikTok

we're trying to get

the TikTok people

all right

for the algorithm

you know I'll we'll just go in cold.

That's it.

The whole point is to go in cold.

No, we don't need algal boosting.

We go in cold.

We let the haters algo boost us. We let the haters Algo boost us.

Let the Normies Algo boost us.

It's a test. You understand?

What's the difference between you and CPUSA?

The difference between us and CPUSA

is that we're

not Democrats

Australia

what the fuck is up

bro

thank you for the 10

uh

CPUSA

have been

our defunct

reconstituted

party we reconstituted

them but they are Democrats and nothing more there's they're been our defunct reconstituted party, we reconstituted them.

But they are Democrats and nothing more.

They're Democrats. They're also

Jainists.

They have nothing to do with

Marxism, Leninism.

They're just milk toast

Reformist Democrats.

What can you do? Why do you guys say chapters that didn't join your organization did join?

We never claim that every single member of the club joined.

We simply said that representatives from those clubs who were part of the petition movement

joined us.

We recognized them as authorized representatives of their club because they were the only people that represented the independent will of their club that wasn't just acquiescing and towing along with the Joe Sims click.

The petition movement was about whether or not the CPSA should still tell the Democrats.

Every single club that had people that were advocating for a petition to have a referendum on Proposition 5 or whatever,

we recognize them as the legitimate voices and authority of the party.

So we never said that every single member of the club defected and joined ACP.

We simply said that authorized representatives of that club, authority being defined

on the basis of

whether they're acting in an independent capacity

signed

in the declaration of the

ACP.

Are you Muslim?

Yes. I am. Is ACB considered patriotic?

As any Communist Party in history was, there's nothing extraordinarily patriotic about us compared to the norm for communist parties in the past.

Capitalism is so much better. Why are you lying?

We get it, bro. You're an Epstein fan. It's like, what are you saying? You're literally a Lper. What do you mean? Capitalism is better?

How? In what way? Elaborate.

I mean, what are you even talking about?

Did you, are you probably, you probably

bought the very phone

that you're watching this TikTok on using

Cal She.

You're probably using Calci to just buy thingshi. You're probably using

Kalshi to just buy things now.

You're talking about how capitalism is better. You're literally

a debt slave. What are you talking about?

I want to debate you

on MMT.

I think the debt jubilee is economic

and political suicide.

I don't care.

It's just not an interesting debate.

Secure is literally

a federal agent, by the way.

Literal Fed.

Yeah, Clarnah, not Kalshi. Klarna.

Klarna. Yeah, you probably used Klarna.

Oh, you can't mention that on whatever.

Thoughts on Madeline Pendleton.

Would you support a communist far-left organization or a big tent in America?

F-R-S-O, PSL, and any M-BF-R-S-L? America.

FRSO, PSL, and any MLs who for whatever reason are in DSA, if all of them came together and said we want to do a big tent, we would tap in.

I mean, I can't unilaterally decide that,

but I would say I personally would consider,

I would be very open to that personally.

See, notice how, you know, I'm not petty.

Yeah, if they all said, let's tap in.

Of course, why not?

Okay, Professor Garito invites me to co-host. Bro, for the last time, I can't co-host. We can't bring up guests.

There's no way we can do a multi-guest stream more than two people if we co-host

you have to join multi-guest if you can't join it we can't do it

fuck sake

can you explain the new party?

I don't know what that is.

Are you going to movement?

What does that mean?

If communism is good, why does capital is have more more aura and why do I make more money?

Yeah, you're going to make a lot of money when your Klarna debts pay off, I'm sure.

An actual destiny fan in the chat, that's crazy. In the wild.

I've never seen that in a long time.

The EDM Festival in Detroit.

Well, no, I'm about to be a 30-year-old man, so I don't go to EDM festivals because I'm

about to be a 30-year-old man.

Imagine you're a 30-year-old man, you're going to year old man you're going to edm

festivals what do I look like to you

you know and also in principle it's like

look at me look at me

imagine me

just hold on Imagine me.

Just hold on.

Look at me.

Picture me at an EDM festival.

What am I doing?

What am I doing there?

No, no, think about it.

Like, what am I doing?

What would I be doing there?

Think about it.

What am I doing there?

Why would I be there? That doesn't even make any sense.

That's like going and seeing Progosion at an EDM.

Why would he be there?

Why would Progosion be at an EDM festival?

You know?

Why would Progosion be there?

Doing what?

For what? Do I look as rare? doing what for what

do I look Israeli do I look Israeli uh... c m you are a fan you the fact you're a fan of that streamer that you're just

self-evidently defeated because you exist

being a fan of that streamer you just defeated yourself by existing there's

nothing i could say

what was my reaction?

I was on the fire rises. I didn't like

how they put us under Caleb Maupin. They're

so outdated. The fire rise is super outdated.

Even that it was wrong.

Nobody made Caleb the leader of anything,

even when we were friendly

with him.

But the fact that they still have us in a coalition.

Why am I unrestricted?

Again!

Harassment and bullying.

Oh, okay. I forgot I wasn't using the right voice

Hey what's up

Oz

Have I spoken to you before?

No

All right what do you want?

Yeah so I'm wondering if you would be

willing to affirm the proposition that

communism is good for the purpose of the debate?

Yeah. I'll say

great. All right. Great. Okay.

Do you have a better than good. All right.

I'll take the negation.

You can make your argument.

I'm banning Zemana forever for requesting.

Zemena, you're banned.

I'm not even dealing with this anymore ever again.

You're banned.

Mute account.

Entire life.

Go ahead. mute account entire life go ahead yeah so

with regard to your position

being the affirmative

I'll just be looking for an argument

to support the prop

okay P1 or P2

presumably arguments that do not have a premise one start out with the first premise rather than the second.

Okay, P3 or P4 or PP?

Yeah, so like there's still the same kind of reasoning.

Or Pee Pee or PooP-Poo. Is this...

Can you speak as a human being?

Can you speak as a human being?

When I say debate,

I mean a

normal human debate.

I'm not talking about

some robotic

propositional logic game.

Yeah.

If you're the enemy of clarity,

if you don't like logic,

I am absolutely the enemy

of analytic philosophy being

shoved in context.

It doesn't fucking belong in.

This isn't mathematics.

This is some kind of abstract vacuum.

Thankfully, analytic

philosophy doesn't encompass the entirety

of logic, so hopefully we can give

some logical arguments. No, right, it doesn't. And a debate

between human beings is not

a debate between

formal machines, okay?

So if you could just get to whatever point, if you could just get to whatever point,

if you could just get to whatever point

you wanted to make without pee-pee and poo-pooing,

that would be great.

Yeah, well, since you're taking the affirmative

on the proposition,

I don't want to hear anything about propositions or affirmatives.

Make a point.

Go ahead.

Yes.

Are you just,

are you saying that you won't give an argument to the effect of your money from

communism?

I said communism is good.

What is your response?

Go ahead.

Yeah, that's not an argument. That's just a claim.

Okay. Well, that's my, okay, my claim is that. Okay. Yes. Hold on. Hold on. Red cap. Let me explain

something to you. Every argument is always relative. You might want to try to read.

It's always relative. So might want to try to read. It's always relative.

So if you're claiming, oh, that's merely a claim, not an argument, what defines it?

What qualifies something as an argument?

Yeah, there are a few methods of argument, inductive, deductive, and abductive, right? And there's going to be a very clear structure that each of these take on as such that it's not going to be one statement. The only thing that defines an argument is a common object in contention. That's it. As long as something is in contention, as long as something is in contention,

and there are at least two people, right, for whom that object is relevant or meaningful,

and its significance is in some way in contention, their attitude and relation toward it will

constitute an argument. That's in real life,

by the way. In real life, when two people are on the sidewalk and a fire hydrant is broken and they have a

difference of opinion as to how to fix it, they're arguing over how to fix it. Now, they're not making propositions. They're not strictly

defining the parameters of their claim according to propositional logic, but every sane normal

human being will look at those two people and say they're arguing. So you're engaging in a

ridiculous caricature of human beings by arguing. So you're engaging in a ridiculous

caricature of human beings

by talking by reducing

logical. I'm being ridiculous.

Okay.

Logic and propositional logic

are not the same thing.

There's different kinds of logic.

Drop logic, second order, like there are

predicate logics, there are different kinds of

non-classical logic. Like, what is your point?

My point is, what

argument are you here to actually

make in substance? What's the

substantive argument?

I'm here to make an argument against communism,

but I would hope that you would have affirmed.

Are you against communism then give you.

Are you against communism then?

Yeah, you haven't given me any particular argument to respond to.

The onus is not upon me to give you an argument to respond

to in the debate you would i am the chairman of the american communist party all right now you should

be the chairman of logic and understanding how burdens of proof work you took the affirmative

okay two people are on the sidewalk and there's a fire hydrant and they have a difference as to how to fix it.

And they're yelling at each other and they're speaking at each other, communicating different ways of fixing it.

Are they arguing? Yes or no?

I mean, they're engaged in some rationalist. Are they arguing? Yes or no? I mean, they're engaged in some rational are they arguing? Are they arguing? Yes or no? Yeah, I wouldn't say that. You're not human. You wouldn't

call that an argument. So if an ordinary person on the street, if an ordinary person on the street So if an ordinary person on the street,

if an ordinary person on the street,

you that I'm not human.

Oh my God, I got to put my glasses on.

Unless that they're defining their propositions

and making syllogistic propositional logical forms,

that's not actually an argument

the only

the only way

to have an argument

I don't play

you're thinking

propositions

bro

my proposition

is that

saloth Tsar

and you

should meet

who's

who is that

don't worry I don't like glasses wears I don't like glasses wears I don't And you should meet. Who's, who is that?

Don't worry.

I don't like glasses wears.

I don't like robots.

I don't like formalists.

I like common sense. This is just clarity with regards to logic.

We could lock in and get linear.

You do not look good on the meta-rambles.

Go on...

I don't care about...

You just get an argument right now, bro.

You want to talk about looking good, put your camera on, first of all, you boomer.

Second of all...

I said, with regard to the meta-

Nobody cares about looking good.

Are you allergic to substance?

Nobody cares.

Listen, go out in public and speak how you're speaking and see if what you're saying is

clear to a normal person. I would give a semantic reduction on any

term that is unclear to you. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. The view, the narrow

confines by which you define what constitutes an argument

is anything but clear to a normal person a normal person defines an argument the way i defined it

okay that there's just something in contention that people are having a discourse.

Well, thankfully, I'm not talking to a normal person.

I'm talking to the chairman of the ACP.

The master of logic and rhetoric and substance.

Why should I, go on, what you are defining as logic is something called formal logic,

which only exists within a very specific... There's informal logic that

uses word. This is such a basic wonder.

I've not proprietized my definition

with regard to that. Your

definition of logic only exists

within a very, very narrow

specialized field. I have not given a definition of specialized field of the mental division of labor.

Okay. It has nothing to do with logic.

If you want a definition of logic, I'll be charitable and give one to you, and I'll tell you that it's the study of preserving.

Okay. You're claiming that the onus is upon me to demonstrate

you took the affirmative for the prop of course the onus is on you why would the if you want to debate about

communism and you think communism is bad just tell me why you think it's bad yeah i've I've got an argument to the effect, but I'm waiting to hear what you have.

What's your argument? So, like, premise one, if type B error theory is true, then it's false that communism is more than good.

Why do you have to use numbers and abstract? What, what justifies the necessity of abstract variables and numbers here

p1 p2 p3 why do you need to talk in this way we both know i think what we mean when we refer to

what modal scope are you using necessity right now?

What are you talking about?

With regard to the modal scope, these are modal terms, bro, so there's going to be a certain scope.

Like, I could say that it would be impossible for you to jump to the moon and you might ask what modal scope I'm utilizing I would never ask about a fucking modal scope there if someone talked about possibility with respect to physical but because I'm a human being if someone said they could jump to the moon, I'm not going to be talking about modal

scopes. I'm going to say, prove it. How?

What do you mean by that? Because I'm a good

faith human being that understands that

there's a... There is a

sensibility. There is a

sensibility implicit

in the exchange of

communication discourse and in all

speech which you have to take for granted

in which you cannot formally define

with exactness. That is a fact.

Okay? So if someone says they're going to

jump to the moon, if somebody says they can jump to the moon,

somebody says they can jump to the moon,

the last thing on my mind, unlike you,

because I'm a normal human being, is going to be

asking them about the modals, whatever.

I'm going to say, what do you mean by...

The modals, whatever, bro. You look so good right now

in this meta ramble bro keep going keep going bro

good in front of who look good in front of who like like the audience who do you think i'm

talking about ones ones if you think this person is just a ridiculous larping nerd.

Once of you think they're unreasonable...

You said I look bad in front of my audience.

Let's see. So for the 500 people

here, there's not even a single

two that I could see. Let's look at TikTok.

Appeal to the audience. I don't care.

You just said I don't look good in front of my audience. You're allergic to the audience i don't care you just said i don't look good in front of my audience you're allergic to

the substance bro you and this you just said i don't look good in front of my audience did you not

you just said in front of your own audience you don't look good right i don't think you look

person who's watching this agrees right? Not a single person who's watching this

agrees with you. Not a single person.

I don't see a single two

anywhere. No one agrees with you.

But I grant that you can't read.

So like, you know, you probably wouldn't see the Tuesday.

You just said I look bad in front of my audience.

We just took a poll.

Not a single person.

Muting is running, bro.

You're allergic to the substance.

Because you can't control.

One person, one person said two, Ave.

You have one person.

Dude, there have been several.

There are several twos, bro.

Go look and read if you can, man.

One, two, three.

Okay, overwhelming.

There are even, there even more twos.

Look at that.

We've got some more twos.

How many total people do you think?

Use your dispositional power of literacy and go through...

How many total people do you think are watching this, to be clear?

Yeah, according to the top of...

You recount it's 56, right?

Okay. Well, it's not just 56. I promise you that.

There's an additional 500 people watching.

Congratulations.

They're all saying that you're running from substance.

Okay.

Okay, let's actually define that claim.

Let's put the same formal exactness and precision you seek to impose upon me on that claim.

Everyone is claiming I'm running, really?

No, I'm claiming that you're running.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Why are you walking it back?

You just said everyone is claiming I'm running.

I don't even see a single person claiming that.

I did not say that.

I said, you are running from.

Once if he said that everyone's saying you're running. Did he not just say that. I said, you are running from... Once if he said

that everyone's saying

you're running.

Did he not just say that?

No, I'm saying you're running.

We can play it back.

We're going to play back

the clip of you saying that.

Because that's exactly what you just said.

Bro,

and then as soon as we get to that and get that so i don't want to hear out of your mouth going

forward i don't want to hear out of your mouth i don't want to hear out of your mouth who looks

good or bad in front of the audience let's get to the word you're allergic to the substance

you're allergic to the let's get to the meat and potatoes. Okay. Yeah, you

affirmed a prop. I even was terrible enough to give an argument, right? What's your argument?

We still have not gotten anywhere. What's your argument? Yeah. So again, premise one,

if type B air theory is true, then it is false that communism is morally good.

Premise 2, type B error theory is true.

What theory? What theory? What theory?

You didn't even let me, bro. You didn't even let me get out. I don't even hear

what you're saying. Type 2 error theory? What the fuck are you talking about?

Type B error theory, bro. You're confusing letters and numbers, man.

This is pretty basic.

Type B, what?

Type B error theory?

What is type B error theory?

It's a position with regard to meta-ethics that claims that all first-order normative

statements are false.

What does that have to do with anything that's real

in the real world? Because you made a first-order

normative statement with regard to communism

being good. You predicated it as such

that you've assigned

it. Goodness. This guy's

like, some guys like sitting somewhere.

He's like, you know, McDonald's is pretty good.

No, you just said something meaningless because a type

B error theory. Yeah, not.

Not under use of good is with regard to first

what are you talking about? This is such a low-tier blender.

I think-

I think helping the homeless is good.

No, no, no, no.

There's no meaningful sense in which you could say that because of type B error theory that says

that a propositional normative claim about a propositional normative claim is impossible

because you said, no, no, no, you said serving the homeless

is good, it's impossible.

You're spurging.

You're spurging on meta right now.

Okay, so to be clear, your argument.

Get back to something.

No, no, no, no.

Shut your boomer mouth and stop splurging nonsense.

Everything I'm saying, everything I'm saying is not a meta argument. It has precision.

You're constantly screaming and you are screaming

and soiling out about my tone

and how I sound and how I'm allergic to this and that.

Guys, once if you've heard him

to say the word allergic

more than a dozen times by now.

You can't even get my

rhetoric right that you're stealing.

How many times

have you said allergic?

Bro.

How many times you said allergic?

I'm going to keep

saying it's allergic until you're acquainted with the substance.

Okay, repeat, repeat your argument.

Your argument is that type B error theory says that normative propositional claims.

Yeah, normative propositional claims are impossible to make.

And it's mostly.

Communism is morally good.

Premise 2. Type B error theory is true. Conclusion, therefore it is false. Why should we believe it's true that we can't make propositional normative claims?

You can. You have the dispositional power, too. I'm saying that as predicated as such they're all

incorrect what are you talking

about what that's not an argument you're not making

an argument and you literally can

you have the dispositional causal power

to make moral claims

but that doesn't change I can of whether they're true or false.

I just made the claim. I'm granting

that low tier, holy tracking

issue.

I can't believe this

a real person.

Holy tracking is true. What is this?

What is this? It's so crazy. It's so crazy what is this

it's so crazy I affirm

two times in a row that you have the dispositional

power to make false arguments

like a feature dream what's your argument

is beep boop beep boop

what is your argument

if all you heard is beep bo, that's just a comprehension issue.

You're just R2D2.

You're just R2D2.

You're just R2D2.

Bro, you have no substance.

C3PO.

You're literally C3PO.

You live on meta.

You're on meta island right now, okay repeat your repeat this is a troll

100% good troll though not a not a troll at all not a troll at all okay go go ahead and repeat

your argument about why communism isn't good go Go ahead. Yeah, premise one,

this is going to be the third time

that I'm trying to give this, right?

So if type B error theory is true,

then it is false that communism is morally good,

right?

Premise 2 is type B air theory is true,

and the conclusion is,

therefore it is false that communism is morally good.

All right, so you're a troll.

100% you're a trod.

I'm not a troll.

I gave a syllogistic deductive argument

and you think that's true.

How low tier is that?

No, you made an assertion.

You simply asserted that it is true

without arguing why.

You think that's an assertion?

There's a conclusion that is supported by premises

as such where if the premises were all true,

that guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

If this was a mere

computer and you're just entering variables,

then what you were

saying would function

it would function

but

what I'm saying

does function

if you have

no no no

it would function

mechanic

no no listen listen

if this

if this

drop logic

I want to school

you boy I want to school you

because the

I remember I

remember I remember I-

debated the vegan guy.

He was doing the same gibberish,

nonsense, robotic stuff.

Look, if by gibberish,

you mean logic.

If this was an enclosed system

or an enclosed computer

with fixed parameters, then there would be a function.

But because no such fixed parameters...

You are literally talking nonsense on men and just get to the substance.

Okay, look.

Just get to the substance.

It is impossible to establish fixed parameters in the way that you can with a computer when it comes to

human communication. You can't establish these fixed parameters. This is

essentially unintelligible. Bro, just get back to the substance. What do you mean

it's unintelligible? You're claiming that communism... This is an incoherent

meta-ramble, bro. Just get back to the

substance that you're so afraid of. You can't

justify why the P.P.

error theory is correct. You simply

asserted it is. I have arguments to be

affected. It is. If you were willing to critically

engage in the dialectic for that long...

Go ahead. Make your argument.

Why is it true? I've given an argument. What argument

with regard to a premise that I've given do you

what further substantiation of?

Okay, hold on. Don't interrupt me.

I just want to be clear about where we are as far as the record.

Just to be clear.

You're saying, do you think communism is good? I said yes. Okay. Now the parameters here and how communism is all of that is open. There can be no assumptions about that. Okay, we just have to count on good faith human communication. But you're saying, okay, here's my refutation of you.

Premise 1

is the, you know,

you're making the claim. Communism is good.

Premise 2 is that type 2B theory

is correct. Or sorry, type 2B

theory, bud, what are we talking about?

Premise 2 is if type

Are you acquainted with the tracking train?

Shut or stop interrupting me.

Stop interrupting me.

Stop interrupting me.

Shut your mouth and stop interrupt to me.

I'm just trying to keep track of where we are so far.

Stop interrupting me.

Stop.

Just keep your mouth shut.

Keep your mouth shut. Keep your mouth shut. Just keep your mouth shut. Keep your mouth shut.

Keep your mouth shut.

Just keep your mouth shut.

Literally just keep your mouth shut for two seconds.

Your argument is that you know, you're acknowledging some supposed premise, okay, and then you're saying, if type 2B theory is correct, then it is not good.

And then your third, I guess, proposition is that it is correct, type 2,

whatever be theory,

and then therefore communism is not good.

But how do you

justify 3?

This has been

an inadequate recapitulation

of the point I've made.

How do you justify

P3?

Can you justify P3?

There was no P3 in my original argument, bro.

Hop back on the tracking train, then.

We've lost it.

How do you justify P3?

How do you justify P3?

Dude, I never made a P3.

I can't justify something I've not made, Fred.

Okay, then repeat your argument against

so we can keep track of all the P's and PPs that you're...

It's going to be very simple.

If you understand...

How many Pee's are you collecting?

If you understand that one and then there's like two, right,

you able to understand something like this.

So premise one is just going to be if type b error

theory is true then it is false that communism is morally good and then premise two is type b error theory

is true okay how do you justify that how do you justify that yeah so if you're asking for an argument

right so actually for an argument...

Right, so actually make an argument.

Yeah, how do you justify why it's correct?

So, if...

Okay, premise one.

If morality in the strict sense is ontologically queer

and morality in the strict sense

is explanatorially dispensable,

then morality in the strict sense does not exist.

Premise to morality and strict sense is ontologically queer.

What does that mean?

Yeah, so like with regard to the empirical properties

of the method of investigation that is like scientific we would not stumble upon facts

in the moral domain or moral norms

you're claiming you're reducibly normative facts or irreducibly

normative concepts norms things like that are going to be,

in the words of Mackey, ontologically queer.

Okay, hold on. You're claiming that

you're saying ontologically queer

means that morality,

you're basically more or less claiming to

translate this into the English language. You're saying

that science only concerns itself with the investigation of, you know, dead matter, more or less, and morality has no significance with respect to the object of science, modern science. Is that what you're claiming?

No.

Okay, so what are you claiming?

With regard to valid methods of inquiry, none would lead you to moral truths.

How do you define valid, though?

Yeah, by valid, I'm just taking a standard view of what it would mean to know something and then to investigate it.

Own it. Don't just say standard. Own it and justify it or else you're guilty of some kind of normative presumption. I think the method of which that we come to know

things is empirical. I'm not a rationalist, right? I would deny

synthetic knowledge. Just to be clear, the scientific method is one of the

most philosophically, it's by default, philosophically contentious

even in mainstream standard institutions that rule our society.

So you have to take ownership.

You have to take ownership.

There's no broad anything.

You have to take ownership of a very...

You have to take ownership.

There's a ridiculously false statement to claim there's not one thing.

Then I accuse you of,

then you're guilty of,

of,

if any X is broad,

that it doesn't exist.

You are guilty.

You are guilty. Clearly riddled with counter examples.

That is you are guilty.

You are guilty of presupposing a specific normative framework in which the notion of valid has meaningfulness, okay?

You think the notion of validity is not meaningful?

No, I'm saying that yours is 100% normative because you cannot

Yeah, I don't

Yeah, because you have to make,

you have to appeal to some kind of,

uh,

you know,

you have to appeal to something that by your own definition

isn't even valid.

You can't even own a specific position

with respect to the

philosophy of science. This is barely intelligible.

Own a specific philosophy

of science that you will own and defend.

Own a specific philosophy of science.

Yeah, own it. It is incomprehensible.

What do you mean by own it?

Defend and justify a specific position with respect to the philosophy of science that could allow us...

I'm not taking a position on the philosophy of science. I'm just affirming basic empiricism.

There's basic empiricism has been discredited by modern physics

It's been discredited

You you think like concept empiricism

Has been discredited by scientific studies

Basic empiricism is no longer regarded with seriousness in the philosophy of science.

Please produce any evidence that empiricism of the conceptual variety has been debunked by science.

Conceptual empiricism is no longer empiricism so what are you talking about yes it is read the philosophical literature it's one of the dominant two ways in which people talk about empiricism with regard to conceptual empiricism okay Okay. But the dominant position

is not that.

The dominant, yeah, I'm waiting

now for your scientific evidence to the

effect of the concept or empiricism

more broadly has been debunked by

science.

Well, for example, the fact that meaningful scientific claims about reality and no way can be reduced to the human senses anymore.

For example, the level...

You think that's...

Oh, my God, bro.

That's so embarrassed.

The original...

Impiricism is not the claim that we only know things by a process of our five senses.

That's basic empiricism, though.

No, it's not.

Empiricism affirms the validity of inference.

What kind of a low-tier blunder is this?

Do you even know what

the root word of empiricism comes from?

What does it mean for something to be

empirical? What does it mean for something

to be empirical? I'm not concerned with

anything but the substance and I'm still

waiting for that scientific

study that is disproved empiricism.

It's not a specific study.

It's the fact that scientific institutions can...

Yeah, there's no particular research.

Scientific institutions can no longer confine themselves to the narrow parameters of David Hume's empiricism. Absolutely they can't.

You think that I'm still utilizing the same kind of empiricism that Hume did?

You said basic empiricism. That's what you said. Yeah. What's going to be the argument

that basic empiricism is synonymous or has an identity

relation as such that it obtains only when David Hume's empiricism obtains?

Because that's the most raw and unelaborated form of empiricism that there is.

Right.

I actually don't even know what you could possibly mean by that.

Okay.

Well, you can continue to play stupid and...

Yeah, I'm just...

I will play stupid if you think this is stupid

until I get some scientific evidence

as such that empiric system has been debunk.

Okay.

Are you familiar with the

post-positivist tradition?

Yeah, I'm familiar

with what's happened in analytic philosophy,

broadly speaking.

Durham, Kine, thesis, or whatever?

Yeah, Quine.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's, okay.

Would you call these people empiricists?

With regard to their specific position, I'm agnostic or whether they were empiricists or not.

Why are you agnostic?

Because I don't know enough about Quine and Durham's particular philosophical views to say whether either of those philosophers in Perthierism.

If you don't know about Kine and Durham, how can you meaningfully talk about the mainstream view of the philosophy of science within prevailing institutions?

That doesn't follow. What's going to be the argument for that?

Because they are because they are, because they are in their particular views have a monopoly on the philosophy of science. They don't have a monopoly, but if you're, if you're even minimally acquainted with the contemporary philosophy of science, you should know who those people were and what they're positions were. I know a good bit of quine. I don't necessarily know everyone of Quine's abuse.

Were they empiruses?

Yeah, so would you like me to repeat the answer that I've just given?

Or would you like to get back to the substance and tell me what science in particular disputes or debunks the juris?

You have already shot yourself in the foot and blundered when you claim that validity

can only be defined within the narrow confines, not simply

of empiricism, but of a vague and broad and

and and a loose reference to empiricism,

a loose reference to empiricism that you cannot even justify

with any specificity.

What's going to be the argument that I can't justify it, pal?

With any specificity?

No, you can't.

What's your specific position?

I'm giving specificity. No, you can't. What's your specific position? I'm giving specificity.

Your specific position, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, it's a lucidate a variety of empiricism. Your specific position with respect to what qualifies as a valid, uh, a description of reality is

an unwillingness

to take responsibility for any

specific philosophy of science

besides what you call

broad empiricism

which is a meaningless

reference

you've given no arguments this is puricism, which is a meaningless reference.

Bro, you've given no arguments.

This has been unsubstantive.

That you can think that. You can, like, still waiting on you to affirm the proper,

if you go to bed,

you can go to bed tonight,

that it's been debunked.

You can go to bed tonight feeling like I haven't made an argument. That's fine.

Yeah, I don't have to feel that way because I know

I know it's been that way. The audience will decide. I know that you've not

made an inductive, deductive or abductive argument.

Let let the audience decide who's made an argument and who hasn't.

Yeah, I've clearly given arguments and i've even given you the premises and conclusions as such to where even someone like you can track

along with your arguments so the only person that would be in contention here for having not

given an argument is you you're you're claiming morality doesn't exist because according to the narrow confines of what you claim

broad empiricism, the standard of validity with which we can measure or talk about reality properly in any meaningful sense cannot include morality. Well, I would say that your way of

measuring reality is clearly at fault because... Yeah, that just doesn't follow. That doesn't follow.

Okay, well, it doesn't follow. I guess morality doesn't exist because you say so.

Okay, so you admit that what you said was a non-sequitur. Okay. At least we agree on something like that. Would you say that there are moral presuppositions that do exist in the majority of ways in which people talk about society and history and politics? Are you asking if I think that language with regard to the moral domain

has like a realist appearance? Yeah, that's like actually one of the things that type

the error theory argues against with regard to the semantic thesis. All right. Let me let me simplify

this. So I know that you're not going to accept a simplification because you like to obscure things and needlessly complicate them.

No, I'll give you a simple. I'll give you a simple example. Okay, so you're on the sidewalk and somebody pushes a grandma down the subway and then someone sees them and I say that was wrong. You're claiming that he just said a nothing, something meaningless. There's just no significance. That's non-cognitivism. I'm affirming the cognizist position. Like how do you infer that I advocate

type B error theory to that I'm a non-cognitive?

Does type B error theory permit us?

analytically true with regard?

Does type B error theory permit

us to acknowledge that pushing grandmas

down the stairs is wrong?

Yeah, so type B air theory is committed to the view that whenever people utter moral propositions, right, in the affirmative where they're assigning something to be like good or bad, that they're systematically mistaken.

Okay, so they're mistaken. When they say that,

Grandma's...

I'm still going to need

an argument to the effect

that I'm committed to

not being honest

about what your position is.

You're claiming that...

I am.

You're claiming that when I say...

Okay, to be clear,

when someone on the sidewalk

says pushing grandmas down the stairs is wrong, they're making a systematically false argument, right?

If it is with regard to a first order normative moral judgment, then it will be systematically false.

Okay, it's systematically false to say

we shouldn't throw grandmas down the stairs, correct?

Yeah, if you endorse some other norms

that are outside the scope of type B,

there will be some norms that are not contentious

under that framework.

That's it.

So when someone...

I don't think you understand that some...

Let me ask you a question.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think sexual contact

with children is wrong?

Yeah, of course, I have the personal moral intuition that it is wrong but you would regard that

as a systematically false or mistaken position would you not i don't think that it is neither

permissible or impermissible

with regard to the moral domain.

Why are you such a coward? When I talked about

pushing grandma, you are very liberal

about claiming it's a systematic error

with respect to pushing grandmas down

the stairs. Because there's a very

important difference that must be articulated between my preferences

as such with regard to for cerebral parents and which ones are actually true.

But is it actually true that sexual contact with children is wrong?

I'm still just going to affirm the type B error theory thesis and still with regard to my

intuitions, they will be unchanged.

Okay, hold on.

But according to your type two error theory thesis, there's nothing wrong with that.

There is something wrong with regard to my intuitions but it isn't morally with

are your intuitions are correct are your intuitions a correct reflection of reality my intuitions

are correct in truth tracking with regard to what my specific moral values are do those values

reflect anything real or meaningful in the sense?

I have no idea what you mean by reflect anything real or meaningful.

Hold on.

The very argument you used to supposedly debunk or refute the claim that communism is good, you somehow cannot apply here in the same way. Why? Why the double standard?

Yeah, I'm making the claim that my intuitions as such do not support that. I think it is wrong

but I don't think that with regard

to your moral proposition that communism

was specifically wrong, right?

You index that to the moral

for purposes of your argument

for purposes of the very narrow argument

that you forwarded, okay,

which you're calling an argument, let's replace

communism with protecting children.

Protecting children is good.

What may, if we just swap those things out,

what's the difference?

I have the shared moral intuition

that that is a good thing to protect children. What's the difference? I have the shared moral intuition that that is a good

thing to protect children. What I'm

saying is with regard to moral norms

that would not be predicated as such

in the positive. Type 2B

theory.

If it is

Type 2B theory. This is crazy.

What do you mean by defend?

Yeah, so I subscribe to a specific thing called fict.

Muting to dodge.

My mic just got disconnected. So, ones if it's good.

Ones if it's good now.

All right.

Okay, so you just fall flat.

You just completely humiliated yourself and basically shit your pants.

How does it feel?

Yeah, with regard to what do you think I specifically...

Okay, what...

You just said that normative moral claims about reality

cannot are not

valid according to

you know science or whatever

that was not at all the claim

I asked you to justify the type 2b

theory whatever whatever you want to call it

and your justification was that according to the standard of validity that we get from

broad empiricism that we cannot justifiably make any normative claims about reality and that

morality doesn't exist.

That's what you said. You said

morality doesn't exist. Did you not say that? Yeah, I said morality in the strict sense doesn't

exist. Okay, you're claiming morality in the strict sense doesn't exist. So in the strict sense,

can we say that it is correct that protecting children is good?

Yeah, so in a strict sense, with regard to my intuitions, I would affirm that protecting children is good. Okay, hold on, hold on.

But I don't think that anything with regard, I don't think that anything with regard to the moral domain is right or wrong, because I don't think that right or wrong are valid concepts or that they apply to things.

So sexual contact with children is neither right or wrong according to you.

Own it.

No.

Just with regard to morality and its status is objective.

I have the moral intuition as with regard to most people that these things are wrong.

But is your moral intuition correct?

I would recommend that you actually read a paper called gastronomic realism by this guy named Don Loeb.

There's a distinction between saying something.

Are you confident that your moral intuition is correct?

Yes or no? Can you be confident in the correctness of your moral intuition?

My moral intuitions track the particular truth with regard...

Can you be confident it is correct? Yes or no?

Yes, because I'm just

defining this intuition with regard to a certain

psychological state of which I possess.

Is that psychological

state ontologically correct

or no?

That's an unintelligible notion. I have no

idea what ontological correctness is.

Okay, well, you used an appeal to ontology to justify the claim that morality doesn't exist, did you not?

What do you suppose that ontological correctness is?

You said ontologically queer.

Is your psychological state ontologically queer?

No, I don't think that it is queer in the same way that irreducible normativity is queer. Okay, what's the difference between irreducible normativity and the moral normative judgments that are implicit in your psychological state.

Yeah, so I'm going to have internal access to a particular seeming, right, that some things are right or wrong.

Okay.

And then with regard to that.

Because I mean, it's self-evident. wrong. Okay. And then with regard to that... What gives you that access?

Because I'm me. It's self-evident.

How? Based on what? It is self-evident. I have direct access to my own seemings. This is a confused question.

What is your seeming?

I told you what my seeming is with regard to...

How can you be certain that this is your true seeming?

It's self-evidence to me as such there is no further justification.

I'm foundationalist. This is just so confused.

Okay. So why couldn't someone say the same thing with respect to communism being good?

They can have the seeming.

The seeming is not what's in dispute.

This is ridiculously low tier.

So would you, okay, what if somebody was harming children and their seeming clearly was not disposed in the direction of protecting children

that's just a true fact given that they don't have the seeming that they want to protect children and they're not protecting children. What is what was with regard to that question? So you would you could not you can't even make the argument for example to children to behave good or bad right when you're raising them, if you have children,

if you have non-moral norms of which don't have the seeming or not, how do you

know if they have the seeming or not? How do you know?

This is sincerely if you had, if you had, if you had kids, if you had kids, if you had kids, it is ridiculously difficult. Okay, I don't care if you had if you had kids it is ridiculously difficult

okay I don't care

if you think

it's ridiculously difficult

if you had kids

and your son

who's a five year old

was stealing toys

from another kid

and bullying him

and hitting him

his seeming

I suppose is just you, immorality, I guess, and you don't share the same

moral intuitions.

How can you impose your moral intuition upon them with any justification when the only

thing you could appeal to is your own personal seeming.

Yeah, I don't think that my intuition is privileged above anyone else's with regard to my moral semen.

Including a five-year-old child that is misbehaving and stealing toys.

What do you think is the content of which a seeming could have that it would be better or worse than another in virtue of possessing? This is, again, just incoherent. So it's incoherent to teach children to not misbehave. How does that follow from what I said? I'm just saying you are so radically abstracted and alienated.

How does that follow from what I said?

That was that you simply, that does not follow.

You're saying that there is no way in which you could justify asserting and appealing to the authority of your seeming, right?

There is no authority to my seeming. It's an internal private state that I happen to ask.

So how can you make the argument? How can you convincingly make the argument to your toddler

or to anyone to your son that you're raising who's a teenager or whatever? How do you convincingly convey or make the argument to people to teach them things that are morally true or morally false? If the only thing we could fall back upon is our own personal intuitions.

Yeah, so again, with the morally true, morally false thing, right?

Like, we don't have to go over this.

I've already given an argument for why, but...

Can it be communicated with any authority? That's my question.

Can it be communicated?

I don't know what you mean by authority.

Can morality can be communicated

to any other human beings with any authority as in you can you can you can actually in a valid

way make the argument to your fellow human being that x y or z is right or wrong? Is that possible to do?

I think that the best you would get is with regard to consistency relations and what individual agents desire as such that you could utilize a hypothetical norm.

Error theory is most particularly talking about categorical

norms, right? And irreducible

reasons, these things are going to be queer.

So there wouldn't be, with regard

to hypothetical norms, a problematic

take with regard to reduction

of desires and ends,

like relationships.

Okay, so to translate that, you could not convey to another human being the superiority of one

normative claim over another or qualifying in any way

a claim with normative value,

you are unable to communicate that

to another human being

with any degree

of meaningful authority.

You can just hope...

Yeah, again, I just don't...

I don't know what authority here is not.

You could just hope that they're inherent,

mysterious, it has a mysterious origin their inherent moral intuitions and their seeming is consistent with your own right yeah again i'm just not

going to think this question is i know you're, because you just got pinned down to the ground,

and you've been completely dominated and destroyed.

And down to the ground? What do you think that

you've won on as such that you would classify

as pinning me to the ground? Because you can't

even... You can't even justify

how we as human being. Something we do

anyway, by the the way without your permission

communicate to one and another with authority right and wrong what what do you think this is you are

so ridiculously okay human beings communicate right and wrong.

They make normative claims with one and another, with authority, right?

With appeals to some kind of authority?

You're just informally question begging

if by what you mean by authority is going to be something

with regard to the moral domain.

No, authority in the sense of this is actually referring to something real and true

and not simply a reflection of my individual preferences, but fundamentally true.

So, for example, when people say it's wrong to, you know, touch children, okay, they're not simply communicating by way of language as far as the functional significance

of their language.

They're not just communicating a personal preference.

They're making an absolute...

What's the argument that they're not?

I think that it's very valid.

You think that they are.

You think it's just a personal...

You think people when they express personal... You think you think moral propositions...

You think morality is giving their opinion.

Okay.

So you think morality is just a personal preference.

That's what you think.

I think that people have moral intuitions as such

where they have particular seemings towards like first order moral props.

Like I this is just again, it kind of a nothing burger.

I think almost everyone agrees with this.

No, you completely were unable to establish how you can consistently justify a moral seeming.

I was unable. So now we're moving into a conversation about justification. I'll just affirm

phenomenal conservatism for the case of this, right? And that's going to be the theory

of propositional justification that I'm advocating.

Okay, so we started with you asking me if I think communism is good, and you're saying no, because morality doesn't exist, correct?

That's not, there's just not an accurate recapitulation of what happened at that point why why it you ultimately concluded with morality doesn't exist

so i can say communism isn't good because morality doesn't exist in the first place.

With regard to the normative moral domain, I presented an argument to the effect that

type of air theory is true that you interrupted a whole bunch, right?

We can't swap out, we can't swap out communism with protecting children? Why not?

You can swap out anything you'd like and try to predicate it morally. This is like...

Okay, so with regard to statements about unicorns, statements about unicorns are uniformly false because unicorns don't exist.

There's no proper way to predicate a unicorn. I can say that a unicorn is not red and it is also not not red or not red.

I can take the proposition and its negation with regard to unicorns and they can both be false because it's failing to obtain.

Right. So there's going to be no particular like permissibility or impermissibility that it.

Answer my question directly. Can you swap out protecting children with communism? Why or

why not? Yeah.

Will you make the same argument

in response to that?

Will your argument be the same

if I swap out protecting children with

communism? This is

simply a gotcha question.

In the same way...

Yes or no?

In the same way...

I'm not going to let you worm your way out of this.

Well, is your argument just as valid if we swap out communism with protecting children?

Yes or no?

Anything with regard... Is your argument just as valid if we swap out communism with protecting children? Yes or no? Anything with regard?

Is your argument just as valid if we swap out communism with protecting children?

Yes or no?

No, you're not going to worm your way out of it.

You're not worming your way out of it.

Yes or no?

You're not warming your way out of it, yes or no?

You're not worming your way out of it, yes or no. You're not worming your way out of it, yes or no.

You're not worming your way out of it, yes or no.

You're not worming your way out of it, yes or no.

You're not worming your way out of it, yes or no, I promise you're not.

Yes or no, if we swap out communism with protecting children,

would the argument you gave in response be just as valid?

If you're not going to let me speak, yes or no?

Answer the question.

If not going to let me speak, I can not continue the question. Yes or no? Yes or no.

Yeah, with regard to the moral domain, as the arguments put forth have been uncontested, right?

They've gone through, right?

Those particular arguments would cancel out any normative moral, right?

Propositions as such

but it doesn't change the nature of my intuition

this is like telling this is like asking you a subjectivist

okay

so your intuition

in one in one sense

your intuition let me finish this and then I'll let you talk

let me finish this not let you talk no no no no no you've said enough Let me finish this and then I'll let you talk. Let me finish this and let you talk.

No, no, no, no, no.

You've said enough.

Let me finish this.

You said enough.

You're obscuring.

Asking a subjectivist if something is objectively incorrect or objectively correct.

And then they have to say no, but they still believe it.

They still affirm that. It's just low-tier tactic to make this objectivist look bad it's like oh so you don't believe things are objectively wrong okay hold on it's like no let's a more simple question so why do you presume objectivity is implied in the normative claim of communism is good, but not protecting children as good?

That is another incomprehensible question.

Error theory has two parts to it, and one is going to be a semantic thesis.

One is going to be a semantic thesis under which the analysis

is predicated.

Is there a single response

you've given me that isn't

that's incomprehensible?

Of course it's comprehensible.

You're deliberately avoiding the argument.

You know, it's perfectly comprehensible.

You're just avoiding it because it doesn't fit within the narrow...

It doesn't fit within the narrow parameters of a very specific procedure, a very narrow

attempt to make use of language and thought and so on and so on formally.

And because I don't fit within that box

you're claiming it's unintelligible of course it's intelligible to anyone acting in good faith

you're just claiming it's not so first of all you have weaseled your way out of acknowledging

the fact

that your response

to the claim that communism is good

is bunk. It's meaningless.

You haven't refuted the argument

if your response can be applied

to literally any normative claim at all.

That's just what the theory entails with regard to the normative domain.

Again, this is simply confused.

Okay.

There's nothing specifically about communism.

I'm just going i'm just going

to parody it you're simply to this

objectivist case that i gave earlier

and point out that it's a bad faith move if you're

talking to a subjectivist to be like oh

you don't think that this terrible thing is

objectively wrong no of course it's not a bad

no it's absolutely

You're doing the exact same thing.

It's absolutely a good thing

With regard to the

If you're a subjectivist,

you absolutely are owning up

to a spineless

And cowardly in a real position.

Yeah, yeah, subjectivism. Subjectivists deserve. Subjectivists deserve to be confronting.

Subjectivists can think things are evil. Please read the gastronomic realism paper that I recommended.

I'm not going to read that paper and subjectivists deserve to be confronted with the inconsistencies within their worldview.

Even if objective preferences are no provable things based on the way that food tastes, right?

It still wouldn't invalidate that you have a preference for some food over another as such.

Again, this is a low-tier, like, gotcha attempt.

Okay, hold on, hold on.

In one case, you're reducing normative claims to personal preferences.

I object to that.

I am reduced. Say that again? Okay, can you say that, um... I object to that.

I'm reduced.

Okay, can you say that believing children should be protected is a personal preference?

Would you say that?

You can have a personal preference as such that children could or should be protected.

Yeah, of course. But you think it could only be a personal preference as such that children could or should be protected. Yeah, of course. But you think it could only be a personal preference?

No.

What else could it be?

Yeah, it could be if you

were to utter it in the moral demand

a proposition that is untrue.

Okay, so it's so, okay, speaking with respect only to statements that could be true,

if someone were to say protecting children is good, that could only, if it were to be true,

be a personal preference.

Are they, they're not true.

Your attitudes, like your doxastic attitudes are not true or false as such.

They're expressions of your preference.

Again, that's going to be...

Why are you avoiding responding directly?

You think it could only be a personal preference.

I did just respond directly. You just didn't track

the response. No, you weaseled

your way out of responding directly.

You attempted to

preempt your response with a justification.

Just directly respond. It could only be a personal

preference. Yes or no?

Yeah, you said, like, is true. The is true part is what I was objecting to because preferences and attitudes like that are true. So you think... If you hit me in the arm and I say, ouch, that's not true or false. That's an utterance

with no propositional

content.

It's not the kind of thing

that can be true or false.

But when people say

that harming children

is wrong,

you're equating that

to saying,

ouch.

No, I'm saying

that they can with that particular utterance.

Hold on. Did you not just make that equivocation? Did you not just make that equivocation?

What do you think equivocation means? It's using multiple, it's using the same term in multiple

different ways. That it, oh my God. You're saying, out, you're saying that if someone hits you and you react as

ouch, that has the same

truth value as someone's claiming

that children should be protected.

That simply just isn't

what I said. That isn't an implication't what I said

that isn't an implication of what I said

directly what you said actually

yeah then tell me the process of inference

elucidate it for everyone

and you know then we can go from there

what you said was that you compared the normative claim that, you know, children should be protected.

You're saying, well, it isn't true or false if I hit you and you say ouch to attempt to demonstrate that we cannot

ultimately say it's true or false beyond a personal preference i don't think that your attitudes as

such are true or false okay Okay. So in that sense,

so did you or did you not compare the reaction to getting hit by saying

ouch to someone making the normative

claim that children should be protected?

I have no idea what you would mean by

in that sense.

That is still unclear.

In the sense that they are simply

reflections of psychological states

and preferences. Yeah, with regard

to both of those things, rather than anything

with any with any value

with respect to truth or falsehood.

No, they can't have moral utterances do have like propositional condoms. with any value with respect to truth or falsehood.

No, they can have moral utterances do have like propositional content as such.

The cognitive...

Yeah, but they're untrue.

But the propositional content is untrue according to you.

Yes, because again, in the same way that we can predicate

unicorns or discourse about unicorns...

Are you an LACAP or call yourself a libertarian? Because, again, in the same way that we can predicate unicorns or discourse about unicorns,

are you an ACAP or call yourself a libertarian of some kind?

No.

You're not an ANCAP?

No.

You're a Praxben fan?

No. I know Praxben.

He's talked about your debate a few times before.

Yeah, because he's a little traumatized

about what happened. That's okay. I don't know.

By all accounts, man, I've heard that you got

like absolutely kind of flipped in that debate,

but by all accounts,

well, according to the Oxford-style debate rules, I won the debate.

Yeah, bro.

You might have.

But, like, I and many other people who have seen that, right, doesn't change the fact that it is very clear to us

that you got absolutely owned.

You can't even commit saying it with your chest

that protecting children is good.

So I don't really care what your opinion is.

I think it's good.

It is a true preference of Martin.

This is a gross strong man.

But you can't say it with your chest. What does it mean to say something with your chest? This is a gross

strong man. Say it, say it with the authority and the conviction

that it is fundamentally true. Pause, there's nothing in particular that is

true of unicorns if we're predicating them as such.

There's no comparison between...

You're confusing what is being

here. Notice how you can't even let me get a sentence

in, because I could easily explain to you

why the comparison to unicorns.

This is such a bad...

You can't even let me get a sentence in.

Notice, guys, ones if he's even allowed me to get one sentence in.

You've spoken many sentences. I can't, you're not even allowed, you're not even like

able to allow me to make an argument without interrupting

me. Not even one time. I could easily dismantle the equivalence you're making between

a unicorn. I could easily dismantle the equivalence you're attempting to make between referring

to a unicorn and referring to a normative propositional claim.

I could easily do that.

But if I tried to, you would simply interrupt me.

I didn't interrupt you that whole time.

Nothing in substance was said.

Like, if you could have pushed back

on the argument earlier, I'm sure that you would have.

No, but you're simply interrupting me.

Every time I try to explain it,

you simply interrupt me. If you could

shut the fuck up for three

for three minutes, if you could mute yourself entirely. Can you do that?

Can you, can you do that? Yes or no? I need a i need a confirmation yeah go ahead talk for a bit okay

so the claim that a normative claim a normative moral claim is the same as making some kind of

empirical claim that is not justified by any kind of empirical procedure or proof.

So, for example, you're saying a unicorn, okay?

If someone were to refer to a unicorn, they would be referring to something that we cannot meaningfully talk about

as having been justified through any kind of you know procedure of the

investigation of the empirical world via modern science confirming whether it aligns

consistently with some instrument of measurement or our sensibility or so on and so on.

So by that same criteria, you're saying, well, morality is the same thing.

When we investigate the world by use of scientific instruments that are devoid of loaded, supposedly devoid of loaded normative propositions, and we simply seek to measure reality as such as it really truly is, right?

We cannot detect the normative significance of anything.

We can't detect moral claims.

We can't detect good or bad in anything, right?

Things just are.

And morality seems to be just this purely subjective psychological thing that has no objective significance.

The problem with this understanding of

objectivity and subjectivity

is that it neglects the fact

that the scientific intervention

and investigation into the world

itself presupposes a specific

normative dimension, and always has, always has.

And within the contemporary philosophy of modern science, pioneered by logical post-positiveists and so on that I mentioned,

Durheim, Kine, and so on and so on.

They themselves acknowledge this.

It's unavoidable.

Normativity is unavoidable even with respect

to the supposedly neutral institutions of modern science.

Why? Because although you can sanitize scientific practice, and although you can sanitize

the investigation of pure reality devoid of any kind of subjective contamination to the best

of your ability, the contamination is still going to be unavoidable

because how we regard things with the meaningfulness that we do, the things we choose to measure

versus the things we don't choose to measure, the things that get funding versus the things

that don't get funding and so on and so on. All of these are embedded within context and realities that have fundamental normative weight to them and significance. So it's impossible for us to sanitize science of normativity. And if we can't

sanitize science of normativity, if every step of the way of what we could call a meaningfully human

life is loaded with normative significance, and just about everything human beings do really

in a if you situate it within a broader context then our notion of objectivity should change

what we regard as objective and strictly subjective should shift from strictly speaking about physical objects

that are indifferent to us because that's a tautological notion of objectivity.

Defining objectivity strictly as that which is devoid of normativity, of course, is going to yield you a notion of morality that is strictly subjective.

But in human societies, the communication of morality has all the weight of objectivity.

For the functioning of a coherent and unified division of labor in human society,

the ability to communicate norms has all of the weight of objectivity. It's not simply ever treated as the

consequence of a given subjective preference or another. It has, it's something that's fundamentally

outside of just your preference

actually I mean anyone who's a parent

could understand that

could understand what it means

for a human being to acquiesce and submit

to preferences they're not simply their own

so I find your notion of morality to be faulty I find your notion of morality to be faulty. I find your notion of reality

to be faulty and fundamentally tautological. If you just define reality as that which we excise

the human dimension from, you're going to get an inhuman notion of both reality and humanity.

So that's it.

Yeah, there was over five minutes, pretty impressive that you were able to still keep going on that,

try to try as best as you could, just train together some sentences.

But I'll let that serve

as a closing statement. I think anybody who

listened to that has a very good

grasp on where you're at philosophically

or what you're not at with regard to

you know, tracking, comprehension.

I have really nothing else to say.

Okay, so I accept your surrender.

No particular premise was pushed back on.

How can you justify?

What justifies?

I've given my intuitions.

What justifies your notion of objectivity?

Nothing. How can you even justify your notion of objectivity?

I'm accepting that as a closing statement.

I'm not going to continue.

It's very clear to anyone.

I accept your challenge of this particular

substance.

He's running away.

He's running away.

Okay, you ran away.

Okay, you ran away.

You're not even going to engage. You just ran away. Okay, you ran away. You're not even going to engage. You just ran away.

Yeah, he's claiming that, you know, well, morality is purely subjective. There's nothing objective that could possibly be. There's nothing we could not speak about morality objectively well you're it's kind of an

abuse of language if we're strictly going to define objectivity is that which we can yield

in our relationship to the world that is excised of any human content to the best of our ability, meaning, you know, if we're going to define reality as that which is sanitized from human contamination, then appealing to objectivity in making the claim that there's no morality in the real world or in reality is it's tautological. It's purely trotological. How do you justify the original alienation you're making of normativity and

morality from the real.

Because it's not a

default. The onus is on you

to prove and justify why.

That is unnecessary.

For the majority of human

existence and human history,

normative reality as such has always had a normative and moral dimension.

And if you want to make the claim that the only objective realities are those which are

devoid of normativity

which is the only way you could just

the only real way you could define it honestly

by the way that was the purpose

of hume's empiricism and so on and so on

and the so called scientific method

within bourgeois civilization.

Because the idea was that normativity and morality was bounded up with all manner of superstitions and religious prejudices.

So science should be completely devoid of humanity.

The problem with this is its nonsense.

Scientific practice is institutional.

Scientific practice is absolutely embedded in the wider material human practice of society.

And at no point can scientific practice truly achieve

a sanitized vacuum sealed context that is devoid of normative contamination uh bring up edwardo

all right bring up Eduardo Alright I'll bring up Carlos too

All right

All right

Eduardo go ahead

For sure So I caught the last bit of that argument

what's with that echo carl's just meet yourself yeah go ahead

you can't even nobody can hear you no if i can wait, you can bring up divinity instead.

But I'm just getting out of, I'm getting out of some rain.

Nobody can hear you.

Hello. Hello? Finn, what's up?

Appreciate you, bro.

Go ahead, Eduardo, go ahead Eduardo go ahead

Carl's what did you think of that charlatan?

I didn't even want to debate with him.

He started talking about, let's prepare the debate with him, and doctor this and the doctor

of that and this and not.

I was like, he's not like a fucking undergrad.

He should just dismiss these people and there'd be no, it'd be of no consequence.

None at all.

Middle age, what's up with the five?

But I at least got him to admit that he doesn't believe it's true that children should be protected.

It's simply

a reflection of his own preference

maybe, right?

But if one

preference... I'm here. Yeah, go ahead,

Eduardo. So,

was that last bit of the debate that I...

Sorry, there's crazy echo. What's going on?

Can you guys hear me?

Yeah.

Was that last bit of the debate about whether like objectivity is something that is like relative to the human mind?

No, no.

He was claiming that all we can speak about with respect to what is objectively true or objectively false

is that which is

completely excised of any kind of

normative human contamination

and that only, you know,

he attempted

to reference what he called broad

empiricism, which

revealed his illiteracy with respect to

the contemporary philosophy

of science that's even accepted within

mainstream institutions.

But in any case, the basic gist of his argument

was the, you know, well,

you know, the Rick and Morty argument that, you know well you know

the Rick and Morty argument that you know

the universe is indifferent to us

basically that was his argument more or less

I mean I guess

the universe is indifferent seeing because it doesn't have

agency but um

it's not it's absolutely not

indifferent I don't i don't even know

what that would mean it would mean the strong anthropic principle that the universe has given rise

to the thinking consciousness and to human beings clearly means and reveals

that there is something within matter

and within the universe itself

that is predisposed

toward the development

of human beings

and human history

and human society

ultimately

and uh

some some

there have been many

kind of attempts to

avoid this

anthropic principle

like the Boltzman's Marines

and all this kind of nonsense that this is just a consequence of randomness and so on and so on but it's fundamentally an unsustainable view that lacks any viability for sure I mean no like I grant that like there are holy shit that echoes crazy um i grant that there are some

properties of things in the universe that give rise to human consciousness that's that's kind of silly to

debate but um yeah i have a i have a problem with communism because I think it's morally wrong.

Okay, why?

Yeah, because it doesn't accord with the proper principles of living a good life.

I think that humans have

rights.

And

those rights are

like impeded out by communism.

Okay.

What rights? Where do they come from?

Yeah.

So, like, I hold that rights are a moral principle sanctioning, or defining your freedom of action in a social context.

They're recognitions of the facts that are necessary for human life in a societal context.

Okay.

So, like, those are factual things.

That which is moral is that which is merely necessary for a society to exist?

No, no, no, no.

I'm saying what is moral is that which constitutes

a good life for an individual.

What is good?

So we arrive at the concept of good based on uh the sensational interaction we have

with reality pain and pleasure that which advances human life and pushes uh an individual's

towards flourishing

would be good.

That which advances pleasure or that which advances life?

And what does it mean to advance life?

No, because so like we have that sensational level experience,

but from that we're capable of abstracting. So something gives you pleasure doesn't mean i didn't ask that

doesn't mean i didn't ask whether we are capable of abstraction i'm asking you to in some way define what it what good means

yeah i'm saying that question is going back to means. He said

going back to Mill.

It's just John Stuart Mill's argument.

It's a cheaper.

It's Benham.

It sounds like Bentham.

No, I'm saying.

Well, yeah, it would depend.

I don't know.

If it's social, then it's Mill. If't know I think if it's social

then it's

male if it's individual

then it's pent

them

but it's it's just

mill who had a very cheap

uh

our word

Aristotelianism

um

it's

mill is one of the

stupidest...

But you know, Carlos, look, I, as

an Aristotle fan, I

always want to catch the Aristotelian Larpers

because Aristotle could define

the good, right?

A hundred percent.

Can Eduardo define what is good?

Yeah, yeah, no, I'm saying that

which promotes human flourishing.

Okay, you know, you're just stacking

normative, it's a normative metamie.

Okay, good, flourishing.

What is flourishing?

Non-contradictory joy.

Non-contradictory joy. What do you mean non-contradictory joy?

It means you have acted according to the proper principles that allow you to live a life of enjoyment.

What is joy?

Joy is the experience

from the achievement of alias.

Okay, hold on. Joy is what?

Decental experience from the achievement of alias.

The what? You keep cutting out sensational sensational

the sensational experience

of the i do i do have like horrible

fucking signal i hear my like second

he says like so he says

Joy is the sensational experience

of the consistency

of values. Is that what you said?

I said achievement of values. Can you hear me any

better now? Okay, joy is the sensational

experience of the achievement of values

okay so we have created a very very messy definition of the good first the definition of good

is human flourishing and then you define flourishing as

something... Non-contradictory joy. And then you said the joy is the sensational experience of the achievement of values.

So we're still on the normative Netanyumi.

I want to know what values are.

Value is that what you seek to gain or keep?

Values are that which you seek to gain or keep. Values are that

which you seek to gain or keep.

Okay. So by your definition

a

Jeffrey Epstein could be

right?

No, because those don't accord with the proper principles of living a good life especially in society Jeffrey Epstein sought to gain or keep children

yeah no I don't hold that just value,

the achievement of values in of itself.

That's the end of the train.

That's the end of the chain.

The end of the chain is,

that which I seek to gain or keep.

Yeah, that's why I said,

that's why I said non-contradictory.

What's contradictory about Epstein's values?

The fact that if he pursued, as he did pursue those particular values,

these were violations of rights and caused him to end up in jail and, you know, I don't know

if he ended himself for somebody else.

But if he defined values strictly

as that which I seek to gain

or keep, then what

makes it contradictory?

Why should, why

is it inherently and intrinsically

necessary for Jeffrey Epstein's values to include any regard for the rights of other human beings?

Because if he wishes to promote his life, he has to act in accordance of the proper principles of living in society.

Why?

Because he ended up in jail

and on a rope

okay so

only if he got away

with it

it would be fine

I know

because he would

still be violating

the virtues of

honesty

and why should he

have to care about

that

pride

why should he

why should he have to care about that how Why should he have to care about that?

How is that a contradiction as the way you strictly define what a contradiction is?

Because him acting in accordance with the values he held led to the determination of his life.

Yeah, but had he gotten away with it and had the outcome been that he avoided?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

I was just Glaucom's argument.

If you can get away with it, you have no interest in acting.

Yeah, if he hadn't gotten away with it, there are particular virtues which are necessary for living as a human being

and he was acting

not in accordance with them.

Why?

Okay, so now we're using

the word virtue.

Okay,

because you,

I asked you to define

what value is.

Yeah,

I mean,

by principles,

I mean virtue as well.

Okay,

well, I asked you to define

what a value is,

which is the end of the chain. You said, that which I seek to gain or keep.

Okay. And what about that has to include

having any regard for the rights

of other people?

So, like, if the

end goal of ethics is a life well lived

there are two ends that would happen if he is caught

we already know the forget that forget the question that he's caught

he gets away with it yeah yeah no i'm saying like in one alternative, if he's caught,

we know what happened.

Okay.

If he doesn't get caught,

he doesn't act in accordance

with the virtues

necessary for living a good life.

Necessarily,

when you are a human being,

you have an objective nature.

You have to take pride

and what you do. You have take pride. How do you know?

How do I know the nature of human beings?

What are those virtues?

Hold on. How do you know the nature of Jeffrey Epstein?

Because all humans share in nature.

How do you know?

Because we as entities like the human humans as a class have objective properties according to modern science we can have common anatomical properties we could have all sorts of common biological properties.

But what normative properties can we say we share objectively,

according to the standards of modern science or empiricism?

Or do you reject that?

No, I'm imperious. I'm in. Okay, so you're an empiricist.

Good. So according to empiricism, what can we

claim that human beings have objectively

beyond anatomical, physiological, and biological

properties?

At base level, the

necessity to attain some of your

values in order to promote your survival.

But that's just like the base level.

That doesn't constitute living a good life

that just constitutes living and curious. Yeah, yeah. Just being able to

live and breathe.

Okay.

So Jeffrey Epstein,

I think he crosses that is checked off the list.

He definitely did

enough to eat and to poop

and to

breathe oxygen and stuff.

He checked all the boxes there.

So what about what he did is fundamentally devoid of virtue?

How can you say that, objectively speaking?

He acted without

the virtue of justice. He didn't treat others.

Why should

he... Can you define virtue and morality in such a way

that makes the consideration

of other people necessary?

Yeah, morality

is a code of values meant to guide

man's life, but obviously, like, not all

values, as I've kind of discussed here,

are necessarily good for your life.

You have to, like, differentiate between which values

are better for... But the only incentive, according to you, so far, for why we should have these values is that we want to avoid jail time and having getting ourselves a hard time.

No, no, no, no.

I'm saying, and when you're participating in society, there are particular principles...

Okay, but forget, what if you're an evil person who wants to manipulate and deceive and you successfully get away with it and cheat and lie and steal, right?

You think that this is ultimately virtuous?

No, of course not. I don't think you're acting in it. virtuous? Why not?

I don't think you're acting in

because I don't think you're acting

in accordance with the proper virtues

necessary for living.

What gives you the right to define

what is a proper or improper

virtue according to your framework?

I mean, I don't view that as a right particularly.

Okay, well, what term

is being applied? Okay, so you're ultimately

just talking about your personal preferences then, correct?

No, no, no. I'm talking about, like, the principles that are derived from, like, human nature.

What principles and how can you prove Jeffrey Epstein had them?

Yeah, so Jeffrey Epstein had them. Yeah, so Jeffrey Epstein was

a part of a class, which is

man.

Yeah. And man

has particular properties. In order

to sustain his life at the minimum, has to act

in accordance with particular principles. We know minimum has to act in accordance with the particular principles.

We know, man has to physiologically sustain himself. We know. It's not in contention. What else?

Yep. Yep. And then when wanting to live a good life, you have to act in accordance with other principles.

Such as? Which are the ones that

evolve in a societal context.

We went over those.

Okay, beyond the societal context, beyond the societal context,

what about those values

should inspire man with the necessity of

regarding the existence of other human beings with any kind of respect.

Without what? I'm sorry?

What about those principles makes it necessary for human beings to regard others with any consideration beyond how they fulfill their own desires yeah so like as man you have to be productive you have to earn your values in the virtue of your own mind if you can do if you can

physically okay here's my hypothetical you can physiologically sustain yourself you're Jeffrey Epstein and you get away

with it. How can you make the argument

that what he did lacks virtue?

Because what you're doing is you're acting parasitically.

You have to depend on others

in order to sustain yourself.

Okay, so the fact that Jeff...

You don't do it in virtue of the...

The fact that he depends on other people...

The fact that he depends on other people...

Makes it so that he couldn't sustain his own well-being on the virtue of his own labor.

Okay.

So what if he paid for children?

That'd be a violation of individual rights.

Your definition of values is that which I seek to gain or keep, correct?

Yeah, I don't hold all values to be equal.

And by the way, what invalidates, what makes parasitism incompatible with a virtuous value by that definition.

What's wrong with depending on someone else?

It's not just mere dependence on someone else.

Like if I'm acting in society, in a sense, you could say I am depending on like the jobs that are around, the environment, etc. But it's it's the parasitism. What's wrong with that?

Parasitic defendants justify within a framework of your moral view objectively. What's wrong with

parasitism? That you render yourself incapable of earning your values in the merit of your own mind and acting in accordance with proper principles.

You become inept, essentially.

Yeah, the affront is no longer that you have violated someone else's rights, though.

It's just that you are

in some respect incapacitating

your own abilities.

You are

doing yourself.

You're only doing yourself on.

So to transit this

you don't explain to everyone.

Really quick, really quick, really quick, really quick, really quick, really quick, really quick.

I hold that each individual's life is their standard of value.

So when they do something wrong to themselves, that is something morally wrong.

Okay.

I know what you're Luciferian, uh, satic view is, so don't worry.

Wait, no, wait, the Luciferian view

depends on...

Okay, go ahead, go ahead, bro.

Yeah, okay, so to translate

to this to everyone, what he's saying

is that the crime of Jeffrey Epstein

was that he depended upon others to realize his desires when he should have been able to be completely independent and thus more powerful and more vital

and vigorous and so on, this Nietzsche and gibber

and that basically

Epstein was selling himself

short,

but

what you fail to

comprehend

or what you fail to communicate or successfully argue in this case is

if Jeffrey Epstein desires children, and this is what he seeks to gain or keep, what makes it fundamentally wrong?

If there is no other way, if it is impossible that Jeffrey Epstein could attain his desire by any other means than through parasitism, what makes it devoid of virtue according to you?

So in the case of, you know, you depending upon, so he's basically saying if you are parasitically

depending on someone to,

I don't know,

carry stones for you,

you're selling yourself

short. You should go carry the stones

so that you'll never have to be dependent on another

person and they'll never be able to

you know so you're not harming yourself you're more powerful you're stronger the kind of nietzschean

nonsense for you right but in the case of Jeffrey Epstein desiring children there's no other way

he's going to fulfill his desire except by way of harming

children so what according to your ain-rand lucifer framework uh your satanist randyan framework

by the way ain ran wrote a short story where she was praising a serial killer so we know her view on this stuff

which one is that the one she wrote in the 20s i believe anyway she wrote an a erotica female erotica novel about a serial killer anyway edwardo

the ball's in your court yeah you want to know what this differentiator between like violating

children's rights and asking somebody to carry stones for you

and essentially doing so?

I want to know how you can meaningfully charge

Jeffrey Epstein with immorality

according to your framework of morality.

Yeah, based on the two examples you provided, right?

What about violating someone else's rights

should, can fit with, or should necessarily fit

within someone's

moral calculus if we're defining values

on the basis of that which I seek to gain or keep.

Yeah, again, are we doing it based on the two examples you gave?

Okay, Jeffrey Epstein. Go ahead.

Jeffrey Epstein and those two examples, one where he's

violating the rights of children,

one where he's paying

somebody to carry stones.

No,

no, no.

You don't need

to worry about the

stones example.

Okay?

Just focus on the

children one.

Yeah,

I mean,

I explained at least two

reasons, like the

violation of rights, and I think you said you wanted to decide. No, no, no, no, you're not understanding my questions. How can you call it? How is a violation of someone else's rights meaningfully and necessarily aligned

with an individual's own morality

by necessity. What necessarily

aligns an individual's own morality

with

caring about the rights of another person?

Yeah, so if you like wish

to participate in society, there are consequences

for violated. No, no, no, no, no, no.

Don't appeal to society. I just said he's

going to get away. I'm not. I just said through lying, cheating, and stealing,

you can cheat society. So, don't

make that argument again.

What fundamentally

and necessarily aligns

an individual's morality

with giving consideration

for the rights of another human being

within your framework?

Yeah, yeah. No, I mean, I answered this too.

So, like, aside from the, like, societal punishments,

he's negating his own ability to attain his values

in virtue of, like, his own mind, his own productivity, right?

So he does himself...

His values are that he wants children.

His values... Okay, his values are that he wants children.

His values... Okay, his values is that he wants children.

That's his values.

There's no other way to attain that, except by parasitically depending on a child.

Exactly.

Yeah, yeah.

So he negates, like, the proper principles we talked about earlier. That's that's his that's his desire yeah i i never

once said that just desire i never once said that that's his values and of themselves are good okay

so what makes him immoral in your framework? Because this isn't hard for me.

It's hard for you.

So what makes Jeffrey Epstein immoral for you?

Yeah, I already told you.

He's violating the proper principles of living a good life,

like the principle of justice,

principle of productivity and the principle of pride, principle of productivity,

the principle of pride. Your moral framework

is unable to establish why it is

necessarily true that an individual's

morality has to be aligned

necessarily and intrinsically

with any kind of regard

for the rights of another human being.

As men, you have an objective nature.

Can you keep...

There's a specific dialogue tree that we're ending here, that you're going in.

One of them is, well, society will have

to restrain you there will be consequences.

The other one is... No, no, no. The other one is,

you're parasitically depending on all the

person. Okay, the third one is, that you just

brought up, is that...

I'm still talking about the parasitic nature.

No, no, the third one you just said, the third one you just said was, oh, it's I'm still talking about the parasitic nature of like your action.

The third one you just said, the third one you just said was, oh, it's incompatible with the definition of a human being.

I have gone through all three of these answers and explained to you systematically why in Jeffrey Epstein's case, doesn't apply.

Okay?

So you have to explain.

Jeffrey Epstein is a human being.

He shares in common with other human beings that he has to eat for physiological sustenance and he needs oxygen to breathe.

So we already crossed that one off the list.

No more appeals to the nature of man.

We can't.

Then we talked about how, what if he got away with it as a hypothetical?

Because many do, and he did for a while

there's nothing inevitable

about him not getting away

with it and then

so you can appeal to society

the other thing was well his values

require him to depend upon others

so what there's no other way for him to depend upon others. So what? There's no

other way for him to attain and realize

those values without

children.

So what makes him immoral within your framework? Don't

appeal to any of these three.

I explain to you systematically why all three of these arguments you have are inapplicable.

Wait, so there isn't a third dialogue tree.

Like the second one you were referring to

is the one I'm talking about.

It doesn't matter.

The second one I mentioned was the society.

The human nature. No, no, no. The first one was

the society. The second one was human nature.

Okay. Human nature. You are claiming that it's Jeffrey Epstein's human nature to not want children. Is that what you're saying?

No, I'm saying he's not acting in accordance with the proper principles of living a good life

in order to like, you can't define

you can't justifiably define proper

I think I did

but I have a question

How much longer are you going to be live?

Okay Eduardo you need to go and you need to do a lot of contemplation and introspection.

For sure.

No, no, I hear you.

I hear you.

I'll leave.

I just curious.

You have a worldview that makes it very hard for you to explain why you think Jeffrey Epstein is

immoral.

It's not hard for me.

It's not hard for Carlos.

I thought I explained it pretty well.

No, you did.

You cannot even justify it.

I mean, I did, but that's fine.

He wants to gain and keep children.

There are other guests who want to talk to you.

Well, Epstein wanted to gain and keep children, and that's okay to you.

And he said, well, no, well, other people's rights.

Where do other people's rights fit within the calculus of an individual's, you know, life according to the Ayn Rand framework?

None at all.

So someone else wants to join. Let's see.

Robert. Hello? Yeah. Robert Hello

Yeah

There's a little bit of an echo

But

And there's like a drum

Don't worry about that

Go ahead

What do you want?

No, that's cool, yeah

So when you say you're debating communist Are are you, are you taking like an advocacy? Like you're saying communism is good? Yes. Okay, yeah. Can you just explain to me what the evaluative criteria you're using to say that is?

Unbelievable. It's like I'm understanding like why you think you're one say that is. Unbelievable.

It's like I'm understanding like why you think.

You're one of these NPCs, correct?

I think, what, what?

I just think, I just want to understand why you think that.

Okay.

Can you speak in terms of common sense or no?

Or do you have to speak in mechanical formalistic

language because... Yeah, I mean, I

feel like I was speaking in a pretty common way.

No, you're not saying what is... What is the evaluative

framework for why you're saying communism

is good? Yeah, no, it's cool. I'll go nice

and slow for you. It's fine. Yeah, so... No, no, no, I don't

want you to go slower fast. I'll go nice and slow for you. It's fine. Yeah. So I don't want you to go slower

fast. I want to be clear that

we're going to be speaking. I'll meet you where you're at.

Yeah, bro, I'll meet you where you're at. That's cool. Okay.

Yeah, so breaking

it down, like, you know, slow style,

you think communism is good.

I want to understand, like, what beliefs you have that make you think that.

Like what you use to evaluate communism being good. I don't think evaluates like a crazy MPC term.

I'm not an analytical. I just want to understand like why you think communism is good. What perspective or framework you used to evaluate

with that?

Okay, well, to me, it's

self-evident why communism is good, because

communism is the only way in which

you know, we could

put the

wealth and the means of production and the great products of civilization to work in such a way that serves the well-being of the overall majority of human beings.

Were you joking when you said of self-evident?

Or you just, because it seems like the, you know, after you said oh, self-evident,

you proceeded to give me something along the lines of like, it maximizes that overall

happiness of society.

I didn't say, I didn't mention happiness one time.

Oh, by well-being, what did you mean then?

By well-being, I mean the ability for

each and every person within society

to fulfill the criterion of what is a good life as established by society.

When you say established by society, like, you think that it's just like, according to social convention, what makes a life good?

Yeah.

So it's like a subjective convention i would say that's actually an objective convention

in what way is it objective if it's determined by the whims of the people in the society

because it's not mere whims, how people react and respond to their world, to first of all, the world of their fellow man, so the social world, the world of language, the world of culture, the world of civilization, and simultaneously respond to the material manner by which we

subsist and live within this world via intercourse with nature. So, and how do we support ourselves?

How do we sustain our existence

physically and sustain the

definite form of life activity?

Is there a standard

to evaluate that?

I mean, you're saying it's objective.

Is there a standard to evaluate?

It's objective. You just investigate

society and it's objective. With, it's objective. You just investigate society, and it's objective.

With what criteria you investigate?

Like, you're saying it's objective.

So if we're in 19th century England, the steam engine is playing a fundamental role in industrialization and human beings increasingly depend upon, you know, the rise of industry and mass production and mass industry for their subsistence.

So we can

continue in the rise of electricity

change the forces of production

in another qualitative way.

The rise of Fordist production,

the rise of... These examples of principles and what are you trying to give me right now?

I'm giving you objective descriptions of how

society reproduces itself.

Yeah, I'm not debating you over

whether or not people do things in society

and whether or not you can objectively measure

that. I'm asking you about the criterion

for what a good life is.

And you said that was objective and you said it was objective

despite the fact you said it was

product.

What do you mean by objective then?

By objective, I mean in the sense that it's a product of historical processes, and it's a product of civilization.

So you're not using that in a normative way?

Yeah, no, of course.

I don't have to bracket. Of course, it's not normative. I don't have to bracket.

I don't have to distinguish the normative dimension from the objective dimension.

I don't have that prejudice.

What does that even mean?

What does that even mean the normative from the objective?

I think that the scientific truth is loaded

normatively loaded

that doesn't tell me what you mean by objective

like when you said objective you tried to say that

you contrasted it from the normative

or you're baking independent

of the whims and fancies of individual consciousness.

Okay, so can you give me an example of something historical that's subjective?

Or is it just the fact that it's historical makes it objective?

Okay, the subject-object distinction as you are forwarding it i would probably

probabilitize in the first place actually i can distinguish the whims and fancies of an individual

consciousness from objective reality.

Do you just,

do you reject it

because you're some kind

of Hegelian?

Or?

I am a Hegelian.

Why wouldn't I be?

Why would you?

Well,

why wouldn't you be a Hegelian?

I mean,

there's lots of reasons

why you wouldn't be a Hegelian.

One,

you wouldn't endorse the idea that contradictions exist. There's like obviously demonstrative. As a Marxist, why would I not be a Hegelian? Well, are Marxists not people that want to critically think about the philosophical theoretics of their view? Because I feel like this kind of raises a reason

why. Marxism is fundamentally Higalian

at the route. Yeah, it's a

derivative from Higalian. Yeah, I know.

The dialectical process is an offshoot of

Higalian. So it should be a surprise

on Higelian. I was not about a surprise, like, from the

sense, like, I expected you to not be Higalian. I'm saying it's a surprise that when you ask me, why would I not be a Higalian? And then I gave you a reason why that view is bad? You then responded, yeah, but I'm a Marxist. You misunderstood the point. I said, why would I as a Marxist not? Why would you not just presume I'm a Higelian? You should think about yourself as, like, a thinker, not, why would you not just presume I'm a Higelian?

You should think about yourself as like a thinker, like, why would you want to adopt a view that endorses the existence of contradictions?

You know, you're just, this is just

semantical nonsense, just completely

that was a really good retort from the fact that you just, I demonstrated that part of the theoretical underpinning of your view is the existence of contradictions.

Your response was, yeah, bro, this is semantics.

That's not semantics.

That's a theoretical necessity posited by your view.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay. Okay.

Okay. Do nice for Tor. Can you respond to what I said?

You think contradictions exist? I mean, yeah, your world is insane.

You believe that contradictions exist.

What? ones if we're good i think you're mic's back i'm not it's not not i'm talking about ticot ones if we're good all right we're good all right what are you asking So the recap, I asked you why you thought communism was good.

And then I asked you for what your evaluative standard was.

Okay.

And then after I asked you for a evaluative standard, it seemed like it was arbitrary, like it was subjective, and then you talked about how you rejected the subject object distinction.

As a communist, and I don't claim to have an evaluative standard that is somehow distinct or

separate from the one that I presume

the overwhelming majority of human beings in the society

and civilization and historical epoch that I live have.

So it's not, I don't feel the onus is on me

to construct an artificial

evaluation system. I don't believe in the need for me

to construct an alternative

evaluative system or framework

because I think

values are

objective.

I don't believe

that there are

the products

of the whims

and fancies

of our consciousness

and the various

theoretical

constructs that

we pull out

of our bum.

I think

this must be

sorry you're going I think morals you're... This must be... I'm sorry, you're going.

Yeah, I think morals and values are objective,

and we don't invent them from scratch.

Yeah, I mean, this must be one of those

examples of the Hegelian contradictions, because you said...

Pure honesty, you should request then.

Go ahead.

Yeah, this seems like one of those examples of the

hegelian contradictions because you said that

you rejected the subject object

distinction but then you want to identify values

as objective

I mean do you think that the morality of slavery was

objective I think

there was a product of historical

process. There was no such morality.

The process of the dialectic though?

But there was no such morality. It was not the consequence

of the material conditions. Like that's what you

that's what you appeal to to make the fact

that your ideal is objective is because it's the

consequence of a historical

material process, but that's also true of capitalism and slavery.

Each historical epoch is defined by class antagonisms

and class contradictions.

Yeah, but your standard for objectivity and for value

was being a product of a historical material

dialectic, which is true of slavery.

Okay.

So that would also, according to you, be objectively good, right?

No, that's not true.

First of all, there isn't a single moral framework that is institutionalized in every society. But there are, but there is an objective

morality that guides the development of society such that people could see slavery was immoral

and they didn't need to... Are you referring to the dialectic? What? Do you even know what dialectics is?

No, I'm not referring

I don't have to make appeals

to dialectics right now.

Do you even know what dialectics is?

Yeah, of course.

That actually is what you're appealing to

because you're talking about the morality

of the system because it's a product

of certain historical processes

that's not dialectics. historical processes using material conditions.

That would be relativism. I'm not making a

historicist or relativist argument. You're confusing

my argument with historicism

and relativism. I don't know if you're joking

or not. Like dialectical materialism is like the

idea that you're appealing to that the historical

material processes are producing the system you're appealing to that the historical material processes

are producing this is talking about.

Instead of inferring and presuming what I

mean to argue.

Didn't you criticize me earlier for not inferring that you were a

hegelian? I mean, this is another

Higalian contradiction, I guess. But in this case,

but here's the distinction. Come on. Like, But in this case, but here's the distinction.

But here's the difference.

In this case, you're clearly illiterate on the subject of dialectical materialism.

Yeah, sounds like it, bro.

So you shouldn't reference your presumptions.

Well, something I said that's false about that.

You shouldn't reference your presumptions about what dialectical materialism is because your

understanding of Marxism is unreliable.

What's something I've said that's false about Marxism or dialectical materialism?

Your understanding of dialectical materialism is that all morality is simply...

Nope.

That's not my understanding of that.

Okay.

Well, you just interrupted me, so I guess we'll never...

Well, you're already wrong, dude.

Okay.

Well, you just interrupt.

I don't even know what I was going to say.

When you trip on your face, you are and you're not going to win the race, bro.

Like, I don't have to watch you fucking stumble your way through an own coherent explanation if step one

was bad. Okay, what was wrong?

Like I don't need to hear each and every single.

What was wrong in step one?

Yeah, dialectical

materialism is about morality being a product

that's not what it's about.

Okay, so what is it about according to you?

Okay, now we're fucking

playing the 21 questions game where I explained to you

the thing I already explained to you, where dialectical materialism

is an explanation about how

the way that history

progresses is through the interaction

of the material conditions

and the way that it affects

the modes of productions in human beings.

Hold on the way that's the interaction

of the material conditions and how they affect

the modes of... What are you talking about?

You're completely confused.

First of all... No, I'm not. Like what?

First of all, first of of all This is a completely

concise explanation

of like dialectical materialism.

What are you talking about?

The thing that you were confused about

is historical materialism

first of all

and with respect to the question

of the interactivity of material, what, so dialectical materialism,

dialectical materialism is a much broader understanding of the universe and of nature.

Yeah, it's right.

It's a philosophical.

Historical materialism is a analytic. It's more narrow. Yeah, it's great. Historical materialism is a

analytic.

It's more narrow.

Why are you working?

I'm not living you, bro.

You're good.

You don't sound very confident.

The fact that you keep interrupting me just

show you.

You're psycho analyzing me.

I mean, you just keep appealing to psychoanalyzing

me. It's like, stay on. You didn't even

You didn't even know what dialectical materialism is.

I defined it to you. You said I was wrong and you're better

proceed to fucking stumble your way through, you know, lying

about what I said.

That's why I'm ad-living you.

Did you not say the relationship between the material conditions and the mode of production?

What does that mean?

Yeah, I'll explain it to you even more, yeah, a little more adequately.

Okay.

So I'll break it down

each operative word.

So dialectics

is a process

which originates from Hegel.

It has to do with the idea

that you have two.

It doesn't originate from Hegel at all.

Genuinely,

what are you talking about?

Genuinely,

what are you talking about?

You think dialectics comes from Hegel?

As a theory of the universe, like a metaphysical theory, of course, yes.

You think that comes from Hegel?

Yeah, I mean, it definitely is popularized by Hegel, yeah.

That's like the philosopher that put it on the map.

Went from it comes from Hegel. It's a gargacha, like Hegel, philosopher that put it on the map went from it comes to from

is this gargacha like hegel did the event they just put it on the map yeah maybe a philosopher

you just fell flat on your face step one yeah dude that sounds like a

insane erroneous fucking wonder am i and that i said to create instead of popularized by it my fault

yeah

so Hegel

the floss

for that

popularized

it's not true

it's not true it's not true

it's not true

that Hegel

popularized dialectics

actually it's the

Marxist tradition

that popularized

Are you a joker?

Are you joking?

No, I'm not.

How is Marxism a derivative

of Hegelian dialectics, but it popularized

the view it derives from?

Because Hegel would have probably not been,

he wouldn't have had the same significance

that he has.

Genuinely, what are you talking about? He's a

Hagel fan. He's inspired by Hegel. Hagle would not be remembered as much as he is today,

were it not for the fact that retroactively, the 20th century experience of Marxism

and entire communist states

with hundreds of millions of people

retroactively gave him the significance

that he had more than he otherwise would.

So in that sense, Marxism actually,

if we're going off who popularizes

dialectics today or in the modern age

because in history it's not even

true. Dialectics

was not invented by Hegel. That was

your initial claim. It's not true. Then you said

Hegel was an event by.

Hegel popularized it

It was an invented by

Okay

In the canon of Western

philosophy

We can say

Heraclitus

Invens dialectics

You're a joker

No the fuck you did not

Heraclitus believes in the flux

Right He believes in the flux, right?

He believes in the contradictions of change.

That's true.

He didn't create dialectics.

That was created by Hegel.

So, number one, you're just wrong about the history of philosophy.

Hegel did not create dialectics.

Dialectives within Western philosophy originates with Heraclitus. The pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus did. No, we did. ...physian philosophy originates with Heraclitus.

The pre-Socratic philosopher

Heraclitus came up with dialectics.

He was the first dialectical philosopher

within the Western tradition.

What do you think dialectics is?

Dialectics is an understanding of being as a unity of opposites.

Okay.

No, that's not essentially what dialectics is.

That's not true.

And specifically the reason why dialectics has the name dialectics and the reason why Heraclytus is not a dialectic is because it's contrast from Heraclitus's view. So Heraclides, of course, he believes the universe is in a contractory flux of change. That's similar to Hegel.

No, not. You want me to my camera so I can

show you? I can mock you and I can explain this to you?

Like, I don't know what that was for.

I don't know, bro. Why are you interrupting me trying to psychoanalyze the point that you're

obviously wrong on? Like, relax. I'm going to get back to my explanation of basic

philosophy, bro. Take some notes.

So, a Heraclitus did believe

in reality and a concept flux. He did

believe in change. He wasn't dialectic because he wasn't an

kind of idealist. He didn't believe that

the dialectical process is consciousness,

you know, being conscious of its health and

higher levels.

But Marxism is also dialectical and also not idealist.

So what about dialectics depends upon idealism?

It goes back to the relation of ideas.

Hold on.

You're saying dialectics is intrinsically

idealist didn't you just reference

dialectical materialism? I'm trying to explain to you

why it's called dialectics and why

Heraclitus and not believe in dialectics

But you're claiming your reasoning for why

Heraclitus wasn't a dialectician

is because he wasn't

an idealist. What about

dialectics is intrinsically idealist?

Well, for one, the origin of the

concept. So again, back to YouTube shorts,

Heraclitus didn't use the term

dialects. He didn't speak in those terms. The reason

the term dialect... Okay, he didn't have to use the term dialects. He's going to speak in those terms. He didn't have to use the term dialectics.

I mean, that's just like his, it's, it's philosophically dishonest to try to

attribute a system that ties developed theory from a philosopher, millennia, afterwards,

to somebody prior. Like that's just like insanity.

That's like if I said Aristotle was a moral realist.

I'm trying to patiently explain to you that dialectics is more or less a notion that is pre-given in almost every strand and field of Western

philosophy up until the

Cartesian era where

German idealism

returns back

to it in some sense. But all human

philosophy, to be clear, the norm of human philosophy, of religion, of thought is dialectical. It's pre-given and it's just taken for granted. An understanding of the world and of being as a unity of opposites is a pretty pre-given framework and understanding that you find

resonant across all human history, across all civilizations, across all philosophies.

Those are the really beautiful soliloquy that has nothing to do with what I said.

I explained to you why

it was the first philosopher and you were

wrong. I said he was the first

philosopher. Or you said he was the

first, he invented dialectics and you were wrong.

I'll let you correct the bunder. It's fine. I wasn't

wrong. The term, the concept dialectics

didn't exist with Heraclitus.

That's what you said. Heraclitus

You invented dialectics with

the concept. In Western philosophy.

He was the preeminent dialectical.

Yeah, he created this concept that didn't exist when he was

a philosopher. That makes sense.

You just described, okay, what about Heraclitus's he was a philosopher. That makes sense. You just described how...

Okay, what about Heraclitus' thinking was unbiased.

What Aristotle Cray? Moral naturalism?

What about Heraclitus's...

I'm just giving a basic litmus test of your evaluation of philosophical history.

What about Heraclitus' philosophy was undilectical?

What was undiolical about Heraclytus' philosophy?

Go ahead.

Yeah, I've already explained to you that using philosophical conceptual schema,

that postates philosophers by millennia, and then saying that that philosopher you're referring

to invented the thing you're referring to

is inherently dishonest.

Which is why Aristotle's not a moral realist.

We went from Hegel invented.

Do you think Aristotle's a moral naturalist?

No, of course not.

You never use that term to describe Aristotle.

Just because we don't have...

Because the concept post-dates of philosopher, what's wrong with you?

When people find a term either superfluous, redundant, or pre-given, when they find something,

either redundant, superfluous, or pre-given, they don't need to have a term with which to refer to it with any distinction.

Because the process of the understanding whereby it acquires distinction hasn't emerged yet.

Only when we lose the thing as something pre-given, can it become an object to be understanding?

Okay, do you have a response to...

It was a beautiful soliloquy, bro.

I thought it had nothing to do with what I said.

Is this how you're going to respond to every

argument I make that it's a soliloquy?

I mean, you notice how you're psychoanalyzing?

Notice how you're so, you're so flustered.

Oh, you're back on psychoanalizing.

So flustered.

Yeah, you're just, you're doing everything you can't.

But he's making a fucking argument.

Why don't you make a single argument?

I sunglasses, but you look really good.

Go make a point. Make an argument.

Are you hiding your eyes because you see the shame in your face when you're trying to

respond to what I'm saying?

Actually, no, my.

Let me not change that.

You've been so dominated in mogged.

I don't even have to say it.

You're done,

yeah, bro.

When you said that,

you've been internally

I'm gonna simultaneously say that you've been

a mug without saying about

good stuff man

go ahead and make an argument

I've given you plenty of

I've already

okay

you have 15 seconds to make an argument

or else you didn't him to concede.

I thought you don't run though.

I thought you, oh, is this being forfeiting?

15.

14.

14.

13.

13.

12.

11.

Yeah,

10.

9.

Yeah, we're getting to.

8.

8.

You're distracting you, bro.

Do you want to hit the argument or not, bro?

Go ahead, make an argument.

Thanks, man.

Hey, so, you know, getting back to the meat and potatoes

this conversation, you know, you were saying communism's good.

It seems like you're, you know, you made this whole move about something

being good, not really being divorced from

what the history produces,

what the society produces. I just

want to get really clear on this. So can you just

lay out, you know, just a principle

like under what conditions? According to what

I would consider the overwhelming majority of people in the civilization and society principle like under what conditions what i was good

consider the overwhelming majority of people in the civilization and society regard as good

which i share as well by the way uh i would say communism is good one and second

a fundamental context to any sense in which I would say communism is good

is that I don't believe I need to create a distinct or artificial evaluative system

meaning I don't need to create out of the whims and fancies of my own consciousness

a distinct moral system that has a different vernacular and language than the one taken for granted by the majority of society.

Yeah, I mean, I think as an interlocutor, you should be striving to be as precise and productive as possible.

So if that was supposed to be a prediction...

As chairman of the Communist Party,

I talk to a lot of ordinary people, so do my cadre.

We don't find it necessary to invent distinct and separate

moral systems for the purposes of communicating our message with clarity to regular

people. So when I go out on the street, we go talk to workers. We don't need to create

artificial moral systems for our words to make sense to them. So you have to, the onus is on

you to demonstrate why it's necessary for me to create or indulge in recognizing artificial, made-up, jibber-jabber, evaluative systems when we find no use for them.

I mean, it's really funny that you're trying to criticize me for allegedly

making you invent

an arbitrary moral theory

when you decided to invent

arbitrary epistemological

regulations to what I'm allowed

to criticize you about

and what I'm allowed to ask

for reductions of.

What's going to give that...

What's ultimately going to make your criticism matter to me?

Did you really actually the second part?

Yeah, so when you're an advocate of a view should in principle be able to define the standards by which you advocate for the view, That's not a ridiculous burn of proof.

That's not,

that's not me doing something unconventional.

The standards by which we define

anything whatsoever

are going to be determined

by communication.

And that's a fact.

We cannot artificially,

we cannot artificially create any standards whatsoever with respect to the full range of what is possible with human language.

Okay.

So there is an implicit good faith standard that's defining everything we say.

And the only thing we can do as human beings is try to clarify what we mean to each other in a good faith manner. But when we impose artificial systems, normative and evaluative systems and epistemological systems and so on and so on,

needlessly, that are, in

no way necessary for the purposes of arriving

at a mutual understanding or clarity.

It's obviously necessary.

The notion that we have to operate

within the confines of some kind of, you know,

propositional logic or any kind of other abstract system of thinking or so on and so on, in order

to be mutually intelligible, in other words, we have to like talk like computers in order to be

mutually intelligible, implies that it is impossible for human beings to communicate sensibility okay but human beings can and do communicate sensibility all the time it's unnecessary for us to have to indulge in such needless abstractions to arrive at a common understanding of anything for that matter.

Now, if we're working in computer science and we want computers to do things in very specific narrow ways within very narrow parameters, it of course makes sense

to operate on that basis.

But we're not computers.

We're human beings.

And our sensibilities are going to have to factor in any kind of conversation that

we have.

And even if it's for the purposes

of communicating things that are impersonal,

if I want to communicate to you facts

about chemistry or facts about

biology that are totally impersonal,

you first of all have to acknowledge

that, you know,

there's a certain good faith and charity you're going to have to afford an interculator or whatever when, you know, they say, and it's like this, you know, and this is the, this is the specific, you know, of uh protons and neutrons and electrons and this

specific element and so on and so on you can say well maybe there's exceptions and there's

anytime someone tries to make any claim about anything normativeative or otherwise, there's always room

to be bad faith and say,

well, no, there's this exception here.

It's not exactly, absolutely precise.

Absolute, absolute precision

is not possible.

Okay?

Any claim cannot be made with absolute precision because language depends also on the unconscious it depends upon factors that aren't being explicitly communicated or put forward and if you don't understand this you just can't communicate as a human being.

All right, all due respect,

I need you to hop off the ramble coaster

because, like, I need to respond to the things you say when you say

instead of waiting for the end of your long way of the explanation.

Yeah, I heard what you said.

Look, me asking you

to define the evaluative standard of what you're saying is not me dehumanizing you.

I'm not treating you as if you're an impersonal robotic creature.

I don't have a distinct evaluative system than, uh, the one given by society.

No, no, yeah.

When you say given by society, right, that doesn't work because society is actually

not a monolith. You know this because you're a communist, right? Talk to most people in the world,

they don't have your view. That's kind of demonstrating the fact that we don't have a common value standard.

Yeah, dude, that's why we all disagree. Everyone has the same evaluative standard. We all disagree because we have the same evaluative standard.

What do you think explains the systematic discohesion of people's philosophical alignment?

Do you think it's because like some people are just by nature?

I can answer that, but were you going to interrupt me?

I don't know.

Were you going to interrupt me like you just did, bro?

Like I didn't interrupt

your longer

to the explanation.

I think everyone

shares the same

evaluative standards.

But the reason

why people

disagree about things

and disagree

about what is moral

and what is not moral

isn't because

they don't have

the same standard.

It's because

the facts and the, uh moral isn't because they don't have the same standard, it's because the

facts and the

threshold of possibility

which is also very important to understand

is in contention. For example,

both a communist and

an anti-communist, I think, share the

evaluative standard that they want a society where humans prosper, where humans are happy, where human beings are living a good life, where they're not being tortured, where they're not being harmed, where, you know, and so on and so on. The value of standard is, is not what's in

question.

What's in question

is,

well,

is it possible,

for example,

is communism possible?

Or is it

necessary for the

purposes of having

what little

prosperity that we

do for us to

acquiesce to the system that currently exists. So the reason why we

have disagreements is precisely because we share the same standard. If we didn't share the same

standard, the possibility of disagreement wouldn't exist because the difference wouldn't manifest as a disagreement. The difference would manifest simply as an effective difference, meaning there would simply be different societies that reflect different evaluative standards. We would just be members of a different species.

And there would be nothing to debate about or argue over in the first place.

First thing is that I agree with you that disagreement presupposes a mutual standard.

It doesn't follow from that that the mutually held standard is a normative standard about the good. You can

have a mutually shared epistemological standard

which is pretty obviously true. I think the only standard

that matters when it comes to the good

is the one that is shared by society implicit.

The people that are in vain

attempting to invent their own

based on the whims and fancies of their own consciousness,

I think they're attempting an

impossible, ridiculous task.

What's interesting is that you're saying

there's this uniform monolith

of values held by

every single person on Earth, but you can't

seem to define that to me in a clear and concise

way. Does that not seem

to you like a little bit unlikely? No, no. What I

cannot do is reduce it to a

set of propositions. I can define it.

I can define it. I can define it in all sorts of ways,. I can define it.

I can define it in all sorts of ways,

but I can't reduce it to a proposition.

They commonly held values and beliefs about morality

by every single person are not reducible to propositions.

Absolutely not.

They cannot be reduced to propositions.

Are the beliefs themselves propositions? Because if so, like, not propositions they're absolutely not propositions what are you talking about they're not propositions what are the contents of the beliefs if they're not propositions the content of the shared normative framework of society is a consequence of a shared way of sensing and relating to the sameness of conditions.

Okay, so is that sense a proposition?

Or what, like, what kind of sense is?

It's absolutely not a proposition.

Okay, but what is not vision? it is it's not basically in emotions is it emotion see the thing is it's not it's not

strictly in emotion it's not strictly it's a reflection of the integral totality of the division of labor and of society. It's a reflection.

Yeah, but what, it's a reflection? Does that take a propositional form like every other kind of reflection? No, no, no, it does not take a propositional form. Okay, so there's this non-propositional,

non-perceptual mental state that everybody shares in common

that you can articulate or reduce in terms of propositions.

Yeah, this sounds like really believable.

Do you have a single piece of evidence in favor of that?

You know, it sounds ridiculous because of how you're framing it, but when I just

say, for example, that I can go outside right now and say, hey, is pushing grandmas down the stairs?

Okay. Everyone said, no, that's messed up. I mean, yeah, when you don't expose all the context,

but that doesn't mean everyone has to contemplate. How many of those people

had to actually contemplate

deliberately in a value of system

where they have a consistent propositional

framework in which this is valid?

When you lay it all out.

So where is the

proposition coming from?

That gives people the intuition

that pushing grandmas down the stairs

is bad.

You think there's a,

you think they're making propositions

somewhere that these depend upon?

Yeah, I just give me one second

respond to what which said previously.

Of course, when you omit all of the

evidence against the claim you made,

it's going to look a lot more plausible.

Right? So like when actually we analyze your

view and it's like, oh, every single concept

we have to identify all the different mental states

human beings are capable of having,

and none of them apply to this thing you're talking about. Of course, your view looks significantly

more unlikely than when you frame your view just honestly as, yeah, I mean, when we ask whether

it's wrong to push grandma, everyone says, yeah, it's wrong. But that is not a whole evidence of

your view. You're claiming it's impossible that we that is not not an evidence of your view.

You're claiming it's impossible

that we could have

a shared

normative framework

without

without reducing it

to propositions.

I mean, yeah,

like the thing you just

described to me,

you actually defined it

out of every single

category we used

to define the phenomena

of consciousness so of course it's impossible you said it's not an emotion it's not a belief it's

not a concept it's not a perception i didn't say emotions are uninvolved i i i'm calling into

question how you could justifiably abstract.

How do you, okay, for example.

What kind of phenomena is a, because there's so in your world,

but I don't know why I are playing something in my view.

Like what kind of aspect of consciousness is?

So, okay.

It's not a belief.

You keep interrupting me.

Do you want to hear your answer or what?

Yeah, but you know, I'm telling you.

Okay.

So, in the communication of what we call

meaningfulness and the unconscious basis of language itself,

that, of course, emotions are obviously very involved with that, but the emotions are suspended in the specific structure of an unconscious meaningfulness, whereby people relate their existence to a world and to others.

And this relationality and this structured existence is inherently normative.

Okay.

So there's nowhere in this,

do we need to have propositions

when there's a structure

that that could definitely make

whatever propositions we want to make

ad hoc more likely or less likely, but it doesn't depend upon propositions. Proposition is something we do after the fact. What comes before is a shared normative framework whereby we are affected by the same system and by the same existential state historically and civilizationally.

Yeah, I have two things for respond to that.

Okay, go ahead.

First thing is that do you think you successfully told me what kind of mental state this is?

What do you mean mental state? What do you mean by that?

I would say it's an unconscious mental state for sure.

It's an unconscious mental state?

Yeah, by what do you mean?

What kind of uncons?

Yeah, so like we have all these different terms to classify the different

phenomena.

Because a mental state is an integral totality.

Mental states aren't compartmentalized in reality.

Yeah, I'm not a bundle theorist.

I'm with you.

They're not compartmentalized.

For example, you're very jittered and angry and stuff right now.

Sounds like that, yeah.

Yeah.

So, mental states are not separated in these different categories in real life mental states are an integral totality a a sensibility that absolutely involves reason emotions uh selectively focused for clarity purposes yeah yeah i'm with you reality is whole. Yeah, but what you told me, right? Specifically mental states

Uh, when we

separate mental states into these

different categories, we're making a distinction

that's an abstraction from the real thing. Yes,

it is an abstraction, yeah. Yeah.

Okay, yeah, so, but what did you

told me, right, is you said that everybody

has this uniform

value, normative theory.

You know, everybody has this similar common

understanding. I'm like, okay, what exactly is it? It's not a belief.

It's not a concept. It's not a perception.

It's not a sense. it's not an emotion.

I never said any of that. I never said any of that. I never said it excludes, you can actually

roll about. Never said it excludes emotions, sensibilities, and perceptions. I'm not saying it has

no, okay, listen to what I said. I did not say, I not characterize your perspective, that it has no relation to emotions, it has no, you're, okay, listen to what I said. I did not say, I did not characterize your perspective,

is that it has no relation to emotions.

It has no relation.

So you're saying what specific part of the whole can we reduce it to?

I'm saying none because it's the whole thing.

Okay.

So,

okay,

presumably the term emotion and the term proposition and the term belief get their meaning because of their contrast from each other, right?

So presumably when you-

Proposition is a conscious act.

When you make a proposition, you enunciate consciously something, okay?

Yeah, it's an object of consciousness.

Propositions reflect.

They don't create.

I mean, propositions can reflect.

Proposition has no creative power whatsoever.

Propositions are the product of creation.

That's right.

No, propositions

presuppose

a meaningful

reference point, object of language

in the first place. When you propose something,

propositions identify the objects

of language. What do you...

There's also just like tangential... Okay, let me ask you a question.

Do you think that in order for reality to be...

That the intelligibility of reality always depends upon propositions?

The intelligibility of it?

Yeah.

So, for example, if you're sitting outside and you're seeing birds and chipmunks and all this kind of things, you think that your mind is somehow like secretly making propositions that distinguish all of these things?

No, your perception automatically discriminates birds from trees.

Okay. So what's the problem?

I don't know how you think

that's solved the problem of what I was asking you about.

I asked you what kind of thing, the

fucking hidden value model it is.

You said it's not an emotion. It's not a proposition. It's not a

belief. It's not a conception. It's not a perception.

The normative and moral dimension of human beings is communicated to them in a way that they can perceive implicitly

okay and fred um is you have like a name i can call you is that is that your name fred is that is that how you go by do you. Is that your name, Fred?

Is that how you go by?

Do you have like a real name?

Or like, does that way you prefer? You have 10 seconds to make an argument.

Yeah,

this is the point in Fred.

I asked you what kind of thing is this invisible value monolith?

Everybody inside he has that you can't articulate

and you said it was a communication

in the communication of meeting

it involves emotions and the emotions are unconscious

structure of the emotions and the meaning

and the communication that's formative.

That's genuinely what you said.

You're giving all the way to emotions. That's genuinely what you said. Yeah're giving all the way to emotions. You're giving all the way to...

I said, I said the unconscious

structure of language.

Okay, you're giving all the weight to emotions.

Yeah, there's communication of meaning, bro.

I told you that.

There's the communication of meaning

that involves emotion,

the emotions are in the unconscious, right? And that's not what we're... No, I said the communication of meaning that involves emotion the emotions are in the unconscious, right?

And that's not right? No, I said the structure

of meaningfulness is in the unconscious.

This all seems really coherent, man. Where can I read

more about this?

So do you concede the argument on that point?

Do you think you present an argument to me?

You're, okay, first of all,

you're asking, what kind of thing is it?

And then you're only giving me a very narrow

series of things that could qualify

as what a thing is.

I let you off the rails and you started rambling, dude.

I mean, of course I'm going to give you options.

Like, you need help.

Okay.

When you ask what kind of thing is it,

what are you looking for?

I'm asking for a categorization of kind.

Yeah.

So what part do you want the whole to be reduced to?

Well, it can't be reduced to a part.

Yeah, like with respect to your conceptual arsenal.

It can't.

Emotions aren't real because there's no difference between emotions and thoughts.

We cannot reduce anything to emotions

we can't reduce

language we can't we can't okay

you can you can

you can say emotions are real

but only within the context

of their relationality to other things

when you're talking about emotions

engaging in an abstraction

uh huh when you're talking about emotions you're engaging in an abstraction Uh huh

Yeah I'm asking

to abstract

the value phenomena

You're engaging in an abstraction

when the thing

itself

these things are

interrelated

and relate to each other

I'm asking you to abstract

yeah

I'm asking you to think

about the thing you're talking about

yeah that's what abstraction is

okay you're asking you to think about the thing you're talking about. Yeah, that's what attraction is.

Okay.

You're asking you to either reduce it to a proposition or emotions, and I'm not going to do either of those things.

That's not the true dichotomy.

The dichotomy is, I just want you to classify

conceptually what kind of thing the value monolith is.

What mental phenomena is it? Is it a subconsciously held emotion by every human being?

It is a subconsciously held practical disposition.

It's a disposition?

Yes. What do you mean by it? When you say it's a disposition yes what do you mean by it when you say it's a practical disposition

are you saying it's a kind of like moral it's like a moral intuition

no it's more like a disposition to partake in a specific kind of activity

in the sense that you're like drawn to to partake in a specific kind of activity.

In a sense that you're like drawn to it? Like it's an effective disposition?

Yeah, like an effective disposition.

Is that not just the same thing as a moral intuition?

I would say that you could say it's a moral intuition. Why not?

Okay, so you think that everybody on planet Earth has a uniform moral sense of intuition?

Yeah, uniform sense of moral intuition.

The reason I would be hesitant to say it's a moral intuition but i will if it's necessary for the purposes of argumentation the reason i'd be

hesitant is because i think that the intuition is in itself it's not like uh you know it doesn't

have the metaphysical structure of various moral propositions

but the object of morality is the thing that is we have an inherent intuitive relationship to it's the object of morality

all the moral refers to in the first place is the

material world in its normative disposition and orientation, right? So that we have an intuitive relationship to that by virtue of our humanity and so on and so on is given to me. But that doesn't mean I think that each and every specific propositional claim that we're going to draw from this moral intuition is itself distinctly and separately, like, held, you know, within our unconscious.

That's ridiculous.

This is, yeah, okay, so this is a lot more clear to me now.

So everybody, there's a universal moral sense faculty, which is possessed by every single human being.

And, um, right. And so the important thing here is that we agree moral intuitions are not like

perception. They're a kind of introspection, like emotions where they're constructed through a

sentimental process. No, I don't believe they're constructed internally at all. They're

communicated actively through perception, actually.

It's only via...

Moral intuitions are...

Yeah, it's only via a deeper, an active perception that the moral intuition can acquire.

The intuition with respect to the moral object can be given structure.

Okay, but if you had no beliefs about the good and no values and no value judgments you wouldn't

have a moral intuition right you don't have to have explicit or specific propositions

about any of those things to have a moral intuition. All you have to do is practically

partake and exist

within some kind of integral

social reality.

Yeah, I mean, that just seems to fly in the face of

like every single piece of

psychological literature on how these things

work. I'll happily fly in the face of all the psychological literature on how these things work. I'll happily fly

in the face of all the psychological

literature. As long as we can be on the same page, what I'm actually saying

is someone can, by virtue of being socialized in a certain

way, and partaking in society, growing up in a normal way, right? Understand, for example, that there's something immoral about torturing a kitten or something, or there's something immoral about assaulting children without having to have ever in a deep contemplative, introspective way,

think about why specifically they can internally justify.

Yeah, I don't think that either.

Yeah.

So.

I don't think that either.

That's all I'm really saying.

That's all I'm really saying. That's all I'm really saying.

That's not all you're really saying.

Okay.

Why isn't it what I'm saying?

Yeah, well, it's not all you're really saying

because all you really said, right,

is you told me that whenever I asked you

for the definition of your valued

criteria that I'm treating you as if you're a robot,

I'm not being good faith, and I'm creating arbitrary moral theories that deranged from this

monolithic invisible uniform moral faculty that's not an emotion, not a proposition, not a belief,

not a value, not a concept, not a perception.

And somehow, the reason we have all the moral disagreements that we do in the world is still

consistent with the view that, you know, you have this universal moral sense faculty that

flies in the face of all of psychological evidence regarding the way the sentiments work.

I mean, that's what you've all, that's all of what you've said.

So, no, no, I don't know why you characterize it.

I believe that.

How can there be disagreements if we all share the same moral intuition?

I don't know why you're repeating that.

I've already basically mugged you on that point.

You think that?

Absolutely, I have.

So the only reason that people disagree on moral things is because

they're just not aware of the possibilities.

Because we share.

They're just not aware of the possibilities.

When we don't share the same moral

intuitions, communication becomes impossible

you know why is it the case that people can agree with the

descriptive modal aspects of

communism and then still disagree that it's morally right

or wrong what do you mean by that

yeah so like you said that the reason

why we have moral disagreements is not because

we have a disagreement of, you know, value, the value monolith, because that's universal. You said it's

because we don't, we're unaware of the facts and possibilities regarding the certain systems.

Yeah, but why is it the case that people can have all the descriptive knowledge about

communism and all the modalities and which is possible,

meaning someone could think that communism is possible and also be conducive to a

society that the overall majority regards as better and so on and so on your view on your view

it's impossible that a human being know all the facts about communism descriptively and have a

different moral intuition than somebody else that's your world yeah not simply all the facts

not simply all the facts. Not simply all the facts.

All the facts, all the possibilities.

Assuming that my understanding of communism is correct, right?

That's what you're saying, for the purposes of this argument.

Let's say someone...

Like two people can equally know what communism is and under

their review they can't have different

They can equally comprehend

The reality of communism, let's say

And have no disagreement with respect to its reality

They disagree, yep

And still disagree with it morally.

Yep.

Assuming that this reality is static, which is impossible, and undergoes no active development

or struggle, but assuming it's static, then yes,

they cannot disagree.

But the reason why they will probably

disagree is because at every

step of the way,

communism implies, of course,

a class struggle, a process.

And every step of the way, the possibility can be said that, you know, this communist state that's being built, it's going in the wrong direction. The pressure exists to go in an opposing direction. It's ultimately leading to a worse future and so on and so on when there is when there's an ability to have a contestion about the future for example in this case then i would say it is possible for there to be a distinct, you know, opposing manifestations of the moral intuition that contrast with each other. But if it's static and there's no contention whatsoever about the future at all,

then no, I don't think a moral disagreement is possible or meaning.

So have, like, psychologists or metaphysicians gotten a hold of this universal moral sense faculty that you talk about?

Is there any literature that talks about the universal moral sense?

What do you mean?

Like, there's there any experts

with any... You're just kind of appealing to authority.

Holy blunder. You think appealing to experts is a fallacy?

Yeah.

I mean, it coins you with probability, bro.

So is it more or less likely that if an expert believes something that the belief is true?

I would say this.

I think the majority of human beings agree with me.

More likely.

I think the majority of human beings.

Just quick question. Do you think

that's more likely, given that an expert believes something is true? What? Do you think that it is the case

that if an expert on a subject believe something about that subject, that that proposition they're

believing is true is more likely to be true? Assuming A, that they're truly an expert, and we agree that they're an expert and their

expertise, and B, there's no other outstanding factors, of course.

Oh, Cedrus Paribus, is that evidence?

Not about if there's outstanding factors.

In virtue of the fact that they're an expert and they have that belief is that not a probability raising if we agree on that they're experts then yeah right so then

when i asked you but but if they're merely if they're merely if they're merely people who specialize

in a single field that

is necessarily an abstract

division of labor, mental labor,

then don't interrupt me.

Don't interrupt me.

That's like a nerve. Okay. And I knew you were going to

fucking interrupt me. Because you're

emotionally unable to

To your voice back on, relax.

You're unable to...

Yeah, that sounds like I'm emotionally unavailable, bro.

That's what it sounds like.

You're emotionally unable to cope with the fact that you're being mentally dominated and destroyed.

You're projecting right now.

Why do you have to interrupt me

immediately? What about what I was about to say

scares you? Respectfully, you're

screaming right now. What about

what I was about to say

scares you? The cortisol is fine, dude, that's not

optimal. Okay, so you have

10 seconds to explain what about what I said scared you.

Do you want to talk about the substance?

Okay, the substance of what I was saying is expertise, true expertise, requires an integral understanding of knowledge.

Most psychologists don't have that. Most psychologists don't have that.

Most psychologists don't actually share the same moral,

they don't actually faithfully reflect the intuitions that the majority of human beings have.

I can be,

I can very confidently say that. Most psychologists do not faithfully reflect

the majority of intuitions that people take for granted. So cognitive behavioral therapy, that's just like

hogwash. Yeah. Yeah, dude. I mean, if communism is paved by denying cognitive behavioral therapy

and thinking that appealing to the experts of metaphysics and psychology is a fallacy then

you know i think i think i think psychology is basically 100%

and i think i think that you're really I feel like that you're really

confident

and Hale Fauci

Hale Fauci

Hale Fauci

right?

Hale Fauci

like why would I

care about this

appeal to authority?

It did sound like

what you said

was confidently asserted by you

that's why you

are you confident

are you confident

to end and

concede the debate on the fact that you just find it

preposterous that someone

questions... Your views about moral sense.

It's not about preposterousness. It's about the fact that you think

someone questions the infallibility

of the ruling institutions of society

by way of

their access to

knowing everything about the universe

you think that that's preposterous and you laugh

at that. Is that how you want to... No Socrates.

No Socrates. No Socrates. No Socrates. That's not what I

think. What I think is that you equivocated

an appeal to expertise with an appeal to authority because you haven't watched the YouTube short over the distinction between the two.

And I think that after I pointed that out, you lashed out and screamed to me like an immature child.

No, I'm trying to, no, because you're not, that's really trying to calm down because you know you look terrible after you screamed in me.

That's why you're not crashing out now. You're being really

calm about the fact that you look really embarrassed.

Once if he looks terrible.

Ask the chat, bro.

Yeah, dude. Why are you talking about looking terrible?

Why am I talking about that?

Yeah. What's the point?

I'm going to talk. Yeah, because presumably like as a retition

and spokesperson for your view.

Don't talk about looking any kind of way. Okay, don't worry about it.

You're insecure about how you look. It's fine. Now you're trying to talk about the way

I look. Like nice performance of contradiction,

bro. Come on, make up your mind. Stop

referring to how anyone appears. Oh, now you're screaming.

Hey, hey, dude. It's all good. Hey, it's okay, bro.

It's okay. You don't have to get that. It's okay. Relax.

It's cool. Hey, it's cool, man. I'm not, I'm not screaming at you like I know like I'm a little more emotionally intelligent than you are. That's why I'm keeping my cool. But it's fine.

So you ran away from the argument. Anything else?

I stutter, man. Anything else?

You think I'm, what? You think I ran away from you?

Why are you not committing to the argument? Why are you rambling about nonsense? Commit to the argument.

Right now, you have

yet to respond to what I said.

Okay. Without interrupting me,

what you claimed was that

the majority of experts who you call

psychologists and so on and so on,

do not share this notion

of an inherent, you know, morally, let's say, morally sensitive

intuition, right? That is unconscious. Most of them don't share that view. Therefore, if we agree that

experts are more likely to be true than not true, which, by the way, even in isolation, we'd have to agree that they're experts in the first place, which I don't, in the case of clinical psychologists, I wouldn't say they're experts on matters pertaining to the nature of human beings and their minds.

I would say that they might be experts on psychology itself, but psychology itself is a very

narrow understanding of the full range of what a human being actually is.

If psychologists could explain everything about the nature of the human psych and the unconscious and so on, it'd be the psychologist that ruled society.

They absolutely dominate us, but they don't, and there's a reason for that, because they don't.

So your argument

is bunk. By appealing to the expertise

of psychologists and attempting

to respond to me, that I

think that we share a universal

morally sensitive

intuition as human beings,

part of the definition of what it means to be human, really,

you think that's ridiculous because psychologists don't agree.

Well, that's not a really good argument.

Yeah, I was really convincing.

One, I didn't make an argument.

I asked you a question, and the question was,

are there any people,

psychologists, metaphysicians, what not,

that I'd all talk about at a,

you know, credible, prestigious level,

the things that you're talking about?

Or is this homebrew and you just decided to make it up for the purposes of rambling and talking about communism?

And in response, you lashed out like a child.

Let's –

Let's – let's for the purposes of this argument – let's for the purposes of this argument say –

Let's for the purposes of this argument say, I just made it up entirely

right now. Do you have any way to counter me? I mean, the fact that you made it up right now,

you know, it's arbitrary. I'm going to dismiss arbitrary views. Okay, so you're going to dismiss

something because it wasn't verified by what you would consider an authority.

No, no, no, you just don't have

supporting evidence that has tested very

high physiological standards.

I gave you plenty of supporting evidence.

No, you did. You just explained what you

know, explaining what you think is not giving

supporting evidence. I can, I could, I explained plenty of supporting evidence.

I gave you numerous examples.

I gave you the example of how people actually seem to oddly share moral sensibilities

despite never having,

that's explained by other theories.

Okay, what other theories? Go ahead.

Literally every other moral theory is able to account for moral moral similarities, like all of them.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's give the example of someone on the street who is basically illiterate, who sees a child being beaten up

and thinks it's wrong and goes and

intervenes. What moral theory explains that?

I mean,

and they need not even be a moral theory. You just have a psychological

theory about the fact that... No, no, they think it's wrong.

They think it's wrong, and they say, I thought it was wrong.

In my gut, it told me it's wrong, they say I thought it was wrong. In my gut

it told me it's wrong and I went and I stopped it.

So what is your moral

what moral theory explains that moral

disposition? I mean there's actually

like a lot of moral theories that are compatible with that

feeling so. All you have to do is name one.

All you have do is name one.

Antientia ontology, utilitarianism. Go ahead. do is name one. All you have to do is name one. Contient Deontology, utilitarianism.

Go ahead.

Okay, name one and commit to one.

I just choose one, please.

Like, do you want me to prove that it's true or just prove that's compatible with

explaining the data?

With explaining why that person jumped into action.

Let's go.

Oh, obviously the categorical imperative by Manuel

Kant. Okay. But the categorical imperative implies there was some kind of active process of conscious contemplation that he made, where he committed to a categorical imperative at some point in his life where he said,

I have the duty to consciously commit to this and I will. But he never did that. He's basically

illiterate. He's never actually read any books. He's never actually thought about the topic of

morality all that much. He's never specifically, and with any specific discrimination,

paid any attention to ethics

as this field. He's never read moral

literature or moral philosophy in his entire

life. And somehow he had the moral

intuition to intervene. So how

so you can't explain that in terms of the

category. You can absorb beliefs culturally without, yeah, you can.

You can absorb beliefs culture without giving them much thought.

So where does it come from by way of the categorical imperative?

Because that's the one you wanted to commit to.

Yeah, so yeah, we can all this time this back to economics.

So one of the principles of economics, the division of labor is true also of ideas and it's why philosophers are the people who move history and it's why emmanuel con despite the fact that most people have no idea of you know how to spelling manuel um fact, do endorse a kind of deontology

that's separated from their,

their well-being of happiness.

And so whether or not you're a consciously contemplating philosopher

is,

you know,

irrelevant from whether or not you absorb passively the ideas of philosophers.

So you can't claim on misrepresenting you.

You mean to claim that this, let's say he's a homeless man. His moral intuition was downstream from Kantian philosophers who established, of course you can, of course you can say that. Who normatively established the norm that harming children is wrong and that simply affected him passively.

Is that what you're saying?

Like you as a person

can absorb the ideas of your cultural climate.

Right, but you're saying

those ideas of culture are downstream

from, in this case, Conti and France.

I mean, this guy, he didn't invent them.

Yeah, like somebody who created the ideas,

and this guy absorbed them.

Okay, okay, okay.

I have one thing that just blows up your entire argument.

Oh, yeah, okay.

Let's hear it.

The year in which this happened was 1532.

Okay.

I mean, if you change the hypothetical, I'll give you a philosopher that would have a different view.

No, no, you can't change the philosophy. You're committing to the categorical imperative. Explain how the categorical...

What the fuck are you doing? Why couldn't I change the hypothetical? If you're... Generally, what are philosophy is valid, if your moral philosophy is valid, it should suffice to explain the moral and normative behavior of people across any point in history.

Are you joking?

So, how could Kantian moral... Are you joking? So,

how could Kantian moral... Are you joking?

I'm not joking at all.

When did I,

when did I establish explicitly

that this happened after Khan?

I didn't say that Kantian moral philosophy

explains every single human being, boy.

I explained it,

I said explain the situation you gave.

How does the categorical imperative

explain the homeless man in

1532 intervening?

When you specify the case

to be this particular time, of course it does.

Okay, so this is, see how you've been

destroyed and nuked? You just changed the type of that. What if so this is, see how you've been destroyed and nuked?

You just changed the type of that. What if this was

I never, I never explicitly.

What the fuck is that? Why did you presume that this

was a society? You got me against the corners right now.

What justified? You got me against the ring.

You're projecting. You're just completely

projecting. What are you talking about?

You obviously changed the hypothetical. What justified your

presumption that this was a society that in

any way whatsoever was affected by the thinking of

Emmanuel Kant? What gave you the right to justify that presumption?

What if this happened on North Sentinel Island?

Nowhere in my argument did it rest or was it contingent upon,

living in a society affected by the philosophy of Emmanuel Kant.

Yeah.

Are you, are you, okay, when I told you to pick, answer your question or not.

You said, I'm going to pick a moral philosophy.

Would you like to answer your question or not?

No, no.

I want to continue clarifying this.

You said, I said, I said, there are moral intuitions people have that they express without any reference whatsoever to any kind of philosophy, without any, they could be illiterate.

And this is something we probably agree happens across history, happens in general for human beings.

And I said, how do you explain that?

And I said, okay, I'll pick a moral philosophy then explain.

I'll explain it in terms of Kant's categorical imperative.

I said, how does the categorical imperative explain this if this guy's

illiterate? He said, well, the division

of labor. A Kantian philosopher

somewhere along the line

created the standard by which our society

regards harming children is wrong,

which is factually wrong, by the way,

because Western society has regarded, relatively speaking, the harming of children is wrong even

before Kant was born. So it's not true that this was a consequence of the categorical imperative.

I'd say it was only the consequence for a lock-in.

What?

I said every moral theory could accommodate it.

I gave you an example of one that would.

And you tried to commit to one, and you

fell flat on your face. Will you let me

continue to speak or no?

Okay, continue committing to this.

Yeah, dude, that was a completely dishonest representation of the conversation

because the point you were trying to make was that

only your uniform invisible moral sense theory can explain why everybody has

the same moral intuition about the kid, right? And you said, give me a theory that explain why everybody has the same moral intuition

about the kid, right? And you said, give me a theory

that's able to explain the intuition. I gave you a theory

able to explain the intuition.

And then after I did that,

no, you couldn't. Hold on. Hold on.

It actually, in matter of fact, the moral theory does explain

the intuition, but then

you stipulated the hypothetical in such a way

where another theory would have to explain

the intuition. You added terms and conditions

under which it could influence it,

under very specific, under

a very specific set of

narrow conditions

in this case in which we could prove

that this society was fundamentally

influenced and shaped by

that its morality

do you not see the equivocation

you made the equation you made the

I'm not the one who changed the conditions.

You did.

Yeah, you did.

Yeah, you did.

Yeah, you did.

Because, look, it originally went from...

When did I say this was a society that existed after Comple's born?

I'm going to do a quick...

Hey, hey, dude.

Deep breaths.

I'm going to explain it to you.

You asked me which moral theory can explain the intuition.

In fact,

plenty of,

can explain the moral intuition.

But then,

okay,

it's important to understand you did not ask me,

and it was not something

that I committed to you.

No,

exclusively, hold on,

I'm explaining this to you.

It's important to you that.

You were saying that I did not say that the categorical imperative explains every intuition in human history.

And that, you know, Kant's influence.

It affects people.

The on the-

No, no, no, no.

The onus is on the-

I'm just explaining to you.

I understand your argument, Robert.

I could repeat your argument even better. I could repeat your argument even better.

I can't read your argument to you more quickly, okay?

So I'll repeat your argument so you'll be satisfied with me repeating your argument.

You're trying to say that I did explain how this moral intuition could be explained.

It's just that I never said that this explains every possible context of the manifestation of human morality.

That's right.

Okay.

I'm repeating your argument.

We've all heard your argument, Robert.

I've heard your argument.

Oh, whoa.

I've heard it dozens of times.

I've heard your argument. I've heard it dozens of times. I've heard your argument dozens of times,

we've all heard your argument,

okay?

So shut up for a second,

and let me explain to you.

I got you back.

I got you back.

Let's hear it, bro.

Yeah, let's hear it. Okay. I wish I could interrupt me one time. I got you back. Let's hear it, bro. Yeah, let's hear it.

Okay. I wish I could speak

when I let you long wind.

Let's be clear.

Are you raised quitting?

If you interrupt me one time,

you concede the debate formally.

Are you race quitting?

Oh my God.

What a rule?

That's a good rule, man.

Interrupt me one time right now. That's a good rule, man. Interrupt me one time right now. That's not arbitrary at all.

And you concede the debate.

Hey, do you recall when you interrupted me, though, when I was explaining?

You interrupt me one time and you conceded the debate.

Did you hear when you interrupted me?

You hear when I let you speak and you let me speak?

Do you remember that?

Do you recall that? You interrupt me one time

and you can see the debate.

That's how this is going to go forward.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to present my counter

argument.

If you interrupt me one time,

if you interrupt me one time,

you conceding too, right?

If you interrupt me, you're conceding too, right?

I'm going to make my counterargument.

Oh, my God, you're so scared to stop interrupting me.

You're like obviously trying to have a monopoly on the verbi.

So you look more appealing to your audience after you.

Okay.

So to explain to you why you're wrong, I never included in my example of a homeless

person on the street coming and rushing to the defense of a child, this was any specific date in

human history. I never specified what society it was, and I never

specified what period of history

it was. So those qualifications

were implicit in your argument,

right? You never specified them.

You imposing those specific qualifications upon my example are not justified. The onus is not on me

to exclude those qualifications. The onus is on you to establish the universality of those qualifications. If I'm making an argument of how can a moral philosophy explain how an uneducated, illiterate person who has never in a propositional sense ever thought of this matter ever in their life, how could they possibly rush

to the, how can they act in a normative moral way? I said, several moral theories can explain. That's what

you said. I said, commit to one with a capital C, commit. That's what I said. Commit.

You said, I'll commit to Kantian philosophy

and the categorical imperative.

I convinced you somehow

that this would

be inapplicable. You tried to make

the argument that, well,

in this case, Kantian philosophers somehow influenced society and that his moral intuitions were downstream from Kantian philosophers who acquired infamy or fame and so on and so on in institutional credibility.

But here's the problem with that.

You aren't explaining

the moral intuition

of this individual. You're only

explaining under a very

narrow set of circumstances

how this could possibly

how the categorical imperative could have

possibly been the cause

of his moral

actions but those

are very very narrow narrow

circumstances that you arbitrarily invented.

Circumstances where this happens after Emmanuel Kant is born or dies and in a society influenced by Kantian philosophy.

By the way, if you're going to commit to a Kantian moral philosophy, by relativizing

Kant's philosophy and saying, well, the categorical imperative is not actually a categorical imperative.

I'm just going to, you know, give Kant as a philosopher some explanatory value, you know, with respect to how people are influenced by this philosopher, you're no longer committing to Kant

anymore. You're not committing to Kant's moral arguments anymore. You're making a separate

argument, which is like more of a sociological moral relativism or something. Our morality is shaped and defined by whoever the most popular philosopher happens to be.

That's a distinct moral theory than Kant's categorical imperative.

So do you see how on every count you fucked up and fell flat on your face?

Hegel invented dialectics.

You know, the categorical imperative is when the most popular philosopher shapes the moral conventions of the society.

Everything is reducible to everything about the human psych can be reduced to what

psychologists think. It's not an appeal to authority to say I'm not going to engage with your

argument unless you can cite some kind of reputable

expert who I regard with authority that agrees with you. So in so many different ways,

you stumbled and you fumbled and you fucked up.

I know why, and I understand very well,

why you kept interrupting me,

because you probably at some point understood how you fucked up.

You probably at some point realized what error he made and uh you know and cab dogo why don't you

request if you think that idiot or that simpleton uh in any sense could hold his own.

You try it.

Your name is Ancapp Doggo.

You're just an Epsteinite.

You're nothing else.

I can. I'm on PC. Okay. You're a Praxben fan. Just like,

Praxpan is like your dad, right? I, I humiliated your leader.

Praxman got so destroyed. It's like, think about this. Why is he obsessed with me? I'm not obsessed with him.

By the standard of the debate rules he agreed to, he lost. He will never live down that

humiliation for the rest of his days. Your father,

Prax, Ben, is destroyed forever.

Somebody named Ave

Ben owns you Haas

Bouncy Ben

Estrogenic Bouncy Ben doesn't own anyone

Estrogenic bouncy Ben

Uh bouncy ben this he's such a highly

estrogenic creature I mean who

there's people who take this guy seriously

I don't even know how to engage with you if you take a person like

that seriously I guess we don't share the same evaluative system or whatever right

he was shaking and nervousness I remember him he was like bouncing and shaking and nervousness.

He came to the debate. He said, I don't even know why I'm here. He's absolutely gesture maxing.

The way PRAX, by the way bouncy Ben talks,

he'll get what's coming to him for sure the way he talks undoubtedly

i mean you want to talk shit like that it's like okay buddy okay, buddy. I mean, this is, you're clear.

There's no longer about debate, about ideology or nothing anymore.

Snoopy, I don't know how you could cope like that, dude.

You got destroyed.

Your leader got destroyed.

I'm sorry.

I gave them every...

I said,

as long as you just don't interrupt me

and let me make this counter argument,

whatever.

I said, but if you interrupt me,

you concede.

He interrupted me, he conceded.

Simple as that.

Let me ask you a question.

Snoopy, how is the debate possible if he just keeps in? Thank you.

All of you people

who live in these

kingdoms of cope,

these kingdoms of propositional

logic cope,

I don't have parents.

I did not voluntarily sign a contract

thereby making it unethical for me to regard. My father parents. I did not voluntarily sign a contract, thereby

making it unethical for me to regard

my father and mother with any authority.

I do not have it.

Listen, I have nothing to say to you.

You are autistic

separatists

from humanity.

You're not the masses. You're not our target audience.

Us winning you over means nothing.

Because you don't live in reality. It's like you're a furry to me.

I like the libertarians who say, I don't like, you know, being oppressed.

We want the federal government to leave us alone so that we can actually live the normal society we want to.

Okay, these are, this is is popular ordinary people libertarianism.

No problem with them.

But you people who are logic-lording and stuff, you're time-wasters.

We gain nothing from you.

You're literally just wasting our time, running in circles,

and why would I even want to make communism impalpable to you if you can't even begin with common

sense? The first one, okay, what's your proposition about, okay, for 10 minutes we have to argue about what an argument is.

Okay, I think communism is good.

Proposition one, communism is good.

Proposition 2.

The linear type B tablet.

Linear type B theory. The linear type B. The linear type B theory

the linear type B theory

the linear type B

linear type B linear type B

what was he

what was he fucking talking about?

Type B moral error theory.

If moral error theory is true,

Proposition 3, then it is false.

It is true. Prophysician 4.

Therefore, communism is false.

He's like, that's my argument.

I'm like,

I'm a very patient person.

Everyone knows that about me.

I'm very patient.

By the way, who can say I'm not patient? Name a single

person who would put up with that.

Everyone says I always spur out

and stuff, but name a single person who's

going to put up with that besides me.

What, name a single person

who will put up with that besides me.

A single person who has the patience to talk to someone like that, except me.

Does anyone exist on earth who would talk to someone like that but me?

Talking about some babble like that.

I'm the only one who will actually put myself through that.

At 2.30 a.m., every single time I've spurred out I've been 100% justified

I've never done it without justification

all right guys this stream was a big...

I shouldn't... I have to wake up early.

Fuck, I have, like, three hours to sleep.

Holy shit.

All right, I just destroyed my chances of...

sanity.

All right, for tomorrow. That. All right,

for tomorrow.

That's all right,

whatever.

Snoopy,

you are an Epsteinite that you're saying that.

Second of all, Snoopy, you have one thing, Snoopy, is it possible?

If someone is constantly making it impossible with their voice, making sounds that make my words

unintelligible? How could they have possibly

want anything? Snoopy?

Snoopy, I will mock and destroy

you in every sense, okay? Don't even talk to me.

You're nothing.

But explain this.

How can someone win

who won't even let you make an argument

because he keeps screaming

how could they possibly win at anything

at that point the argument was about

will you permit the possibility

of a counter argument can be can the possibility of a counter argument

can the audience hear a counter

argument

you're letting a nobody get in your head

it's sad

um

I'm letting

what do you mean I'm letting

You're literally in a

TikTok with 40 people in it

And you're one of them

I'm also nobody on TikTok

Right now

Okay

There's 40 people here

You're one of them.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

Oh, you're giving me attention.

Yeah, I'm giving one of the 40 people in my TikTok attention.

That's so small of me.

Anyway, guys, we're ending the TikTok right now because it's 3 a.m.

And only I'm autistic enough to fucking do this.

You know, the stream was supposed to be only two hours.

I'm supposed to be waking up in literally two hours. Holy fuck. I'm not sleeping tonight.

And that's fucking hell. Fucking shoot me. But second of all, I'm fucking autistic as fuck because a fucking normal person would have ended it and I didn't.

And it's not like I did this shit for money because, uh...

And y'all donated a good amount. amount i appreciate you guys thank you so much

appreciate you guys. Thank you.

But I didn't do this for money. All right. I'll tell you that.

I did this out of fucking autism.

I've had such an active day. The fact I'm not getting sleep is crazy.

All right.

God help.

Those who see me tomorrow.

Humble. Thank you, bro. Appreciate you.