Lance from SerfsTV takes on JF who stumps him with IQ and eugenics arguments in a frustrating debate that is tricky to navigate. Timestamps Click▼ 0:00 - Teaser/Intro 1:13 - JF is obsessed with the poor phenotype and the poverty gene 7:56 - Lance gives his Wolff inspired opening 14:47 - People are onboard with some form of eugenics 23:11 - Can JF define communism? 26:30 - Hourly compensation and taxing unrealized wealth 36:36 - Destiny realizes perhaps Lance didn't prepare adequately for JF 40:09 - JF is openly against welfare 43:21 - Humans don't exist on a spectrum of "Food" vs "Not Food" 49:38 - The phenotypes JF talks about are too simplistic 54:18 - You are compensated in society based on the demand for your work 58:59 - Co-ops 1:06:26 - JF wants to abolish the state... 1:17:21 - "You have to be so careful here!" 1:26:44 - Lance isn't happy with what is being talked about in the debate 1:32:52 - Destiny regresses back to 2020 optics to explain the eugenics trap 1:38:55 - Income inequality, absolute poverty and poverty as a predictor 1:52:00 - Serfs asks JF if he accepted money from Epstein... 2:01:40 - Destiny's problem with conglomerates and anti-trust laws
@@acutecloudd7970 Everyone should be allowed to say the N word, Veganism is only as ethical as the decisions and choices that the vegan makes in their life, and incst is fine so long as it is between consenting adults, and so long as they don't reproduce with close relatives. There. You might not be able to ever have the discussion with Destiny, but you can have it with me...a nobody!
JF: 'I think welfare is a social institution which is killing both our society, and long term, our species' Lance: 'Sounds like you have a problem with welfare but don't want to say it outright'
JF: "I think that the more poor and stupid people that exist the worse society will be and we shouldn't seek to keep them alive when they would die naturally" Lance: "But what about all the poor and impoverished people who would die naturally?"
I knew who would win. JF went through bloodsports and for a while was its top figure. Lance watches political videos with very little input and he has nothing to say but "yikes" when hearing typical conservative opinions let alone edgy right wing opinions.
Reminds me of The Room where everytime Mark comes over Lisa starts getting undressed and pushing him down on the couch and he's like "Wait, wait, wait, what's going on here??" like they've never had sex before
I think he's used to having to spar debate with people who have optics as top priority and who dismiss radiocative topics as a knee-jerk reaction when such topics are brought up, without having to do the leg-work of dismantling them first.
When ppl critique or attack others by using “ad-hominem” I disregard the comment or speaker bc 99% of time they have no idea of what it is and how to use it so instead of sounding intelligent they illuminate their ignorance.
His greatest flaw was framing his argument from a socialist perspective, when this debate was really about welfare states. Granted, JF’s argument was completely devoid of coherence, but Lance didn’t strike at it properly.
Primarily but iirc Peterson was saying it's common to most species on earth, choosing the lobster as an example for how old and how far back hierarchical structures in animals can be traced. Basically "it's so old that lobsters have it and if lobsters have it then we definitely have it" which is tied to evolutionary adaptation: it stays the same even as other features mutate
Yeah the idea was that hierarchy is not unique to highly intelligent species. If it can exist within a creature as relatively simple and un-evolvded as a lobster, it existing in humans and other intelligent life is only sensible.
When I hear JF talk, I hear an actual narrative that I can follow (although I strongly disagree with it), and when I hear Lance talk, all I hear is "I am very articulate and I know what Feudalism means."
Lol Lance did the same shit when he debated AJW and got decimated in the debate. Then he had the nerve to say at the end of the debate in his closing statement "you're on the wrong side of history...".
It bothers me when "anti far left RUclips philospphers" and their followers take quote snippet from a study and run a anti SJW schtick. Especially when those studies have critiques and counter studies to disprove them, or atleast point out that they fail to prove the connections they try to make.
@@noahhale4862 but that's not what bothers the noble destineans, isnt it? Read the comment above and listen to the debate lord himself what bothers them. When we talk about SJW we talk about the 1% of the far left that believes in stalinism, and that white wash chinese and ussr totalitarian regimes? We are not talking about the Social Justice of universal healthcare, having a fair critique of the israel palestine conflict, recognizing events as the kenosha trough a more wider lens then "but the noble kid that wants to save his town had the right to defend himself"?... we are clear that we are not talking about those Social Justice aspects that Destiny is actively opposing / criticising?
That's the big mistake a lot of left-wing debaters make. They assume that because somebody came to a different conclusion than they did, they must be stupid. JF is, and it's painful to say this, actually really smart. He just has a weird fixation on what society will look like after he's long gone. That's likely was made him get the degree he did. The irresponsibility of the serfs guy is astounding, matched only by his arrogance.
Most ideologues think that because they hold an idea and can find other people who hold the same idea it must be right. Especially if it looks good on the outside lol. Also JF probably has a pretty high IQ on top of being able to emotionally detach and focus on a given issue, but his obession with these retarded subjects is a massive flaw...he could probably have been a good force in the world if he was obsessed with something else...like sustainable energy or someshit :V
@@Breadbored. It's not because of an assumption, or because of arrogance. It's because nearly no people who have a remote level of intelligence can arrive at far left conclusions.
god lance would have been so much more equipped for this if he even did the bare minimum of actually listening to and parsing what JF clearly states in his opening statement. it's taken lance 1 hour and 16 minutes to realize that JF is yes actually saying we should eugenics poor people even though he literally states this in no unclear terms in the first 5 minutes. fuck
In some ways this is actually worse than the myriad of content creators who intentionally misread, misrepresent, or misframe what the other person said. With Lance and Xanderhal in particular I think they genuinely don't hear what the other person says, I wonder if they're even able to. Lance seems a nice enough person, but these two fall so short (im sure there are worse offenders but these two spring to mind over this. particular issue)
@@jascu4251 I think they're just flat out not listening. JF doesn't care how bad his optics are. He is a eugenicist who thinks that only the strong should survive and he doesn't hide that.
He has too much faith in humanity, he doesn't seem to understand that some people just hate the poor and think they should starve, so he doesn't hear it even when JF states it flat out.
In fairness he went in thinking it would be a more straightforward debate between economic systems. That said he should have abandoned his preconceived notions as soon as he heard JF's opening statement. He probably should have done more research, if he did any on JF to begin with. JF's arguments were almost universally piss poor, but argued better than Lance.
@@EzraFieldsofStrawberry But thats whats so bad, Lance is no newbie at this, he should be doing much better here. Whatever the reason, he just had so little to offer. Lack of preparation is an awful excuse That being said, JF didn't really offer anything either. He may have 'won', but really it was that Lance lost by not turning up. JF's inability to frame his arguments in a way conducive to someone not already on board with him is a dead end. He was quite clear in that he doesn't really care about anything, which leads to the question why should any of us care about what he has to say either
I'm cracking up throughout this whole debate. There's something about how JF states these outrageous truths with a very straight face and his absurd accent that has me rolling. I don't know how Destiny isn't laughing. It almost feels like JF is trolling though I know he isn't.
@@Karen_Marie "Do you agree that the fat lazy squeerels will happen if you feed them? I am saying that you will do the same to poor peepel. :)" Actually funny as fuck. It's like that old disney cartoon where donald duck is saying "heil hitler" in his scuffed voice and it's equally funny.
@WhatsTheTakeaway it's because they want to keep the stream on to retain the viewers hip. If the streamer leaves to eat, some of their viewers may click off out of boredom
It was the same thing when he debated lycan. No matter how much I agree or disagree with you, you immediately make yourself look awful by having a fucking essay about how stupid or awful someone is before they've gotten to speak
It reminds me of when I was a teenager and I was worried about my sister getting her point across before me to our parents, so I’d talk as fast as I could. Lol.
Lance seems like a decent guy, so I feel bad saying this... but he's not smart, he's actually kind of dumb, and I had come to realize that well before this video.
I actually think he's a very spineless individual. I have very little respect for him, regardless of our political alignment. EDIt: Seems my point was proven as of Destiny's latest upload lmfao.
Yeah. I am basically sympathetic to his side of the argument but he really isn't very bright. It often shines through since he sits and streams for hours reacting to stuff. But he seems to think he is the superbrain. Dunning-Krüger i guess. (but Destiny needs to read some history and get over the fact that in discussing the development of capitalism, feudalism may be mentioned)
@@bvishal2kn JF has been known to be a great debator for a while, at least as far as I'm aware, while Lance seemed at least unaware of the arguements JF was going to bring forward. Since they've been long standing talking points of his, I feel Lance should've known how to better respond because he felt too passive responding to them
@@jackharan3791 lol no he's not he just throws out technical terms to impress stupid people. He takes tiny studies that are extremely focused on diseases & exaggerates them to include every high-level social things like poverty & success.
Yes. How could he possibly have misinterpreted it so badly. By memory, the lobsters were used as an example of a hierarchy. And, that human antidepressants work on lobsters. I think Lance was using that in bad faith. He can’t be that simple.
@@pommiebears I think he's that simple. Remember he walked into a 2 hour debate against someone colloquially known as "eugenics guy" who hates welfare, and did exactly 0 research on him or eugenics. I'm 99% sure he just heard "Jordan Peterson thinks humans are like lobsters", misinterpreted that as being about evolution, and because in his mind Jordan Peterson is far right, and his chat said JF is far right, then that would be an epic dunk. I was trying to think of a similar example in the other political direction but I really honestly can't. I was going to say Trump claiming Obama wasn't a US citizen, because maybe he heard about it and so misinterpreted and thought it would be a good dunk, but no, it was clearly a power move intended to sow doubt regardless of the facts, and was done in a situation where he wasn't one on one and as such could skirt around and reframe it for better optics later. But Lance has none of that. He really just walked into a glass pane thinking it was a door and is standing there really confused.
He never says “have children” it’s always “make babies” as if you have guys standing in front of a conveyor belt successively screwing on different limbs on a torso.
Consequentially: yes Essentially: homo-sapiens are defined by their unique cognitive capability compared to other animals. TheSerfs proved that he was, in fact, a squirrel.
@@nathanjasper512 well, JF wants a racist minarchist society which is pretty much what the early United States was for atleast a few decades of its existence. It's as free as a market ever was in apparent human history
NOW this is what you call bad platforming basically JF was spewing race realist shit and lance just laughed and memed because he actually had no understanding on anything.
Worst of all there are shreds of truth in the race realism argument, and ignoring them makes u look anti-intellectual, some of the problems jf brings up are legit, but his proposals on how to deal with them are horrible, evil. The left wing approach of sticking their heads in the sand about the facts of human biology just sweeps the problem under the rug for future generations
@@pablowall the Left will always ignore them, because they go against some of their core "beliefs" (in the very religious sense of the word) its why some are attracted to the Right in the first place, they hear some clearly false truths and then get pissed and run off.
@@pablowall I think its actually part of a wider problem the left has (or, at least, leftists content creators). Lance decided this guy was bad from the get-go, and therefore not to engage properly with what he said, but to engage with the character in Lance's head instead. This means if JF says "apples grow on trees", Lance laughs and doesn't engage with the point because he's not even listening. Which then makes him look bad I've no idea what the point of this debate was, or what Lance thought he was achieving by not even bothering to put any effort in
@@AppleBaron Statistics, dude, statistics Edit: the race realist arguments are based on truths but extrapolate out a bunch of sick prescriptions instead of trying to shed light on issues that need discussion.
This type of stuff is exactly what makes people go down the race realist pipeline. They'll see someone with JF come in with all these citations and presenting them with what seems like authority and the opposition will just sit there and present moral platitudes without any sort of backing to their ideas. It puts the idea into the heads of susceptible audience members that one side is bringing facts to the table while the other is bringing in feelings alone. It's why people like Ben Shapiro line became so popular. And to be clear I'm not saying JF is right or anything, all I'm saying is if you agree to a debate like this it should probably be your responsibility that you're able to back your counters to his ideas.
@@mgtowdemon8831 not really. This isn't 2016 when the only thing in the way of far right youtubers were small irrelevant decent morally lucky people who just didn't question their own views far enough because they assumed everyone had atleast a similar baseline liberal perspective. They didn't think that there were a considerable portion of anonymous people online who were opposed to liberalism entirely.
Yeah but lance looked up JF and mentioned a connection to Epstein so his lack of pushback on a pro eugenics ethnonationalist who is comparing people to rodents is totally okay. Lauren Southern vs The Serfs when? She has a knack for finding weak links.
@@DieNibelungenliad You didn't write anything substantive to respond to. No one interested in the credibility of the arguments involved cares about the political climate of 2016.
@@mgtowdemon8831 I'd disagree. JF was very much concerned with the political climate of 2016. But go ahead and dismiss a reply when you have no response. I rub my shaft to that!
Bruh Jordan Peterson's lobster thing has nothing to do with that. Lol: Jordan Peterson's new catch phrase: "don't feed the lobsters, you'll ruin their society" ok bud
As much as I dislike JFs solutions, I really appreciate his way of arguing the points. I think if he had more defensible positions, he would be huge in the debatelord sphere.
Just don't ask JF why he wants to breed with special needs kids while simultaneously believing in Eugenics. If you really want to piss him off, tell him he likes "mashed potatoes". Lmao
@@joshjonson2368 ironically anyone here that claims JF supports eugenics is misunderstanding his point and clearly hasnt seen him explain himself. To break down his position on it, its basically: so long as the genes of humans are subject to random mutations/natural selection and there ISNT centralized control selecting genes (ie hitler winning WW2 and proceeding to wipe the planet of all non blond hair blue eyed people, or genetic modification programs for humans to select their children's genes) EVERYTHING IS GOOD. But the moment we start purposefully playing with our genes in a non random way, which is what Eugenics actually is, THIS IS BAD. Why is this bad? because there is no centralized body of people can make informed decisions on what genes are harmful over a long period of time, no one lives long enough to actually experience the feedback of their decisions on their children's genetics. When you remove random mutations, you are decoupling the selection pressures on the genes from the environment that allows humans to adapt to any future environment. What we might think is harmful to us now might be an advantage 1000 years from now. When JF describes that people are doing eugenics, he is simply referring to the natural sexual preferences of people, like how women having preferences for tall men, emotional intelligence, capacity for maintaining relationships etc. these preferences are reinforced evolutionarily over thousands of years. This is good eugenics. this allows people of all preferences to seek out the best match for themselves and among this variety, there will be genes that develop best suited for the environment and naturally will dominate because they stand the test of time, this is what survival of the fittest means.
Lance was woefully unprepared for this debate. When he couldn't answer questions he just went to being sarcastic and using character assassination tactics by bringing up Epstein.
@@austpem "You" who? The Serfs did terribly in the debate, in my opinion. At least in making it a more philosophical argument reframes the context. The classic Hume axiom of is vs ought. Yes, humans do respond to outside pressure, but the society itself becomes an active participant in that pressure.
The issue is lance did nothing yo challenge the primary conciet, if we flatten hierachy and met people needs carte blanche eventually, we will die. But the issues with this is when you just frame things through eugenics, you will miss a lot of human behavior which is not eat and fuck. He miscounts incentives beyond wealth. Lance accepted the premises and never pushed back so now he must prove that socialism wouldnt do that enough.
my coworkers are too stupid to run the company, I do not want them to be making big decisions about how to structure it. They can hardly show up to meetings on time
@@broobit7540 "Working in foodservice is the best argument against coops" What? When I was working food service the higher ups, who never worked the kitchen, made tons of arbitrary decisions that just made everything worse. Like having to wait an arbitrary time after cooking food for "quality assurance reasons" which just pissed customers off, and made us do nothing while we had to stand around already cooked food before serving it.
@@trafalgarla Thanks for proving my point. The reason the food wasn’t served immediately was certainly a decision made with a careful accounting of the risks to minimize liability and maximize net earnings.
@@broobit7540 Minimize the liability of what? Having fresh food in a customer's mouth? And maximizing net earnings? By pissing off most of the customers?
JF comes off like an academic who knows the thesis he’s arguing well. Thus his opening is natural and easy to listen to. Lance comes off like an over-eager undergrad who’s memorized a bunch of talking points he heard in his sociology class. Thus the forced and monotone opening. JF easily won this debate. He ran circles around Lance,
@@honest_bishop5905 I’m totally fine with critiquing bad economic takes by socialists but I’m not gonna compliment and side with white supremacists over them. Also “they aren’t sending their best” is such a generic take, don’t call other people idiots if you’re gonna be this stereotypical.
Paul Springwood what the hell are you talking about? I’m not “siding” with anyone, I find both their ideologies abhorrent. It’s just that JF clearly won a debate that Lance walked in completely unprepared for How is that “siding”?
@@paulspringwood7190 If a white supremacist says the sky is blue would you disagree? There's plenty of holes in JF's argument but Mr Serf did a shit job at exploiting them. Instead of providing emotional appeals your side should present logical arguments against eugenics
It's so weird to me that JF seems to care so much about the species man a million years in the futute but would spit on and walk over a dying poor person in the streets lmao
he cares about human flourishing and not human suffering. defo not a common outlook on humans very logic lord edge lord shit. but at least hes fucking honest lmao
Fascists take the idea of the "Übermensch" and rather than use it metaphorically, they try to force their version on everyone. They only care about the hypothetical "perfect man", not real people.
I’m not a liberal. I don’t like progressivism. But I must say that I’m very impressed with Destiny’s maturity compared to a few years ago when I saw him.
The undercurrent that no one is going to actually say out loud is that both Destiny and JF understand that these are verbal chess games that people follow because it's temporarily stimulating and provides entertainment value. Lance still believes this is all real or genuine and has purpose. It'd be like a UFC fighter joining the WWE because he thinks he sees a blind spot in Stone Cold Steve Austin's grappling game. He just doesn't 'get it' yet
I think its also important to realise that both Destiny and JF realises that these chess games also have a real impact on how people view the world and how they impact it.
JF forgets that human society has been strongly collectivist for ~50 000 years (technically millions of years). Pre-agricultural tribal societies gave individuals a minimum safety threshold even though their value contribution was variable. Sure, if you were found out to be a leech, you would be cast out, but there are also systems in place for that today (e.g. welfare employment programs). Capitalism arose only after ~10 000 years of agricultural feudalism. If the weakness selection argument holds up, JF must differentiate between archaic/tribal collectivism and modern/governmental collectivism.
@@arnoldthomsen6571 My point is that there is empirical evidence for why collectivism doesn't lead to the degeneration of the gene pool and the destabilization of society. In fact, it was a necessary part of our survival for probably millions of years. Individualism, egocentricism, imperialism, feudalism and of course capitalism, are all extremely recent phenomenas evolutionarily speaking that only arose because of an increased ability to extract natural resources from our _environment_ (agricultural revolution). The idea that capitalism and individualism boils down to genes is preposterous. Humans have always lived together and have always depended on strong social bonds. If genes tell us anything, it's that humans need safety, belonging and purpose in order to thrive, and welfare does not contradict any of these things.
@@arnoldthomsen6571 I never mentioned anything about eugenics, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. It's true that survival has egocentric traits and that it's the main driving force of evolution, but this is actually not a contradiction of collectivism. Collectivism is just collective survival, or a type of organized, cooperative egocentrism. The idea that collectivism should somehow lead to the degeneration of the gene pool, is truly just an impossible conclusion if you've studied the history of homo sapiens.
@@arnoldthomsen6571 One would think that being on welfare would make one less reproductively attractive than a high status person. Who gets all the girls?
The problem is that Lance didn’t research enough about JF. JF ALWAYS brings whatever conversation or debate he’s in back to Race Realism and Eugenics advocacy. You can’t appeal to empathy with JF because he thinks poor people starving to death is good because they were likely non-white people with inherently worse genes, including genetic predispositions toward laziness and poverty. That’s a really difficult debate to have because the person you’re speaking with doesn’t value human life or equality in any sense.
"It's really difficult to debate because everything I believe is emotional justification for propping up short term feminine interests - and a debate really needs to change it's parameters away from logic and more towards my appeals to emotion." "Oh and here's 17 other people who's philosophy is centered around appealing to female sensibilities, the exact philosophy which is mandated by current cultural zeitgeist. But surely I'm right because so many people liked my comment."
@Mazz 38 Human socities cared for the weak ever since we were hunter gatherers. We have evidence of people who under went surgeries that would have made them "weak" yet they died years later which proves their community took care of them. The fact of the matter is we are social creatures not power worshippers.
@@whatsgoodnow1 I’ve seen JF debate multiple people including Destiny, he believes in Race Realism and thinks non-whites have lower IQ and have genes that favor laziness, poverty, and begging for welfare. Watch almost any debate he’s in, he’ll likely bring it up at some point. I never said “only nonwhites are poor,” where are you getting that from?
Lance is the culmination of every lefty dialogue tree that I stopped using after I realized that you have to mage arguments to convince people of anything
"Astrology for incels", is this Lance guy serious? He thinks IQ is comparable to astrology? Nothing he says should ever be taken seriously. The amount of passive aggressive attacks and ad hominem from Lance is a joke as well. Can this guy not have a debate without committing logical fallacies every couple of minutes?
@@regionalrange3052 I didn't say he was really funny, he has his moments. Personally I've reacted to his exaggerated jokes more often than Vaush, but Vaush can be hilarious too on occasion. Destiny is more intellectual than both, but he's never been funny.
JF has a PhD in neuroscience and has published quite a few articles. I would say Nick Fuentes is more of an arch nemesis than JF, but yeah JF is no slouch he knows a lot about biology
@@averagejoe225 JF debated a dude on veganism and his take was literally farm animals are the most successful biological creatures on Earth. I really enjoyed that debate because JF takes are always so different and he backs them up with logic and thought.
JF, unlike a lot of people, is actually educated and a good debater. Even if he says a lot of disgusting stuff, he has a reason to say it (even if it is a wrong reason) and can do a decent job defending his takes. Not to mention, he doesn’t care about optics which lets him be more honest than a lot of people.
@@Redbird-dh7mu Why do you assume he's wrong just because you don't like what he has to say? I don't get you people. You are working backwards from a previous conclusion. JF is right. We're animals. Accept it.
@@thishandleistaken1011 JF fundamentally misunderstands how society works. For instance, he talks about how there might be genes that make someone more likely to be poor, which might be true, but the question would be why? Is it because the gene itself is bad or would it be because of a different reason? Obviously, we can look at people that have countless health issues thanks to genetics and be like, “ok, their genes are objectively messed up”, however, his ideas only work best in obvious cases. Environments can influence genes, high stress environments might make those vulnerable to mental illnesses/disorders have them develop and manifest earlier and more. Low stress environments can mean the opposite, you could have a population very vulnerable to mental disorders and not have that many manifest. So, you will end up in a situation where environments blur the lines. Simply put, JF, while sounding really smart and probably could point towards examples of his ideas doing good, just isn’t going to work too well on a giant scale with millions of people.
It's where I got mine, it's a good place to start. But I want it to happen, that's why I'm a lefty. I want my great great grandkids to see "rehabilitation" live
You don't have to watch it just look around you. Schools are lowering their grading standards. Colleges are more concerned with quotas than scores. Reading is at an all time low. Obesity is at an all time high. You're living in Idiocracy.
@@keithfilibeck2390 true, but comparing human instincts to primitive instincts of a squirrel isn't exactly right. Human experiences and interaction with the environment define our instincts, opinions and personality in a huge way. I'm from india and overpopulation is a major crisis in this country. My grandparents were subjected to horrible socio-economic conditions and felt like having many children would be the solution to poverty. They had 7 children in hopes of 1 succeeding and generating wealth. My dad and uncle managed to fulfill that role and they eventually moved to a developed city. In fact, my dad was 17 when he started working. He's 55 now and still considers working the most important thing in order to maintain his sanity. I, on the other hand, was lucky enough to go to a good school and grow up without those expectations. Part of it also has something to do with me not having any siblings. I'm 24 now and am in no hurry to start working immediately. I'm still pursuing my masters. I'm extremely lazy and prefer being lonely. All these aspects are super contradictory to what both my parents and grandparents believe are important. If genetics was the most important determinant, I wouldn't be the way that I am rn. Choices are the ultimate determinants. The human mind is complex and socio-economic conditions obviously influence our decision-making. Sorry for the long post, but I honestly feel like IQ and wealth can be improved over generations by introducing good socio-economic conditions to poor communities rather than objectifying them to more bullshit. That way, people like my grandparents, who reproduced just for financial security, wouldn't exist. If people like that didn't exist in the past, india wouldn't be facing the crisis of overpopulation. Devolving this entire topic to phenotypes is not only reductive, but also absolutely absurd.
I wouldn't consider this a weak point because both nature and nurture play a role in determining intelligence and productivity to society. JF can be in favor of both better parental education and eugenics at the same time because these positions are not mutually exclusive.
The take from this is that JF's logic is incredibly flawed and Lance is pipelining hard for alt-righters by relying on tropes, jokes, ad homs, & an astounding lack of research. He's thinking rhetoric alone will carry him in this kind of debate setting & it only helps his opponent recruit so the rhetoric is damaging to his own advocacy.
@@minansbold3504 He is? He may not define himself that way and that is fine, but by definition he has a ton of liberal ideological views. That's a fact.
@@rolandracebaitingmartin2262 Lmao are you serious? Liberalism is by definition a pro-capitalist moderate position, how the fuck does holding a lot of liberal views make someone far left?
@@arnoldthomsen6571 But whining does do something: it is cathartic. As long as whining isn't a persons go to for overcoming every pressure in their life, complaining/shouting/releasing negative emotions is an important coping mechanism for the human psyche.
@@arnoldthomsen6571 what questions? my simple response to all of jf's arguments is 'i would not want to live in a world that cruel, i believe we can do better than let the less fortunate die because their genes are assumed to be inferior'. I needn't justify any further why i disagree with him, he's made no arguments that force me to reconsider my world view. If there is conclusive evidence found that specific genes are guaranteed to produce a criminal, for example, then perhaps this conversation would be more interesting. unfortunately, it still appears that environment is by far the more influential component, and environment is something we can focus our society and government on improving.
Lance is not flexible compared to vaush or destiny when it comes to debating. It's difficult to debate people who say the craziest shit sometimes because you're just stumped. I'm a leftist but I still watch destiny because he's so good at debating the right. Or Sam Seder, he goated
Yeah I noticed that as well... the nazi-guy started the debate by saying a bunch of crazy shit and theSerfs opening statement was about *feudalism.* Destiny, and I think even Vaush, would've nailed him on one of these topics.
It's incredible how good Destiny is at debating the right, but how simultaneously awful he is at debating the left...wish he would just become a full-blown Ally at this point, it's getting hard to watch how cringe he gets with sympathizing with reactionaries on how much they hate the left together.
@@davidbarroso1960 I havent even listened to this one yet mayne. I just needed to put this on my history before I went to sleep so I can remember to watch it in a couple of hours.
To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Peterson appeals to the neurobiology of lobsters as a way of arguing that hierarchy is ingrained in humans. He does this by pointing out that their serotonin regulation operates in a manner strikingly similar to our own. It's an interesting thesis and I have no idea to what extent it's true, but I haven't heard it used in quite the same way as JF is using it. Basically, JBP uses the lobster analogy to argue that hierarchy is an inevitable consequence of human interaction, whereas JF uses the squirrel analogy to argue that giving money to poor people will cripple zem and also make zem have moar baybees, rezul-ting in ze destrukshun of ze huwite race in a period of a few 'undred years.
@@mgtowdemon8831 this happened in the Middle East imo. Modern Egyptians share 85% of DNA with ancient Egyptians but the resulting societies are so different. This degradation has happened already in the Middle East and must be reversed. I hope Europe can prevent it happening to them.
@@32gigs96 I wonder if it's possible to compare ancient Egyptian DNA with ancient Middle Eastern DNA in general. I'm certainly not an expert on biology, but maybe the human remains we have could be tested, particularly the well-preserved mummies. Idk about Europe. The unfortunate problem is that it's too kind to outside races. It's a shame that being too nice to other races gets you obliterated in global politics.
@@mgtowdemon8831 I've yet to see any evidence to support the claim that UBI results in the destruction of any group of people, let alone every single one of them. I do take issue with welfare traps and have always favored policies that removed incentives to avoid work (e.g. deducting a person's income from their welfare or disability check, threatening to cut off their disability if they work at all, and generally creating circumstances that make it more lucrative to remain unemployed even if you want to work.) That said, if you don't see the issue with an analogy that compares human beings -- who don't rely on our ability to hunt for nuts to avoid starving to death or getting eaten by squirrels -- I'm not sure how to help you. Totally different set of circumstances at play.
Also, Lance is really bad at playing the condescension game you see from people like Vaush. At times he tries to be condescending while being too nice at the same time lol. If he's going to go that route might as well just act like an asshole because why not.
The questions I thought Lance would ask JF: Why are you comparing squirrels to humans? Do you have any studies that show people's IQ declining over generations? Lance in debate: I don't want to respond because hes talking about eugenics When you have a golden opportunity for easy W, but instead take and optics approach and earn an L. Because I guess you cant ask simple questions.
Exactly he could pick that apart so fast. He legit could ask JF if he's all about having the strongest genes then why use medicine? Wouldn't the best genes survive more breed out the weak.
This is a perfect example of how smart journalists think they are that they will debate a expert based off of talking points him and his friends say to each other which obviously makes it a fact cos him and his friends are so progressive which is obviously the only way to think cos him and his friends think so
Serfs is an awful debator, he lost against AJW and pretended he won. It was cringe then, he'll do same here probably. I will watch it later but it will be a train wreck for sure.
Lance showed a clip of AJW saying he doesnt like Jimmy Dore and lance responded with "there he clearly endorsed Jimmy Dore." Hes either the dumbest person on the left or a plant. Its so hard to believe he can be that dumb.
my arguments against JF: -what is the ultimate goal of government and society? arguably it exists to maximise human comfort, not to directly create the most "sustainable" or "advanced" society as they are just means to maximise human comfort. - pure capitalism with minimum government intervention is unsustainable and leads to feudalism, the government needs to intervene: the government in the US in particular has enforced anti-monopoly acts through multiple occasions (Rockefeller, AT&T) as monopolies (and other businesses to lesser extents) have the capabilities to restrict the growth of other companies. Also cracking down on organised crime, building basic infrastructure, enforcing laws, minimising corruption and having regulatory systems (this would include civil courts) are necessary to maintain a healthy capitalist system. Removing them would lead to all the big companies owning essentially all the wealth and eventually having more power than the government, in which a new form of feudalism would occur. It's might not really be considered feudalism I guess, but I mean a small select group of people having absolute control over everything else. -capitalism is inherently inefficient capitalism is analogous to the prisoner's dilemma in essence. Socialism has the potential to create an more efficient society, regardless of if it's efficient in terms of choosing genetics or sustainability. The problem is of course finding out what the ideal course of action is, but this is solved in an idealistic world. -common features in the human psyche have also evolved that way because they have benefit. Skills to facilitate Collaboration and equality from things such as such as empathy, a sense of justice, etc are inherited to partially solve the prisoners dilemma in smaller scenarios. Things like revenge, hate and distain also help minimise the effectiveness of selfish or societally harmful events in closed systems. This likely evolved in tribes, where punishing greedy behaviour and having sociable behaviour indirectly increased one's own chances of survival via increasing the tribe's chances. Of course, it reaches an equilibrium with greediness, which to some extent had the capability of increasing one's own rate of survival . Essentially Intelligence is just one trait that leads to an effective society. -if we consider how humans might evolve, why can't there be a new equilibrium that forms between collaboration and intelligence in a socialist system, instead of a spiral downwards of intelligence that leads to the downfall of socialism? Self explanatory. The predicate that dumb humans make more babies doesn't have to be true. It could be that people who search for high paying jobs (that are generally regarded as intelligent)are also disproportionally more antisocial and more hardworking, and that could be the cause of reduced reproduction. If there are two people who have identical social skills/habits and career path (up to a certain point in time), who is to say that the marginally less intelligent is likely to have more offspring. What we are actually seeing could just be a shift in demographics due to societal changes that will evolve into a new equilibrium rather than an infinite spiral. In a socialist system, who is also to say that the same social factors that goes into developing a STEM person per say will stay the same. The point is that because there is a downwards tendency in our society, who is to say that the force will always remain there. This is especially true if socialism has some social incentive to talented/intelligent people. In general, I believe the ideal system incorporates both aspects of socialism and capitalism. I also believe that a primarily socialist system is inherently unstable due to the vested interest of people who work different professions.
@@kevindelariva7999 maybe comfort isn't the exact word I should use, maximising human pleasure is probably a better term. I believe this is all acompassing, Wall-E is no exception.
@@Greyz174 If I was obese but was insanely happy and lived an incredibly long life in spite of such health problems, why would I ever care? That seems like a great existence. Hell, this used to be a standard that was envied in society by peasants, to live in such luxury as to be overweight.
This debate is proof that debates really are just the WWE of politics. JF's points and overall ideology has been disproven and laughed out of every reputable scientific institution and personality alive. However Lance didn't prepare or approach it carefully so he looks better. It's like a less extreme version of watching an adult argue that the sky is made of blue glass to a toddler. in any real context he's clearly a maniac but due to superior optics and rhetorical strategy he looks favourable
"JF's points and overall ideology has been disproven and laughed out of every reputable scientific institution and personality alive. " -- Not really, bro. Right wing politics are slowly becoming illegal, and clearly universities have been taken over by the radical left. Social Media is being cleared of Right Wingers over mere hints of right wing politics, whilst people like Hassan can get on and say "America deserved 9/11". The extremist left has hijacked many institutions and it makes it hard for right wingers to get their views out.
@Russell Scott Doing the, "the truth is just scared to speak up" is the kind of garbage thinking that gets us flat earth and anti vax rhetoric. Imagine the kind of nonsense world you'd need to live in where doctors and professions are "scared to death" of speaking the truth, and yet dozens of people with audiences in thousands can speak these truths with no repercussions, speaking on the very platforms that the richest and most powerful people in that world own.
JF prides himself on using a theory with few assumptions but underestimates the depth of each assumption. It's not that clear whether or not the selection pressure for weakness in one specific area (helping people in deep poverty) will dominate the wide range of selection that is made available by solving the problems that are in fact caused by deep poverty. Let's say JF got some welfare while he was poor. Would the JF we see today really be diminished because of that or would he actually have been enhanced? Let's say he skips 5 years of poverty and gets a headstart on his career compared to today. Even if we granted a level of weakness induced by having received welfare, wouldn't that headstart possibly be a net benefit? Stuff like that. I guess the question then becomes whether the weakness selection is strong enough to outcompete the social or evolutionary benefits of welfare.
Usually intelligent and conscientious people do not need welfare to do well. They do well in spite of bad incentive structures. That is unfortunately not the case for all people. The net effect of welfare in the US has been to create a class of intergenerational dependence on the state. You also see this pattern in Denmark. A good book on this is "Losing ground".
@@KONgFUPANDAXO Remember that an individual consists of genes in interaction with the environment. If the environment is sub-optimal, don't be surprised if you get a sub-optimal human.
@@raz0rcarich99 for sure. The only thing is that modern society is so abundant with resources that we are pushed to our phenotypic limits. A good example of this is the reversal of the Flynn effect in recent years.
@@KONgFUPANDAXO An abundance of resources does not mean everyone has access to those resources. The US is the richest country in the world and yet there's fuckloads of poor people that do not benefit from its abundance.
@@barnebyoconnell8176 There exist homeless people in the US who do not have access to education, food, and shelter. This population is very small. The general lower-class population is not in any danger of starving, has access to shelter and education. (in fact, they have more children than more well off people). I mentioned before that we are seeing a reversal of the Flynn effect which would indicate that the phenotypic IQ maximum in the general population is reached and that underlying dysgenic processes are starting to take effect.
Not gonna lie, having a hoard of useless fat squirrels sounds kinda fun. Not talking about humans, I mean imagine having a bunch of lazy NEET squirrels in your backyard to play with. Edit: I just realized my cat is a fat squirrel.
@Nath Krishna but thats not analogous. What is analogous is him being in a relationship with a disabled person and supporting eugenics is the same thing as a communist giving some of their money to Fox News
@Nath Krishna no, your analogy is different because mass murder, while often associated with eugenics isn't a key component. However, being in a relationship with a disabled girl is working directly against your goal of eugenics, and thats what makes it hypocritical. I guess what I should've said is that your analogy doesn't apply to JF because the mass murder thing is different from dating a disabled woman.
I’m super skeptical of the “CEO’s make so much more” stuff, because it’s usually taking Net worth from stock instead of income, which is kinda disingenuous.
Yeah talking about ceo's income to an audience who prolly ONLY think of income as hourly and don't think/know commission based or passive income is underhanded imo Framing it as "Bezos makes 9 million an hour" is disingenuous because hes not an hourly employee making an hourly wage. Its passive income he has to keep afloat
JF's foundational argument is already suspect. Humans have long deviated from what we traditionally call natural selection simply because we no longer face the same environmental pressures as we used to or as animals do. Wealth is not a phenotype, wealth is inherited physically, a man who made his wealth through his own work will still inherit his wealth to his children regardless if they manifested the same work ethic as him, so even if we accepted his premise that there are certain genetic traits that correlate to wealth, and that's a BIG if, capitalism will not inherently ensure that that trait will be inherited.
Sure but let's say someone is very intelligent and works very hard and sad a result becomes very wealthy. Now say they have multiple children and leave a portion of their wealth to each kid. How well those kids do at keeping and growing their portion will be partly determined by their genetics a that effect will compound over multiple generations. So across a large enough population you would still expect to see wealth correlate will genetics.
15:33 That's not what homeostasis is. Homeostasis is basically the body's goal point of health that you always try to maintain. It's optimal running conditions of the body (temp, pH, mineral levels, etc) and most certainly applies to humans.
@@drewkavi6327 regardless, I don't think there's some sort of special exception for humans where they aren't effected. Humans have over-extracted their environments and ended their civilizations also, that would still be ecological homeostasis effecting humans. I don't know why people always try to do this special pleading for the human animal as if natural forces don't effect us (although I acknowledge we've rigged things so they affect us more slowly, the impact still exists).
On the "poverty gene" item, I feel like Destiny was totally right but he didn't do a great job explaining why. This is my long ass response to what JF is saying. Any corrections or comments would be welcome. For starters, as we live in a civilization, I'm pretty sure that "natural selection" is no longer a relevant factor in determining future significant traits in humans, especially with traits as polygenic as intelligence. People are born and/or afflicted with blindness, deafness, mental illness, severe injuries, loss of limbs, etc. and would otherwise be dead in a world without civilization. However, because of the existing societal structure that both places value on each human life and accommodates, to some extent, those who would otherwise be incapable of guaranteeing their safety, freedom, and health on their own, not only are they allowed to live in society, but they are enabled to contribute as well. Selective pressure is essentially non-existent in human civilization, and I'm sure JF would agree with such a statement. With such a case, JF would need to dictate that the selective pressure theoretically offered by socialism (or welfare as a whole) is significant enough to breed out intelligent genes to a significant degree. Further, JF makes a few assumptions that I think solve his own problem (should it even exist). He assumes that welfare encourages stupid people to breed and that doing as such will eliminate any genetically intelligent components of the population as the stupid outbreed the intelligent. I will address that latter point in a second, but if we were to assume that everything JF said here is true, this means that humans can be pushed to act in ways that change breeding patterns. Why would I assume, then, that the intelligent humans are incapable of being swayed in such a fashion? Addressing the latter of his assumptions, I feel the need to ask as to why it is not the case already that the unintelligent have outbred the intelligent? Wealth disparities far greater than that of now have existed in the past, yet there is no reason to believe that serfs, peasants, and slaves (all of whom, I assume, JF considers unintelligent) outbred those of intelligence and erased it from humanity's genome, or, even, damaged it to any noticeable degree. There's also no evidence, as far as I'm aware, that as these inequalities narrowed (and when they narrow today, for that matter), the genes associated with intelligence are diminished. JF's prescription relies on a hypothesis that has little (if any) support. *EDIT: The bulk of this previous paragraph only makes sense with the well-established assumption that the poor breed at far higher rates than the wealthy.* I also question this narrative of "intelligent people just rise to the top," and, further, that poor people are stupid. While I am positive and do make the assumption that intelligence trends upwards, this ignores the extremely varied amount of potential influences that affect someone. These items range from material, like malnutrition and exposure to lead, to social, such as neighboring criminal activity and discriminatory trends. Hell, human civilizations have not always valued intelligence or factors associated with it, as many societies prioritized allegiance to various kingdoms or religions. That's not to say that intelligent people were disqualified from success, but it is to say intelligence has never been the sole item valued. With the myriad of environmental factors influencing the outcomes of people's intelligence or their quality of life, it stands to reason that plenty of poor people still carry the ability to be "intelligent to a significant degree." idk I think these are fair criticisms of what he had to say.
The genome becoming more varied and strengthened by the peasantry isn't surprising considering historical proclivity for royals to have kids with their close Blood ties.
@@harlemstrange6166 I did think of that, but I didn’t include it for a few reasons. 1) I’m fairly certain with this was primarily a trend in European royalty within the past few centuries (please correct me if I’m wrong). 2) I don’t think nobility of any region or time period did this anymore than the typical peasant.
Atheistic naturalist will argue all day that we are just animals,but when someone like Jf comes along and treats us like animals ,everybody gets angry😂😂.
@@trafalgarla humans are on the top of the most cruel animals on earth... Like what?? Us humans on earth right now in our timeline are extremely lucky with our medical advancements, peacefulness across the globe. However this timeline will end and human nature take root again.
When you think about it, its actually funny how incredibly ineffective a strategy it is to ad hom your opponent, and yet almost everyone succumbs to it. Even if your opponent is an unsavoury character, if he's speaking to you politely and you're insulting him in return, the audience will always turn against you. Maybe not Lance's own audience, but certainly JF's and most of the neutral audience. I think it's for 3 main reasons. #1 It's ill-mannered. #2 People who are losing arguments tend to be more likely to pivot and attack the character of their opponent. But I think the main one is #3. Which is that they're saying to the audience that they nave no intention of being open to their opponent's ideas. If there isn't an possibility for middle ground, then they're just shouting at eachother for cheap entertainment, not having an honest debate. When Lance starts off by saying the mein kampf remark, we now know that he has zero interest at all in agreeing with anything his opponent says, and so as a viewer, your hopes are immediately dashed that there could be a meeting of minds at all. I recognise that these two are politically diametrically opposed, but still, there is always room for agreement.
Generally if you are going to insult your opponent then you must first earn the insult. Basically meaning that you have to have shown why they are dumb before you call them dumb. If the audience isn't generally on your side the insult is just gonna come off bad. Also you can't sound weak af whilst doing it
@@kloakheesten Agreed. The famous "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" debate quote comes to mind because even though it was technically an ad hominen (and the recipient Dan Quayle in fact pointed this out), it had been earned like you said, because Quayle was self-aggrandising. It also helps that the remark was witty, because humour is generally irresistible, no matter the context.
Lance should have known this squirrel shit was coming, JF has talked about this before in debates, and the comparison of humans to literal rodents is poisoning the discussion right of the bat.
I highly doubt lance did any substantial research on JF for this debate, its infuriating that people slack on research in an age where information is literally a few finger clicks away lol
@@terratale-leavingsoon-2999 I had never heard about the Epstein stuff, it's funny that was the best of the prep he had done- some conspiracy bait that will probably be easily refuted by JF
@Godded Modded JF wasnt comparing human's ability to create quantum computers to squirrels, he was comparing fundamental, inherent evolutionary pressures and theories that act on all biological life. Human complexity is irrelevant because at the end of the day, no matter how many fancy inventions we have, we are still just trying to survive long enough to pass our genetics on.
Wow, Brent lengel going ad hominem in the superchats like he did with AJW... Learn a lesson bro Also, Lance admitted to never hearing or understanding these points of view before and is absorbing it in real time and is unable to handle it. Love him, hate him, disagree, vehemently with him, but JR never made jokes, adhominem, attacked his credentials and his very PHD thesis. JR stayed calm, marshalled his arguments cohesively, and entirely won the debate. In terms of the actual issue, nothing was advanced except now a lot of people have heard JF win an debate about these topics...
It really bothers me so much how these so-called "political commentators" just sit there and eat, rarely interjecting _anything_ of meaningful value to whatever subject their are.. well stealing. I've been watching Destiny's videos for the last couple of days, and I have yet to see a 'transformative' commentary. He is just re-uploading other people's content.
Got a little bit lost towards the end of Lance's introduction, he put a lot together in a short amount of time when he was wrapping up. But how do worker co-ops and worker unions save us from ecological Armageddon?
@SLB Productions How so? I always hear Destiny calling it lefty trash, but I just thought it was some detective game. I'm assuming the game has some clear bias in it's evil and good characters considering the comment about the eugenics racist.
@SLB Productions I don't know if you're lying or actually don't know this. All of the thought cabinet choices (including communism and fascism) have significant downsides and upsides. When selecting communism, along with the exp boost (only when choosing communist dialogue choices, btw), you permanently lose -1 Visual Calculus and -1 Authority. If you choose fascist, you lose morale (only when choosing nationalist dialogue choices), and permanently gain +2 FYS when drinking alcohol. And on top of this, in both of the in-game descriptions, they say that these options are bad and you should choose the centrist option instead. Kinda cringe bro.
Human history refutes JF! There used to be less intelligent people. But involving more people in decision-making, training more people, resulted in more smarter people.
15:50 that’s way oversimplified. Rats do not see a dwindling food supply and decide as a group to stop making pups... They fight over the small amount of food and mating privilege... The weak rats will simply become weaker
"It was colonizers who invented the concept of race" Serf proceeding to ignore that middle easterns and egiptians had not only slaves but the white slaves were highly priced... My god dude.
The funny thing is there are Egyptian hieroglyphs that depict the three main racial groups. The first racial taxonomy was far before the trans Atlantic slave trade
The problem with Lance’s debate strategy is that he brought emotionally loaded language to debate a racist sociopath who doesn’t care if he’s exposed as one.
Lance from SerfsTV takes on JF who stumps him with IQ and eugenics arguments in a frustrating debate that is tricky to navigate.
Timestamps Click▼
0:00 - Teaser/Intro
1:13 - JF is obsessed with the poor phenotype and the poverty gene
7:56 - Lance gives his Wolff inspired opening
14:47 - People are onboard with some form of eugenics
23:11 - Can JF define communism?
26:30 - Hourly compensation and taxing unrealized wealth
36:36 - Destiny realizes perhaps Lance didn't prepare adequately for JF
40:09 - JF is openly against welfare
43:21 - Humans don't exist on a spectrum of "Food" vs "Not Food"
49:38 - The phenotypes JF talks about are too simplistic
54:18 - You are compensated in society based on the demand for your work
58:59 - Co-ops
1:06:26 - JF wants to abolish the state...
1:17:21 - "You have to be so careful here!"
1:26:44 - Lance isn't happy with what is being talked about in the debate
1:32:52 - Destiny regresses back to 2020 optics to explain the eugenics trap
1:38:55 - Income inequality, absolute poverty and poverty as a predictor
1:52:00 - Serfs asks JF if he accepted money from Epstein...
2:01:40 - Destiny's problem with conglomerates and anti-trust laws
How do i call into destiny show? I want to debate him on vegan, N word and incest
@@acutecloudd7970 Email him or DM him on Discord.
@@acutecloudd7970 Everyone should be allowed to say the N word, Veganism is only as ethical as the decisions and choices that the vegan makes in their life, and incst is fine so long as it is between consenting adults, and so long as they don't reproduce with close relatives. There. You might not be able to ever have the discussion with Destiny, but you can have it with me...a nobody!
Here we go, Destiny is finally tilting over to the race realist camp
Wow, what a journey
My Saturday night watching this.
JF: 'I think welfare is a social institution which is killing both our society, and long term, our species'
Lance: 'Sounds like you have a problem with welfare but don't want to say it outright'
JF: "I think that the more poor and stupid people that exist the worse society will be and we shouldn't seek to keep them alive when they would die naturally"
Lance: "But what about all the poor and impoverished people who would die naturally?"
@@Winasaurus Lance: "I am not high-IQ"
Leftists gotta keep up the meme that "haha, right-wingers don't want to admit their beliefs!".
😂😂
Which they unironically stole from "TheLeftCantMeme" cause "TheRightCantMeme" takes everything from the right
I knew who would win.
JF went through bloodsports and for a while was its top figure.
Lance watches political videos with very little input and he has nothing to say but "yikes" when hearing typical conservative opinions let alone edgy right wing opinions.
@Craig Johnson is Jim not around anymore? I hope the worst for him but dude was funny when he hopped into debates
JF's diet consists entirely of bullets
I watched a Lance reaction to a Sam Harris clip and I almost threw my phone out the window.
@Craig Johnson he's clearly faking it at this point, if he ever had cancer, which is right up his ally.
@Craig Johnson he'll be back, he was gone for like a whole year once.
Lance debated as if he was doing a reaction video on JF. Wrong strategy
>REACTING TO FRENCH NAZI- LIVE REACTION
@@TheGIGACapitalist Vaush title type beat
haha omg he believes that thing he just said haha
lmao
Lance 6 hours into a debate with JF: "Wait are you telling me you're against welfare?"
vance = vaush + Lance ?
@@dafeels3085 Vance = Vicky's partner
Reminds me of The Room where everytime Mark comes over Lisa starts getting undressed and pushing him down on the couch and he's like "Wait, wait, wait, what's going on here??" like they've never had sex before
@@Investigamer pretty much exactly like that
Lance would sound more legit, if every second sentence wasn't a vaguely disguised, and passive aggressive ad-hominem attack.
I think he's used to having to spar debate with people who have optics as top priority and who dismiss radiocative topics as a knee-jerk reaction when such topics are brought up, without having to do the leg-work of dismantling them first.
I'm not sure he even realizes he's doing it
When ppl critique or attack others by using “ad-hominem” I disregard the comment or speaker bc 99% of time they have no idea of what it is and how to use it so instead of sounding intelligent they illuminate their ignorance.
When you’re an idiot and can’t make an intelligent argument ad-homs are all you have
His greatest flaw was framing his argument from a socialist perspective, when this debate was really about welfare states. Granted, JF’s argument was completely devoid of coherence, but Lance didn’t strike at it properly.
Peterson’s lobster argument had nothing to do with evolutionary adaptation. The lobster argument was about hierarchy.
Primarily but iirc Peterson was saying it's common to most species on earth, choosing the lobster as an example for how old and how far back hierarchical structures in animals can be traced. Basically "it's so old that lobsters have it and if lobsters have it then we definitely have it" which is tied to evolutionary adaptation: it stays the same even as other features mutate
Oh ok yeah they're not the same thing sure
@@bigboy-rn5yw lul
Yeah the idea was that hierarchy is not unique to highly intelligent species. If it can exist within a creature as relatively simple and un-evolvded as a lobster, it existing in humans and other intelligent life is only sensible.
@Benghali In Platforms exactly
This is why ufc has weight classes lol
But weight classes are unnatural and incentivize lightweights to breed.
@@nategibso heavyweight = highest paid, lightweight = lowest paid. It's simple math
@@TheAgileFatman Mayweather has entered the chat
@@andrew66769 Right lmao, and mcgregor is no heavy weight.
@@nategibso ufc is unnatural in the wild we can use our wits to create traps and weapons.
When I hear JF talk, I hear an actual narrative that I can follow (although I strongly disagree with it), and when I hear Lance talk, all I hear is "I am very articulate and I know what Feudalism means."
It seems like you're just expressing your inability to understand more complex sentences so you just make fun of Lance for using them.
@@drollerschalk3986 rather my unwillingness to engage with contrived complexity.
@@inkarnator7717 I have a hard time following JF’s silly accent.
Lance gives me serious "failed stand up comedian" vibes.
That self own he did was cringe asf
utterly ironic when you watch his Crowder video and see him accuse the latter of the same
He’s not funny enough to be a failed stand up comedian.
I'm laughing. He just needs to work on the "with" part.
Oh I see what you did there😂😂
Cause all failed comedians become political personas online
I feel like Serfs has outpaced Richard Wolff, intellectually
he needs to channel his inner yakubian energy
Well of course he has. Serfs learned everything from their time in feudalism.
Lance should have brought pizza.
I feel deeply sad and embarrassed that i know all these memes
@@Zgembo121 I introduced "right into my feed" into my workplace whenever I'm brought a document. Now everyone avoids me.
Nothing but net.
"I don't take issue with people dying, if it happens. in fact, everyone dies."
Deep
I like how Destiny knows that Lance's strategy is to just fake laugh at his opponent because he can't argue.
He calls it "Squirrel Theory" to make it sound ridiculous. That's not an argument. TheSerfs is a moron.
Lol Lance did the same shit when he debated AJW and got decimated in the debate. Then he had the nerve to say at the end of the debate in his closing statement "you're on the wrong side of history...".
@@yellowjacket5995 "Squirrel Theory" sounds kinda cool tho
It bothers me so much when debaters dismiss the links between human and animal behavior by going 'haha lobster'.
It bothers me when "anti far left RUclips philospphers" and their followers take quote snippet from a study and run a anti SJW schtick. Especially when those studies have critiques and counter studies to disprove them, or atleast point out that they fail to prove the connections they try to make.
@@adnanomerhodzic3869 To be fair SJWs do the exact same thing. Hacks on either side will cherry pick data to support their ideological goals.
y the f are u bothered about that
@@noahhale4862 but that's not what bothers the noble destineans, isnt it?
Read the comment above and listen to the debate lord himself what bothers them.
When we talk about SJW we talk about the 1% of the far left that believes in stalinism, and that white wash chinese and ussr totalitarian regimes? We are not talking about the Social Justice of universal healthcare, having a fair critique of the israel palestine conflict, recognizing events as the kenosha trough a more wider lens then "but the noble kid that wants to save his town had the right to defend himself"?... we are clear that we are not talking about those Social Justice aspects that Destiny is actively opposing / criticising?
@@CalKon87 Because it dismisses an entire branch of research with a silly little rhetorical sound bite.
Lance makes himself look really stupid by constantly calling JF a cartoon, when he literally is unable to support any of his arguments.
That's the big mistake a lot of left-wing debaters make. They assume that because somebody came to a different conclusion than they did, they must be stupid.
JF is, and it's painful to say this, actually really smart. He just has a weird fixation on what society will look like after he's long gone. That's likely was made him get the degree he did.
The irresponsibility of the serfs guy is astounding, matched only by his arrogance.
Most ideologues think that because they hold an idea and can find other people who hold the same idea it must be right. Especially if it looks good on the outside lol.
Also JF probably has a pretty high IQ on top of being able to emotionally detach and focus on a given issue, but his obession with these retarded subjects is a massive flaw...he could probably have been a good force in the world if he was obsessed with something else...like sustainable energy or someshit :V
@@handsomebear. Absolutely
@@handsomebear. but that isn't entertaining so stfu
@@Breadbored. It's not because of an assumption, or because of arrogance. It's because nearly no people who have a remote level of intelligence can arrive at far left conclusions.
god lance would have been so much more equipped for this if he even did the bare minimum of actually listening to and parsing what JF clearly states in his opening statement. it's taken lance 1 hour and 16 minutes to realize that JF is yes actually saying we should eugenics poor people even though he literally states this in no unclear terms in the first 5 minutes. fuck
In some ways this is actually worse than the myriad of content creators who intentionally misread, misrepresent, or misframe what the other person said. With Lance and Xanderhal in particular I think they genuinely don't hear what the other person says, I wonder if they're even able to. Lance seems a nice enough person, but these two fall so short
(im sure there are worse offenders but these two spring to mind over this. particular issue)
@@jascu4251 I think they're just flat out not listening. JF doesn't care how bad his optics are. He is a eugenicist who thinks that only the strong should survive and he doesn't hide that.
He has too much faith in humanity, he doesn't seem to understand that some people just hate the poor and think they should starve, so he doesn't hear it even when JF states it flat out.
In fairness he went in thinking it would be a more straightforward debate between economic systems. That said he should have abandoned his preconceived notions as soon as he heard JF's opening statement. He probably should have done more research, if he did any on JF to begin with.
JF's arguments were almost universally piss poor, but argued better than Lance.
@@EzraFieldsofStrawberry But thats whats so bad, Lance is no newbie at this, he should be doing much better here. Whatever the reason, he just had so little to offer. Lack of preparation is an awful excuse
That being said, JF didn't really offer anything either. He may have 'won', but really it was that Lance lost by not turning up. JF's inability to frame his arguments in a way conducive to someone not already on board with him is a dead end. He was quite clear in that he doesn't really care about anything, which leads to the question why should any of us care about what he has to say either
Watching Destiny wolf down his food while JF talks about “fat squirrels” is funny. Oh, “Baybies”
"Eets love, you *EEDIAHT*
I'm cracking up throughout this whole debate. There's something about how JF states these outrageous truths with a very straight face and his absurd accent that has me rolling. I don't know how Destiny isn't laughing. It almost feels like JF is trolling though I know he isn't.
@@Karen_Marie "Do you agree that the fat lazy squeerels will happen if you feed them? I am saying that you will do the same to poor peepel. :)" Actually funny as fuck. It's like that old disney cartoon where donald duck is saying "heil hitler" in his scuffed voice and it's equally funny.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Yeah it's pretty gross, guess you have to be a bit full of yourself to be a streamer anyway
@WhatsTheTakeaway it's because they want to keep the stream on to retain the viewers hip. If the streamer leaves to eat, some of their viewers may click off out of boredom
Lance's opener was honestly the worst I've ever heard. Did he honestly think anyone was going to follow that rambling?
It was the same thing when he debated lycan.
No matter how much I agree or disagree with you, you immediately make yourself look awful by having a fucking essay about how stupid or awful someone is before they've gotten to speak
It reminds me of when I was a teenager and I was worried about my sister getting her point across before me to our parents, so I’d talk as fast as I could. Lol.
Lance seems like a decent guy, so I feel bad saying this... but he's not smart, he's actually kind of dumb, and I had come to realize that well before this video.
True. He should stick to Twitter virtue signaling.
I actually think he's a very spineless individual. I have very little respect for him, regardless of our political alignment.
EDIt: Seems my point was proven as of Destiny's latest upload lmfao.
Yeah. I am basically sympathetic to his side of the argument but he really isn't very bright. It often shines through since he sits and streams for hours reacting to stuff. But he seems to think he is the superbrain. Dunning-Krüger i guess.
(but Destiny needs to read some history and get over the fact that in discussing the development of capitalism, feudalism may be mentioned)
I don't think he seems like much of a decent guy to be honest. Yeah he's probably better than JF, but that's such a low bar.
@@moksha8473 How so?
this guy is legitimately an anime supervillain
No, he’s a right-wing fascist.
@@Rogue_Leader amongusamongusamongusamongus
@@Rogue_Leader yes but also like most anime villains are some form of authoritarian right wing villain.
@@hydraa9934 sussy baka
@Bubba the Black Jesuit don't feed the leftist drones, let them starve.
Lance debating JF was always going to be a train wreck. He's way out of his league
LOL no he's not!
destiny's hate for lance is clouding his judgment.
@@bvishal2kn Lance isn’t even good at reaction videos. He’s on Stryker’s level. Just a left wing reactionary instead of a right wing one.
@@lukaswithakay no argument there.
but destiny has been on this lefty arc for so long he gives race realists more charitability than lefties.
@@bvishal2kn JF has been known to be a great debator for a while, at least as far as I'm aware, while Lance seemed at least unaware of the arguements JF was going to bring forward. Since they've been long standing talking points of his, I feel Lance should've known how to better respond because he felt too passive responding to them
@@jackharan3791 lol no he's not he just throws out technical terms to impress stupid people.
He takes tiny studies that are extremely focused on diseases & exaggerates them to include every high-level social things like poverty & success.
Lance's misinterpretation of Peterson's lobster was the weirdest part for me
The funny thing is JP's lobster had nothing to do with eugenics but with dominance hierarchy.
Yes. How could he possibly have misinterpreted it so badly. By memory, the lobsters were used as an example of a hierarchy. And, that human antidepressants work on lobsters. I think Lance was using that in bad faith. He can’t be that simple.
Just shows how little Lance knows and/or understands.
@@pommiebears I think he's that simple. Remember he walked into a 2 hour debate against someone colloquially known as "eugenics guy" who hates welfare, and did exactly 0 research on him or eugenics.
I'm 99% sure he just heard "Jordan Peterson thinks humans are like lobsters", misinterpreted that as being about evolution, and because in his mind Jordan Peterson is far right, and his chat said JF is far right, then that would be an epic dunk.
I was trying to think of a similar example in the other political direction but I really honestly can't. I was going to say Trump claiming Obama wasn't a US citizen, because maybe he heard about it and so misinterpreted and thought it would be a good dunk, but no, it was clearly a power move intended to sow doubt regardless of the facts, and was done in a situation where he wasn't one on one and as such could skirt around and reframe it for better optics later. But Lance has none of that. He really just walked into a glass pane thinking it was a door and is standing there really confused.
This was Yamcha trying to fight a Saibamen
Yes
this is the best comment here
So he was dominating the fight and it only ended in a draw because of a desperate kamikaze attack ?
looool
astronomia starts playing
When JF said babies I had so many flashbacks, legit ptsd
He never says “have children” it’s always “make babies” as if you have guys standing in front of a conveyor belt successively screwing on different limbs on a torso.
Put ze baby in errrr
@@pogo8050 he's not interested in having them, only in making them.
@@MuddyTodler no, it's real, he tried to get custody of her to "make babies", but lost the court battle to her parents and the state.
@@MuddyTodler
Watch Destiny take him apart, search Destiny v JF ( the court case one)
Lance is performing so poorly here, you might start to think he is in fact promoting JF. Does this mean Lance is an alt right fascist now?
Consequentially: yes
Essentially: homo-sapiens are defined by their unique cognitive capability compared to other animals. TheSerfs proved that he was, in fact, a squirrel.
Really hate that JF is often positioned as a defender of capitalism in these debates
Yeah pretty sure ethnostates, and anti democracy goes beyond just free market.
To most lefties, alt-right racist ethnostates = capitalism.
Would it be on his opponent to push him off it then?
@@Inressa nope that's dgg brain disease talking.
@@nathanjasper512 well, JF wants a racist minarchist society which is pretty much what the early United States was for atleast a few decades of its existence. It's as free as a market ever was in apparent human history
NOW this is what you call bad platforming basically JF was spewing race realist shit and lance just laughed and memed because he actually had no understanding on anything.
Worst of all there are shreds of truth in the race realism argument, and ignoring them makes u look anti-intellectual, some of the problems jf brings up are legit, but his proposals on how to deal with them are horrible, evil. The left wing approach of sticking their heads in the sand about the facts of human biology just sweeps the problem under the rug for future generations
@@pablowall the Left will always ignore them, because they go against some of their core "beliefs" (in the very religious sense of the word) its why some are attracted to the Right in the first place, they hear some clearly false truths and then get pissed and run off.
@@pablowall I'm really curious, what are these "shreds of truth" in race realism?
@@pablowall I think its actually part of a wider problem the left has (or, at least, leftists content creators). Lance decided this guy was bad from the get-go, and therefore not to engage properly with what he said, but to engage with the character in Lance's head instead.
This means if JF says "apples grow on trees", Lance laughs and doesn't engage with the point because he's not even listening. Which then makes him look bad
I've no idea what the point of this debate was, or what Lance thought he was achieving by not even bothering to put any effort in
@@AppleBaron Statistics, dude, statistics
Edit: the race realist arguments are based on truths but extrapolate out a bunch of sick prescriptions instead of trying to shed light on issues that need discussion.
This type of stuff is exactly what makes people go down the race realist pipeline. They'll see someone with JF come in with all these citations and presenting them with what seems like authority and the opposition will just sit there and present moral platitudes without any sort of backing to their ideas. It puts the idea into the heads of susceptible audience members that one side is bringing facts to the table while the other is bringing in feelings alone. It's why people like Ben Shapiro line became so popular. And to be clear I'm not saying JF is right or anything, all I'm saying is if you agree to a debate like this it should probably be your responsibility that you're able to back your counters to his ideas.
It's almost like the race realists have a good argument that has yet to have been addressed properly.
@@mgtowdemon8831 not really.
This isn't 2016 when the only thing in the way of far right youtubers were small irrelevant decent morally lucky people who just didn't question their own views far enough because they assumed everyone had atleast a similar baseline liberal perspective. They didn't think that there were a considerable portion of anonymous people online who were opposed to liberalism entirely.
Yeah but lance looked up JF and mentioned a connection to Epstein so his lack of pushback on a pro eugenics ethnonationalist who is comparing people to rodents is totally okay.
Lauren Southern vs The Serfs when? She has a knack for finding weak links.
@@DieNibelungenliad You didn't write anything substantive to respond to. No one interested in the credibility of the arguments involved cares about the political climate of 2016.
@@mgtowdemon8831 I'd disagree. JF was very much concerned with the political climate of 2016. But go ahead and dismiss a reply when you have no response. I rub my shaft to that!
Bruh Jordan Peterson's lobster thing has nothing to do with that. Lol: Jordan Peterson's new catch phrase: "don't feed the lobsters, you'll ruin their society" ok bud
No, you don't understand. JP is a nazi, JF is a nazi. Lobsters are food, nuts are food for fat commy squirrels. It's really the same.
@@surewhynot403 Hitler breathed air, but I breathe air too... oh no 😳
@@emperortgp2424 nazi
@@ihateyou8006 😣😣😞💅
Lobster society will be my new band name
JF? Isn't that the name of a guy who eloped with a developmentally handicapped woman?
Same guy
Yes that's him
Yea, he is a legit psychopath.
This is a meme guys, chill
Developmentally handicapped non-white woman, mind you good sir! Take that, genetically superior ethnostate!
As much as I dislike JFs solutions, I really appreciate his way of arguing the points. I think if he had more defensible positions, he would be huge in the debatelord sphere.
Just don't ask JF why he wants to breed with special needs kids while simultaneously believing in Eugenics. If you really want to piss him off, tell him he likes "mashed potatoes". Lmao
What's so indefensible about eugenics, isn't it just natural selection which occurs all the time?
@@joshjonson2368 It is the opposite of natural selection, as it would be humans deliberately deciding who gets to breed.
@@joshjonson2368 ironically anyone here that claims JF supports eugenics is misunderstanding his point and clearly hasnt seen him explain himself. To break down his position on it, its basically: so long as the genes of humans are subject to random mutations/natural selection and there ISNT centralized control selecting genes (ie hitler winning WW2 and proceeding to wipe the planet of all non blond hair blue eyed people, or genetic modification programs for humans to select their children's genes) EVERYTHING IS GOOD. But the moment we start purposefully playing with our genes in a non random way, which is what Eugenics actually is, THIS IS BAD. Why is this bad? because there is no centralized body of people can make informed decisions on what genes are harmful over a long period of time, no one lives long enough to actually experience the feedback of their decisions on their children's genetics. When you remove random mutations, you are decoupling the selection pressures on the genes from the environment that allows humans to adapt to any future environment. What we might think is harmful to us now might be an advantage 1000 years from now.
When JF describes that people are doing eugenics, he is simply referring to the natural sexual preferences of people, like how women having preferences for tall men, emotional intelligence, capacity for maintaining relationships etc. these preferences are reinforced evolutionarily over thousands of years. This is good eugenics. this allows people of all preferences to seek out the best match for themselves and among this variety, there will be genes that develop best suited for the environment and naturally will dominate because they stand the test of time, this is what survival of the fittest means.
@@joshjonson2368 eugenics explicitly is *not* natural selection, it's artificial selection, done by humans to humans
Lance was woefully unprepared for this debate. When he couldn't answer questions he just went to being sarcastic and using character assassination tactics by bringing up Epstein.
This is what Destiny did to JF as well
@@highverbaliq1785 I haven't seen that one yet so i can't say either way.
@@highverbaliq1785 No, Destiny shit on his arguments and terrible character simultaneously.
I feel like the only way Lance can defend is to make a Utilitarian argument.
Make it - you still lose
@@austpem "You" who? The Serfs did terribly in the debate, in my opinion. At least in making it a more philosophical argument reframes the context. The classic Hume axiom of is vs ought. Yes, humans do respond to outside pressure, but the society itself becomes an active participant in that pressure.
The issue is lance did nothing yo challenge the primary conciet, if we flatten hierachy and met people needs carte blanche eventually, we will die. But the issues with this is when you just frame things through eugenics, you will miss a lot of human behavior which is not eat and fuck. He miscounts incentives beyond wealth. Lance accepted the premises and never pushed back so now he must prove that socialism wouldnt do that enough.
my coworkers are too stupid to run the company, I do not want them to be making big decisions about how to structure it. They can hardly show up to meetings on time
Working in foodservice is the best argument against coops
Well I hope you at least pay them appropriately.
@@broobit7540 "Working in foodservice is the best argument against coops"
What? When I was working food service the higher ups, who never worked the kitchen, made tons of arbitrary decisions that just made everything worse. Like having to wait an arbitrary time after cooking food for "quality assurance reasons" which just pissed customers off, and made us do nothing while we had to stand around already cooked food before serving it.
@@trafalgarla Thanks for proving my point. The reason the food wasn’t served immediately was certainly a decision made with a careful accounting of the risks to minimize liability and maximize net earnings.
@@broobit7540 Minimize the liability of what? Having fresh food in a customer's mouth? And maximizing net earnings? By pissing off most of the customers?
JF comes off like an academic who knows the thesis he’s arguing well. Thus his opening is natural and easy to listen to.
Lance comes off like an over-eager undergrad who’s memorized a bunch of talking points he heard in his sociology class. Thus the forced and monotone opening.
JF easily won this debate. He ran circles around Lance,
Nice siding with white supremacists to own the Socialists.
@@paulspringwood7190 If the socialist is an idiot then it can't be helped. They aren't sending their best.
@@honest_bishop5905 I’m totally fine with critiquing bad economic takes by socialists but I’m not gonna compliment and side with white supremacists over them. Also “they aren’t sending their best” is such a generic take, don’t call other people idiots if you’re gonna be this stereotypical.
Paul Springwood what the hell are you talking about? I’m not “siding” with anyone, I find both their ideologies abhorrent. It’s just that JF clearly won a debate that Lance walked in completely unprepared for
How is that “siding”?
@@paulspringwood7190 If a white supremacist says the sky is blue would you disagree? There's plenty of holes in JF's argument but Mr Serf did a shit job at exploiting them. Instead of providing emotional appeals your side should present logical arguments against eugenics
The opening statement alone from the socialist guy, had my head spinning because of how ridiculous it was.
New drinking game: take a shot every time JF says “yultimately.”
I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the title of one of JF's books one day.
"Yeultimately humans in a nutshell"
I’m already dead from the “take a shot every time JF raped a mentally disabled person” game
Or "babies".
@@broobit7540 Bruh you died off one shot? 😂 Rip in peas 💐😔
It's so weird to me that JF seems to care so much about the species man a million years in the futute but would spit on and walk over a dying poor person in the streets lmao
he cares about human flourishing and not human suffering. defo not a common outlook on humans very logic lord edge lord shit. but at least hes fucking honest lmao
Fascists take the idea of the "Übermensch" and rather than use it metaphorically, they try to force their version on everyone.
They only care about the hypothetical "perfect man", not real people.
welfare is the reason there are dying poor persons on the street thats the point
He values humanity as an ideal, rather than humans individually
@@drewkavi6327 why value humans? they smell, are rude, they get in your way, take your stuff, they all want more
I still remember when JF was a regular guest on the Drunken Peasants debating evolution with Christians. Crazy how times change.
Same. I wonder if I went back and watched I’d notice a shit ton of red flags or if he was actually good at keeping the crazy shit bottled up.
Thay was back when Drunken Peasents didnt suck. Now theyre like Lance level stupid.
I’m not a liberal. I don’t like progressivism. But I must say that I’m very impressed with Destiny’s maturity compared to a few years ago when I saw him.
Def. He was insuferable but nu-Destiny has pulled me leftwards. Darn it!
The undercurrent that no one is going to actually say out loud is that both Destiny and JF understand that these are verbal chess games that people follow because it's temporarily stimulating and provides entertainment value. Lance still believes this is all real or genuine and has purpose. It'd be like a UFC fighter joining the WWE because he thinks he sees a blind spot in Stone Cold Steve Austin's grappling game. He just doesn't 'get it' yet
I think its also important to realise that both Destiny and JF realises that these chess games also have a real impact on how people view the world and how they impact it.
That is a phenomenal analogy!
If you look up smug in the dictionary, you’ll probably see Lance.
JF forgets that human society has been strongly collectivist for ~50 000 years (technically millions of years). Pre-agricultural tribal societies gave individuals a minimum safety threshold even though their value contribution was variable. Sure, if you were found out to be a leech, you would be cast out, but there are also systems in place for that today (e.g. welfare employment programs). Capitalism arose only after ~10 000 years of agricultural feudalism. If the weakness selection argument holds up, JF must differentiate between archaic/tribal collectivism and modern/governmental collectivism.
@@arnoldthomsen6571 My point is that there is empirical evidence for why collectivism doesn't lead to the degeneration of the gene pool and the destabilization of society. In fact, it was a necessary part of our survival for probably millions of years. Individualism, egocentricism, imperialism, feudalism and of course capitalism, are all extremely recent phenomenas evolutionarily speaking that only arose because of an increased ability to extract natural resources from our _environment_ (agricultural revolution). The idea that capitalism and individualism boils down to genes is preposterous. Humans have always lived together and have always depended on strong social bonds. If genes tell us anything, it's that humans need safety, belonging and purpose in order to thrive, and welfare does not contradict any of these things.
@@arnoldthomsen6571 I never mentioned anything about eugenics, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
It's true that survival has egocentric traits and that it's the main driving force of evolution, but this is actually not a contradiction of collectivism. Collectivism is just collective survival, or a type of organized, cooperative egocentrism.
The idea that collectivism should somehow lead to the degeneration of the gene pool, is truly just an impossible conclusion if you've studied the history of homo sapiens.
@@arnoldthomsen6571 One would think that being on welfare would make one less reproductively attractive than a high status person. Who gets all the girls?
@@arnoldthomsen6571 Another example of why biology doesn't easily apply to human society :P
The problem is that Lance didn’t research enough about JF. JF ALWAYS brings whatever conversation or debate he’s in back to Race Realism and Eugenics advocacy. You can’t appeal to empathy with JF because he thinks poor people starving to death is good because they were likely non-white people with inherently worse genes, including genetic predispositions toward laziness and poverty. That’s a really difficult debate to have because the person you’re speaking with doesn’t value human life or equality in any sense.
"It's really difficult to debate because everything I believe is emotional justification for propping up short term feminine interests - and a debate really needs to change it's parameters away from logic and more towards my appeals to emotion."
"Oh and here's 17 other people who's philosophy is centered around appealing to female sensibilities, the exact philosophy which is mandated by current cultural zeitgeist. But surely I'm right because so many people liked my comment."
@Mazz 38 Point to the part in history where “all of humanity” advocated for that. I’ll wait.
@Mazz 38 Human socities cared for the weak ever since we were hunter gatherers. We have evidence of people who under went surgeries that would have made them "weak" yet they died years later which proves their community took care of them. The fact of the matter is we are social creatures not power worshippers.
@@whatsgoodnow1 It is funny how you were able to write this many lines of pure rhetoric without making a single point
@@whatsgoodnow1 I’ve seen JF debate multiple people including Destiny, he believes in Race Realism and thinks non-whites have lower IQ and have genes that favor laziness, poverty, and begging for welfare. Watch almost any debate he’s in, he’ll likely bring it up at some point. I never said “only nonwhites are poor,” where are you getting that from?
Lance is the culmination of every lefty dialogue tree that I stopped using after I realized that you have to mage arguments to convince people of anything
Underrated comment. Well put.
"Astrology for incels", is this Lance guy serious? He thinks IQ is comparable to astrology? Nothing he says should ever be taken seriously. The amount of passive aggressive attacks and ad hominem from Lance is a joke as well. Can this guy not have a debate without committing logical fallacies every couple of minutes?
Serfs is the dollar store Vaush.
And vaush is dollar store destiny.
Serfs has surpassed Vaush mentally.
@@wetpaperbag1346 Maybe in comedy but not intellect
@@dickcheesemcgee6978 he’s bigger than him now ha know
@@regionalrange3052 I didn't say he was really funny, he has his moments. Personally I've reacted to his exaggerated jokes more often than Vaush, but Vaush can be hilarious too on occasion. Destiny is more intellectual than both, but he's never been funny.
Answer: Resorting to several ad hominem attacks in a pre-written opening statement.
Question: What does debate defeat look like?
Destiny has high regards for JF. Destiny treats JF like his arch nemesis.
JF has a PhD in neuroscience and has published quite a few articles. I would say Nick Fuentes is more of an arch nemesis than JF, but yeah JF is no slouch he knows a lot about biology
@@averagejoe225 JF debated a dude on veganism and his take was literally farm animals are the most successful biological creatures on Earth. I really enjoyed that debate because JF takes are always so different and he backs them up with logic and thought.
JF, unlike a lot of people, is actually educated and a good debater. Even if he says a lot of disgusting stuff, he has a reason to say it (even if it is a wrong reason) and can do a decent job defending his takes.
Not to mention, he doesn’t care about optics which lets him be more honest than a lot of people.
@@Redbird-dh7mu Why do you assume he's wrong just because you don't like what he has to say? I don't get you people.
You are working backwards from a previous conclusion.
JF is right. We're animals. Accept it.
@@thishandleistaken1011 JF fundamentally misunderstands how society works. For instance, he talks about how there might be genes that make someone more likely to be poor, which might be true, but the question would be why? Is it because the gene itself is bad or would it be because of a different reason?
Obviously, we can look at people that have countless health issues thanks to genetics and be like, “ok, their genes are objectively messed up”, however, his ideas only work best in obvious cases. Environments can influence genes, high stress environments might make those vulnerable to mental illnesses/disorders have them develop and manifest earlier and more. Low stress environments can mean the opposite, you could have a population very vulnerable to mental disorders and not have that many manifest.
So, you will end up in a situation where environments blur the lines. Simply put, JF, while sounding really smart and probably could point towards examples of his ideas doing good, just isn’t going to work too well on a giant scale with millions of people.
I wasn't aware JF was getting his prescriptive moral system after getting scared watching Idiocracy.
My entire take on socialism was instantly formed when I saw that Costco greeter say, "Welcome to Costco, I love you."
It's where I got mine, it's a good place to start. But I want it to happen, that's why I'm a lefty. I want my great great grandkids to see "rehabilitation" live
You don't have to watch it just look around you. Schools are lowering their grading standards. Colleges are more concerned with quotas than scores. Reading is at an all time low. Obesity is at an all time high. You're living in Idiocracy.
Or his PHD and excessive study of evolutionary biology, ya know.
The weakness to J f's arguments Nurture. JF focuses solely Of nature ignoring nurture.
@Godded Modded I think you'd be surprised how much you do comes from knee jerk instinctual responses.
Isn't the point about feeding the squirrels an appeal to nurture?
@@sameash3153 No that is nurture.
@@keithfilibeck2390 true, but comparing human instincts to primitive instincts of a squirrel isn't exactly right. Human experiences and interaction with the environment define our instincts, opinions and personality in a huge way.
I'm from india and overpopulation is a major crisis in this country. My grandparents were subjected to horrible socio-economic conditions and felt like having many children would be the solution to poverty. They had 7 children in hopes of 1 succeeding and generating wealth. My dad and uncle managed to fulfill that role and they eventually moved to a developed city. In fact, my dad was 17 when he started working. He's 55 now and still considers working the most important thing in order to maintain his sanity. I, on the other hand, was lucky enough to go to a good school and grow up without those expectations. Part of it also has something to do with me not having any siblings. I'm 24 now and am in no hurry to start working immediately. I'm still pursuing my masters. I'm extremely lazy and prefer being lonely. All these aspects are super contradictory to what both my parents and grandparents believe are important. If genetics was the most important determinant, I wouldn't be the way that I am rn. Choices are the ultimate determinants. The human mind is complex and socio-economic conditions obviously influence our decision-making.
Sorry for the long post, but I honestly feel like IQ and wealth can be improved over generations by introducing good socio-economic conditions to poor communities rather than objectifying them to more bullshit. That way, people like my grandparents, who reproduced just for financial security, wouldn't exist. If people like that didn't exist in the past, india wouldn't be facing the crisis of overpopulation. Devolving this entire topic to phenotypes is not only reductive, but also absolutely absurd.
I wouldn't consider this a weak point because both nature and nurture play a role in determining intelligence and productivity to society. JF can be in favor of both better parental education and eugenics at the same time because these positions are not mutually exclusive.
the problem with capitalism and communism is human greed and the hunger for power. too bad we cant fix that.
The take from this is that JF's logic is incredibly flawed and Lance is pipelining hard for alt-righters by relying on tropes, jokes, ad homs, & an astounding lack of research. He's thinking rhetoric alone will carry him in this kind of debate setting & it only helps his opponent recruit so the rhetoric is damaging to his own advocacy.
How is JFs logic flawed and where?
@@billbaraka2879
Destiny's followers are essentially alt left so they dont need any evidence they just disagree and provide a pseudo-logical response.
@@rolandracebaitingmartin2262 If you think destiny is "alt-left" you really don't know that much about him.
@@minansbold3504
He is? He may not define himself that way and that is fine, but by definition he has a ton of liberal ideological views. That's a fact.
@@rolandracebaitingmartin2262 Lmao are you serious? Liberalism is by definition a pro-capitalist moderate position, how the fuck does holding a lot of liberal views make someone far left?
At least JF has a spine.
What use is a spine if you use it to back up horrendous views.
@@arnoldthomsen6571 But whining does do something: it is cathartic.
As long as whining isn't a persons go to for overcoming every pressure in their life, complaining/shouting/releasing negative emotions is an important coping mechanism for the human psyche.
JF deserves my scoliosis.
@@SantosAl still more use than no spine...
@@arnoldthomsen6571 what questions? my simple response to all of jf's arguments is 'i would not want to live in a world that cruel, i believe we can do better than let the less fortunate die because their genes are assumed to be inferior'. I needn't justify any further why i disagree with him, he's made no arguments that force me to reconsider my world view.
If there is conclusive evidence found that specific genes are guaranteed to produce a criminal, for example, then perhaps this conversation would be more interesting. unfortunately, it still appears that environment is by far the more influential component, and environment is something we can focus our society and government on improving.
Lance is not flexible compared to vaush or destiny when it comes to debating. It's difficult to debate people who say the craziest shit sometimes because you're just stumped. I'm a leftist but I still watch destiny because he's so good at debating the right. Or Sam Seder, he goated
Yeah I noticed that as well... the nazi-guy started the debate by saying a bunch of crazy shit and theSerfs opening statement was about *feudalism.* Destiny, and I think even Vaush, would've nailed him on one of these topics.
@@halfbloodprincess989 both destiny and vaush do. Iirc destiny did year ago and vaush did more recently.
It's incredible how good Destiny is at debating the right, but how simultaneously awful he is at debating the left...wish he would just become a full-blown Ally at this point, it's getting hard to watch how cringe he gets with sympathizing with reactionaries on how much they hate the left together.
@Godded Modded well duh, he's an actual academic
@@soporific9212 He's awful at debating the left? Could you give an example please?
Well damn. Just got done listening to Vaush's reaction to this. Now Destiney's pops up....right into me feeeeeeeed
did destiny give a lot of meaningful insight that vaush didn’t already cover? i just want to know if it’s worth sitting through this shit show again
Vaush fans are truly subhuman
@Godded Modded careful, Destiny fans don't take well to the truth...
@Godded Modded ?
@@davidbarroso1960 I havent even listened to this one yet mayne. I just needed to put this on my history before I went to sleep so I can remember to watch it in a couple of hours.
To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Peterson appeals to the neurobiology of lobsters as a way of arguing that hierarchy is ingrained in humans. He does this by pointing out that their serotonin regulation operates in a manner strikingly similar to our own. It's an interesting thesis and I have no idea to what extent it's true, but I haven't heard it used in quite the same way as JF is using it.
Basically, JBP uses the lobster analogy to argue that hierarchy is an inevitable consequence of human interaction, whereas JF uses the squirrel analogy to argue that giving money to poor people will cripple zem and also make zem have moar baybees, rezul-ting in ze destrukshun of ze huwite race in a period of a few 'undred years.
It results in the destruction of all races, not just "huwite" people. I don't understand the issue with not wanting this.
@@mgtowdemon8831 this happened in the Middle East imo. Modern Egyptians share 85% of DNA with ancient Egyptians but the resulting societies are so different. This degradation has happened already in the Middle East and must be reversed. I hope Europe can prevent it happening to them.
@@32gigs96 I wonder if it's possible to compare ancient Egyptian DNA with ancient Middle Eastern DNA in general. I'm certainly not an expert on biology, but maybe the human remains we have could be tested, particularly the well-preserved mummies.
Idk about Europe. The unfortunate problem is that it's too kind to outside races. It's a shame that being too nice to other races gets you obliterated in global politics.
@@mgtowdemon8831
I've yet to see any evidence to support the claim that UBI results in the destruction of any group of people, let alone every single one of them. I do take issue with welfare traps and have always favored policies that removed incentives to avoid work (e.g. deducting a person's income from their welfare or disability check, threatening to cut off their disability if they work at all, and generally creating circumstances that make it more lucrative to remain unemployed even if you want to work.)
That said, if you don't see the issue with an analogy that compares human beings -- who don't rely on our ability to hunt for nuts to avoid starving to death or getting eaten by squirrels -- I'm not sure how to help you. Totally different set of circumstances at play.
"delivery drivers dont shit in bags while driving."
-destiny june 2021
Yultimately this was an entertaining debate.
Lance lost everyone with the lobster thing and by that point he's just in preach mode.
Also, Lance is really bad at playing the condescension game you see from people like Vaush. At times he tries to be condescending while being too nice at the same time lol. If he's going to go that route might as well just act like an asshole because why not.
The questions I thought Lance would ask JF: Why are you comparing squirrels to humans? Do you have any studies that show people's IQ declining over generations?
Lance in debate: I don't want to respond because hes talking about eugenics
When you have a golden opportunity for easy W, but instead take and optics approach and earn an L. Because I guess you cant ask simple questions.
Exactly he could pick that apart so fast. He legit could ask JF if he's all about having the strongest genes then why use medicine? Wouldn't the best genes survive more breed out the weak.
@@nathanieldravis1511 because intelligence is what allows for the creation of medicine. Without intelligence EVERYTHING collapses
God tier thumbnail
This is a perfect example of how smart journalists think they are that they will debate a expert based off of talking points him and his friends say to each other which obviously makes it a fact cos him and his friends are so progressive which is obviously the only way to think cos him and his friends think so
Serfs is an awful debator, he lost against AJW and pretended he won. It was cringe then, he'll do same here probably. I will watch it later but it will be a train wreck for sure.
Lance showed a clip of AJW saying he doesnt like Jimmy Dore and lance responded with "there he clearly endorsed Jimmy Dore." Hes either the dumbest person on the left or a plant. Its so hard to believe he can be that dumb.
I’m here because I’ve unknowingly been blue pulled by destiny via the tweeeter
my arguments against JF:
-what is the ultimate goal of government and society?
arguably it exists to maximise human comfort, not to directly create the most "sustainable" or "advanced" society as they are just means to maximise human comfort.
- pure capitalism with minimum government intervention is unsustainable and leads to feudalism, the government needs to intervene:
the government in the US in particular has enforced anti-monopoly acts through multiple occasions (Rockefeller, AT&T) as monopolies (and other businesses to lesser extents) have the capabilities to restrict the growth of other companies. Also cracking down on organised crime, building basic infrastructure, enforcing laws, minimising corruption and having regulatory systems (this would include civil courts) are necessary to maintain a healthy capitalist system. Removing them would lead to all the big companies owning essentially all the wealth and eventually having more power than the government, in which a new form of feudalism would occur. It's might not really be considered feudalism I guess, but I mean a small select group of people having absolute control over everything else.
-capitalism is inherently inefficient
capitalism is analogous to the prisoner's dilemma in essence. Socialism has the potential to create an more efficient society, regardless of if it's efficient in terms of choosing genetics or sustainability. The problem is of course finding out what the ideal course of action is, but this is solved in an idealistic world.
-common features in the human psyche have also evolved that way because they have benefit. Skills to facilitate Collaboration and equality from things such as such as empathy, a sense of justice, etc are inherited to partially solve the prisoners dilemma in smaller scenarios. Things like revenge, hate and distain also help minimise the effectiveness of selfish or societally harmful events in closed systems. This likely evolved in tribes, where punishing greedy behaviour and having sociable behaviour indirectly increased one's own chances of survival via increasing the tribe's chances. Of course, it reaches an equilibrium with greediness, which to some extent had the capability of increasing one's own rate of survival . Essentially Intelligence is just one trait that leads to an effective society.
-if we consider how humans might evolve, why can't there be a new equilibrium that forms between collaboration and intelligence in a socialist system, instead of a spiral downwards of intelligence that leads to the downfall of socialism?
Self explanatory. The predicate that dumb humans make more babies doesn't have to be true. It could be that people who search for high paying jobs (that are generally regarded as intelligent)are also disproportionally more antisocial and more hardworking, and that could be the cause of reduced reproduction. If there are two people who have identical social skills/habits and career path (up to a certain point in time), who is to say that the marginally less intelligent is likely to have more offspring. What we are actually seeing could just be a shift in demographics due to societal changes that will evolve into a new equilibrium rather than an infinite spiral.
In a socialist system, who is also to say that the same social factors that goes into developing a STEM person per say will stay the same. The point is that because there is a downwards tendency in our society, who is to say that the force will always remain there. This is especially true if socialism has some social incentive to talented/intelligent people.
In general, I believe the ideal system incorporates both aspects of socialism and capitalism. I also believe that a primarily socialist system is inherently unstable due to the vested interest of people who work different professions.
Maximizing human comfort is the wrong goal. Ever seen Wall-E?
@@kevindelariva7999 maybe comfort isn't the exact word I should use, maximising human pleasure is probably a better term. I believe this is all acompassing, Wall-E is no exception.
@@kevindelariva7999 Being obese and needing crazy tech to move you around and keep you alive is not very comfortable. Sounds like a living hell
@@Greyz174 If I was obese but was insanely happy and lived an incredibly long life in spite of such health problems, why would I ever care? That seems like a great existence. Hell, this used to be a standard that was envied in society by peasants, to live in such luxury as to be overweight.
@@bobthornton9730 Because you can fall off your hover chair and be a puddle of pathetic helplessness
I wonder how lance felt when JF flipped his entire opening statement/argument in his own favor with a single question.
Lance and his smug face is annoying
Lance has an IQ of 90.
If jf didn’t have an accent less people would take him seriously
is called love you ediot
And biology!
I'm pretty sure his PHD lends more credence than his accent.
It's about as relevant though.
Unironically probably
For pretty much 99% of the time Vaush and Destiny said the same thing when covering this debate. Two sides of the same brain.
This debate is proof that debates really are just the WWE of politics. JF's points and overall ideology has been disproven and laughed out of every reputable scientific institution and personality alive. However Lance didn't prepare or approach it carefully so he looks better. It's like a less extreme version of watching an adult argue that the sky is made of blue glass to a toddler. in any real context he's clearly a maniac but due to superior optics and rhetorical strategy he looks favourable
"JF's points and overall ideology has been disproven and laughed out of every reputable scientific institution and personality alive. " -- Not really, bro. Right wing politics are slowly becoming illegal, and clearly universities have been taken over by the radical left. Social Media is being cleared of Right Wingers over mere hints of right wing politics, whilst people like Hassan can get on and say "America deserved 9/11".
The extremist left has hijacked many institutions and it makes it hard for right wingers to get their views out.
@@mgtowdemon8831 lmao sure buddy whatever you say
@@Mrraerae Thanks for the concession.
I'd say a grown man resorting to debating toddlers is pretty bad optics for the man.
@Russell Scott Doing the, "the truth is just scared to speak up" is the kind of garbage thinking that gets us flat earth and anti vax rhetoric. Imagine the kind of nonsense world you'd need to live in where doctors and professions are "scared to death" of speaking the truth, and yet dozens of people with audiences in thousands can speak these truths with no repercussions, speaking on the very platforms that the richest and most powerful people in that world own.
JF prides himself on using a theory with few assumptions but underestimates the depth of each assumption. It's not that clear whether or not the selection pressure for weakness in one specific area (helping people in deep poverty) will dominate the wide range of selection that is made available by solving the problems that are in fact caused by deep poverty. Let's say JF got some welfare while he was poor. Would the JF we see today really be diminished because of that or would he actually have been enhanced? Let's say he skips 5 years of poverty and gets a headstart on his career compared to today. Even if we granted a level of weakness induced by having received welfare, wouldn't that headstart possibly be a net benefit? Stuff like that. I guess the question then becomes whether the weakness selection is strong enough to outcompete the social or evolutionary benefits of welfare.
Usually intelligent and conscientious people do not need welfare to do well. They do well in spite of bad incentive structures. That is unfortunately not the case for all people. The net effect of welfare in the US has been to create a class of intergenerational dependence on the state. You also see this pattern in Denmark. A good book on this is "Losing ground".
@@KONgFUPANDAXO Remember that an individual consists of genes in interaction with the environment. If the environment is sub-optimal, don't be surprised if you get a sub-optimal human.
@@raz0rcarich99 for sure. The only thing is that modern society is so abundant with resources that we are pushed to our phenotypic limits. A good example of this is the reversal of the Flynn effect in recent years.
@@KONgFUPANDAXO An abundance of resources does not mean everyone has access to those resources. The US is the richest country in the world and yet there's fuckloads of poor people that do not benefit from its abundance.
@@barnebyoconnell8176 There exist homeless people in the US who do not have access to education, food, and shelter. This population is very small. The general lower-class population is not in any danger of starving, has access to shelter and education. (in fact, they have more children than more well off people). I mentioned before that we are seeing a reversal of the Flynn effect which would indicate that the phenotypic IQ maximum in the general population is reached and that underlying dysgenic processes are starting to take effect.
Not gonna lie, having a hoard of useless fat squirrels sounds kinda fun. Not talking about humans, I mean imagine having a bunch of lazy NEET squirrels in your backyard to play with.
Edit: I just realized my cat is a fat squirrel.
Yeah I am like maybe people will survive different ways and some people will be more like cats 🤔 which seems to work for them.
issue is JF's understanding of genes comes from science, but lance's understanding of genetics & poverty comes from ideology & philosophy
Wow I actually agree more with JF than ... well a non-argument from Lance.
Am I now an ANCAP? :o
Lance debated like everyone is the universe except the opponent believes what he does.
Wait, so JF, the guy who was in a relationship with a mentally disabled girl, is arguing FOR eugenics? I feel like I'm missing something.
"It's called luv you eediot"
The girl wasn't labeled like that before the lawsuit
@Nath Krishna but thats not analogous. What is analogous is him being in a relationship with a disabled person and supporting eugenics is the same thing as a communist giving some of their money to Fox News
@Nath Krishna no, your analogy is different because mass murder, while often associated with eugenics isn't a key component. However, being in a relationship with a disabled girl is working directly against your goal of eugenics, and thats what makes it hypocritical. I guess what I should've said is that your analogy doesn't apply to JF because the mass murder thing is different from dating a disabled woman.
@@s-tierkeyboardwarrior-lvl4686 it only matters if jf impregnates her no? Otherwise no genetic propagation happens?
I’m super skeptical of the “CEO’s make so much more” stuff, because it’s usually taking Net worth from stock instead of income, which is kinda disingenuous.
Yeah talking about ceo's income to an audience who prolly ONLY think of income as hourly and don't think/know commission based or passive income is underhanded imo
Framing it as "Bezos makes 9 million an hour" is disingenuous because hes not an hourly employee making an hourly wage. Its passive income he has to keep afloat
JF's foundational argument is already suspect. Humans have long deviated from what we traditionally call natural selection simply because we no longer face the same environmental pressures as we used to or as animals do. Wealth is not a phenotype, wealth is inherited physically, a man who made his wealth through his own work will still inherit his wealth to his children regardless if they manifested the same work ethic as him, so even if we accepted his premise that there are certain genetic traits that correlate to wealth, and that's a BIG if, capitalism will not inherently ensure that that trait will be inherited.
Sure but let's say someone is very intelligent and works very hard and sad a result becomes very wealthy. Now say they have multiple children and leave a portion of their wealth to each kid. How well those kids do at keeping and growing their portion will be partly determined by their genetics
a that effect will compound over multiple generations.
So across a large enough population you would still expect to see wealth correlate will genetics.
What made Lance think he was equipped for this debate with the language barrier?
15:33
That's not what homeostasis is. Homeostasis is basically the body's goal point of health that you always try to maintain. It's optimal running conditions of the body (temp, pH, mineral levels, etc) and most certainly applies to humans.
Homeostasis is a word used for many things, homeostasis ecologically is more or less what TheSerfs described.
@@drewkavi6327 regardless, I don't think there's some sort of special exception for humans where they aren't effected. Humans have over-extracted their environments and ended their civilizations also, that would still be ecological homeostasis effecting humans. I don't know why people always try to do this special pleading for the human animal as if natural forces don't effect us (although I acknowledge we've rigged things so they affect us more slowly, the impact still exists).
@@orenmontgomery8250 I’m not sure who you’re agreeing/disagreeing with here. This was part of JFs point
On the "poverty gene" item, I feel like Destiny was totally right but he didn't do a great job explaining why. This is my long ass response to what JF is saying. Any corrections or comments would be welcome.
For starters, as we live in a civilization, I'm pretty sure that "natural selection" is no longer a relevant factor in determining future significant traits in humans, especially with traits as polygenic as intelligence. People are born and/or afflicted with blindness, deafness, mental illness, severe injuries, loss of limbs, etc. and would otherwise be dead in a world without civilization. However, because of the existing societal structure that both places value on each human life and accommodates, to some extent, those who would otherwise be incapable of guaranteeing their safety, freedom, and health on their own, not only are they allowed to live in society, but they are enabled to contribute as well. Selective pressure is essentially non-existent in human civilization, and I'm sure JF would agree with such a statement. With such a case, JF would need to dictate that the selective pressure theoretically offered by socialism (or welfare as a whole) is significant enough to breed out intelligent genes to a significant degree.
Further, JF makes a few assumptions that I think solve his own problem (should it even exist). He assumes that welfare encourages stupid people to breed and that doing as such will eliminate any genetically intelligent components of the population as the stupid outbreed the intelligent. I will address that latter point in a second, but if we were to assume that everything JF said here is true, this means that humans can be pushed to act in ways that change breeding patterns. Why would I assume, then, that the intelligent humans are incapable of being swayed in such a fashion?
Addressing the latter of his assumptions, I feel the need to ask as to why it is not the case already that the unintelligent have outbred the intelligent? Wealth disparities far greater than that of now have existed in the past, yet there is no reason to believe that serfs, peasants, and slaves (all of whom, I assume, JF considers unintelligent) outbred those of intelligence and erased it from humanity's genome, or, even, damaged it to any noticeable degree. There's also no evidence, as far as I'm aware, that as these inequalities narrowed (and when they narrow today, for that matter), the genes associated with intelligence are diminished. JF's prescription relies on a hypothesis that has little (if any) support.
*EDIT: The bulk of this previous paragraph only makes sense with the well-established assumption that the poor breed at far higher rates than the wealthy.*
I also question this narrative of "intelligent people just rise to the top," and, further, that poor people are stupid. While I am positive and do make the assumption that intelligence trends upwards, this ignores the extremely varied amount of potential influences that affect someone. These items range from material, like malnutrition and exposure to lead, to social, such as neighboring criminal activity and discriminatory trends. Hell, human civilizations have not always valued intelligence or factors associated with it, as many societies prioritized allegiance to various kingdoms or religions. That's not to say that intelligent people were disqualified from success, but it is to say intelligence has never been the sole item valued. With the myriad of environmental factors influencing the outcomes of people's intelligence or their quality of life, it stands to reason that plenty of poor people still carry the ability to be "intelligent to a significant degree."
idk I think these are fair criticisms of what he had to say.
The genome becoming more varied and strengthened by the peasantry isn't surprising considering historical proclivity for royals to have kids with their close Blood ties.
@@harlemstrange6166 I did think of that, but I didn’t include it for a few reasons. 1) I’m fairly certain with this was primarily a trend in European royalty within the past few centuries (please correct me if I’m wrong). 2) I don’t think nobility of any region or time period did this anymore than the typical peasant.
@@bobthornton9730 Not that this is a valid criticism but the Hapsburgs family took an Alabamian approach to "making bebies"
@@s-tierkeyboardwarrior-lvl4686 Have you seen the pictures of hapsburg royalty? They all look like the same person lmfao
@@bobthornton9730 lol I just looked 'em up and you couldn't be more right
Atheistic naturalist will argue all day that we are just animals,but when someone like Jf comes along and treats us like animals ,everybody gets angry😂😂.
We are animals, that doesn't mean we are like other animals.
@@trafalgarla humans are on the top of the most cruel animals on earth...
Like what?? Us humans on earth right now in our timeline are extremely lucky with our medical advancements, peacefulness across the globe.
However this timeline will end and human nature take root again.
Ah shit another destiny analysis to watch tomorrow morning... right in my feeeeed.
When the phrase “douche bag” was made it was created specifically for guys like lance. Especially lance.
TheSerfs is such an insufferable human being.
When you think about it, its actually funny how incredibly ineffective a strategy it is to ad hom your opponent, and yet almost everyone succumbs to it. Even if your opponent is an unsavoury character, if he's speaking to you politely and you're insulting him in return, the audience will always turn against you. Maybe not Lance's own audience, but certainly JF's and most of the neutral audience.
I think it's for 3 main reasons.
#1 It's ill-mannered.
#2 People who are losing arguments tend to be more likely to pivot and attack the character of their opponent.
But I think the main one is #3. Which is that they're saying to the audience that they nave no intention of being open to their opponent's ideas. If there isn't an possibility for middle ground, then they're just shouting at eachother for cheap entertainment, not having an honest debate. When Lance starts off by saying the mein kampf remark, we now know that he has zero interest at all in agreeing with anything his opponent says, and so as a viewer, your hopes are immediately dashed that there could be a meeting of minds at all. I recognise that these two are politically diametrically opposed, but still, there is always room for agreement.
Generally if you are going to insult your opponent then you must first earn the insult. Basically meaning that you have to have shown why they are dumb before you call them dumb. If the audience isn't generally on your side the insult is just gonna come off bad. Also you can't sound weak af whilst doing it
@@kloakheesten Agreed. The famous "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" debate quote comes to mind because even though it was technically an ad hominen (and the recipient Dan Quayle in fact pointed this out), it had been earned like you said, because Quayle was self-aggrandising. It also helps that the remark was witty, because humour is generally irresistible, no matter the context.
Lance should have known this squirrel shit was coming, JF has talked about this before in debates, and the comparison of humans to literal rodents is poisoning the discussion right of the bat.
I highly doubt lance did any substantial research on JF for this debate, its infuriating that people slack on research in an age where information is literally a few finger clicks away lol
but hey, eugenics bad epstein bad soy soy soy
@@terratale-leavingsoon-2999 I had never heard about the Epstein stuff, it's funny that was the best of the prep he had done- some conspiracy bait that will probably be easily refuted by JF
@Godded Modded JF wasnt comparing human's ability to create quantum computers to squirrels, he was comparing fundamental, inherent evolutionary pressures and theories that act on all biological life. Human complexity is irrelevant because at the end of the day, no matter how many fancy inventions we have, we are still just trying to survive long enough to pass our genetics on.
humans evolved from rodents
Wow, Brent lengel going ad hominem in the superchats like he did with AJW... Learn a lesson bro
Also, Lance admitted to never hearing or understanding these points of view before and is absorbing it in real time and is unable to handle it.
Love him, hate him, disagree, vehemently with him, but JR never made jokes, adhominem, attacked his credentials and his very PHD thesis. JR stayed calm, marshalled his arguments cohesively, and entirely won the debate.
In terms of the actual issue, nothing was advanced except now a lot of people have heard JF win an debate about these topics...
It really bothers me so much how these so-called "political commentators" just sit there and eat, rarely interjecting _anything_ of meaningful value to whatever subject their are.. well stealing.
I've been watching Destiny's videos for the last couple of days, and I have yet to see a 'transformative' commentary.
He is just re-uploading other people's content.
Got a little bit lost towards the end of Lance's introduction, he put a lot together in a short amount of time when he was wrapping up. But how do worker co-ops and worker unions save us from ecological Armageddon?
They don’t. If I was a PA I would start to think this is all a giant shit test for a ruthless dictator.
JF reminds me of that eugenic racist character in Disco Elysium.
@SLB Productions How so? I always hear Destiny calling it lefty trash, but I just thought it was some detective game. I'm assuming the game has some clear bias in it's evil and good characters considering the comment about the eugenics racist.
@SLB Productions idk if you actually played it but the game constantly makes fun of you no matter which political path you choose. It's satire.
@SLB Productions I don't know if you're lying or actually don't know this. All of the thought cabinet choices (including communism and fascism) have significant downsides and upsides. When selecting communism, along with the exp boost (only when choosing communist dialogue choices, btw), you permanently lose -1 Visual Calculus and -1 Authority. If you choose fascist, you lose morale (only when choosing nationalist dialogue choices), and permanently gain +2 FYS when drinking alcohol. And on top of this, in both of the in-game descriptions, they say that these options are bad and you should choose the centrist option instead. Kinda cringe bro.
Human history refutes JF! There used to be less intelligent people. But involving more people in decision-making, training more people, resulted in more smarter people.
Ahhhh back to the classic “Zeeee Babies”
Love that you posted this today, couldn’t watch it live yesterday :D
15:50 that’s way oversimplified.
Rats do not see a dwindling food supply and decide as a group to stop making pups...
They fight over the small amount of food and mating privilege...
The weak rats will simply become weaker
I think the biggest problem of feeding birds is, the people give them shitty bread xD
Breadtube btfo'd
"It was colonizers who invented the concept of race"
Serf proceeding to ignore that middle easterns and egiptians had not only slaves but the white slaves were highly priced... My god dude.
The funny thing is there are Egyptian hieroglyphs that depict the three main racial groups. The first racial taxonomy was far before the trans Atlantic slave trade
The problem with Lance’s debate strategy is that he brought emotionally loaded language to debate a racist sociopath who doesn’t care if he’s exposed as one.