https://twitter.com/Dripdog/status/1385029392192000007?s=20
Absolutely no one should ever be watching a debate with the intent of actually learning anything or finding out who is correct on an issue.
Honestly, you could have a debate between a flat earther and a literal astronaut, and if the audience is mostly people who are ambivalent on the subject, then the flat earther would have automatically won just due to the fact the debate is happening at all. It signals to the audience that there is no consensus or a right answer, otherwise how could it be up for debate in the first place?
Beyond that, it just becomes a battle of rhetoric and charisma. So having an aging academic socialist debate a terminally online reddit debatebro, in front of mostly said debatebro's audience, wasn't the best of ideas.
Honestly, you could have a debate between a flat earther and a literal astronaut, and if the audience is mostly people who are ambivalent on the subject, then the flat earther would have automatically won just due to the fact the debate is happening at all. It signals to the audience that there is no consensus or a right answer, otherwise how could it be up for debate in the first place?
Following this line of reasoning then aren't these sorts of "capitalism vs socialism" debates good for us since we live in a society where capitalism has such strong hegemony? It undermines the "there is no alternative" idea which for so long has been taken for granted by so many people.
Yeah, I can see how there would be situations where a debate could be more advantages for socialism. Just gotta keep in mind that the facts don't matter, and therefore the person defending socialism shouldn't necessarily be someone who is extremely well read on theory, but rather someone who is very good at arguing and articulating complex ideas in simple, easy to understand ways. Preferably, though, it'd be someone with both qualities, as rare of a person as that'd be.
From everything I heard, though, this specific debate with Destiny wasn't great. Sounds like Wolff wasn't very charismatic or good at articulating his points. That combined with the fact that the audience was mostly Destiny fans who are not ambivalent on the subject and probably lean hard against socialism, made this a bad idea.
Yeah, sounds about right. I just watched it now after reading this thread and I think Destiny tbh is very uninformed about socialism and Wolff was basically trying to educate him while destiny looked for little gotchas moments and got frustrated that he couldn't get them, but if his audience is just as uninformed as he is, they may think he "won" or whatever, but some of them will learn something.
Funnily enough Wolff mentions at the very end something similar to what you and I were just talking about. "The unhappiness with capitalism and the yearning to do better is already a fact. The question is where do we go? The very fact that this discussion is happening and somebody like me was invited to participate is a sign of things to come."
Yeah, sounds about right. I just watched it now after reading this thread and I think Destiny tbh is very uninformed about socialism and Wolff was basically trying to educate him
I think this is a viable strategy more people should be engaged in. Many of these influencers are politically illiterate and only support their positions because of that illiteracy. They're not like ideological fascists or neoliberals that are politically educated and choose to be cunts because that's what they are.
People like this are in fact flippable. Up until they become educated and then maintain their position people should make every attempt to educate them. There is no reason to cast aside a person until they choose the other side AFTER becoming educated.
There are a number of gains to be made by flipping influencers specifically. If an influencer is flipped their entire audience is also flipped. This goes for communities as well. If a mod team is flipped they will often start work flipping their community.
Targeting the top of these audience<>leader relationships is very viable for building a digital vanguard of a sort. The downside with twitch influencers however is that they are petty-bourgeoise business owners, they are very unlikely to side with the left.
It kind of frustrates me that people put so much stock into these dumbass live debates at all, as though whether an idea is right or wrong depends on who had the best lines when the topic was last broadcast for people to see. But besides that, I'm not convinced people really show up to watch these debates if they aren't already a fan of one of the participants. I don't really think there's a significant number of people to be swayed.
Can't say I agree with this here, because the audience is absolutely not mostly people who are ambivalent on the subject
I highly doubt that there were many Wolff fans in the audience, but no doubt a large amount of Destiny fans, because people don't watch debates to form their own opinions, they watch debates to see their guy destroy the other guy with facts & logic.
So in my mind, if anything, Destiny, who has a much larger online following, platformed Wolff, which is a good thing.
So in my mind, if anything, Destiny, who has a much larger online following, platformed Wolff, which is a good thing.
I was curious how this happened at all, for that reason. It stinks of desperation on Destiny's part. He's scrambling to get to the next spectacle as his viewers slowly grow up and tune out.
Not unlike the Zizek/Peterson debate.
These reactionaries are all so fleeting and disposable.
Yeah, but there's a really ugly history of things "we just know to be true" that turned out to be complete bullshit. The doctor that said we should wash our hands before surgery was hounded out of the profession and died in disgrace. Lysenkoism another.
wasn’t the best of ideas.
I want your data. So many people here tell it, but don't actually look at the social spheres which are relevant and which impacts it had on those different bubbles.
The reactions to this debate have confirmed to me that these things are nothing more than a Rorschach test where everyone hears what they want to hear, circles their wagons around their champion, and declares victory. These things don't change anybody's minds.
I think the only one I've seen that didn't end that way was the Jordan Peterson/Zizek one where Peterson just mumbled the whole time because he ate too many benzos before going on stage. Zizek didn't really win because he was just rambling about the Hegalian dialectic, but Peterson legit looked like he was about to have a stroke and didn't know where he was.
I think to even be interested in watching this shit you'd have to be a fan of one of the participants, and most people are going to leave with the person they showed up with, basically.
The biggest strength of marxism is it's depth and scientific anaylsis. The biggest weakness of marxism is it's depth and scientific analysis.
I don't understand. Define Marxism, Scientific Analysis, Depth, Strength, Weakness, Of, and that little dot at the end of the sentence.
In ten words or less, please.
We only ask simple questions here, like "what is Capitalism" and "why can't Capitalism and Socialism coexist"
If socialism is so good, why does it not simply kill and devour the capitalism?
How many fucking times do I have to listen to my dad say "we need a little bit of socialism and a little bit of capitalism"?
It's such a ridiculous criticism
"HOW DARE YOU GIVE ME IMPORTANT CONTEXT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION"
Anyone who thought anything good could come of this is a rube and lib
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/156/668/6ec.jpg
Steve: Tell me about why you are here in this world, without telling me that you are born and have parents :smug-face:
So is that debate worth a watch? Wolff has decades of experience arguing with libs. Might as well learn something from him...
I enjoyed it, but you probably wont hear any new ideas from either, the debate doesn't move beyond the very fundamental ideas of socialism and capitalism, probably because destiny repeatedly says "He doesn't understand" the definitions economists and socialists use, because he's trying desperately to smuggle a premise. you get some pretty clear examples of Destiny's style of manipulation just falling flat on a more academic and intelligent guest. For example 17:34, He tries to assigns a belief to Wolff which Wolff doesn't even remotely suggest during the previous 17 minutes, and he crumples when Wolff immediately calls him out. from what I know of destiny, it's usually not as flagrant when he's acting dishonestly.
Destiny is doing the Equivalent of shouting "Is Georgia part of Europe" at a geographer, and then getting mad when he gets an answer explaining there are different ways of defining Europe's eastern border, and why historically these exist and how some people even reject the concept and would say it is part of a continent called Eurasia. Destiny says "OMG I asked a very simple yes/no, why are you contrasting What is in Europe with what isn't in Europe and explaining how something historically developed, why don't you tell me what you think it is instead of saying what some 19th century cartographer thought" which of course he's not going to do since that's not in his authority to say, and understanding the subject requires teaching the nuance and overlap.
Not really. Unless you want to get an uncontrollable urge to find destiny and beat his face.
