![]() I also think that Vaush was very restrained. I think Tim really wants to come across as a reasonable person that has an intellect and a logical argument. I'll write an update as soon as I've finished the podcast. Suddenly both sides make arguments without having any data to back it up.Īnyways I think you are right, I could be more critical of Vaush. This shows that he can't purely rely on his arguments, because it gets messy real fast. He is petty knowledgeable when it comes to interpreting and questioning the data he is confronted with, but all of this falls away in a debate like this. He often uses statistics and data to defend his points. I guess the problem with Vaush is that he's too reliant on his data. Not because his points were "bad", but mostly because I know that he could have made better points. Vaush definitely had better debates in the past. He would just go: "Well I guess our morals disagree here." and go on talking about another topic. ![]() And Tim, presumably because he's the host of the show, was the one who changed the topics most of the time. He was mostly just offering different perspectives on problems which was cool, but the points themselves were not that convincing. You made whole rant about Tim Pool disagreeing, did Vaush agree with his opinion and change his own.ĭon't get me wrong, Vaush too had a couple of weak points and stupid takes, but I think that he was more willing to defend them than Tim was with his points. Tim had a few good moments here and there, but he didn't really have any strong points. It's getting a little heated right now, but I guess that Tim Pool will just go back to agreeing to disagree. I am 3 hours in and they are still discussing the pandemic. Like when they were talking about how bad Trump handled the pandemic. Vaush too could have performed better on a couple of points. But yet again Tim Pool just agreed to disagree. Like was it 100% on the protesters? Or could it be, that MAYBE some of the cops initiated the violence in some of those cases? Like COULD it be that the cops started the violence by being violent first? We also know that it's a common practice for cops to dress up as a protester and initiate violence so that these "violent riots" could be disbanded. First he acknowledged that the protests were mostly peaceful, then went on talking about how the big bad news "lied" to us by "refusing" to call the mostly peaceful protests riots! Vaush made a few good points about the fact that we don't know who was responsible for the violence that DID happen. He also was very biased when it came to the current protests. His interpretation of CRT literally was: White people = bad, black people = good! He then pulled out like 2 isolated examples of companies making their white/male employees write apology letters to black people/women. The only times he agreed with Vaush were when his world view wasn't being challenged.Ī good example of this was how Tim Pool was talking about how critical race theory was "racist against white people", because it implied that white people had an inherent privilege, just minutes after talking about intersectionality, somehow failing to draw a connection between these two concepts. Tim Pool always went back to having a "let's agree to disagree" mentality. Vaush called him out on a couple of things, like, but they generally couldn't come to any consensus. Tim Pool, as expected, had quiet a few stupid takes, but he performed better than I thought he would. They kept it relatively civil and talked about quiet a few things. It actually was a pretty interesting debate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |