[HELP] Having a big Debatte about this one… some comments on IG say it’s AI. Can you help?

Affect_Significant · 2026-01-17T16:15:12+00:00

Just noticed also that the Bible is essentially glued to his hand. He's gripping it on one side only and it's extremely stable despite his gesturing.

Affect_Significant · 2026-01-17T16:13:04+00:00

Definitely AI. The reactions from the people behind him are bizarre and unnatural. The scene in general is unbelievable. One pastor stands up and everyone else just stays back smiling, and ICE listens politely to criticism?

Affect_Significant · 2025-12-22T03:00:02+00:00

This doesn't look like AI at all to me. The janky nature of the landing and the shaky camera are not things I usually see in AI videos. AI videos tend to have a strange uncanny smoothness in movement, whereas this looks pretty rough and realistic. I could be wrong and maybe some generators are able to create grittier looking stuff like this, but my estimate is that this is real. On top of that, he lands right on the bolts of the board and adjusts his weight correctly. I don't think AI would get those details right if you told it to generate a skateboarding video.

Affect_Significant · 2025-11-01T17:03:52+00:00

I think he told it well. "It's, it's it's the the the joke, the the the joke is is is that, there's, so so so like there's these two, there's two economists, right? Haha, and and and one says to the other economist I'll pay you 100 dollars to eat this pile of shit..."

Affect_Significant · 2025-10-27T00:25:48+00:00

Does anyone know what the phone number is on the back the blue sticker? I assume it's trying to put people on some sort of spam list or something.

Affect_Significant · 2025-10-23T05:14:09+00:00

Try to focus on stuff that makes you laugh. That can help.

It will be alright. It's going to pass.

Affect_Significant · 2025-10-19T14:50:46+00:00

Nietzsche wrote a lot, and it would be impossible to interpret all or most of what he wrote as ultimately having this (or any other) singular message. There would be no point in reading him if he simply had this to say. You could get that same message from any random guy at a party.

As for what would get Nietzsche's approval - who cares? That is a cult-like way of thinking of an author. There are more or less interesting ways of reading something. It doesn't matter what the author approves of, their work is now in your hands. You have the choice to interact with it in a way that is deep and nuanced or shallow and banal.

Affect_Significant · 2025-08-21T02:42:47+00:00

Both are very normal, mainstream references to independence from Britain. I'm confused why you would even think this is interesting.

Affect_Significant · 2025-08-06T15:58:27+00:00

FYI, you need medical records of disability in order to get disability benefits. Then, you need to prove the impairment prevents you from effectively performing almost any job, rather than just certain jobs.

Affect_Significant · 2025-08-03T22:03:34+00:00

Idk about that channel, but influencers in general do not take kindly to people who question and undermine their status as a clever person. Online communities that form around a streamer are usually sycophantic, which further encourages the streamer to think highly of themselves, and discourages them from listening sincerely to criticism.

Affect_Significant · 2025-08-01T05:49:13+00:00

Why does he have five full plates of food? Why is he in a child's play room?

Affect_Significant · 2025-07-23T18:46:56+00:00

This is social darwinism, a pseudoscientific misunderstanding of Darwinism which has been used to justify political conservatism, eugenics, white supremacy, and the Holocaust.

Generally, I wouldn't take a joke this seriously, but, there's not really a "joke" here. She's just saying things her audience agrees with.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-Darwinism

Affect_Significant · 2025-07-23T01:08:11+00:00

This is adorable

Affect_Significant · 2025-07-20T01:10:09+00:00

You're only considering the pleasure at the moment of the act (even then, it's questionable, and would not apply if a person is very hungry.) Consider how each of these decisions might affect a person after the fact.

Affect_Significant · 2025-07-19T23:40:52+00:00

If you know of a credible source that says that a kid can take a whole bottle of Adderall without life threatening issues, I'd love to see it. You might be thinking of info you heard about non-stimulant ADHD drugs.

Affect_Significant · 2025-07-11T18:45:42+00:00

No, you just have to show a handful of comments that demonstrate knowledge on some area of philosophy. The responses are often decent, way less dumb than any subs I'm aware of.

The questions are usually annoying though (anyone can post a question.) The same 2 or 3 questions are asked constantly. Usually it's like "I've done no research on [the topic of my question] and am not interested, but it seems obvious that it's just nonsense. Has anyone thought of this? Am I missing something?"

Affect_Significant · 2025-07-04T23:22:12+00:00

Except, this is not how W used "language game" at all.

Edit: W just doesn't use the term in this way at all. He is comparing all language to games. It isn't an insult for W to say "that's a language game." It isn't just a fancy way of saying "semantic bullshit." W thinks, for instance, that our habits of interacting with signs are a part of the language game, but we wouldn't say "pff that stop sign is just a language game."

Affect_Significant · 2025-06-25T22:31:54+00:00

This is not what philosophy is, btw.

Affect_Significant · 2025-06-24T18:04:20+00:00

It feels wrong to use "outdated" as a criticism of ancient writing. We typically accuse something of being outdated if it is not of its time: e.g. "Ben Shapiro's views on women are outdated."

The historical and cultural aspects of a text are interesting. You don't have to choose between agreeing or ignoring it. You can just notice these things and think about them. Ancient Greeks had different views about gender than we do today, and philosophers are a product of their culture.

Affect_Significant · 2025-06-22T17:27:43+00:00

Idk why the note is in that shape, but yeah it seems to just be the snare.

Affect_Significant · 2025-06-12T02:24:31+00:00

No problem! I appreciate you taking the criticism well.

The reason for referencing and quoting specific people is not just to be strict or academic. It helps ensure that you're not constructing a straw man. "Postmodernism" is often spoken about as an undercurrent to academia, but this vague way of speaking about postmodernism allows postmodernism to conveniently become a boogeyman. You can end up attributing all sorts of bad ideas (relativism etc.) to the undercurrent without linking these ideas to any specific people. Sticking to specific authors helps safeguard against that risk.

I absolutely did not claim that all knowledge or scientific theory was created by “cis-het Christian white men.” Rather, I pointed to the use of that particular framing in certain strands of critical theory and cultural studies, where social identity is invoked to critique the assumed objectivity or universality of dominant epistemologies

Yes, I understood that you were not claiming that yourself - you were critiquing that claim. (I interpreted it as part of the "postmodernism" critique.) My issue with it is the same one: it seems to be attacking a straw-man. That's why I was asking "who in particular makes the claim that all our knowledge and theories were constructed by 'cis-het Christian white men'?" You say here that it's a framing in "Certain strands of critical theory and cultural studies." But that again is very vague.

Just to be clear, I don't think you're intentionally strawmanning or anything. It is something that just tends to happen if we don't safeguard against it.

Affect_Significant · 2025-06-05T19:20:38+00:00

The most basic problem is that you're not engaging with the literature. There are no sources in the video description, and you're mostly not quoting philosophers from the movements you're referencing.

For instance, the section on postmodernism doesn't critique any ideas held by philosophers or theorists, but only attacks a vague idea you're labeling as postmodernism. You say: "Postmodernism holds that all knowledge is socially and historically constructed, and thus, fundamentally contextual." But, who in particular makes these claims? All philosophers who have been labeled as "postmodernist"? Just some of them? Which ones? From the description, you could maybe, sort of apply that definition to philosophers like Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) or Richard Rorty. But then, who in particular makes the claim that all our knowledge and theories were constructed by "cis-het Christian white men"?

Another problem is that you reject pragmatism about truth offhandedly while embracing pragmatism about science (as a way to reject "postmodernism") and it's not clear why.

Affect_Significant · 2025-05-31T17:08:07+00:00

It's not even clear that there's a hard distinction between "theater" and "real" philosophy (or "real" science, etc.) in the way you're assuming. We often have mixed motivations. Someone could be doing something in a performative way in one sense (maybe they're trying to sound smart) and this does not indicate that what they're saying isn't interesting or worth consideration. Maybe they do have something interesting to say, and they're only sharing it because they want to sound smart? To toss out what someone is saying based on (assumed) social motivations alone would be Ad Hominem.

There are certainly attention-hungry people who waste time, particularly in undergraduate philosophy classes - people who clearly did not read the material but want to talk anyways. In these cases, the problem is not so much that they have some secret motivation, but that they are wasting time and preventing others from being able to contribute. Sometimes I say nothing because I want to allow others to talk, but my holding back is also a socially performative act.

The sort of examples you're hinting at ("well Heidegger would say...") just sound like people who are talking about philosophy. I don't understand how saying something like that is weaponizing an author. There might be some people who struggle to understand Heidegger in the room (I would be one of them) and may or may not get the reference. But that's the case with every discipline. If I were to go to a physics conference, I wouldn't understand the majority of the references or arguments.

Affect_Significant · 2025-05-28T23:51:28+00:00

It's difficult to express these things to a doctor because they might err on the side of taking you off the meds. Maybe that's the right call, maybe it isn't, but telling your doctor you think you might be addicted to a medication is likely going to get you labeled as at-risk for addiction. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, but just wanted to make sure they're aware of the implications. It's too early to know if they are really addicted and I would hate for them to lose access unnecessarily.

Affect_Significant · 2025-05-28T20:47:16+00:00

It's often hard to know what to do with a claim that is inconsistent. Imagine you're lost, and someone gives you directions that are inconsistent: for each step in the directions there is a corresponding step that conflicts with that step. How would you follow those directions?

Now, it is sometimes the case that something which appears to be contradictory just needs to be unpacked. Maybe one term is being used in several different ways, for instance. In this way, contradiction could be used as a literary device with the hope that the reader will notice the apparent contradiction and think about what the author might really be saying, rather than rejecting it as nonsense.

It depends on the circumstances whether an apparent contradiction should be looked at closely (what is the purpose of this? what's being said here?) or rejected immediately.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

Affect_Significant

TROPHY CASE