Haz from Infrared Responds to Essay Andy

so let's begin

let's begin let's begin

without further ado

you're gonna see the seething mind of a

[ __ ] vegan

the seething pathology and mind of a

[ __ ]

angry vegan

this is all their pent-up aggression

from not being able to eat meat

stupidity plus aggression

two things that could be solved by

eating meat meat will make you smart

and that will it will make you have less

pent up aggression you'll actually be

able to release your aggression in

healthy ways one of those healthy ways

is eating meat itself the other healthy

way

is being able to get more girls

and find your release that way

two things being a vegan will not

[ __ ] allow you to do

let's go

if a random person on the street says

some that something bad

we can assume what they mean vaguely

without bad

being an intangible transcendental

concept

that can only be conveyed with some kind

of visceral

performance so me break down his

argument

i said that the real premises

that give meaning to the word bad

are and he's saying they are allegedly

on my part this is what i was saying

intangible

transcendental and can only be conveyed

with some kind of visceral performance

let's just grant him that straw man

using words i didn't really even use

besides visceral

does any did anyone catch the mistake he

just [ __ ] made in his first sentence

that makes him so [ __ ] stupid beyond

the point of redemption

so [ __ ] embarrassing that he should

delete his youtube account and run away

from the internet forever

this it's because this was actually my

argument when someone uses the word bad

you can actually assume what they mean

without

consciously engaging with the real

material premises of

that meaning that was my argument

he is trying to shift the burden

of making a big deal out of the word bad

onto me

when it was ask yourself who is making a

big deal over the use of the word bad

i was the one arguing that ask yourself

should be able to understand what bad

means

without me having to explain

the intangible transcendental concepts

that require some kind of visceral

performance i was the one [ __ ] saying

that

actually ask yourself made me

explain to him that the real premises

of the meaning a source and all of the

web of associations

that account for the wealth of uses of

the word bad

would take a lot of brain power to

explain consciously and explicitly

and most human beings don't do that they

just do it

the and here's why i accuse this person

of psychosis

because he doesn't understand that

there's a discontinuity

between the real premises of the meaning

of a word

and the meaning of the word taken at the

point of

conscious articulation now what does

that mean

i'll explain it to you very simply

if there are very complicated factors

that

premise the meaning of the word bad that

doesn't mean

that each individual is consciously

aware of those factors

that's why they are actually unconscious

i didn't say that each individual has a

conscious belief or conscious

association or conscious knowledge of

all of the complexities

that go into the conditioning the

meaning of the word bad that's not what

i [ __ ] said i said the contrary

i said in order for us to interrogate

psychotically this word bad

and all of the associations thereof we

would have to interrogate all of those

complex material premises

something that people using the [ __ ]

word don't have to do in the ordinary

context

by the way guys this is just the first

sentence this is just the first sentence

and there's multiple layers of stupidity

to the first sentence alone

by the way if that wasn't embarrassing

enough

okay moreover

bad being intangible transcendental

that can only be conveyed with some kind

of visceral performance

if that is the premise of the word

the alleged premise on my part because

you straw manning me of what goes into

making the word bad meaningful then the

person on the street

would have already had the meaning of

the word bad

demonstrated to them in such a way the

way being a visceral performance

well before you they were approached

randomly on the street in other words

growing up as a child they would have

already

been acquainted with the meaning of the

word bad and the visceral

the reason i said a visceral performance

is because the word bad

and its intelligibility thereof

is a fundamental unit

sorry it's a fundamental form which

cannot be broken down

it's like a color

or a temperature in order to demonstrate

the meaning of those things

you have to actually demonstrate it in

some kind of

visceral way now why did i say visceral

because the word visceral will connote a

level of proximity

that is greater than what can be

afforded

by conceptual abstraction

now if all of that went over your head

i'm gonna simplify it for you

what he is saying is aiken

to someone saying

demonstrate the premises

of being able to utter the word yes

simple right so if i told you in a

vacuum

how does one say the word yes what

simply just say yes you do with your

tongue with your mouth

yes right wait a second

what else goes into being able to say

the word yes

human anatomy your physiology your brain

we don't even know how that [ __ ]

works

there are so many factors these are this

is the one relevant for the human body

by the way there's also

there's also uh other biosphere

factors and [ __ ] geological factors

and [ __ ] i'm not even talking about

the dishonesty lies in him saying oh you

can't even demonstrate how to say yes

but the conditions of demonstrating yes

you have given me are

in a vacuum because you are trying to

elevate this to the status

of propositional logic

i would have to literally replicate all

of the complexities that go

into a being being able to utter the

word yes

and because i cannot obviously do that

in a vacuum

he can go ahead and say you can't even

do something as simple as demonstrate

how to say yes

he doesn't understand how stupid he

[ __ ] sounds like

you can just go ahead and say that oh

you can't even define the meaning the

meaning of the word bad

but you can't do it either without

arbitrarily

isolating one sense of the word bad

from the rest of the senses of that same

word which are by the way all

interconnected

they are all interconnected senses the

same reason why someone says

they are good people and someone says

this is a bad tire are one and the same

one is a utilitarian type of meaning the

tire does not

perform the intended function the other

one has nothing to do with function it's

more ontological these people

are fundamentally good or bad

so beta male pseudo intellectual beta

male

just from your first sentence alone i've

[ __ ] destroyed you and wrecked you

beyond the threshold

of redemption just from their first

sentence alone

your sentence implies there is no

discontinuity between the real

conditions of meaning and meaning as it

is consciously explicated and

articulated

but there is a discontinuity the real

conditions that go into

the meaning of a word are different from

the way in which we consciously attempt

to premise that meaning

and his later argument will be that well

we need

precision because this isn't uh well

we'll just get into it right

we generally have an idea of what they

mean because it occurs in an informal

context we need it ask them

this is your second sentence which is

also your second

l we need an l counter by the way we're

gonna we're gonna count his ls

so let's actually do this new source

instead

l count

let's just do there's how much else were

there let's just say to be fair to him

there's five so far

right just to be fair there's way more

probably when i just described

l count five

color we're going to make it black

l count five he's got five l's so far

count the l's guys by the way as we go

on okay

from the first sentence alone we have

five l's at least five l's i'm being

generous i didn't even count all of them

by the way this is assuming

this is just assuming he only wrote that

first sentence

like we don't really know

how how much more stupid this sentence

is going to be in context as we continue

if he just wrote that sentence he had

five l's for free

five l's for free okay second one

which we have an idea of what they mean

because it incurs in an informal context

we needn't ask them

that begs the question why

what justifies a context being informal

versus formal how could a context

possibly be informal rather than formal

how can you justify that discontinuity

and that difference

and was that discontinuity not the very

object of my argument

in the first place you're trying to

create a sharp division between a formal

context

and an informal context despite that

they're using the same words

and you claim or i can infer that you're

coming from a perspective of analytical

philosophy which is where ask yourself

was coming from

well analytical philosophy is the very

field that coined the term

ordinary language philosophy and the

basic idea of ordinary language

philosophy is that the words that are

used in philosophy

and the ones that are used in informal

context are actually the same words

the same words bad

does not suddenly be have a different

meaning just because it's being used in

a formal context

actually so the context being formal or

informal is completely irrelevant

but you still have yet to justify

why it is in an informal context you

needn't ask them

if you can have an idea of what they

mean in an informal context

why wouldn't you have to ask them that's

two l's i can count

so let's let's go to the properties

let's add the two l's seven l so far

from the two first two sentences

let's continue i'm gonna upload this too

by the way i'm just gonna show you the

anatomy of a seething

pseudo-intellectual

[ __ ] [ __ ] who thinks they're

actually making some kind of point

whether or not a y would infer what that

person means in that context is

irrelevant to his inquiry

in this interaction but you didn't

actually pick up

what i said okay there's a few prongs to

this

third sentence that need to be broken

down that are so [ __ ]

stupid and embarrassing beyond the

[ __ ] threshold

of redemption the first one

is that if you actually listen to the

argument i was trying to explain to ay

that he would not conceptually infer

what that person means in context and if

he did

he is a very abnormal human being

because most human beings who do not

engage in conceptual criticism

or philosophy know what the word means

in context

without having to infer anything at a

conceptual level

they are able to infer it at an

intuitive and

unconscious level which is by the way

the actual content

and source that could possibly justify

your first sentence the common sense

fact that most people know what bad

means without even having to [ __ ]

think

so it's not a matter of what he would

infer in context

it's a matter of the fact that if we

deny that the meaning of words

are beyond conscious reflection

at some kind of level human

communication and language

is not possible or i don't know if i

should get into this argument now or

i'll do it later

so we'll put that on the back burner

because

it's going to be more relevant to one of

the later stupid arguments we're going

to see

okay b it is not irrelevant to his

inquiry in this interaction because the

object of the debate was actually not

about

the nature of the word bad

the object of the debate was whether

vegans are

bad if i possess

some kind of special view of what bad

or good means the only relevance that

will have

will be borne out

by actually debating about the content

of why vegans are good or bad people

it is actually not relevant whatsoever

what my special view whether conscious

or unconscious

of what bad is and this is what i tried

to

explain so yes pointing out that he

should be able

to continue the debate without pressing

me

on what i mean by bad

is relevant

he should have been able to debate me

about whether vegans are good or bad

without having to [ __ ] ask me what

bad means he should have actually thrown

himself

into debating about the content of good

and bad and i'm gonna have to repeat

myself again because he's gonna say some

stupid [ __ ] i have to say again

but i'll actually explain why so

when we actually imperil

the content of our differing conceptions

of good and bad

by means of debate it may become evident

that the only consistent threat of

rationality behind

my accusation of vegans being bad and

moreover my

moral semantic in general is my

personal preferences that may be true or

may not be

true but it is actually not relevant for

purposes

of establishing the premises with which

to begin for a debate

because i'm not debating about moral

semantics i'm debating about whether

vegans are good

or bad whether they we will conclude

with the view

that according to his personal

preferences

this could not possibly be the case is

irrelevant

but what makes this even more [ __ ]

stupid is that to restrict the scope

of what bad means to against my personal

preferences

is completely arbitrary there's no

reason

to do that because it would enable to

exhaust it wouldn't be able to exhaust

the breadth

and the diversity with which this word

is used

bad is used in many different contexts

and in many different ways and it's

still actually the same word

it doesn't subtly become a different

word just because it's used in a

different way

actually the wealth of ways in which the

use of the word good and bad are

used are actually what define the words

overall not some kind of pre-established

sentence arbitrarily contrived

for purposes of propositional logic

so you get you're putting the cart

before the horse and getting things

backwards

the actual meaning of words like good or

bad

we derive and develop as human beings

from the different and diverse wealth of

their actual use

you could not possibly condition that

use

to one narrow sense of what goes against

my preferences moreover

i don't even agree with that conception

of good or bad

to even further demolish your point

we're about at what

four or five l's just from this sentence

alone

to even further demolish your point

i even asked ask yourself if he's asking

me for some kind of ethical or moral

system

with which i will disclose what it is i

consider

the good or bad to be

but he didn't actually bite he said

he completely ignored that question and

talked about why he's asking

for what i mean about bad specifically

if he was going to ask me what my moral

or ethical system was

maybe it would be different but that's

not what he asked me he asked me what

does bad mean

i can't restrict what the meaning of the

word bad

is going to be to one narrow sense

if you don't know what bad means you're

not

knowledgeable or experienced enough as a

human being to debate anyone

but this trick that my vegan opponents

are pulling

from the ask yourself debate can be

summed up in the following way

they are trying to trick you the

audience

with the following

under the pretext of the following

contradiction that they're not

actually being honest about obviously

bad is a very simple word

but disclosing the finite range of

meaning with which this word

can be used is anything but

simple and really think about it can you

really define

bad i challenge you to do this

and at the same time

maintain

a consistent applica applicability of

this definition

across the ways in which this word is

used

because remember people don't use words

because they read them in the dictionary

people use words because those words

make their reality

intelligible in ways that otherwise

wouldn't be

or they at least give form to that

intelligibility

that's about six i'll be generous

six i think seven but i'll be generous

six so let's add

13 13 else

you are being asked what you mean by bad

in the context of a debate because it is

not an informal context

whether it's a formal or informal

context doesn't actually matter

because a the content of the debate

does not consist in what the word bad

means

the debate may reveal differing

conceptions of good or bad that are

irreconcilable

but that can only be concluded from an

actual debate as to their real content

so what that means for your tiny peanut

brain

is that if he for example

thinks vegans are good i think they are

bad the debate is about why

it's not about our differing conceptions

of good or bad it's about

why we have the conceptions we do if he

ends it with

i just think bad is any everything

against my preferences

he is just disclosing his unwillingness

to debate about the content

because his restriction of the word

bad to anything that goes against his

preferences

doesn't actually exhaust the breadth of

the meaning of this word

two l's so far

that's two other l's fifteen we're gonna

go sentence by sentence

15ls

it is a recorded debate one which you

asked for

and your into clear seeks a clear

representation

of the positions on the table you're

right

it is a recorded debate that i asked for

but the subject matter of that debate

was whether or not vegans are bad people

not what

the word bad means maybe there's some

wax in your ears while you are watching

the debate

and you need to have those cleared

cleaned out because it sounds like you

didn't actually hear

what i said was going to be the topic of

the debate

saying that my interco interlocator

seeks a clear representation of the

positions on the table

is a funny way of describing his

robotic and arbitrary childish attempt

to make me to pigeonhole my use of a

very common and simple word

into one restricted definition for no

justifiable reason at all

just because it is a formal debate

which by the way it isn't how much is 4l

so far

which by the way it isn't that's the

fourth vowel from this sentence alone

it's not a i never actually said it was

going to be a formal debate we're going

to get into that more too by the way

um but even if it was

in a formal debate you don't actually

have

to define every single word you use

why is it that only bad was

what i had to define why didn't i also

have to define every other word

used and why shouldn't i have pressed

him to define every single word

he uses but the sorry truth is

five else so far the sorry truth is

the buck eventually has to stop

somewhere you can describe the words

you're using

with other and substitute that those

words with as many words as you want

but the buck has to stop somewhere where

both parties acknowledge

that they know what they both mean and

end it there

his demand that i clarify what the word

bad

means

betrays an inability to comprehend

language

at a reasonable level that is to be

expected of another human being

he is therefore ill-equipped to debate

about anything

as far as i'm concerned

the content of the position on the table

was not

the meaning of the word good or bad it

was

whether or not vegans were good or bad

eight l's 23 l so far

if one party is incapable of explaining

what he means by the main word in his

main claim

then that is sufficient to halt the

debate

the main word in my main claim

is not the actual you played a trick

you're trying to make it seem like the

main or operative word in the claim

is the same as the content of the claim

the content of the claim is that vegans

are bad

not that bad has a special or restricted

meaning that is in

need of being uh clarified whatever

special what it is that i mean by bad

and what it is that he means by bad is

only something that could actually be

clarified

in the debate about why we think they're

good or bad

it's not something you have to begin the

debate with

moreover it's not something you should

begin the debate

with if he's not willing to debate about

whether vegans are good or bad

he should just say so

moreover

you innocently word this sentence as

though the issues that i mainly didn't

explain

what bad means but that assumes

he doesn't know what bad means but as

i've explained

every [ __ ] human being and the formal

or informal context doesn't matter

according to your own

ordinary language philosophy bad means

what bad means it is in not in need of

explication

it is fundamental enough for it to be

an intelligible

that words can only relate to by means

of metanewme

in other words the actual content of

good and bad will never actually be

encapsulated

in one formal way it is a fundamental

discontinuity in our reality

that requires us to have words like good

or bad

this is in contrast to other words

which may be able to be explicated by

using other words in their stead

or to explain them this is a word that

is not in need of explication

any more than words like hot or cold

are moreover

again the main claim was whether vegans

are good

or bad well the main claim on my part

was that they were bad the topic of the

debate

is why i'm saying that he has to defend

why he's saying why he might disagree

or why he might agree

but his agreement is not going to be

conditioned because

i am narrowly defining what the word bad

means in such a way

he said well if you define it in this

way i might agree with you

but i'm not defying it in a individually

contrived way

i'm defining it in the way using the

vocabulary and language that i have

inherited socially

that is meaningful only at a collective

and social level

like all other language i'm not creating

my own

private language as wittgenstein would

put it

so the assumption is that i'm making my

own private language i'm not

that's five more l's

28 l's so far

28 l's

how can anyone contend with something if

they don't have clarity on such a

fundamental thing

well it's because you just said it

bad is such a fundamental word and it's

such a fundamental

a web of associations

sorry such a fundamental anchoring point

of so many different webs of association

of so many different associations that

if you don't have clarity

about what this word means before anyone

engages in a debate

you are not equipped to engage in any

kind of human conversation whatsoever

formal or informal

let me think if i'm going to unleash

more arguments for this sentence or i'm

going to save them

what is responsible for his lack of

clarity that is ultimately the question

if he wants clarity if he truly for

whatever private

reason that actually has nothing to do

with the debate the content of the

debate

wants to know what i mean by good or bad

he should imperil

his reasoning just like i would be

willing to imperil my reasoning

as to why i think vegans are good or bad

people

then at the conclusion of the debate he

will be able to infer

or deduce what it is i mean by good

or bad

if our conceptions truly are

irreconcilable

and by the way defining the meaning of

good and bad is only going to be

relevant if our conceptions are

fundamentally

irreconcilable but what good faith means

is that at the outset of a debate you

agree upon what the words mean

through the course of debate if you come

to a standstill

an irreconcilable and unbridgeable

standstill

the reasoning for which can be

attributed to differing conceptions of

words

that will definitely become apparent but

in any debate

differing conceptions and meanings of

words should never rear their head

they should never rear their head if you

have differing conceptions and meanings

of words

one person is necessarily wrong

one person is restricting the meaning of

a word or one person is overextending it

in a way

that a reasonable person shouldn't be

able to accept

once again this [ __ ] is committing

the fallacy of assuming private

language is the domain of debate when

his own ordinary

language philosophy that comes from

analytic philosophy and which is almost

universally accepted

by analytic philosophers prohibits the

use of private language

divorced from ordinary language if the

content and subject matter

is relating to things of this world

like vegans maybe when you're talking

about mathematics in this experimental

setting you can

you can call gru you can have the gray

and blue comp whatever the [ __ ] that

random whoever that guy said you can do

that but when i'm saying something like

vegans are bad

yeah you have to agree upon what the

words mean

and if there's some kind of

misunderstanding about what words mean

the aim is to find words that mean the

same thing

so actually this is really interesting

if there is an irreconcilability in the

meaning of words

the goal of any debate would be to

substitute those words with words that

actually do

contain a common meaning between both

parties

just so you can get the point across for

ergo

if i'm using a word that someone

disapproves of i will try to find the

word

that connotes and means the thing that

i'm trying to convey

in terms of their sense

that is actually the object and aim of a

real debate not to [ __ ] get into

semantic black holes

four more else

four more l's

32 32 l's

from the first two paragraphs this idiot

acquired 32 l's from the first

two paragraphs what a dumb [ __ ]

what a literal dumb [ __ ] literally

32 l's from two paragraphs

and he took time to write this seething

angle

little [ __ ]

i'm the alpha i'm the alpha me

i'm the alpha

you thought you were a smart

intellectual and you were demonstrating

some kind of point

that i couldn't [ __ ] tear apart and

dissect

were you to actually face me in vc and

give me the chance to

i sat down and read this now you're

gonna [ __ ] reap the rewards of your

writing

your little stupid [ __ ] writing i

hope you feel stupid and go to bed

stupid too and i have a suspicion

you will you will

because you are unhinged you interpret

this desire for clarity as dishonesty

and unnecessary rigidity

what you're calling a desire for clarity

would when taken to its logical

conclusion

prohibit the possibility of human

communication altogether

whether in a philosophical or informal

context

moreover i've seen some of your other

arguments throughout this comment

section

you seem to be under the pres the

impression that philosophy is synonymous

with propositional logic

which is actually not true propositional

logic

operates in vacuums whereas philosophy

insofar as we deal with the actual

history of philosophy before

analytic philosophy confine the meaning

of a word to a narrow sense

philosophy deals with the real world

the intuitions with which words

are apart and a whole host

of unclear and ambiguous things

this idea that philosophy only deals

with

precision taken in the sense of absolute

formal consistency because right

precision is an ambiguous word

what he's talking about is formal

precision

this would actually make philosophy

altogether impossible

and make it a form of some kind of

technical science like mathematics and

that's actually what analytic

philosophers did

they turned philosophy or confused

philosophy with a technical science and

a technical paradigm

technical paradigms like architecture

the example you used differs from

philosophy

because philosophy deals

with conceptual thought

but concepts could not possibly be taken

in a vacuum in the way that the

variables

of abstract logic are concepts are

endowed

with all of the intuitive associations

and all of the whatever mythical

[ __ ]

the fairy dust that analytical

philosophers accused of continental

people

concepts are endowed with the burden of

containing all of those things

if you read the history of philosophy

before

the bertrand russell idiots spawned

and changed the meaning of the word in

the anglo-saxon speaking world

you will find that philosophy is rife

with references to very ambiguous

associations that may even have only

had meaning within the context

philosophers before analytic philosophy

make use

of poetry make use of uh

ironies and literary catchisms and so on

and so on

mods please wake up can you wake up mods

can you wake up mods

do we have mods in the chat if not i'll

mod some people do we have any mods

based thank you cruel

we don't have mods i have to mod some

people

class 232 you wanna oh black lennon yeah

black lennon 1918.

class 232 i'm modding you

there you go two new mods

we're done with mod for today we're not

i'm not modding anyone else okay

it isn't your opponent yes it is

actually and i forgot to add the ls

that's about five l's 37 l

so far

37 l's what a [ __ ] loser

your opponent needed to know whether

your definition of bad simply means

something

such as against my preferences or

against the preferences of god

my moral aesthetic

bears no conditional

relevance as to being able to continue

with debating the content of the subject

matter at hand

it may prove to be relevant later on in

the debate

but as for establishing the premises

with which you can begin

a debate it is of no relevance and of no

consequences

for example if the object of the debate

if the object of a debate is to prove

which position is more persuasive

more sound or whatever it is only

through the content of the debate

that our differing potentially differing

moral aesthetics

can actually compete if i think that

bad means against the will of god

and his means against my preferences

through the course of debate if my

arguments prove to be more persuasive

overall

then this benefits a moral aesthetic

according to which

bad means against the will of god

so you see you cannot premise the debate

with what the word is going to mean

you have to begin with the understanding

that bad and good

do refer to the same thing for everyone

now they do refer to the same things

the way in which we perceive the meaning

of these words

or the deeper rationality behind why we

use these different words

that may differ but the words ultimately

refer to the same

thing like i said bad is

bad it's not a different word it's bad

if for example i wanted to debate

about a narrow meaning and here is where

you're gonna get your biggest

[ __ ] l and this is gonna count as two

wells because it's such a big

fat [ __ ] l that literally destroys

every [ __ ] comment you've made on

this video

you want to hear it if i wanted to

narrowly restrict

the meaning of bad to some kind of

narrow definition i would have just said

the definition in

substitute for the word i didn't

say vegans go against my preferences or

weakness defy the will of god i said

they are bad willing to imperil

every possible meaning of the word bad i

am willing to fight my opponent

in terms of the debate on this question

i said vegans are bad i did not say

vegans go against my

if i wanted to anchor my argument

in a very specific

restricted arbitrarily restricted by the

way

meaning of the word bad i would have

just put that

[ __ ] meaning in my [ __ ] prop

in my [ __ ] claim i would have just

said i think vegans

are defying society or defying god or

defying my preferences i would have just

said that

that would have been my argument that

wasn't my argument

my argument was that they were bad

in other words when i used the word bad

dumbass

i mean to use the word bad with all of

the connotations that word may have

now whether your connotations can be

justified

or let me put it in a better way if

the meaning of the word bad you have is

arbitrarily narrow

or arbitrarily too great

that's your [ __ ] problem that's going

to be exposed and proven in the debate

itself

if for example you end up saying

to me i think

that eating babies is not bad

the burden lies upon you

to defend the rationality the reasoning

behind that statement

that reasoning may reveal a fundamental

view of good and bad

that radically contrasts to our common

sense

or to the common sense of an audience

but whose [ __ ] fault and burden is

that

upon is it is it my problem

that you may have an arbitrarily narrow

scope

in terms of the meaning of the word bad

one that is arbitrarily narrow

in regards to the ordinary use of the

word that's not my [ __ ] fault

i do strive for precision anan which is

why i use the word bad

if i wanted to mean something else i

would have just said that

i mean bad bad is a fundamental

bad is a fundamental unit

in a sense of thought it's a fundamental

intelligible of thought

okay not a unit it's a fundamental

intelligible of thought

if i wanted to say something else i

would have i said they're bad

okay

now you could ask for example good or

bad

for whom you could ask

why do you think vegans are bad what

justifies that those are

great questions to ask after i come in

and say vegans are bad

saying bad for whom bad in what context

bad why

what's your reasoning that's actually

how you would facilitate a real [ __ ]

debate

instead of running away like a [ __ ]

[ __ ]

because you're too [ __ ] scared to

actually debate about the subject and

the content of the debate

is there a debate tonight yes there's

probably going to be multiple it's going

to be ugly tonight

okay guys we're more than halfway

through

and i'm gonna lob on some more l's

he took 41 l's

41 [ __ ] l's

do you believe someone's actions can

degrade them below the level of a human

yeah writing this can definitely do that

i definitely think that

you have an infantile claim which has

zero substance

and only exists as superficial and

semantic

maybe that's because it was going to be

the subject matter that was going to be

subject to debate

and maybe it would have been elaborated

upon and given

substance if it was actually debated but

he didn't want to debate

my infantile claim he wanted to debate

about what the word bad means he didn't

want to debate whether the claim

is meaningfully true he wanted to debate

about the meaning of a word

thomas

it only exists as superficial and

semantic

to be fair that was one l that was one l

that was the one sentence that only had

one l because it was a pretty

straightforward stupid [ __ ] thing to

say

no wait actually he claims that it's

infantile

how do you justify saying it's infidel

to say vegans

are bad people you can only judge

whether the claim is infantile

after the reasoning and elaboration

for the claim is clear so actually

that's two l's

you can't just say it's infantile before

knowing why i said it

three yeah that's two else

x is bad i won't tell you what i mean

because it's obvious what bad means

no the qualifications for telling him

what i mean would be

why or in what sense are vegans bad

people

not what the meaning of the word bad

itself means

the issue here is not that i wasn't

disclosing what i meant by saying vegans

are bad people

but that i wasn't willing to arbitrarily

restrict

the actual meaning of the word bad

even for purposes of debate because i

wasn't interested in

engaging in some kind of intellectual

sorry pseudo-intellectual masturbation

about propositional logic which has

nothing to do with the real world

i was interested in debating the meat

and potatoes

about whether vegans are good or bad

people

2l's

45 l so far

i'd have to do a song in a puppet show

yeah the reason i said that is because

the wealth of associations

that define the meaning of the words

good or bad

are indeed the wealth of experiences

any given human being are going to get

including songs and puppet shows you're

going to derive

your sense of what good or bad mean

through your real human experience

and if you didn't know this anon songs

and puppet shows

aka art are ways

of shortening the necessary time

and energy so far as experience is

concerned

to grasp the profundity of words and

meanings

that's why they're used for children as

for educational purposes

songs can condense the necessary

range of experiences a given person will

have to have

in order to be able to get and

understand what words mean

not only what words mean but also things

like

what math is and what's true of

mathematics

things like that songs and puppet shows

have to be used for children

because children do not are not yet

exposed

to the wealth of different associations

different words are going to have

so yes me saying i have to sing him a

song and do a puppet show

was revealing how [ __ ] immature and

childish she was

as though i literally have to be a

kindergarten teacher to teach him

the color blue looks like this the color

red

looks like this this is good this is bad

like you know what i mean

that's an l on your part you [ __ ]

dumbass

three more l's 48.

oh you can't debate that proposition

first of all the assumption

that i was making a proposition in the

sense of analytic philosophy or

propositional logic

is a [ __ ] lie i was making a

statement

vegans are bad people you can act

propositional logic is not the only

medium with which you could

evaluate the meaning or validity even

or persuasiveness of that statement

i fail to see how you can demonstrate

that is the case

why is propositional logic the only

domain with which we can evaluate

the meaning and validity of words

because

here's what this idiot will probably say

it's only within a rigorous

formal formalistic setting

that we can arrive at absolute certainty

of validity

well you dumbass you don't actually know

what the analytic philosophers

themselves were saying

they were not saying that this is the

only domain of truth proper

they were saying that given certain

axioms

given basically axioms like the law of

identity that a

is a given the assumption of pure formal

consistency

we can arrive at interesting insights

and the same is true for mathematics as

well

you begin with it the truism of quantity

but just from the quantity just because

just from

simple things like one equals one you

can arrive at a wealth of very

interesting insights

that is different from saying that

absolute formal consistency

is the only [ __ ] medium of truth

that is a statement that is so radically

at

odds with the meaning of the word truth

across the history of humanity

that i personally believe anyone who

thinks that

needs to be put in a mental

institution and watched 24 7.

because taken to its conclusion you

could arrive at a lot of

ugly consequences

the truth is is that truth so far as

human beings is concerned

is anything but identical with formal

consistency

truth for human beings as proven by

the literary wealth of humanity

including the history of religion truth

lies

in a radical unity of opposites

a radical discontinuity in the fabric of

being

that disallows form from being the same

as its content

that my friend is what

actually gives meaning to words like

[Music]

we say something is true only in so far

as it extends beyond the threshold

of further explication and

describability

that is true

means it is real enough

for it to not be able to be reduced to

what's coming

out of my mouth and what's being

given form with my tongue that

is truth [ __ ] dumbass

you're dishonest computer

yeah and your proof that vegans are

losing touch with their humanity

and becoming indistinguishable from

computers

four else so far 52 i have to remember

to keep up

52

i'd rather be a computer than whatever

you're supposed to be

and what's that a [ __ ] alpha male one

of the most handsome males

in the political scene

someone who's a billion times more

intelligent

more aggressive more rigorous and more

exact

than you'll ever be in your whole

[ __ ] life

that's 10 l's that's 10 else

when he just said you'd rather be a

computer than be me

really a human being a real [ __ ]

human being

who knows the meaning of human happiness

something you'll never [ __ ] have

because you're a [ __ ] loser

you're a miserable [ __ ] loser who

will never see the light of day in their

whole [ __ ] life

really you will never have my vigor my

vitality which i get in part from eating

meat

you will never have what i [ __ ] have

your [ __ ] will never be as big as mine

you will never have what i [ __ ] have

i'm gonna give you 10

l's just for saying that what a [ __ ]

mega

l [ __ ] mega l 62

62 l so far

62 l so far

absolute mega l mega l okay guys

we're almost done we covered all this

ground

so far we covered all this ground

okay

let's continue i bet you're pleased you

made your little band

of insecure midwifes clap like helpless

seals

though oh there's a lot of l's i can

already detect in this statement

first of all calling my

band of followers little

would shift the burden of demonstrating

the standard of what constitutes big

to you for example i am easily in the

top

five percent of streamers on twitch

insofar as if we count the numbers of

views

per live stream i am

easily probably in the top 10 of youtube

calling my audience little is just

[ __ ] wrong

moreover calling my audience a bunch of

insecure midwifes

is rich coming from a [ __ ] like you

who was

insecure enough to write an entire

[ __ ] essay about why they're a

[ __ ] soy boy

and a [ __ ] who doesn't [ __ ]

understand anything and is too stupid

to comprehend the actual rigor of my

argumentation

not only are you insecure hanan you are

the quintessential you along with

all of the vegans i've encountered are

the quintessential definition

of this you're a pseudo-intellectual

who is just overly aggressive and overly

confident

about their very clear finite range of

intelligence

which by the way puts you not only in

the middle bracket but slightly before

below the middle

see the guys in the middle bracket anon

they can just go about their day living

life

they're smart enough to get [ __ ]

actually and raise families

and do things like that dumbasses like

you

maybe the 90 iq bracket you have to go

on youtube

and write tirades uh expressing all of

your pent up aggression

because the fact of the world reflecting

your own stupidity back upon you

makes you so angry and makes you see so

[ __ ] much that there's just no other

outlet of your rage

there's no other possible outlet of your

rage

finally you're saying i made them clap

like you're saying i'm pleased

that i make them clap like hapless seals

that assumes anan that i

expect a any mass audience

to have any other response that assumes

that

their agreement with me is some kind of

exception but it's not i wasn't pleased

with it because it's what i already

[ __ ]

expect i expect any [ __ ] normal human

being

watching this to see that someone who

gets hung over

forcing me to define what the word bad

means is clearly obfuscating

attempting to entrap me in their [ __ ]

web of sophistry

and is wasting my time any normal person

can see that

it's only you [ __ ] vegans who have to

write essays

who's insecure now finally

calling them hapless seals is a little

bit

speciesist wouldn't you think anon after

all

if seals are on a metaphysical ladder

or ontic ladder below human beings in

the way that you're implying they

are why shouldn't we be able to [ __ ]

eat them

10 l's

[ __ ] dumbass such a contemptible

ghoul

calling people ghouls is just an attempt

to make it seem like you have an

extensive range of vocabulary when in

fact

you are exactly what you just described

here

you're a [ __ ] pseudo-intellectual 90

iq

dumbass who read too much dictionaries

and goes out of their way in life to try

and sound smart

well there's a difference between people

like you who go out of their way to try

and

sound smart and there's people like me

who actually

are smart thank you james russell two

wells

going to 74.

two l's i've seen thousands of public

figures like you

online you haven't seen one public

figure like

me online unless you narrowly confined

the qualification for what constitutes

similarity to be someone who disagrees

with you

which would be arbitrary and

unjustifiable

that's a solid 1l

you know what's two hours because i

don't even think he's seen thousands

you couldn't possibly have seen

thousands

at most you've seen a hundred if that

you haven't seen thousands since we're

being precise

right we're being precise aren't we

and rigorous this is all after all a

philosophy debate and you're

commenting on my performance in this

philosophy today therefore holding it

under the scrutiny of what you deem to

be philosophy which is propositional

logic

so i'm gonna hold you to that standard

you [ __ ] dumb [ __ ]

a bunch of pseudo-intellectual husks who

present themselves as esoteric and

enlightened

because they said that something is

spiritual or inexplicable

there's a lot of dumb [ __ ] here first of

all calling me an into a pseudo

intellectual

is rich from someone who thinks

from someone who says so many words to

describe their inability to discern what

the content of an actual debate

is calling me a husk is even more funny

coming from a [ __ ] vegan

because when i see vegans all i see is

husks all i see is human beings devoid

of any [ __ ] vitality

and life i see decaying husks

who are often times pale frail

and weak looking finally saying that i

present myself as esoteric and

enlightened

is your impression alone there is no

indication that i

present myself as esoteric and

enlightened i present myself in a very

casual and light-hearted way

if you're under the impression that i

actually am esoteric and enlightened it

probably because i actually

am which is not my fault it's just a

fact of my being

or else so far because they said that

something is spiritual or inexplicable

i didn't use the word spiritual once and

as for the

point of inexplicable the point isn't so

much that it's inexplicable

it's explicable across the history of

humanity's literature

so it is definitely explicable but

explicability

and reductive reductiveness

are two entirely different things

explaining something and reducing

something

are entirely different things moreover

by the way since you attempt to [ __ ]

imply this you dumb [ __ ]

you dumb [ __ ] [ __ ]

saying that something is intuitive or

unconscious is not the same as saying it

has some kind of secret form

that i'm just hiding and not willing to

disclose i am saying it is

actually unconscious as in there is a

discontinuity between

form and content that isn't actually the

same thing as saying it's some kind of

spiritual or metaphysical mystery that's

actually

a form of some kind but i just can't

disclose to you the form because it's so

sublime and mysterious

that's not what i was [ __ ] saying

though actually what i was saying was

actually was that

the web of associations associated with

the word bat are suspended in actual

reality

and reality and the thinking of reality

are two

entirely different things reality is not

the same as the thought of reality

now is it

one can be known because it is a matter

of knowledge

the other is not premised by its

knowledge because it is actually real

you see the difference i didn't say that

there's some kind of

mysterious affect that gives rise to the

meaning of words

i said that there are fundamental

discontinuities in reality

that require words to make things

intelligible

or at least give form to the

intelligibility

of things

that are intelligible by virtue of their

discontinuities

that is not the same thing as saying

there's some kind of mysterious or

inexplicable spiritual thing

take the five l's

by the way chad have you ever seen

someone so thoroughly

systematically and methodically destroy

a comment before

have you ever seen that i'm the only

[ __ ] one who does that

have you ever seen someone do this

you're just a male here we go this is my

favorite one

this is my favorite one chat check this

out

check this out this is my favorite

[ __ ] one

i love this one so much ready

you're just like the male variant of

those women

who now we got it we got it guys we got

him

here we go now we have the key

to the riddle we've solved everything

here

you're just the male variant of those

women who believe in astrology and that

rocks have energy

what did we just discover

we discovered a frustrated male there's

a word for this by the way

a frustrated male loser beta male

who every reasonable woman flees from at

the sight of and has a lot of

pent-up aggression pent-up regression

and pent up frustration and resentment

at the fact that they can't get any

[ __ ] see there's a uniquely male

misogynistic pathology of

[ __ ] ass beta males

who are [ __ ] nerds and hate the fact

that women

are more intuitive more natural and more

spontaneous

the way that women think bothers them so

[ __ ] much

they [ __ ] hate women because we come

from women women are our humanity

we come from women that's where we come

from right

women represent humanity they represent

that's the mother of humanity right

these people hate steve rage at women

because they're robots and women do not

want to get with the program in terms of

their attempt

to make everyone a robot women won't get

with the program

women are more natural women are more

intuitive women see past the [ __ ]

women are able to be in touch with

reality in a way more fundamental than

just using

logic women are our mothers

we call our when we say that our land is

sacred we call it a motherland

you understand

women means the sophia not just the

logos the sophia

this guy is the psychosis of the logos

which wants to turn everyone into a

robot pure form no content

and what's another word for this logos

gone wrong

satanism clear satanism

it's funny elsa now that you pointed out

it's funny he calls this

psychotic logos mania

philosophy when philosophy is philo

sophia

the love of sophia sophia doesn't just

mean wisdom if someone told you that

sophia is a

um i don't want to say archetype like in

jungian sophia is a very mystical

concept

okay sophia refers to divine feminine

it refers to some fundamental mystery at

the heart of being

so it's very intriguing that this dumb

[ __ ] who clearly doesn't get any

[ __ ] and

resents and foams at the you remind me

of women

those women who believe in astrology and

rocks have energy

i just wish everyone was like mechanical

like me i wish everyone was just

thought mathematics formal

consistency

freud described

this pathology which was evinced in

nazism in fascism

as i don't know if i could talk about

this as um

well this is an academic topic so i can

talk about it

uh freud describes different stages of

the development of a human being right

there's the oral phrase anal phrase

and the genital whatever right

this is uh well guess which phrase this

one is

is it one no is it two yeah it's two

this guy goes number two basically

within the freudian context he get he's

doing number two

and this is actually him doing number

two right because where does this [ __ ]

come from

good [ __ ] so guess where it comes from

this is the guy who rages at women

because they don't want to let him put

it

you know in the other hole and he hates

women for that reason that's why he

hates them

i bet you anything that's why i bet you

anything you could almost resus reduce

it to that i bet you anything

i bet you anything that's his pathology

i bet you anything that's the pathology

well another thing too is that they're a

vegan

which means what

which means what

they don't eat meat

they don't eat the vital source of our

humanity

they have no vitality so what do they

have instead

psychotic self-referential dead

chicken [ __ ] aggression

when someone is devoid of life all they

have is the aggression

of form dead form the dead husk

of form

for exposing yourself in this way

as someone incapable of getting [ __ ]

and a [ __ ] loser in life

a pent-up male

who's a beta always been a [ __ ] beta

and will be

a beta for the rest of their [ __ ]

life i'm gonna give you 10 more

l's i almost feel bad for you you

[ __ ] loser

and by the way women will always love

meat

especially my meat let me tell you

something anon

know you've had a crush in your life

you've had crushes

you've admired women from afar before

right

maybe there's women in your life i doubt

it but you've probably

admired women before in your life right

you probably have

i want to tell you something every woman

in your life

that you've desired would choose me

without hesitation without hesitation

i don't know i don't think you have a

partner but if you did

she would leave you and drop you

like a piece of [ __ ] any [ __ ] women

in your life

would easily salivate

at the idea of having my

alpha male [ __ ]

over you a [ __ ] beta male

you know what the sad thing is anon the

women you've loved in your life

i would never love them i would just use

them

and they'd think i'd love them no i'm

just gonna use them

they won't even hold your hand they're

so disgusted with you

and you love them you're in love with

them

i would pump and dump

[Music]

and that's how easy it would be for me

personally that's how [ __ ] easy it

would be for me

it would be [ __ ] easy it would be

that

easy it would be that

easy and it's so hard for you to even

get her to text you back

and i could just [ __ ] her and she would

gladly

gladly just look for the opportunity for

me to [ __ ] her

for me to get my nut out my nut

that's where we stand that's how much of

a [ __ ] loser you are in life

you [ __ ] [ __ ] loser

ten more l's

oh you're asking me what i mean it's too

complex

too deep it's not too complex

who initiated drawing out unnecessary

complexity

me who said something very clear that

any normal human being should be able to

understand

that vegans are bad or the person

demanding

some kind of convoluted explication of

what

bad means that will not even hold

consistently to the actual way in which

it's used

naturally and actively because i was

using the word bad

not a special version of the word

[ __ ] bad so

a you're the ones making it too

complex and making it more complex than

it actually [ __ ] is

and b i never said it was too complex

or too deep you keep associating with me

this straw man that i am saying

that reducing the word bad

to some kind of string of words is

finite whereas

the meaning of the word bad is infinite

what i'm rather

saying is that you don't seem to be

aware of the fact

that the word bad is not premised by

any formal meaning any formal meaning

it's not that i'm saying it's premised

by a formal meaning that's just

too complex or too deep i am saying it

is not premised

by any formal meaning that is not how we

use

words formalization comes after active

use

only after the unconscious associations

are established

by means of discontinuities in reality

do we arrive at form one comes before

the other one is primary

the other is secondary form only becomes

relevant

by the way as well when there is this

active dispute over the concept of the

word itself

or what what most accurately

describes the fundamental meaning

that the word is and it's fundamental

not because

it is too deep or too complex you're

[ __ ] strong man

but because

it is not premised by any formalization

people do not use words because of

a formalization they have been presented

of of that word

they use words because words account for

discontinuities

in reality it's reality that's complex

not the [ __ ] word itself

you [ __ ] [ __ ] i love how he's

trying to shift the burden

of who's making too much of a big deal

of this on me

oh why can't you just define a simple

word

because you can't do it either without

changing it into a different word

entirely

why can't you just define a simple word

that means you don't know what bad means

no it means you cannot premise the use

of

every [ __ ] word you use on the basis

of some kind of formalization

the book has to stop somewhere human

communication begins

when we accept there is a limit to being

able to formalize words

with other words you eventually run out

of words and you go into a circle

there's a limit that's where

communication begins and ends

you [ __ ] dumbass

plenty of people can define very simply

what they mean by bad yes and the

qualifications for defining what you

mean by bad

are talking about the content of the

reasoning of why you're using it for

example

why do i think vegans are bad that will

reveal

what i mean by bad insofar as it is part

of the claim being forwarded this is

what you don't

[ __ ] understand you don't actually

define what you mean by bad by

talking about what you think directly

bad means

but by using bad in a way and justifying

why you're using that word

through the content itself you [ __ ]

dumbass

you just have a 107 iq and think that

any sorry by the way

that was eight l's

99 you have a 107

iq and you it look the dumbass one first

l he believes in iq already debunked by

nassim nicholas talib

and you think that any semblance of

illumination or order is a conspiracy by

people who don't have a third eye

or some other nonsense for people whose

positions

will never survive under rigorous

scrutiny

scrutiny wow there is this is a [ __ ]

cow of else i have to milk this cow of

else

this is the [ __ ] l cow this sentence

alone is a [ __ ]

l cow wow let's begin

any semblance of illumination or order

is not the same as the demand

for formally defining the meaning of the

word

bad when the content of the debate is

not about

differing conceptions of bad but rather

an

incidental detail of the debate

if you were to ask me why i'm saying

vegans are bad

i would have gladly obliged such a

question

that would indeed constitute the minimal

semblance of illumination or order

you're talking about

so no any semblance of illumination or

order

is not the same thing as absolute

logical consistency which is only

relevant for working with computers and

not dealing with subject matters

relevant to human beings and human life

and reality

three else moreover

is a conspiracy by people who don't have

a third eye or some other nonsense

calling basic calling the basic level of

human intuition which is an

absolute condition and premise of being

able to communicate in the first place

and i will gladly call your bluff in

this regard

because again the book stops somewhere

according to you

you have a third eye because in this

[ __ ] tirade alone

there are a bunch of [ __ ] words that

could not possibly be [ __ ] premised

by their formalization there's two

reasons for why

such a request is so [ __ ] beyond the

threshold of stupidity

the first one obviously people would not

actively be able to use

words if they had to premise the meaning

of those words

by the active and conscious

contemplation of their meaning

that's a simple reason but if that were

not bad enough it's not even the only

reason

the reason is because the meaning those

words

actually have is discontinuous

with any meaning whatsoever you will

develop

consciously in your head

by means of conscious reflection and

explication

there will always be a discontinuity not

just a discontinuity in terms of their

content

but a temporal discontinuity you somehow

manage to be able to find things

intelligible

before you can define them that's what

i'm talking about there is an objective

discontinuity between those two

you're calling that some kind of

mystical stuff about the third eye

when what i'm saying is actually very

clear

when subjected to the standard of

rigorous scrutiny

it's just that you are too stupid and

unintelligent to be able to do that

and by the way dumbass you could have

easily tried to argue with the things

i'm saying now

because i said them in the video you

yourself

watched okay

but you didn't so i know you didn't

subject anything i said to a standard of

rigorous scrutiny

because you weren't able to even

understand or

um derive what

the content of my argumentation actually

was you dumb [ __ ]

you just decided to lazily brush over

everything i actually said

and dismiss it under the pretext of it

being mystical mumbo jumbo about a third

eye

you lazy stupid [ __ ]

like every analytic dumbass when you're

confronted with something you don't

[ __ ] understand you're accused of

being a third eye mysticism

no you [ __ ] dumbass it's just that

you're not as smart as you [ __ ] think

you

are and if you are more careful and more

rigorous

about subjecting what i was saying to

scrutiny

you would understand that what i'm

saying is very coherent

very clear and very rigorously

defined you dumb [ __ ]

you stupid [ __ ] just admitting you're a

[ __ ]

dumbass oh a third eye is that what you

call

basic [ __ ] human common sense

so the reason that people in the real

world don't [ __ ] use words in the

[ __ ] robotic way you're demanding

them to

is because they have a third eye

remember you dumb

[ __ ] [ __ ] you're the one saying that

not me i'm not the one calling what we

both have to agree objectively exists

a third eye you are so you're the

mystical person obfuscating [ __ ]

you [ __ ] dumbass

so you count by telling anyone who cares

about rigor

rigor has nothing to do with this

rigor has nothing to do with this if i

were to define what i mean by the word

bad in terms of my preferences i would

be lying

because that's not what i mean if i

intended to say that i would have

[ __ ] said that

and you can play games with arbitrarily

subjecting things to what you call

rigor at multiple levels that you aren't

willing to admit

are possible for example why would

saying it's against my preferences

be a standard of rigorous uh bs enough

of a standard to be subjected to

rigorous scrutiny

why can't i just say what do you mean by

preferences

what do you mean by against what do you

mean by goals i could

break down every [ __ ] word in the

sentence that you think

must necessarily be a substitute for the

word bad

in the same way you're trying to break

down the word [ __ ] bad

but the buck actually has to stop

somewhere and this is why you don't

[ __ ] see what a [ __ ] dumbass you

are this has nothing to do with rigor it

has nothing to do with oh

you're just unwilling to subject your

positions under rigorous scrutiny

because it wouldn't possibly survive

then why the [ __ ] was i the one there

for two hours

rigorously demonstrating to this [ __ ]

person ask yourself

why their demand was [ __ ] stupid

i rigorously demonstrated why their

request

was [ __ ] stupid you just must have

had [ __ ] wax in your ears

in your ears because you didn't [ __ ]

hear it but i know you heard this one

anon

i know you're probably even watching it

now i know you're probably even watching

it now

you [ __ ] dumbass

so now you must at least be introduced

the [ __ ] depths of your stupidity

you must feel like such a stupid [ __ ]

you must literally feel like such a

stupid [ __ ]

you must literally feel so stupid right

now

your qualifications for rigor are

arbitrary i could [ __ ]

change the standards and qualifications

for rigor

and say the same dumb [ __ ] that you just

typed i could type the same thing and

say

well because you won't exactly define

what the words

against my preferences and so on and so

on mean

look imagine if you ask someone to

define my what is really you

you have to define that metaphysically

and go through a lot of [ __ ]

even to define my and i [ __ ] fit they

wrote books [ __ ] talking about i

and what that means imagine if i [ __ ]

subjected him to that standard

you you pick and choose which words you

want to subject to rigor

now don't you you [ __ ] dumbass

all of this [ __ ] because he doesn't want

to admit that his vegan master his cult

leader is a [ __ ] sophist by the way

literal definition of a sophist i'm not

the one

who avoided debating about the [ __ ]

subject matter to be subjected to

scrutiny or not

furthermore the idea

that philosophy amounts so what you mean

by rigor actually is not philosophy it's

not debates

it is propositional logic that is a very

recent

invention namely the

claim that philosophy is identical with

propositional logic

is a [ __ ] very recent invention

the overwhelming majority of

philosophers in actual history would be

excluded

from the qualification of being

philosophers but maybe you just

meant something different by philosophy

which you properly defined

then why did you use the word philosophy

why don't you invent your own [ __ ]

word

and here's the kicker if you mean

something

so arbitrarily private and restricted by

the word bad

i implore you to invent your own word

because we humans

out here in the world are using the same

word to describe something

and the reason we're using the same word

is because

that word has a common meaning must

objectively have a common meaning if it

doesn't

in your case then invent a new word to

describe what you mean specially and you

could describe that word to me

you know you don't even have to call it

bad

now if ask yourself really wanted to

make an ass of himself which he was

and say something like well

i look around in society and i see what

when people

give meaning to this word good and bad

and i'm just gonna decide that

that means what's against my preferences

or what's against their preferences

that's what the word means

that will not live up to the scrutiny of

the breadth

and wealth of uses this word has

for example if you call

a situation bad

you are not actually talking about your

subjective relation to the situation

necessarily

you're describing an imminent quality

of the situation if you're calling by

people bad

they are a bad people it isn't simply

because they're violating your

preferences

that's a secondary matter primarily you

are describing an

imminent quality of those people

whereas if you were saying

they you can also say they are a bad

people and mean it in the sense of

they aren't a useful people for you

so there's two ways right you could say

they are a bad

people in the sense of and kind of antic

claim about their very being they are

bad or you could mean

they are a bad people in the sense that

they don't

fulfill the goal you have in mind for

what people should be

but if you narrowly rest and and it's

the same word

bad can be used in both ways it's the

same word it's not a different word

just because it's a different context if

i say vegans are bad

people what i actually mean by that

can only be revealed in the reasoning

not

in a arbitrarily narrow definition of

the word bad

because yes bad can mean many things but

the content of what it means

can only be derived in context not in

isolation there is no

absolute meaning of bad that applies in

every [ __ ] context

and what this dumbass was effectively

demanding i do

is establish a meaning of bad that

applies to every context i just gave you

an example of why

it could have different it could have

meanings in different contexts on a

literary level

on a common sensical level and so on and

so on

is that what you call rigor dumbass

you just don't [ __ ] get what this is

about

that they're a liar and a schemer in

context

i called him a liar first of all i

didn't make any claims about a

conspiracy or a scheme

i just said they were being dishonest

about the fact that they don't know what

i mean

by bad if you are a human being

living in a human world living in the

same reality

that all of us other human beings are

living in you do have a sense of what

good and bad mean

there are a web of associations across

the uses of this word

that are consistent enough for you to be

able to have derived

a meaning of those words at a very

exceptionally young

age

so when i say he's a liar i'm saying

he's being dishonest

about his actual

association of that word

that was about eight

some people love to claim that everyone

who prize into their surface level

garbage

must be engaging in something nefarious

no

what dumb [ __ ] actually do

you stupid [ __ ] is superimpose

a formalization when there never was any

to begin with

if someone in an ordinary context or

even in the context of a debate

says something and you subject this to

the standard of absolute formalization

unless they have somehow consented and

agreed

or made it clear that their intention

was to argue from the perspective

of propositional logic you have no right

to reduce

what they're saying on the surface to

some kind of formalization because

it's not necessarily premised by form

what robots do to human beings they look

at something you said and say

oh i'm gonna pry into your surface level

garbage are you doing that

or are you just superimposing claims the

person never said

i never made a pretense to absolute

propositional logic

i never made pretense to some kind of

technical science

of establishing absolute formal

consistency nor am i interested in doing

that

doing so would detach the realm

and scope with which i am actually

dealing with the real world and vegans

in this world

and elevate it to the status of like

mathematics i'm not interested in

talking about

math i'm interested in talking about the

real world

so prying into surface level garbage

you're not actually engaging in

criticism what criticism means

is interrogating the real premises by

the way

of appearances and surfaces

mark says if appearance and essence

were the same then all criticism would

be superfluous because criticism

a word originating with kant

begins by the recognition of a

discontinuity between the real premises

and their actual appearance

if you're saying that the real premises

conditioning

my use of words lies in some kind of

secret formalization

that i'm just not disclosing you are

rejecting the discontinuity altogether

and merely accusing me

of hiding effectively everything would

have to be on the surface then how could

something actually be a real

premise a real material an actual

premise mind you not a premise

established by

thought but a premise that exists in

actual reality

how could that possibly exist

if everything is already formalized if

you can superimpose assumptions

about what other people are saying

this is the type of dumb [ __ ] in an

informal context to be like

man that food sucks oh actually i'm

going to

pry into the surface level garbage of

your judgment about that food

does this food suck well according to an

absolute axiomatic

abstract standard it would not be

justified to say that this

food talks because what you are merely

saying is that according to your

personal

you know what i mean like you wouldn't

even be able to [ __ ] engage in the

real world

you're making an assumption that's not

justified about what people are saying

and by the way when people say this [ __ ]

sucks they're not even necessarily

saying oh

i think it sucks they're actually saying

this [ __ ] sucks now is that because

of their own personal preferences maybe

but in terms

of the real content of what they're

saying they are not

secretly consciously implying because of

my personal preferences this [ __ ] sucks

if they wanted to say they'd be like man

i think this sucks you know when people

want to make it clear

that they're just talking about

themselves they do talk about themselves

when people say [ __ ] like that [ __ ]

sucks they're saying it really does suck

now you may say well that's just because

it's your personal preference

and you can argue that but that's not

what they're actually saying

you see the difference dumb [ __ ] that's

not what they

intend to mean even if that's the truth

it's not what they intend to mean

you see the difference but you're not in

case

you're such a dumb [ __ ] you never even i

am like

five billion steps ahead of your [ __ ]

train of thought you never even got to

this

summit of thought you never even could

listen

i know for a fact you've never

considered anything i'm saying right now

because you would have included it in

your little paragraph

all of what i'm saying now was evident

in the debate with ask yourself you're

just too stupid to [ __ ] comprehend it

i know since you're a seating [ __ ]

vegan you're gonna try to argue with

anything i say

so if you actually comprehended what i

was trying to argue and say

you would have [ __ ] did it in this

you didn't

you're literally a dumb [ __ ]

it's not that they're engaging in

something nefarious

it's that they're engaging in bad faith

you see the difference it's not simply

that it's a conspiracy or nefarious

that's just some random [ __ ] you

pulled out of your [ __ ] ass

they are engaging in an assumption of

formalization that doesn't exist

they are assuming that what people mean

to say

is something relevant to the level of

abstract

absolute pure logic which is not

actually how human beings

use words when people want to engage in

logic

as a solitary discipline they do so when

people want to communicate as human

beings

they do so logic

or the science of logic i should say

does not have a [ __ ] monopoly on what

things

mean logic is an attempt to understand

reason

it is not the same as reason itself you

dumb [ __ ]

logic will always lag behind reason

logic will never fully conquer what

really

is reason

and if you knew the distinction between

what reason and logic were

you'd be able to grasp that you dumb

[ __ ] logic is just your best

attempt it's not the same you can't

treat

the best attempt at trying to describe

at what something means what that

to what it actually means imminently so

much to the point

where you can psychotically impose the

fruits of your logic

upon reality in the context of ordinary

human communication

it's almost like not being able to

understand this elementary difference

is why you're a [ __ ] vegan in the

first place

because you arrived at a conclusion by

means of

conceptual abstraction in thought that

we can't eat animals anymore and you're

so

confident that you think you can impose

this on reality

when in fact that conclusion you just

arrived at was just your best

attempt

to understand reality and engage

in the use of logic but you're treated

as though you've discovered some

absolute truth

failing to see your pathetic miniscule

and flail braille

binitude

no no yes

that's what six else

six else

it just looks nefarious to you in the

same way a two foot tall

alien thinks everyone over four feet is

wearing stilts under their clothes

that would imply that

the behavior of treating words as though

they are premised

by airtight definitions relevant to the

domain of propositional logic

is something beyond the scope of my

ability no

dumbass it's not beyond the scope of my

capability in the same way

that a four-foot alien is beyond the

scope

of capability of a two-foot alien it's

just that i [ __ ] reject it

for reasons that are very clear and

transparent as shown in the [ __ ]

video

and since i argued about it for over two

hours

it is very clear that i comprehended the

reasoning

the logic and the structure of my

opponent's argumentation

it's just that i [ __ ] rejected it for

reasons i made very [ __ ] clear

you dumb [ __ ]

the idea that something as ridiculous

as treating ordinary language in words

as some kind of private language we

isolate in a vacuum

in order to be subjected to

propositional logic

is some kind of incredible feat

of intelligence that is beyond the scope

of my comprehension

is a patent and already disproved

disprovable lie by virtue of the fact

that i have demonstrated a level of

reflection criticism and articulation of

that practice

enough to demonstrate that it is indeed

within the scope of my comprehension

whatever

whatever intelligence you attribute

toward me

it's clearly enough to be able to

understand

what my opponent was [ __ ] doing and

what you're doing

rather speaking of what is

within the range

of one's intelligence and abilities

the only real proof of

that being below par

would indeed be someone who evinces

an inability to grasp what their

opponent

is saying aka a dumb

[ __ ] like you who raked up 113 l's

discounting this sentence in their

[ __ ] tirade

having such a lack of self-awareness

about how [ __ ] stupid they sound

and how much all of my arguments were

went

fluent flew way past their [ __ ] head

now can i say with absolute certainty

that you're just not smart enough to get

it

no i couldn't unlike you by the way

and that's another l but

judging by what you've said so far

and the aggressivity and confidence with

which you have said it

i think it can be reasonably inferred

that you can't

because you haven't you haven't

demonstrated an ability to actually

comprehend what my arguments here were

in this video

i think that is way more telling as

regards your abilities

than mine so in this case i'm the

[ __ ] four-foot alien

and you're the one accusing me of

wearing stilts just because you can't

understand the [ __ ] breadth and

wealth

and depth of my argumentation you little

[ __ ] now get back on your [ __ ] ufo

and go back to the [ __ ] planet you

came from because it's clearly not this

earth where human beings live

you don't sound like a [ __ ] human

being you sound like a [ __ ] alien

robot piece of [ __ ]

six l's

no you know what i'm gonna add another l

and i'll tell you why

he actually thought this was like a

clever thing to say i think what ali

this is literally what a [ __ ] [ __ ]

would say

a two-foot alien thinks everyone ever

like you could have used

you could have said something else to

get this same point across and that you

chose an example

so arbitrary and specific it just sounds

like

you weren't smart enough to think of

something more simple and yes

being able to summarize things in a

simple and concise way

is the hallmark of intelligence being

able to content complex

thoughts into something [ __ ] simple

is a hallmark of intelligence

you just took some kind of complicated

point

about me accusing everyone who is

better than me in terms of intelligence

into some kind of uh unfair conspiracy

you could have literally used any other

[ __ ] example i can think of a better

[ __ ] example

right off the top of my [ __ ] head it

looks i could have said

no it just looks nefarious to you in the

same way

that a [ __ ] uh dumbass thinks a

smarter person

has an earpiece and has a purse a um

a chess master whispering you could have

said any

you could have used the chess example

like that's just like a person playing

chess

because it's like a debate chess is

comparable to a debate here because it's

a matter of wits you could have been

like

this is like a bad chess player looking

at a

really talented player and accusing them

of having an earpiece and getting all

the information fed to them

that would have been a way more coherent

example i just came off that right off

the dome

but you're such a dumb [ __ ] which is

you're literally this word that

you used here the mid yeah that's what

you are because you have to

just by using this example you use this

word

by the way buddy it's very clear and i

can't say this [ __ ]

i understand his from a psychoanalytic

perspective his pathology so

thoroughly i can't even say it on twitch

their enormity must be a trick it's not

when did i choose when did i say

that what they were doing was a trick i

didn't say it was a trick

i said they were being dishonest they

could have easily been

also being dishonest with themselves too

i didn't even say that they were being

intentionally dishonest with me

uh alone they could also be being

dishonest with themselves maybe the fact

of accepting their intuitions and their

unconscious

is a traumatic and unacceptable feat as

far as they're concerned there's a lot

of people who are like that i probably

think you're one of them you dumb [ __ ]

it's not yes it is

it's a [ __ ] lie not a trick and

people are just

authentically sharper than you then

please demonstrate

thoroughly which people are

authentically

sharper than is there a difference

between them being authentically sharper

or artificially sharper why are you

deriving this idea that i was saying he

was

attempting to be he was like like so

basically what you're saying is that i

was saying

oh this guy's more intelligent so i'm

going to accuse him of being unfair to

have an

unfair advantage over me there's nothing

in this video that could

justify coming to that conclusion i

never

i never demonstrated being impressed by

their arguments to the point where i had

to be like

no you have to be cheating i didn't say

they were cheating i said that they were

lying

and refusing to engage with the debate

they were lying about not getting what

i'm saying

and by the way you dumb [ __ ] this is why

your [ __ ] argument

falls apart and i'm going to give you 10

l's just for this

on top of the five you just got i'm

gonna give you ten more just for this

sorry on top of the eight you just got

i'm gonna give you ten more just for

this

[ __ ] up alone if he is the one

incapable of understanding what i mean

by the word bad

that's not an example of him in evincing

some kind of ability that i don't have

that's an example of him evincing an

inability that i clearly do have

your example of someone being

authentically sharper than me

rather than the alleged accusation of

cheating is him

not being able to understand what i was

saying

do you know how [ __ ] stupid you sound

34 no 37

137

okay there's going to be a bonus round

because he did this

there's going to be a bonus round

going to be a bonus round so he also he

also had a

let me i'm going to make this quick it's

going to be a bonus round so here is my

response to him

dear keyboard warrior i'm going to tear

this entire tirade of yours

apart on stream tomorrow you can come

and vc

via my discord and defend yourself or

you can silently bear the humiliation

i'm about to give you

good thing you're anonymous i'd be

embarrassed after writing a whole essay

about how much i don't know what i'm

talking about

by the way i'm going to be eating meat

while doing it well that was the one

promise i

went back on but to be fair i did begin

the stream eating lamb

so i guess it does count bonus rounds

not going to take long

oh now some pseudo this is like a bonus

round some pseudo esoteric midwife

what's why would you call me a

pseudo-esoteric midnight would midwit

when you before

called me esoteric is there some kind of

meaningful difference between

pseudoesoteric and esoteric after all

this is not a

informal context it's a formal context

we're judging

the formal context of a debate and if

you can't judge that from a formal

context why should i

care about anything you have to say

count the oz guys that's one l

this well that's what just you are it's

another l because you're calling me

what you actually are and what i proved

you just were

who can't define terms is going to own

me online

actually saying that i refuse to reduce

words to a arbitrary narrow

scope and saying i can't define them are

two different entire

entirely different things i can define

what bad

means in so far is i

actually imperil the word in its content

for example

by demonstrating the reasoning of why i

say vegans are bad

i am in in effect defining what bad

means

what you're arguing is not that i can't

define terms

but that i can't isolate them in a

vacuum detached from their actual use

from the perspective of app the absolute

certainty that

propositional logic pretends to so

you actually just lied this is the last

one guys

so that's about three l's so there's

four l so far

i am shaking right now haha you clearly

are shaking because you wrote another

[ __ ] two paragraphs

if you weren't shaking you would have

just ignored this and went on with your

life

another l ha ha you're obviously lying

about laughing i know for a fact you

weren't laughing when you typed that you

were [ __ ] enraged as a deceiving

vegan [ __ ]

another l um 2l so that's four

six you people you people being

the 99 of people living on planet earth

who are not vegans

another l seven get one shred of micro

eminence in a niche community i'm gonna

treat these as the same thing

right in terms of getting the elves just

to be generous

calling the absolutely unrivaled fame

i have acquired given the time span that

i have been on the internet

micro eminence and calling my community

nietzsche given the rapidity and pace

with which it has

grown

is rather curious i started streaming on

youtube in january

late january started streaming on twitch

in march

my sub count just a few months ago was

half

what it is now we're growing at such a

rapid pace

what are the qualifications for calling

me a niche community in order for me us

to be a niche community we have

had to have existed for enough time for

it to be proven

that we can't grow beyond

the numbers of a niche community you're

failing to take into account

our rapid pace of growth you can't call

us a niche community because

we just started out

maybe you can call me a niche community

in five years and i stay the same as i

am now

but as far as the scope and the extent

of my community's relevance as well as

the extent of my eminence

that has yet to be judged but given the

rate of my growth

when i started you can be rest assured

that

my presence here is any anything but

micro eminent

i'm easily in the top two percent of

twitch streamers

moreover if i only acquired a shred of

microeminence in a niche community and

this is somehow an easy feat i'm gonna

make a challenge for you right now

start your own channel and i will give

you

two months or three months to be

generous to get

half of my viewers asking you to get

my viewers now is obviously too

too much to ask not only no no

sorry not half i want you to average

50 viewers three months from now i'll

give you three months to average 50

viewers

so for perspective within the first

month of me streaming

i was averaging 80 or i think a hundred

i think 100 yeah so i am giving you

three months to average

50 views and to get 1 000 subs sorry

that's too much

250 subs that's what i'm giving you

three months 250 subs

and 50 average views

since it's so easy to get to the

position i'm in

you should easily be able to replicate

it yourself

oh what's wrong you're gonna make an

excuse

that's what i thought you [ __ ] [ __ ]

i'm anything but

micro eminent or in a niche community

and turn into grande's little despots

despotism is the rule by force not by

reason

by both the qualifications of force

and reason i have dominated you i'm not

just a despot

i'm your intellectual superior and i've

just proven that

nine else so far and my client clearly

hit a raw nerve of yours

admittedly your comment did annoy the

[ __ ] out of me only because it's one of

the only comments that's ever been

commented on my channel

that was written with so much effort so

much malice

and so much stupidity to top it all off

that i thought that i wanted to

personally

personally remind you who the alpha male

here is and how [ __ ] stupid you

actually are

if anything my response is a form of

pity

i pity the fact that you are so [ __ ]

stupid

and at the same time unaware

i'm giving you the awareness that i

think

you sorely and badly need you're not a

smart person

you're a dumb [ __ ] who types before they

think

thank you chad why diaz appreciate you

chad thank you so much

since you aren't responding to other

people like this

there's actually that's another l so

that's 10 else that's actually

a fallacy since we're operating within

the domain of absolute logic and no good

faith that's actually a fallacy so

it is just as likely that i arbitrarily

chose your comment

to respond to and that the reason i

chose it was just a matter of chance

so you are not actually equipped with

enough information

uh to come to this conclusion i'm gonna

give you five l

since you should know better mr logician

you dumb [ __ ]

but moreover um i'll include this from

the five l's because there's more else

with this

the fact that i'm responding to you like

this doesn't actually prove

you hit a raw nerve of mine it could

just as easily be

that i think your comment deserves to be

destroyed and torn apart

because i want to make an example of you

you ever thought about that

you read the whole thing yes i did

and you said that as though you're

making a point so i'm going to take an l

6 l so far and honestly that's all i

wanted

so i've dealt with these people and you

on youtube before believe it or not

i've actually dealt with these psychotic

perverts on youtube before

so basically they are literally

exhibitionist perverts and they like

these are the people who send dick pics

to women and they like they just like

like this idea that they're in people's

heads you know like they really

like it and they get perverse pleasure

out of it

by the way this is a vegan this is what

vegans are they're really psychotic

disturbed people um

thank you for admitting that you

consider consider me so eminent

and so powerful that you're flattered at

the fact that i read your comment but

that contradicts what you just said

about

me being micro-eminent and me being in a

niche community

i'm sure you feel special that i read

your comment but after witnessing the

desolation i just gave

what you wrote i think you're going to

be anything but

satisfied with what you've done

thank you no [ __ ] you thank you

for providing me an example of a [ __ ]

pseudo-intellectual [ __ ] vegan

and the product of the ask yourself

discord in general and i don't know this

might be ask yourself himself

under an alt sometimes i think it is

because who else has the motivation to

do this [ __ ]

okay

i forgot how much l's were racked up so

i'm just gonna give 10

which is sacrificing a lot of l's but

let's just

overlook it give him 10 else

give him 10 l's but not only did i not

read it i systematically destroy like

listen

anan you're not showing a picture and

you're not showing your name that's okay

but see when you wrote this right and i

know something about psychoanalysis

you put a pound of flesh you

poured your heart you made an expression

of your

inner self evident i tore

that to pieces and i know for a fact it

has shattered your ego

your ego is destroyed you actu

this is full of your sweat your effort

your inner being

your inner intention your soul and i

tore it apart

i tore it apart like a [ __ ] lion

tears apart their prey

i tore it apart like a lion tears apart

their [ __ ] prey

that is [ __ ] pathetic

i don't know how you're gonna come out

of this the same person i

took your ego it's okay you can you can

always redeem yourself by getting in vc

and actually debating me about this

but i think you're too much of a [ __ ]

spineless [ __ ] to do that

or you can silently bear the humiliation

i'm going to give you do you think this

affects me in any way

i absolutely do think it affects you

otherwise you wouldn't have

taken the time to not only write these

paragraphs

but to write this you clearly have an

express intention

you clearly have demonstrated the

attention of getting your last word in

the problem is that with the medium i'm

working with now

i've shifted the ex the sphere with

which you can get your last word

sure you could write 10 pages responding

to this

but no one's going to re underscore

scene donated 150

150 for 150 l's

holy [ __ ]

jennifer with the 150

what the [ __ ]

oh [ __ ]

jesus

i don't know what to say i'm speechless

oh [ __ ]

oh it's getting to 150 it's already

almost at 150 right it's all it's at 147

right now

so yeah let me just finish this it

clearly does affect you okay

it clearly does affect you because

throughout this entire comment section

i've noticed the pattern with you

because i've seen your types before

you really are trying to get your last

word in

don't worry because i'm going to give

you a 24-hour window to

agree to eventually debate me in vc on

our discord

if you don't do this you're going to be

banned from the channel

meaning there would be a decisive

victory for meat eaters and you lose

and you can't just say that it's unfair

since i'm banning you

because i'm giving you the opportunity

to actually debate me in the medium

that you responded to so you responded

to

a video typing

typing clearly takes considerably more

effort

than speaking

takes more time and effort especially on

my part when i'm a [ __ ] streamer

if you responded via typing and i'd

never made the intention of proposing

anything

or proposing an argument via typing

then logically speaking it follows that

in order to respond to me

and declare any kind of victory you have

to use your voice

you can't type because i didn't type

anything

i've resp my the thing you're responding

to was a video where i was using my

voice

and i responded to this [ __ ] using my

voice now the ball is in your court

and it was also a generosity because i

could have just deleted this [ __ ]

because you're too much of a [ __ ]

because you rejected my offer to get in

vc so i could have just ended it there

but i afforded you proof that i indeed

am capable of destroying

your arguments so do you have a response

we'll see

if uvc

you humiliating me in front of your

audience is like a two-year-old

humiliating me in front of his other

friends for not having a little baby

head

first of all our audience is

exceptionally old relative to other

audiences on twitch so this is alive

um but if you weren't implying that they

were merely uh immature but just

unintelligent

you have yet to demonstrate any

level of stupidity on my part

i just demonstrated you're a [ __ ]

idiot

so the assumption that i'm the stupid

one can no longer even be

entertained with the greatest benefit of

the doubt

with the minimal them benefit of the

doubt it couldn't even be entertained

you think that it's somehow established

silently and implicitly that i'm the

stupid one here

but the only thing you had to show for

proving i'm an idiot was this

but i just destroyed and tore this whole

piece of [ __ ]

[ __ ] tirade apart so how can you say

that i'm the stupid one

when the only proof that you offer that

i'm stupid only proves you're a [ __ ]

[ __ ]

and i'm not just saying that anon i

proved it i took

almost three hours of my time to prove

it

on stream so what is that saying on

lmao you weren't laughing i'm adding

another l

you're getting put in your place by

people significantly smarter than you

if this constitutes putting me in my

place what does the treatment i just

gave it

constitute one's

okay i want you to watch this and i know

you're watching one's in the chat if i

put anon in his place and he's the one

who put got put in his place

and also one's in the chat if he got put

in his place even before i responded

because he exposed what a [ __ ]

[ __ ] he is

oh wow anon i guess my community is too

niche

so if i communities in each find your

non-niche community and see if you can

get a chat that goes that fast

who aren't beguiled by your whimsical

little beta male

anand you aren't showing your face and

you're not even affording us

what your voice sounds like so you have

given us

the only consideration you have given us

as for who's judging who's a beta male

and who's an alpha male

is the fact that you're a seething

little [ __ ] with a bunch of pent-up

[ __ ] aggression

as a result of not being able to eat

meat you have resentment against women

because you're a beta male

you're an overly confident

into pseudo-intellectual who clearly

evinces an inability

to be charming to be funny to have

minimal basic social skills

it's very clearly anon you're the

[ __ ] beta male here you're a [ __ ]

[ __ ] by default i win by default

even if we discounted the fact that this

little tirade proves what a little [ __ ]

you [ __ ] are what a little beta cuck

you are

even even if even if you didn't even

type this you just said i am a vegan

that would already been the case

but the fact that you [ __ ] typed this

whole thing out

proves who's the beta male actually

especially after you rejected my offer

to [ __ ] vc me

you're not you're you're a beta because

you you're not even

willing to challenge my alpha status

remember anan

everyone thinks i'm smart listen anan

here's the hilarious thing

and i would love for you to for you to

actually

just think in your own head about this

and i know you're gonna have to think

about it

if you don't care about what my audience

thinks why did you spend

15 hours of your life waging a war of

attrition

in my comments arguing with everyone and

insisting you have your last word

because clearly you want to demonstrate

through my audience that you're the

smarter one and you're in the right well

if that's true or none

you should be able to come in vc and do

it don't say i don't care what your

audience thinks

which is this pretentious [ __ ] you just

said you do [ __ ] care of my audience

things

why the [ __ ] else would you spend so

much of your time arguing with my

audience

you [ __ ] dumb [ __ ] liar

and you didn't even have a [ __ ]

response for that you weren't even

capable of mustering a [ __ ] response

for that

you weren't even capable of mustering a

[ __ ] response to that anon

that's the [ __ ] sad thing if you

don't care what my audience thinks

why did you type all of this [ __ ] up

think about it why would you [ __ ]

type

all of this [ __ ] up

it's really pathetic

by your whimsical little beta male girly

excuses

you're calling me girly but you're too

much of a [ __ ] to show us

what you look like and how you sound but

i'm gonna actually offer you something

anan

anan i don't even know what you look

like but i am willing to box you

you so we'll see who's the man who's not

you can choose a gym in michigan

and i'll meet you at this gym and i'll

box you

we can stream it and if we can't stream

it on twitch we'll stream it on youtube

and we'll see who's girly and who's not

if you want to make a judgment on my

manhood

i'm going to call your bluff and see if

you can back it up

and juvenile soliloquies

you're just trying to use big words to

sound smart

when you could have used simpler words

to convey the same thing

which proves you're a [ __ ] [ __ ]

pseudo-intellectual [ __ ]

nothing more unlike all of the suits in

your audience

oh really they're sueds so all

500 of my audience which is what i get

on most days this week

they're all sueds right you're the

you're the non-student they're all the

suits right

but can you prove it and you're insanely

bothered by that

no anon what i'm insanely bothered by

is the thought it's just the thought

in your head right that you think you

somehow made a point here all i needed

to do anon

was tear this apart so you personally

can know in your head what a dumb [ __ ]

you are

and you can say and do whatever you want

and on but i got in your [ __ ] head

and i [ __ ] humiliated you and i own

your manhood now for life

you can come in vc to disprove that but

that's the only [ __ ] thing you can do

[ __ ] [ __ ]

i'm going to drink 75 gallons of soy

milk now

why does promising me to deepen

your emasculation on me

this is the biggest self-owned i've ever

[ __ ] heard

whilst imagining a shakespearean prose

artistry you'd concoct

i've never heard anyone try to sound so

smart

in my [ __ ] life do you think that you

sound smart

or clever by saying this you're

literally just [ __ ] cringe

it has to define a word that other

people have no problem defining while

half asleep

then i would like to personally

challenge you to come on my show

and define bad in a way that's going to

hold up to the scrutiny of how the word

bad is actually used in real life

and you don't have to be half asleep

anon you could do it while fully awake

and you're gonna have to justify to me

why that specific word

that specific definition has to be the

word bad

like why are you using the word bad if

it's just a private definition that

belongs only to you

i'm gonna hold you to that scrutiny and

put the [ __ ] fire under your ass

proverbially

you whiney baby am i the one who's the

whiny baby the one who took

the time to write a [ __ ] essay here

an obituary to their own stupidity

made under the pretense of being this

super intelligent vegan intellectual who

talks about this shakespearean prose

artistry you'd concoct you think you

sound

so [ __ ] smart that's what pisses he

thinks he sounds so

[ __ ] smart when he said that you

sound like the biggest

i [ __ ] humbled this [ __ ] kid i

know that i know they're humbled i know

they're [ __ ] humbled

they're never gonna [ __ ] be the same

again

you whiny baby i'm the whiny baby really

am i the one in a [ __ ] random comment

section of a guy i don't [ __ ] know

after being offered to debate you said

you won't because i really

i really thought lmao i really don't

care that's why i'm writing essays and

essays in their comments section

and not giving up no you do care you're

just too much of a [ __ ] to do the same

thing you're doing in the comments

with your voice you [ __ ] [ __ ]

you [ __ ] [ __ ]

you [ __ ] [ __ ]

and anon you want to know what they call

this

anon let me just show you let me top off

anon let me show you what this is called

[Music]

ready

[Music]

victory

victory flawless victory flawless

victory flawless victory flawless

victory flawless victory

flawless victory flawless victory

flawless victory flawless victory

flawless victory flawless victory

lawless victory anon flawless victory

you just got [ __ ]

count the l's 167

l's 167

l's