Bushnell, though, mostly ralks about himself. He sets up a livestream, gives a prelude of mostly "I" statements, and then does it.

I have a hard time reading it as anything other than a kind of self-harm at best and white saviorism at worst.

Actually, there is only one shape.

I shut the video off at this point bc frankly Vaush has occupied far too much of my brain space today and he does not deserve it. /thread for real this time.

Funny addendum to this
Vaush is under the impression that actually he is a Rule Utilitarian. He admits he doesn't have a great grasp of these concepts but given his arguments its very strange to me that he wouldn't argue from a position of rule utilitarianism if he was one.

The reason debatebroism is terminal is because the debate bro has to about face everything to maintain their audience. They cannot admit defete otherwise their parasocial cult will have sunk costed for nothing. Its a death spiral of bad takes and patheticness. /thread

To save face he has to do this strange appeal to optics. "I was edgy! I made a mistake! Im still essentially correct!" Its actually worse than being disingenuous or lazy. Its necessary for him.

And this is the problem at the core of what Ive called "terminal debatebroism." He actually cant admit that his assumptions are flawed here, but he also cant keep pretending like he's correct. Its gotten too hot for him.

This isn't an unimportant observation but in playing the devil he ends up making the point that we should be OK with cp and not that we should ban cobalt mining. It would be much easier to just make *your* argument for yourself.

The second issue is that "devils advocacy" only works if you can actually separate it out from the argument you are trying to make. Vaush's stated intention here is to demonstrate a hypocrisy in western society "we allow one form of abuse but not another."

At the end of the day, a good person may buy a cell phone, but they would never buy CP. The intention behind those two acts is miles apart even if they hypothetically have the same utility

The first issue is that, fundamentally, Vaush cannot tell you why CP is worse than cell phones. Utilitarianism is entirely unequiped to discuss what I consider an essential part of ethics: intention.

The actual problem with the argument is way more fundamental than optics though, its an issue with both utilitarianism (at least the sort of vulgar act Utilitarianism vaush espouses) and "devils advocate" arguments.

In his explanation it seems that his issue is that the optics were bad, or that really hes tired of explaining that he doesn't think CP should be legal. He routinely usues the term "devils advocate" throughout his explanation.

Schizophrenic cognition makes connections where there are none. It is hyper connectivity. The Buddha is the exact opposite. He is the anti-schizo.

Recently I saw a Rothko exhibit and the number of dirty looks from the older people there I got was very funny.
God forbid I saw what I know we're all thinking: this isn't actually all that good.

You joke, but I am prepared to die for the Doritos pyramid.

The classic duginist motte and bailey is so prevalent on discord that I've grown a sixth sense for these nerds.