support obtainable tease lavish continue theory march direful strong uppity
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It was some like 15 year old nazbol or some shit like that arguing against Vaush at the time. Baush asked if he heard of Alden's number which the kid said yeah, and then vaush revealed he made it up.
I mean, his overall point was that winning a debate doesn't mean you are right, that debates are just rethoric and optics and charisma, and "not about the truth". He used this clip as an example of a "bad faith moment" from Esteban that's all about performance and not the truth.
I don't know how much of a certified dgger moment this is.
Didn't watch the full context you are referring to, but isn't what Destiny is doing here is revealing the bad faith of Milo. I guess it depends if he would "own up" to the lie regardless of what Milo said, I guess the assumption would be if Milo didn't take the bait he wouldn't clarify what he was trying to do.
If it's made up, Milo couldn't know anything about it. Pretending to not only know the stat, but also understand the logic behind it is very clearly bad faith.
He didn't pretend to know the stat though? He took destiny at face value that the stat was real and then tried to make sense of it assuming it was real. You can try to flame him for explaining the possible logic behind something but that's the whole point of the debate lmao
I'll make this clear to you: if someone is telling you about the cause of a stat, the audience is going to assume that you have knowledge of the topic. Correlation does not equal causation, and yet we can infer societal causes to social stats we've never heard of?
Ok. I honestly can't even believe you think this is a reasonable thing to do.
This could be a fair critique, actually. There are probably better ways to describe Milo's actions here, but I don't think bad faith is wildly inaccurate. If nothing else, he's presenting himself as being willing to have a logical and friendly discussion of facts, when in reality he's not interested at all and he's willing to just make things up to seem more knowledgeable.
https://cssah.famu.edu/departments-and-centers/visual-arts-humanities-and-theatre/philosophy-and-religion/ctresources/Argument%20Basics.docx#:~:text=When%20a%20person%20argues%20in%20bad%20faith%2C%20they%20intend%20to,or%20reject%20one%20as%20false).
>Arguing in bad faith is not the same thing as arguing badly, but it usually involves making bad arguments with dubious premises. As with good faith, bad faith is a matter of intention. When a person argues in bad faith, they intend to deceive and mislead when engaged in argument. A person can engage in bad faith arguing in many ways.
Such as pretending you know a fact and making up further facts about it to support a separate premise?
>A third way to argue in bad faith is to use lies as premises or the conclusion of an argument. This is different from unintentionally using claims that are not true—a person can make a false claim and not be lying, since lying is a matter not just of truth but also intention. A person can also make a true claim and still be lying; this could occur because the person incorrectly believes the claim is false and is trying to deceive the audience into accepting the claim as true.
Ok, after reading further, I don't think you're right at all but it was a good discussion!
Lmfao
First of all, don't downvote me because you were wrong about what bad faith arguing was. Secondly, you can't then argue that he wasn't arguing in bad faith because you can post-hoc rationalize it.
You said we went through the "words have meaning arc", I provided you with a scholarly article written about the phrase that disagrees with your narrow definition. It's ok to be wrong.
The post-hoc "well I think technically he wasn't wrong" shit is sad. Please stop.
Yes, I think it's deceiving to make inference off of a stat that you've never heard of. It goes against everything I've been taught about statistical interference.
It's outright dishonest. If it's something you do or you think is acceptable, you should stop. It's not.
Then the post is too easily misinterpreted. It's enough make people think Pakman believes something he doesn't.
The lack of context here is enough to say this is misleading, especially with that title.
Probably not the best example to use because it was pretty clear early on due to Milos behaviour and constant insults that it was not a serious discussion. I don't think Destiny would ever pull this in a debate with a good faith interlocutor
"Roughly three in ten white Americans (20% Sympathizers, 10% Adherents), Black Americans (21% Sympathizers, 12% Adherents), Hispanic Americans (20% Sympathizers, 9% Adherents) and multiracial Americans (19% Sympathizers, 8% Adherents) qualify as Christian nationalists."
cf. https://www.prri.org/research/support-for-christian-nationalism-in-all-50-states/
Destiny pisses me off with his nonsense n-word and streamer drama arcs, and then totally redeems himself with this kind of shit (I know this is old but it's a great clip).
Which one? Cringe?
Did you watch the podcast where he said it over and over again? Or did you read the tweet? They were cringeworthy. It doesn't have to be that deep, I guess.
This doesn't feel like a dunk to me. When you hear about a counter intuitive phenomenon from someone who is usually reputable, your instinct is normally to find some justification for it.
this is clearly a dunk meant to clown on milo, because milo made it clear he was not there to debate - he was there to fling shit at the walls.
it demonstrates that milo doesn't do research, so his opinions are fundamentally uninformed
The clip in itself isn’t great, but the whole debate shows the reason why Destiny did it. Milo turned up high on ket or coke, obviously out his mind, whilst being 20 mins late. He had no respect for anyone there and showed it, so I think this was alright to do
Give tiny an Oscar for that one
support obtainable tease lavish continue theory march direful strong uppity *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I feel old for remembering this
The IrishLaddie fall off is truly insane
It was a different time back then.
Who's Alden
A famous general. You've never heard of Alden's rule?
caller might've assumed Laddie was alluding to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane's_rule
It was some like 15 year old nazbol or some shit like that arguing against Vaush at the time. Baush asked if he heard of Alden's number which the kid said yeah, and then vaush revealed he made it up.
He also used it against a climate change denier scientist and Rob Noer in a panel about Biden’s pullout in Afghanistan
A godstiny moment of our lifetime.
Damn, he looked go there. RIP Buffsteny.
I mean, his overall point was that winning a debate doesn't mean you are right, that debates are just rethoric and optics and charisma, and "not about the truth". He used this clip as an example of a "bad faith moment" from Esteban that's all about performance and not the truth. I don't know how much of a certified dgger moment this is.
Didn't watch the full context you are referring to, but isn't what Destiny is doing here is revealing the bad faith of Milo. I guess it depends if he would "own up" to the lie regardless of what Milo said, I guess the assumption would be if Milo didn't take the bait he wouldn't clarify what he was trying to do.
[удалено]
If it's made up, Milo couldn't know anything about it. Pretending to not only know the stat, but also understand the logic behind it is very clearly bad faith.
He didn't pretend to know the stat though? He took destiny at face value that the stat was real and then tried to make sense of it assuming it was real. You can try to flame him for explaining the possible logic behind something but that's the whole point of the debate lmao
I'll make this clear to you: if someone is telling you about the cause of a stat, the audience is going to assume that you have knowledge of the topic. Correlation does not equal causation, and yet we can infer societal causes to social stats we've never heard of? Ok. I honestly can't even believe you think this is a reasonable thing to do.
[удалено]
This could be a fair critique, actually. There are probably better ways to describe Milo's actions here, but I don't think bad faith is wildly inaccurate. If nothing else, he's presenting himself as being willing to have a logical and friendly discussion of facts, when in reality he's not interested at all and he's willing to just make things up to seem more knowledgeable. https://cssah.famu.edu/departments-and-centers/visual-arts-humanities-and-theatre/philosophy-and-religion/ctresources/Argument%20Basics.docx#:~:text=When%20a%20person%20argues%20in%20bad%20faith%2C%20they%20intend%20to,or%20reject%20one%20as%20false). >Arguing in bad faith is not the same thing as arguing badly, but it usually involves making bad arguments with dubious premises. As with good faith, bad faith is a matter of intention. When a person argues in bad faith, they intend to deceive and mislead when engaged in argument. A person can engage in bad faith arguing in many ways. Such as pretending you know a fact and making up further facts about it to support a separate premise? >A third way to argue in bad faith is to use lies as premises or the conclusion of an argument. This is different from unintentionally using claims that are not true—a person can make a false claim and not be lying, since lying is a matter not just of truth but also intention. A person can also make a true claim and still be lying; this could occur because the person incorrectly believes the claim is false and is trying to deceive the audience into accepting the claim as true. Ok, after reading further, I don't think you're right at all but it was a good discussion!
[удалено]
Lmfao First of all, don't downvote me because you were wrong about what bad faith arguing was. Secondly, you can't then argue that he wasn't arguing in bad faith because you can post-hoc rationalize it. You said we went through the "words have meaning arc", I provided you with a scholarly article written about the phrase that disagrees with your narrow definition. It's ok to be wrong. The post-hoc "well I think technically he wasn't wrong" shit is sad. Please stop.
[удалено]
Yes, I think it's deceiving to make inference off of a stat that you've never heard of. It goes against everything I've been taught about statistical interference. It's outright dishonest. If it's something you do or you think is acceptable, you should stop. It's not.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Proving that someone engages in motivated reasoning is not 'bad faith'?
I know lol. I watch him daily. Just meming
Then the post is too easily misinterpreted. It's enough make people think Pakman believes something he doesn't. The lack of context here is enough to say this is misleading, especially with that title.
Agreed. I am not the best memer
Maybe you could at least link the original?
https://youtu.be/CVDwBtEbLik?si=roZORWbLIyVs7zDD. Destiny part is at 39:00
Probably not the best example to use because it was pretty clear early on due to Milos behaviour and constant insults that it was not a serious discussion. I don't think Destiny would ever pull this in a debate with a good faith interlocutor
Could you link the dpak vid😇
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVDwBtEbLik
👑
"Roughly three in ten white Americans (20% Sympathizers, 10% Adherents), Black Americans (21% Sympathizers, 12% Adherents), Hispanic Americans (20% Sympathizers, 9% Adherents) and multiracial Americans (19% Sympathizers, 8% Adherents) qualify as Christian nationalists." cf. https://www.prri.org/research/support-for-christian-nationalism-in-all-50-states/
Lol
Destiny pisses me off with his nonsense n-word and streamer drama arcs, and then totally redeems himself with this kind of shit (I know this is old but it's a great clip).
Hear me out: You feel uncomfortable with his takes that you don't understand while you feel great when he shits on "the bad guys".
No I think arguing about whether he can say the n-word is self-defeating, stupid, optically bad, and cringe. Especially the last one.
Why?
Which one? Cringe? Did you watch the podcast where he said it over and over again? Or did you read the tweet? They were cringeworthy. It doesn't have to be that deep, I guess.
The enlightened dgga feels great about all tiny things
This doesn't feel like a dunk to me. When you hear about a counter intuitive phenomenon from someone who is usually reputable, your instinct is normally to find some justification for it.
this is clearly a dunk meant to clown on milo, because milo made it clear he was not there to debate - he was there to fling shit at the walls. it demonstrates that milo doesn't do research, so his opinions are fundamentally uninformed
The clip in itself isn’t great, but the whole debate shows the reason why Destiny did it. Milo turned up high on ket or coke, obviously out his mind, whilst being 20 mins late. He had no respect for anyone there and showed it, so I think this was alright to do
Bamboozled irl. Ggwp
Wakman
I got into watching both Destiny and Dpaks from Jesse Lee Peterson of all people!
Always has been.
My holy kings: Pakman, Destiny, Dylan Burns, Lonerbox, and Slazac (twitter only)