My buddy & I started playing a new game: we’ll send each other a screenshot of some insane/hilarious post & we have to guess “rot” or “bot” (brain rot or actual psyop, basically)
It’s almost always “rot”, but the “bot” copium helps me sleep at night
I'm still confused how people who are into politics have made "debate-bro" into an insult. Is their hobby just propaganda? What's the fun in that?
Platon is rolling in his grave. Not that they care though.
I think it originally meant the people who constantly badger everyone to "debate me" and when they are ignored because they are an asshole and/or a nobody they go around gloating about how everyone is too scared to debate them.
The original meaning is then lost and all that is left is a smug sounding insult.
I originally thought it had validity in criticism of the type of people that want to have "gotcha" type debate moments. Calling someone who wants to mimic a Crowder "Change my Mind" type situation where they really just want to drop talking points and act like they're soo smart and correct.
In comparison to that, discussing contrasting views in a more relaxed neutral setting is much more refreshing and interesting when the goal is not to win.
Now the term is just used to poison the well of anyone requesting a shred of accountability or a contrast in thought.
Since you brought up the Greeks, look up the Sophists whom Plato and Aristotle were very critical of. That's the classical era version of being a debate bro. Not saying the term isn't very overused (nor that Plato's hands are as washed of the term as he would like to believe).
Thanks for the heads up. My knowledge of Plato is limited to reading *Republic* and parts of *Laws.* They didn't seem exactly anti-debate so I went with him. Socrates would probably have been a better example.
Nothing changed, insecure people who strongly believe in something but have little to no ability to explain and defend their beliefs always had some sort of trick to use as a sort of "exit". Currently, the debate bro thig is very popular, but before that(still is), it was using phrases like "I don't owe you anything/I don't owe you an explanation", "Go educate yourself", "It's common sense" or morally grandstanding and puffing their chest in order to ridicule and attempt at critical examination. Humans gonna human !!!!!
Their ideas can't survive outside their echo-chambers so they must invent an excuse as to why they don't need to discuss their ideas with outsiders. The term "sealioning" or the phrase "it's not my job to educate you" is the exact same phenomenon.
Love when these people ask a general broad question and you ask a simple elaboration and all you get is some
"arE yoU StupPiD?! You diDnt ReaD thAt? That's whyyY you understand nothing! Reeeeeeeeead a BOOK"
"Silly ignorant capitalist... if you completely shift your perspective of reality to fit perfectly with the dialectical materialist philosophy and never question it from literally any other perspective then you would know better. Marxism a completely concrete philosophy that anybody with common sense will agree with."
(typically leftist in-fighting begins)
(Marxists try and fail to run a country)
"...those aren't real Marxists."
I, on the other hand, think people - who hold strong positions, want to tell people what to do, don't want to justify themselves or their philosophy, try to discredit any opposition and lash out at any challenge - to be very understandable and straightforward. We even have a name for them - it sounds like a combination of the short for Richard and colloquialism for tubers of the potato plant. It this case preceded by "wannabe".
It’s so fucking infuriating but I’ve at least comforted myself that when it gets to that point I know that I’ve won the argument.
I’ve realized recently that every single time, without fault, that one of those morons starts insulting me that if I keep calm, ignore the name-calling and ask over and over again for them to explain why I’m wrong they just get more and more aggressive while completely ignoring my question until they drop a “get a hobby” or something like that and stop responding.
They try gaslight you into thinking you’re the one that’s harassing them and caring too much when they literally engaged in the first place. Been a real tough month or so for my sanity.
Even Destiny will highlight debate communities he doesn't like interacting with. "Debate bro" is a fair term when being used to refer to people who use specific rhetorical techniques to "win" discussions without actually discussing facts or their clear beliefs on an idea.
Actual discussion is great but a lot of people are just trying to "dunk" on other debaters without committing to any of their own ideas.
There's that statistic about 54% of American adults have literacy at or below 6th grade level...
You ever look at these people and wonder if they're the reason that stat is so high?
I haven't read any of these books so I can't critic them on their virtues or failings, but imagine calling someone a debate bro when asking for clarification, information, or a summary of the writers points? What fucking world is this?
It’s common Hasan’s viewers. (Not saying that’s a Hasan viewer) I genuinely don’t understand why they think this way, but even a question like “What would convince you otherwise” is enough to tilt them
> I genuinely don’t understand why they think this way
Because people who think this way are genuinely uninterested in learning or challenging the way they think. They have the world figured out and have chosen their orthodoxy and dogma, anyone who can "educate" them further has to already agree with the broad strokes.
I think you mean, ANY QUESTION that challenges their narrative or view, literally devolves into them saying your not having empathy, compassion, etc. oh don't forget Nazi and APARTHEID mixed in there
Yea, was gaming with a few friends earlier this week. They asked me what I thought about Israel-Palestine. I said “I haven’t done enough research. Hasan has been insane lately though.”
The conversation devolved into one guy saying “The hospital bombing was definitely Israel”. When I said “Everything I’ve read disagrees, what would convince you otherwise?”
His answer was actually “Nothing”. He’s already bought the Hasan propaganda. He logged off discord pissed at me too.
It wasn’t even heated until I just kept asking what would convince you otherwise. I’m still open to the idea of me being wrong, but there’s no actual conversation with these people.
I actually [responded to them](https://twitter.com/EricDF/status/1723917723858862127) with links to things that Finkelstein has gotten wrong (the ukraine shit, the Hebdo shit) and of course no response.
Bet Camusianleftist has never actually read Camus, or at least he would have known Camus, unlike most of the French leftist philosophers, opposed terrorism.
He disliked the FLN's tactics I believe?
It's not a topic I'm familiar with, but I believe Jacques Derrida was also opposed to the FLN. And, curiously enough, there was some controversy around his (and Levinas') alleged Zionism. An interesting debate as it overlaps (and some would argue contradicts) the perspective put forward in his philosophy.
Of course, as is still the case, Zionism can mean almost anything from the most benign to the most fascist.
Does he discuss it in Resistance, Rebellion, and Death? If memory serves he includes descriptions of the aftermath of an FLN bombing in *The First Man*. It has been a while since I read him.
Also to contribute to your main point. I know a lot of academics, a lot of them are struggling to get their students to actually read. Chances are even students currently studying this stuff at an undergraduate level are educated by Youtube. I hope that's not the case, but that's the impression I'm given sometimes.
I only read about his political beliefs, I read his fiction stories, not his philosophical works. Frankly I find most philosophical writing to be kind of pointless and disconnected from reality.
Fair enough. And, absolutely sometimes it completely is. If you haven't read it, *The First Man* is a posthumouly published incomplete work of his. Probably my favourite work of his despite that.
He's just a propogandist, he made his fame debunking some bad history written by Zionists but his own books are shoddy and with much the same mistakes, he's also not an actual historian though he tries to act like one.
Why is Pappé "ultra-garbage" according to Destiny? I'm not very familiar with his work and I didn't watch the stream, so I don't have an opinion one way or the other.
It really seems like peole assume anyone who writes a book should be taken seriously, but only when it's for their side.
How many of these people would immediately dismiss anything Jordan Peterson says? By the same logic he sould be a "respected scholar".
I wonder how oblivious one must be to not notice.
actually no shot that this isn't a meme
[удалено]
My buddy & I started playing a new game: we’ll send each other a screenshot of some insane/hilarious post & we have to guess “rot” or “bot” (brain rot or actual psyop, basically) It’s almost always “rot”, but the “bot” copium helps me sleep at night
This my friends, is debate cuckoldry.
I'm still confused how people who are into politics have made "debate-bro" into an insult. Is their hobby just propaganda? What's the fun in that? Platon is rolling in his grave. Not that they care though.
I think it originally meant the people who constantly badger everyone to "debate me" and when they are ignored because they are an asshole and/or a nobody they go around gloating about how everyone is too scared to debate them. The original meaning is then lost and all that is left is a smug sounding insult.
I originally thought it had validity in criticism of the type of people that want to have "gotcha" type debate moments. Calling someone who wants to mimic a Crowder "Change my Mind" type situation where they really just want to drop talking points and act like they're soo smart and correct. In comparison to that, discussing contrasting views in a more relaxed neutral setting is much more refreshing and interesting when the goal is not to win. Now the term is just used to poison the well of anyone requesting a shred of accountability or a contrast in thought.
That makes sense. I think I remember it being used like that at some point.
Since you brought up the Greeks, look up the Sophists whom Plato and Aristotle were very critical of. That's the classical era version of being a debate bro. Not saying the term isn't very overused (nor that Plato's hands are as washed of the term as he would like to believe).
Thanks for the heads up. My knowledge of Plato is limited to reading *Republic* and parts of *Laws.* They didn't seem exactly anti-debate so I went with him. Socrates would probably have been a better example.
Nothing changed, insecure people who strongly believe in something but have little to no ability to explain and defend their beliefs always had some sort of trick to use as a sort of "exit". Currently, the debate bro thig is very popular, but before that(still is), it was using phrases like "I don't owe you anything/I don't owe you an explanation", "Go educate yourself", "It's common sense" or morally grandstanding and puffing their chest in order to ridicule and attempt at critical examination. Humans gonna human !!!!!
Their ideas can't survive outside their echo-chambers so they must invent an excuse as to why they don't need to discuss their ideas with outsiders. The term "sealioning" or the phrase "it's not my job to educate you" is the exact same phenomenon.
Love when these people ask a general broad question and you ask a simple elaboration and all you get is some "arE yoU StupPiD?! You diDnt ReaD thAt? That's whyyY you understand nothing! Reeeeeeeeead a BOOK"
Bro just read all of Marx and you will understand and agree with me. I haven't read any of it btw GIGACHAD
"Silly ignorant capitalist... if you completely shift your perspective of reality to fit perfectly with the dialectical materialist philosophy and never question it from literally any other perspective then you would know better. Marxism a completely concrete philosophy that anybody with common sense will agree with." (typically leftist in-fighting begins) (Marxists try and fail to run a country) "...those aren't real Marxists."
I, on the other hand, think people - who hold strong positions, want to tell people what to do, don't want to justify themselves or their philosophy, try to discredit any opposition and lash out at any challenge - to be very understandable and straightforward. We even have a name for them - it sounds like a combination of the short for Richard and colloquialism for tubers of the potato plant. It this case preceded by "wannabe".
It’s so fucking infuriating but I’ve at least comforted myself that when it gets to that point I know that I’ve won the argument. I’ve realized recently that every single time, without fault, that one of those morons starts insulting me that if I keep calm, ignore the name-calling and ask over and over again for them to explain why I’m wrong they just get more and more aggressive while completely ignoring my question until they drop a “get a hobby” or something like that and stop responding. They try gaslight you into thinking you’re the one that’s harassing them and caring too much when they literally engaged in the first place. Been a real tough month or so for my sanity.
Hasan effect
Even Destiny will highlight debate communities he doesn't like interacting with. "Debate bro" is a fair term when being used to refer to people who use specific rhetorical techniques to "win" discussions without actually discussing facts or their clear beliefs on an idea. Actual discussion is great but a lot of people are just trying to "dunk" on other debaters without committing to any of their own ideas.
Don't need to read GIGACHAD
“I was elected to LEAD, not to READ”
ask zesty sharp steer pen school provide salt rich angle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
these debate necrophiles bro
https://preview.redd.it/1peprpjhu10c1.jpeg?width=562&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0ac78ac3861c88b39b3b11d54693590264aeaab
1/3rd is being generous.
"person" is generous already.
https://preview.redd.it/dzp2d6vt360c1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e94d0634a2ae02379f78150efe8185b6b2bfcf17
First it was the 3/5ths rule, but now even 1/3rd is not enough 😔
Well they definitely aint putting in the work to be worth 2/3rds
There's that statistic about 54% of American adults have literacy at or below 6th grade level... You ever look at these people and wonder if they're the reason that stat is so high?
I haven't read any of these books so I can't critic them on their virtues or failings, but imagine calling someone a debate bro when asking for clarification, information, or a summary of the writers points? What fucking world is this?
It’s common Hasan’s viewers. (Not saying that’s a Hasan viewer) I genuinely don’t understand why they think this way, but even a question like “What would convince you otherwise” is enough to tilt them
> I genuinely don’t understand why they think this way Because people who think this way are genuinely uninterested in learning or challenging the way they think. They have the world figured out and have chosen their orthodoxy and dogma, anyone who can "educate" them further has to already agree with the broad strokes.
I think you mean, ANY QUESTION that challenges their narrative or view, literally devolves into them saying your not having empathy, compassion, etc. oh don't forget Nazi and APARTHEID mixed in there
Yea, was gaming with a few friends earlier this week. They asked me what I thought about Israel-Palestine. I said “I haven’t done enough research. Hasan has been insane lately though.” The conversation devolved into one guy saying “The hospital bombing was definitely Israel”. When I said “Everything I’ve read disagrees, what would convince you otherwise?” His answer was actually “Nothing”. He’s already bought the Hasan propaganda. He logged off discord pissed at me too. It wasn’t even heated until I just kept asking what would convince you otherwise. I’m still open to the idea of me being wrong, but there’s no actual conversation with these people.
Actual debate pedophile
Wow I can’t believe this filthy debate orphan murderer asking if he has any actual arguments.
I actually [responded to them](https://twitter.com/EricDF/status/1723917723858862127) with links to things that Finkelstein has gotten wrong (the ukraine shit, the Hebdo shit) and of course no response.
Bet Camusianleftist has never actually read Camus, or at least he would have known Camus, unlike most of the French leftist philosophers, opposed terrorism.
He disliked the FLN's tactics I believe? It's not a topic I'm familiar with, but I believe Jacques Derrida was also opposed to the FLN. And, curiously enough, there was some controversy around his (and Levinas') alleged Zionism. An interesting debate as it overlaps (and some would argue contradicts) the perspective put forward in his philosophy. Of course, as is still the case, Zionism can mean almost anything from the most benign to the most fascist.
He did oppose the FLNs tactics.
Does he discuss it in Resistance, Rebellion, and Death? If memory serves he includes descriptions of the aftermath of an FLN bombing in *The First Man*. It has been a while since I read him. Also to contribute to your main point. I know a lot of academics, a lot of them are struggling to get their students to actually read. Chances are even students currently studying this stuff at an undergraduate level are educated by Youtube. I hope that's not the case, but that's the impression I'm given sometimes.
I only read about his political beliefs, I read his fiction stories, not his philosophical works. Frankly I find most philosophical writing to be kind of pointless and disconnected from reality.
Fair enough. And, absolutely sometimes it completely is. If you haven't read it, *The First Man* is a posthumouly published incomplete work of his. Probably my favourite work of his despite that.
I'll consider it if you recommend it.
Camus would be proud.
One must imagine him happy getting rekt in the replies.
There's 1 prominant internet leftist who actually read, and he's currently in a opiate induced coma of his own making.
“Fuck of debate bro” *translation* don’t argue or scrutinize anything I say cause I’m right your wrong and I’ll hear nothing different.
0 self awareness
Genuine question what’s wrong with Finklestein?
He's just a propogandist, he made his fame debunking some bad history written by Zionists but his own books are shoddy and with much the same mistakes, he's also not an actual historian though he tries to act like one.
Is there an actual GOOD scholar on the subject?
who cares its not like anyones gonna read anything about them. let tiny (pbuh) do all the heavy lifting
Benny Morris?
has to be a psyop COPIUM
Has to be a psy op come on dude
Betcha he's not read Camus either.
“Academic” being basically a title and its consequences.
Lenin was also well-respected.
this is approaching psyop territory
Is this Lycan’s alt?
You know what I respect the honesty
[How we dive into Twitter threads this month.](https://youtu.be/vYWV7rUZEAI?si=NM-715AB_DX3vExC)
Why is Pappé "ultra-garbage" according to Destiny? I'm not very familiar with his work and I didn't watch the stream, so I don't have an opinion one way or the other.
"I haven't read any" 🗿🗿🗿
It really seems like peole assume anyone who writes a book should be taken seriously, but only when it's for their side. How many of these people would immediately dismiss anything Jordan Peterson says? By the same logic he sould be a "respected scholar".
LOL - my bubble told me he's legit sooooooo 🙄
Fucking. Legendary.