DEBATE! Curtis Yarvin (“Mencius Moldbug”) vs. Ben Burgis on Democracy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 ноя 2022
- A couple of weeks ago in Chicago, Ben Burgis debated Peter Thiel associate and self-described “monarchist” Curtis Yarvin (better known in some circles by the name of his old blog “Mencius Moldbug”). Now you get to watch it. Lucky you!
Oh, and a corrective to Curtis’s deeply historically illiterate view of Haiti, see Ben’s article from just after the debate:
compactmag.com/article/hands-...
Note that the debate originally aired as an episode of Thaddeus Russell’s “Unregistered” podcast. Here’s the link to watch it there:
• Unregistered 231: Curt...
The earlier separate interviews with Ben and Curtis can be viewed by joining Thaddeus's Patreon:
www.patreon.com/unregistered
….and here’s a link to Curtis’s Substack, where he referred to this (without much elaboration) as the worst podcast he’s ever done:
graymirror.substack.com/p/str...
Follow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgis
Follow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_Show
Become a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:
patreon.com/benburgis
Visit benburgis.com
![Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Wednesday, May 6, 2020 [Finding Black Hole Structures]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qdVSOLL1mls/mqdefault.jpg)
Yarvin: either more isolationism or colonialism would be better for Haiti . Based.
Psychopathic
@@spritesheetshe's not wrong.
@@spritesheetsit’s true though…the weird middle ground they’re in is clearly not doing any good for the people
@@jtrockr91 read up on the history of Haiti man
@@spritesheetsPick one. This middle ground doesn't achieve shit. The US is imperialists. Why rely on so called oppressor to nation build you? The other hand, why not let big Uncle Tranny assist the poor Haitians and propel them up with imperialism?
You cannot do both. I prefer isolationism because financial aid and imperialism never work. Even Nigeria is fighting off NATO. A nation can only build itself with their own people. Not an outside force. I hate the US government and even I see Curtis' points.
Burgis tells an audience member to broaden his horizons (the thing he lost his mind about when Yarvin suggested he do the same) and then proceeds to tell the audience member to "literally shut the *uck up" when he's not behaving according to what Burgis has decided is acceptable (i.e. the audience member points out that Burgis is deflecting). I'm blown away by this level of Democratic discourse.
Did homeboy just say his biggest heroes are slaves because of "quiet quitting?" Gross.
i spit my drink out when he said that. what a moron.
Russel is now nothing more than a more well read Dave rubin, shopping around the "market place of ideas", not for more truthful ideas, but for something that will put money in his pocket. "better stories" as he tells himself, with no connection to their impact on the world.
Yeah that was one of the most ridiculous/disgusting things I've ever heard
Homeboy said he draws inspiration from slaves and how they figured out how to say "f u" without getting punished
Yeah, that was beyond cringe.
Burgiss won't shut up about this not being a "dialogue," but then he constantly interrupts Yarvin and then goes on rants for minutes at a time without having a single point he's driving at.
Is Bigness' being a one-trick-phoney and BORING his main vices?
Most democratic exchange I've ever seen.
Mencius really vaporized Ben’s parents into a dot pattern in this debate
LOL
"The most Americanized people in the world are the most anti-American" 🤔🤔
2:02:40
Questioner: says "85% of the population is obese, overweight or obese"
Yarvin: suddenly looks at Burgis
Yarvin appears obese to me as well...
Lol good catch 😂
Fair but Old Curtis is a looking a little thick himself here
It is funny he did that but he himself has a massive belly. I'll be honest. Back in the day I had to live a little different and oh boy Curtis looks like an easy mark.
@@thoughtful1233 Some of us can think in terms of degrees rather than absolutes. Yarvin is paunchy in the manner that fifty year old men tend to be. Burgis has always been a fat man who has gotten fatter - his weight is the first thing about his appearance that one notices.
A country has to be economically productive before you can turn Haiti into a country like Finland. It's hard to redistribute value which isn't there.
The same could be said about Japan, which was Yavin’s point.
@@jaredarmstrong7403 the point is so obviously and plainly true, and yet so impossible for progressives to acknowledge.
socialism stops the flow of new wealth, while only redistributing current wealth
Idiots don't understand you
Yes, Ben completely ignored that the money Alaska pays to its residents is derived from an actual resource. Whereas most UBI programs advocated would be paid for with debt left for future generations (unless he was serious about making the rich learn the value of labor like joked).
Ben "the genocide numbers were quite small" Burgis
He'd do it himself if he had the courage and cardiovascular fitness.
Bizarrely narcissistic of Burgis to post a video of him thumping his chest and getting offended bc his two "debate" opponents wouldn't do what he told them for over two hours. Exceptionally democratic.
I was denied entry into a government building during a medical emergency because my phone died and I couldn’t show them the scan of my ‘vaccine passport’. I think the audience member that asks that makes a great point - and it’s almost certain that any UBI under our government would come with a slew of ever changing, corrupt conditions
Was the government building the ER wing of a hospital?
@@Synerco Completely myopic.
The published CDC 'recommendations' were relentlessly pushed on both the public and institutions through media and funding and they included vaccination requirements. To simply regurgitate the cliche that hospitals are 'private companies' and thus pretend that they are free to make their own decisions independent of the USG's stated goals and perspectives is to misunderstand how our modern regime operates in 2023. Yes hospitals are 'private'. Our government works and exerts its will through so-called 'private' companies now. That is the public-private partnership and the state of our democracy.
Show me a hospital that refused to institute a vax mandate per CDC recommendations.
Is there even a single hospital that would prohibit it doctors from volunteering in Ukraine? Actually, even lower bar, find me a hospital that would defend one of their doctors condemning U.S. support for Ukraine on Twitter.
@@ejmoreno270 Was the government building the ER wing of a hospital?
@@Synerco Medical emergency could be many things where entry into a goverment building would greatly help
Why would you leave home without your phone charged? That's what we call a "you problem".
Curtis Yarvin was concern-trolling Ben and it really got under his skin. LOL
Ben Burgers is bad faith, and anybody who is bad faith, it's only fair that you refuse to play their game and argue under the conditions they themselves have presented. If he was good faith a conversaton could be had. But most communists don't want a conversation, because if they had a conversation they would very quickly lose to anybody with a passing understanding of communism, communist history, and so on. This was a tactic used by communists all the way since mid-20th century with the "And you'll stay plastered" individual. Don't let yourself be provoked, be the provoker. All it takes is just be bad faith af, and ask really tough to answer obvious questions that make the other side infuriated.
"Concern trolling". You mean being consistently factually, provably wrong. America liked Castro? Okay, how does that align with the 50 year plus hostile embargo? Absurd on its face.
@@tylerfloodgateworld events have a whole lot more going on then what is on the face. America loves incompetent dictators when it helps their cause. Castro loved the embargo because it gave him a scapegoat to blame his poor economic performance on. Cuba needs the embargo for its regime to survive.
That wasn't the claim. He said America had an affinity for Castro (if I remember correctly, there's no way I'm rewatching this guy). And yes, America works with and installs dictators all over the world. Right wing ones, almost exclusively. @@soulfuzz368
@@tylerfloodgate it's not. If America wanted to get rid of Castro, we easily could've done it back in 1959. The fact the Castro regime has been allowed to exist up through the present day is simply because the US allows it to.
It was simply not possible to have a legitimate conversation between these two because Yarvin knows about IQ differences between groups and Burgis doesn't.
I think it's idiotic to assume most leftists or people in general aren't perceptive of these differences between groups. Leftists simply don't want to admit it because they think refusing to acknowledge it makes them nobler people, and in rarer cases (usually women) because the thought that genetics are that determinative and not everyone is equal starting at birth is a depressing thought and dismal way to look at the world, even though it's exactly what reality is. It does tend to make their analysis of the world ridiculous at times, though, as we saw here 13:55 when Ben proclaims that Norwegian laws with more lenience on crime and a higher minimum wage and social benefits would be all that's needed to turn Haiti into a functioning society.
Ben is dogmatic to the bone
It's what happens when you are agenda driven.
What were the texts that Yarvin was imploring Burgis to read?
The main difference was the conception of the Cold War. Yarvin contends that the US and Soviets both opposed European colonial legacies and jockeyed for the spoils but were at base in accordance. This is in distinction to what Yarvin described as Burgis' Howard Zinn conception of the Cold War and its labour history.
"Implicit in our approach, as you stated, must be the idea that “we are in sympathy with change in Cuba.” The purpose here is not to try to “answer” Castro or to take direct issue with the government or individuals representing it."
history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d443
"In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may
write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever step beyond them. Not that he is exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fe, but he is tormented by the slights and persecutions of daily obloquy. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority which is able to promote his success. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before he published his opinions he imagined that he held them in common with many others; but no sooner has he declared them openly than he is loudly censured by his overbearing opponents, whilst those who think without having the courage to speak, like him, abandon him in silence. He yields at length, oppressed by the daily efforts he has been making, and he subsides into silence, as if he was tormented by remorse for having spoken the truth."
seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Alexis-de-Tocqueville-Democracy-in-America.pdf
Burgers has already read all these texts. Stop trying to treat Burger with any measure of charity. Somebody who has been debating communism long enough and studied communism long enough should already know of all of its problems. The only person who will remain in communism after this time is a bad person, or a zealot without brains.
Burgers is an idiot, who masks his idiocy in bad faith misrepresentations of the other side, and holds his hands up in celebration after he's infuriated the other side enough with his bad faith non-arguments.
Cold War wasn't US/USSR battling for colonial states, it was USA responding to USSR's aggression and imperialism that began IMMEDIATELY after the conclusion of WW2, with the incorporation of the eastern bloc into the Soviet Union, and the Korean War.
burgis: "JAPAN IS VERY DEMOCRATIC!"
yarvin: "uhh...it's a one party state"
burgis: "JAPAN IS [vastly more] DEMOCRATIC [than haiti]!"
yarvin: "what part of one party state do you not understand?"
burgis: "homnahomamnaoahoammahammaoaoam!!!!!!"
The LDP has been in power for most of Japan's existence post-'55, with them only being out of office for a total of four years. Japan is not democratic and its government is a puppet of Washington.
@@mitchie2267 yeup. funny to watch burgis scramble when he tries to redefine 'democratic' and 'one-party'
Japan is clearly not a one-party state in the sense that only one party *can* win or even participate in elections, which would be undemocratic, and what is most people mean by 'one-party state.' Its a 'one-party state' because the current ruling party has been legitimately elected and re-elected in free and fair elections for the last several decades. It IS democratic. Part of being democratic is the power to choose, and part of being able to choose is being able to choose the same thing as you've chosen the last dozen elections.
@@danielkass6116 I was told Russia isn't a real democracy because Putin and his cronies are always in power. There's no material difference between their situation, Japan's, or Singapore's for that matter. The only real difference is that the other two are American satellite states, thus embraced by the "international community." read: anglo-american empire.
Regardless, DPRK and CCP have elections, but you have to be pretty fucking stupid to consider them "democratic" in any meaningful sense.
@Smally Bigs as does the dprk.
ESG is irrelevant, Ben? Lol
Best proof of the huge blindspot. Wow
What do you think makes ESG relevant here?
Oh yes, the pro-monarchy guy who thinks he invented the concept of ideology
Lol this made me laugh a bit
@@rawbebaba what does it mean?
Well, you'll have to watch the video, for context clues Curtis the monarchy guy doesn't want to talk about what the actual consequences of this ideology is, instead meandered around a bit talking in circles essentially deciding he had just invented the concept of ideology.
It is also pretty funny the guy is just like "what if I just create my own nonsensical version of history because God damn does history make my position look really bad"
This is supposed to be the next thing?
@@rawbebaba what ideology is that?
@@rawbebaba it's amazing how progs are capable of living so aggressively in their own head
Peter Thiel needs to quit funding these goofballs
But he won’t. He’s not very bright. Either most people think Peter Teal is some kind of genius, but he’s an idiot as well. He just got lucky he has no originality. The guy is a total buffoon, and all his candidates lost, and the only one that one in Ohio senate race underperform so badly.
Why?
Yarvin's point is about how differences in populations can impact the effectiveness of social structures more heavily than the structures themselves.
He’s trying to get Ben to acknowledge the impracticality of democracy as a solution to extreme disorder. He gets at the point with a few questions that Ben doesn't have compelling answers to:
"What else is the difference between Chicago and Norway?"
"How would you apply your Norwegian model to Haiti?"
"What's your best example of third world socialism?"
"What would be your expectation if, leaving the governments the same, we transport all the Haitians to Japan, and all the Japanese people to Haiti?"
“What if we put the government of Finland in charge of Haiti?”
He’s suggesting that it's easier to explain weak social structures as extensions of the underlying populations than in terms of policies that were supposedly prevented (in every single historical case apparently?) by imperialist intervention.
This is just lazy thinking.
It was moronic when Yarvin made the point, and it's doubly so when you repeat it.
Just come out and say it already.
You and Yarvin think that there is something inherent to Haitians that makes them unable to function in a social democracy.
That's stupid.
Why is Haiti a poor country?
Because it was used as a resource colony by Europe for hundreds of years, then forced to pay a fake debt for another hundred years. Meanwhile, any time the US felt like it, the CIA would 'remove' any Haitian leader we didn't approve of.
Compare 'socialist' Cuba to 'Capitalist' Haiti. On any measure of quality of life, Cuba wins.
Why?
Answer that one, big guy!
Explain what you mean by 'underlying populations.'
@@tylerfloodgate if you’re confused about what the word “populations” means, I recommend a google search.
@@tylerfloodgatehe doesn’t mean melanin if thats your immediate complaint. More appropriately it would be said “different cultures”, which factors in local history, economics, interpersonal relations, prior governments, and existing non governmental structures, their health, and their goals.
Okay. Keep telling yourself he isn't making an argument by proxy. @@jarretta2656
I think it's unbelievably based that these two gentlemen actually agreed to meet up and do a tête-a-tête like this. Normalize discussion. Normalize intellectualism in America. Also, that little moment at 1:40:52 where Ben and Curtis both laugh about the Chomsky teeth-grinding story made me smile. It was so human and you get to see that ridiculous, adversarial Left-Right dynamic dropped for a minute.
Last time I checked, asking questions was part of a debate.
i didnt say Japan was very democratic I said it was vastly more democratic. 😂😂😂
The reason why this comment section so convinced Ben won is because you’re all bought in on the same historical narratives that he is. If it occurred to any of you that there are many possible readings of a set of historical events you’d realize that there was almost no actual debating happening here because the whole time was just Ben saying conventional things and Yarvin trying to introduce alternative evidence to which Ben responds by saying “just make the argument don’t reference data points that I’m not familiar with like you’re some all seeing god who knows the truth!” If it occurred to any of you that there are multiple interpretations of history you’d realize Ben was the one being obstinate and that this is analogous to a lawyer in a courtroom saying “make your case with the evidence _I’m_ providing don’t bring in alternative points of view that would disrupt _my_ case.” The fact that most of y’all don’t understand that makes you guys the midwits in this scenario.
45:11
Ben: So, the argument from authority is that I said something most historians would agree with.
Curtis: Yes, that's right.
Cope. Seeth. Mald.
You and Curtis come across just like those tankies that reference obscure statements of local Chinese officials to insist the Uyghur genocide didn't happen. "You haven't considered these data points that are reflective of my selection bias that help me construct a narrative that's rejected by all western 'experts.' Oh, and those so called 'experts' are all part of a sinophobic conspiracy!"
Actually, I take that back. The tankies are at least smart enough to not accuse you of an Appeal to Authority fallacy just because a lot of people agree with you
@@Synerco well he didn’t say that the appeal to authority was simply by referencing popular opinion, but kind of like in a hearsay concern, by assuming that appeal to authority made the statement true in its contents without need for further examination. Yarvin basically says that mainstream historians aren’t reliable (which you’d think from Burgis’ left wing marxist historicism he’d actually be inclined to agree with).
I don’t understand how Burgis can actually hold that all institutions are corrupted by the wealthy to serve the interests of the capitalist class, yet one of the most fundamental and important institutions to preserve that power and create false consciousness, namely academia and media, are somehow above reproach? Sometimes I feel as if the left doesn’t take their own arguments at face value many times. They’ll make point X and then say point Y which directly contradicts point X but operate as if nothing happened.
@@fahim-ev8qq Why do you believe he doesn't think the capitalist class exercises significant influence on academia and the media?
@@fahim-ev8qq 45:11
Ben: So, the argument from authority is that I said something most historians would agree with.
Curtis: Yes, that's right.
The problem with Yarvin is that he is focused on a system to make the government work. But, as his Japan, Norway, Haiti examples show, it is the people and culture that makes the government work. So if you need a government to ensure your safety it is because your culture/society has already degraded so much that the form of the government will not matter much and it will be largely ineffective except through the most extreme measures that might correct the culture.
I don't think that's true. Look at Singapore: Hugely multicultural society with groups who really do not get along. Strong government and near total "monarchical" control made it one of the richest countries in the world.
Obviously multiculturalism/cultural degredation is not desirable but it's still tenable to create a stable and prosperous country out of a nation afflicted with these things.
@@smfe was it the near monarchical government that brought the prosperity? Cambodia has an actual monarchy without any prosperity. India has prosperity, but I'm not sure I would put it forward as a positive example of nationhood. I admit to not knowing much about Singapore. From a quick search it seemed the "culture" is tightly controlled, and while there are many ethnic groups they share a common "culture" of wanting to make money and get rich.
@@randombrandon8514 None of these examples have monarchies with real power.
@@smfe do you know who Hun Sen is? You think he has no power?
@@randombrandon8514
I know Sen , and he's no King , his country is not even sovereign.
Ultimately, if you think that a good king cant bring order into a chaotic peoples, you need to hop off 4chan.
Yarvin rockin the Harry Styles in Don’t Worry Darling look
I wish we could get Ben and Tom Woods to debate.
Ben can't debate.
Ben is a bad faith shill. His only ability to "debate" is to offer very weak explanations and appeals to the populum. If Ben cannot make dumb bad faith slogan based non-arguments, then he cannot speak at all.
“I don’t believe in having bad encounters with the police”
The reason anyone has to say that sentence is because there are people who disagree.
@@MrClockw3rk No one has to say that sentence, but if you do, you might be a white guy
@@lampb0obs White people who do not respect police authority are going to have a bad encounter.
@@lampb0obs hi, there is no such thing as "systemic racism" in the US. You guys are peddling a conspiracy theory that has no grounds in reality.
@@dreyri2736 what a hot take
Ben doesn't understand "people."
Curtis Yarvin is actually correct in a critique of Ben's overarching viewpoint. There is an old saying that the most significant arguments happen over the most minor details, even if the two parties or organizations agree in spirit. Think about the relationship between Bakunin and Marx/Engels. Yes, you would classify them in spirit as both being on the left, but they wouldn't want to be organized together. Likewise, the same principle happens when Curtis tries to tell Ben that Ben's beliefs in spirit follow these left-leaning groups even if they dispute the smaller details.
No. If that's the case, what are the smaller details they dispute? If you bother to fill in the blanks, the disagreements are not minor.
It’s like when normiecons say “Leftists are attacking my freedom of speech” and modern libs say “hate speech must be punished”…both are stuck in a circular debate about what free speech is as a supposedly universal value, but in reality is just one that stems from Enlightenment tradition, which has always been very subjective.
Bakunin just complained that Marxist and his band of banker friends of a certain tribal stripe were at odds with his professed beliefs. Effectively calling him a patent fraud.
Curtis looks like he owns and operates a tabletop board game and trading card game shop and is asking Ben “have you ever worked a day in your life?”☠️how much can I get for this holographic charizard bro?
😂
Brand loyalty is a combination of usefulness, aesthetic choice, and possible prestige/clout through ownership. Depending which door you enter the others are used to justify the entry way choice.
Kevin Smith did a great job in this.
I’m dying 😂😂😂
Yarvin’s patience is unmatched.
"The family that owns the NYT bosses the news desk around all the time! You could never do that if you bought their shares: it's a completely autonomous organization!!! 🤪"
This is an obvious appeal to liberal sensibilites
It sounds like a contradiction until you differentiate the actual power structure from the formal ownership structure.
@@MrClockw3rk What's the difference? 🤔
@@serversurfer6169 if someone else owns your company, but you can still tell it what to do, there’s a difference
@@MrClockw3rk Yarvin wasn't saying they could sell their shares and retain control. He was saying if they sold their shares it would suddenly be _uncontrolled,_ but that's silly; the shares grant the same control to anyone that owns them. 🤷♂
Ben Obviously doesn't understand economics very well. He thinks that a society can become like Norway by adopting Norwegian "social democracy." In reality, Norway is a small country about the same population as Minnesota with a white Protestant mostly non-diverse population and hundreds of years of Lutheran education and capitalistic innovation and private ownership. Shocking that such a "system" doesn't work in a country like Haiti where production is much less, corruption and trust is much lower, and also there is no offshore oil.
Yeah. That shit was embarrassing and I expected better from him because Curtis is kinda up his own ass who is pro monarchy. I oppose that more strongly than social democracy.
@@BigGainer98I think you are taking Yarvin more seriously than he takes himself. This would make it seem like he is up his own ass.
It's an underhanded trick to shut down debate rather than to prevail on the merits - everyone knows why Haiti is a literal shithole where kids die of dysentery because they drink shitwater. Burgis just relies on a social taboo to deflect.
Why does it matter that the ethnic make up of the population is? Also the population being smaller makes their model more difficult
@@meddlesomemusic Lol
"This is really news from an alternate dimension." 🤣
did that guy said his ideal thing for society is a metaphor of slavery?
Yarvin: Pre-modern humanity sees resistance to violent authority as abhorrent. Evidence: Chappelle and Chris Rock videos.
This is true though. That’s what made enlightenment liberalism “enlightened” lol. Proper respect for authority has been a part of traditional civilziationism (the sociological term for that pre modern conception of political bodies).
Has the guy on the left actual met any real human beings rather than this idealised species he constantly invokes?
when Ben Burgis said that taking away the people’s ability to control the federal government was Democracy my jaw dropped
Guy is bad faith. No one actually enjoys democracy. It is a shitty compromise. Flip flop the definitions all you want, every action of it is essentially a dogshit compromise of many conflicting sides. That is democracy.
You must have lost the top half of your head, and its contents, moments before the bottom half fell down. He said no such thing.
@@RMUlyate you people are irredeemable
Ben got owned by Burgis.
*Ben got owned by Burgers
Prime example of how hard it is to actually talk to anyone in the bubble, about the bubble. Lost cause.
The real problem is that Curtis seems to think that he has no bubble actually
@@cmo5150he doesn’t really tbh
In Burgis's world, citing the most sources which are most awarded is how you "win." It doesn't matter that the winning argument doesn't describe the reality of the situation. That's why people in the State Department will then do stupid things like creating a Public Employee's Union in Haiti and expecting Haiti to become Norway.
Curtis schizoposts irl
Labour unions protecting labours speech? Where?
I had an openly Marxist professor in a tech college who loved Castro lol
Interesting debate
did... did he just say the United States loved Fidel Castro?
look up Harry Mathews and how he convinced the state department to give the keys of Cuba to our amigo Fidel
@@startedllama That has been said to be the Kennedy administration attempting to soften the obvious response of United States reactionary forces.
I think a certain Canadian prime monsters mother did too.
Dear ben supporters, it is not a virtue to be stupid.
Ben has never given an argument, ever, lol
Can you be more specific, Kurt?
@@bloodsatellite mere assertions sans evidence do not a logical/rational argument make, Sir.
I read this comment just as Ben made another of many arguments. About the 1 hr mark. He gives the argument that public input in policy decisions and not just in choosing the executive is more democratic (Yarvin assumes a strong executive would be more democratic i think), as can be seen in the election of a republican in Florida along with support for a higher minimum wage, showing how this seeming inconsistency actually reflects public participation and therefore the democratic process.
Yarvin is pretty disappointing. I thought he was just a dork, and then realised his influence on certain policy influencers. Guess they're all dorks too.
I think the appeal of people like Yarvin comes down to aesthetics and the desire to project an edgy "beyond the curve" image. Pretty juvenile really. Playground politics. Reminds me of the cringe inducing job advert that Dominic Cummings put out referencing cyberpunks and what not. Guy thinks he's fighting the matrix or something. Most of the world outside this bubble don't need sci fi aesthetics and fantasy to know struggle, hardship and that something is wrong.
@@manchesterunited9576 it is hard to be specific with Ben because he only ever waffles, and other than falling back on the Scandinavian model as the pinnacle of socialism or Mondragon for the usual co-op lie, he offers nothing new. When was the last time Ben said something original or got his hands dirty doing anything close to physical labour, he is the perfect champagne socialist.
@@Suhrevardi how's that going, using democracy to choose the executive, and for that person to have real power to inact policy. Which executive in the last 50years has not only been selected by a majority and then carried out the majorities wishes, do tell? It is all well and good to have some nice theories but Ben and his socialist brothers couldn't run a bath let alone get any where near power to implement any of his ideology. Bernie Sanders is a great demonstration of how pathetic socialists truly are.
A democracy, and the democratic process is so easily circumvented, hence the oligarchic control of every western democratic country where generally two parties take turns ruling with little difference between them and the bureaucracy is constant.
History has shown every socialist/communist democratic adventure ends in tyrannical control because democracy is weak and easilly manipulated, because it is ridiculous to think every citizen can be informed of all pertinent information on every issue to choose/vote wisely.
My heartbeat is fucked up because of too much coffee and this conversation
"I don't believe in having bad encounters with the police." he does not believe in reality.
artist and programmers have terrible political instincts
Yarvins Idea, that he has deeper knowledge than all (soviet) historians, is just insane
Ben, could I recommend you read a primary source?
Is it wrong to recommend a primary source if you then go on to explain what specific information from that primary source you think is relevant to the argument? How could a historical debate between these two people with vastly different historical pictures be possible without that? If Yarvin is going to propose things that will be quickly dismissed for not fitting with the mainstream narrative, he best name his source or it will appear as though he’s completely pulled it out of his ass, although his efforts seem to have been pretty fruitless as far as Ben and his audience are concerned.
"Why do you think that is?" - Ben in response to Yarvin bringing up the fact that we went into a cold war against the USSR after the most devastating global war in history lead namely by Nazi Germany, who Yarvin posits that we never even considered the possibility of a cold war with... I could think of a few dozen million reasons, but Yarvin's non sequitur ramblings were certainly more entertaining I suppose.
Well, the comment section makes it clear that not only are people are living in vastly different parallel universes, but people can watch the exact same video and apparently see/hear different things.
Which I think is sort of point for team Yarvin. One of the things I love about his blog the most is...he compares it to an acid trip. Even if he were completely or mostly wrong about everything (cards on the table: I don't think he is), I would still think there's a lot of value in considering radically different interpretations.
I never heard of this guy until I heard from Yarvin that he claimed that Haiti could be made to be like Sweden if only it adopted a minimum wage. I'm curious as to what other people heard, because I don't think that's an uncharitable interpretation...having listened to this, it seems like that's literally what he said.
Which seems like a wildly outlandish claim that, maybe I'm out of touch, but I wouldn't think even most committed blank-slatists would make a claim like that. Certainly not most economists, even the ones who support a minimum wage. Why not just tell them to print more money? And people think Yarvin is out there? Good god.
That alone might disqualify him as someone who has any relevant insight into human affairs in my view. But I try to keep an open mind... I don't have to agree with someone 100% to consider them worth listening to...even if they say something I think is astonishingly boneheaded on a particular topic, it doesn't necessarily mean they have nothing worthwhile to say about anything else. But everything just sounded like the boilerplate leftism that I abandoned years ago. Yes, I've read my Chomsky and Zinn. No, I longer find it very compelling anymore, and nothing I heard here gave me a reason to change that.
And I recall shortly before or after he said something like, "I'm talking actual evidence...you can come up with just-so stories about race" or something. Oh boy. Well, it's an empirical fact that people of different ancestral groups differ on metrics like income, crime rate, etc. You could come up just-so stories about why in the US, it's the legacy of slavery, and in other countries where the same observations hold, there's some other cause that also amounts to something something oppression... "Just so story" BTW is a pejorative way of saying "hypothesis", although that’s' a case where pejorativeness is appropriate, seeing as how it is an ad-hoc hypothesis created exclusively to shore up a predetermined ideological commitment.
There is absolutely no scientifically plausible justification for the assumption all ancestral groups must be genetically identical on all traits relevant to socially important outcomes. The questions are: what are the differences, what is their magnitude, and much of a role do they play in various issues, etc. And it seems to me that you actually wanted to understand these issues and maybe find workable solutions, you should be interested in these questions and want to know the truth.
Here's my appeal to authority: I have an MA in psych, a field which I think in unusual among academic disciplines in its emphasis on its own history and was fascinated with and read extensively about all aspects the nature/nurture debate for at least a decade. And I can confirm that Yarvin is absolutely right about this: the idea that all humans are interchangeable swept to dominance roughly after WW2, for reasons that may be understandable, but that have absolutely nothing to do with any empirical discoveries. And it has since become an orthodoxy that is enforced with conformism and intimidation.
"Are you saying that different groups are inherently different? Then should we do XYZ policy that almost everyone would be horrified by?" Facepalm. This is exactly, EXACTLY the non-sequitur rhetorical ploy religious apologists use: "You don't believe in God? Then I guess you think it's ok to murder babies. If we didn't believe in God, life would have no meaning and everyone would just rape and murder all day every day." Well (A) I don't think those consequences would follow and you haven't even attempted to justify why they would, and (B) even if they did...so what? How is that relevant to the question of whether it’s true? It could be the case that there is no God, and also that it is beneficial for societies to be organized around the false belief that there is. I'm open to that possibility. I would rather it not be the case, but again, I don't see what relevance my wishes or anyone else’s have on what is or isn't objectively true.
So I guess I'd have to concede that there could be merit to the Noble Lie perspective, which is what more knowledgeable and self-aware lefties seem to be implicitly supporting. Because it seems like if you were genuinely confident that the causes of all group differences were 100% environmental and 0% genetic, you would eagerly encourage research and support research in this area so that your enemies can be decisively proven wrong once and for all. That seems to be the exact opposite of what is happening.
So…that’s my thoughts. On their personalities…I like Yarvin; met him in person once, and think he’s a great guy. Yeah he’s definitely arrogant, as is this Ben guy… I don’t know if it’s possible to be that smart and not be arrogant. But in this discussion… Yeah, Yarvin took some cheap shots sometimes, as did Ben… But Ben really came across to me as obnoxiously hostile and having a chip on his shoulder. Maybe it was just a bad day for him…I probably sound obnoxiously hostile in a lot of my rants at least to anyone on the other side, so I guess I shouldn’t judge harshly.
But…here’s one final random thought. If you’re on RUclips, if you’re public intellectual or a pundit of any sort… You’re in the entertainment business. If we wanted just the facts, we’d be spending the time pouring over spreadsheets or something instead. So…it is what it is. So quibbling over “he used rhetoric”, “no the other one did more”… Come on. Rhetoric is the art of persuasive communication. Yarvin IMO really good at it, which is why I find him so entertaining. And he uses it to make points that IMO are often important and true, in an eloquent and highly quotable (on the rare occasions where the point can be made clear in less than 5 paragraphs, but again, who am I to talk) way.
Yes, I thought it ironic that Ben made such a point of calling out Yarvin for trying to open Ben's mind, which was admittedly rather annoying and pedantic, but then Ben did basically the same thing to the audience member who said he only cared about America.
Wow you sound cool i hope i can write such long semi-coherent essays in the youtube comments one day lol
The way in which Ben used cheapshots to escape the actual point makes me think he is not a real believer in the blank slate, i may be a cynic but it would certainly not be the first time one of them does that.
Yarvin keeps saying read this book and you'll get it as if it's the only move you can do in a debate. Cite history, give me testable experiments that reveal the truth.
History isn’t scientific; there are no controlled experiments. Even going forward, we can’t easily test these things because of the ethical implications. You’re going to have to get comfortable moving beyond empiricism.
it would not make sense to argue with a brick
Curtis's unchanging demeanor is great.
Curtis looks like a kid whose parents are forcing him to attend church has he listens to ben flounder
like a toad
alcohol
18:55 i think this is the moment Big Ben goes below a 45 degree incline in his chair
I'm about an hour in. While I do think it is true that Haiti can't simply implement a welfare state and be like Norway, Yarvin seems to imply this is due to cultural reasons as opposed to economic reasons. It is important to conceptualize capitalism as a global system which requires the uneven development of nations to realize surplus value. It's very simple to explain why the capitalist class in the US would have favored a higher welfare state in Europe and not in Latin America: Europe was supposed to be the consumers of finished goods produced by US industry whereas Latin America was supposed to be the producers of raw materials for us industry (ie higher regulation/wages/etc) would increase costs.
The economics-fist answer is harder to explain because it applies to the vast majority of countries, and there are a lot of countries, with plenty of changeover in leadership over a long period of time.
Countries that endlessly struggle seem unable to make any stable model work - Capitalist or Socialist - even with the added advantage of being able to look at existing success.
I would agree, and even go further: that the postwar economic state of Europe compared to Latin America seems to reflect the colonial dynamic of their economies for centuries since before the 20th century. Yarvin wants to essentially ignore that history when he talks about Haiti and act like Norway wasn't geographically poised to trade with countries that benefitted from colonialism. Not to mention that France colonized Haiti and had built Haiti's economy on slavery before its independence, while Haiti again suffered politically/economically at the hands of the Monroe Doctrine and paying off a debt to France well into the 20th century.
As an aside, I don't know how you got an hour into this listening to this, but I'm getting past the first few minutes, and I can see at least Ben is pushing back on Yarvin's, for lack of better words, historically uninformed, takes, along similar lines.
@@Motionedout I think the colonialism-first answer is also harder to explain than Yarvin’s answer. Yarvin is arguing a population-first position.
It is culture.
Norway went from poor to rich from 1814, to 1905. Oil was only found in the 1950's.
And, in all ways that matter, we where a colony before 1814, for Denmark.
The difference is culture, and only culture. Norway is also a raw product producer, not finished product.
We sold fish, tree's and other raw materials, that was later refined in other countries. Still, we got rich.
> due to cultural reasons as opposed to economic reasons.
This is a false dichotomy. The economic mainstream has long included neo-institutionalism and studies cultural institutions on a par with other objects and processes. The problem with your argument is that the development of different South American countries is also different. And this difference have institutional causes. As an example, the past presence of the encomienda determines underdevelopment; or the tropical territory of northern SA encouraged agents for the creation of plantations with slaves due to the positive effect of the scale of such manufacturing and for lobbying bad institutions.
Christ, what an actual idealist. Yarvin really thinks that vibes and ideas determine history. Which he can keep thinking by knowing almost no factual history.
Ben struggling to come up with a lie when asked if he's ever worked in his life.
He makes a good point though. Ask yourself and one of your coworkers a hypothetical political question, how much of your answer is intelligent informed by your work experience?
Moldbug's description of this soylent bugman's personality as "totally insufferable" is definitely dead on accurate.
LMAO he got sooo mad
56:35 Yarvin: "What part of one-party-state don't you understand?" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
WTF, who told Thaddeus he was an anarchist? He *definitely* isn’t.
He seems to be conflating the terms anarchist and anarcho-capitalist which he is much closer to the latter. You'd think he was smart enough to realize that.
Honestly, i think it goes to show just how close Anarcho-Capitalism is to feudalism. Yarvin seems to want to dissolve all hierarchies and replace them with the single hierachy of rule by direct decree from a dictator King. The real difference is the AnCap wants to be able to choose which King they obey based on employment. He also seems to support eugenics or at least light genocide based on his comments about the difference between Norway and Haiti.
You're an anarchist that supports Ukraine lmao
Yeah why's he trying so hard to agree with Yarvin on the monarchy thing?
Idk I have generally okay feelings towards Thad because he seems to like to talk and do these types but this bothers me.
@@jemt1631 this is pure incoherent paranoia. Yarvin doesn't want to "dissolve hierarchy" he doesn't believe that is a remote possibility, it's a fact that sovereignty will always be conserved.
Ben, how did you keep your composure? 1:20:00 might have been in my breaking point... If I made it past the first 5 minutes.
It is very frustrating and boring (a "waste of time," as Ben put it) the amount of times Yarvin accuses Ben of being "trapped" in his narrative (especially when this refrain essentially serves as an ad hominem in substitution for engaging with ideas and arguments). Obviously two people with very different political ideologies will inevitably perceive each other as "blinded" to some degree by ideology, closed minded, etc. But that's why a specific focus on ideas is important.That's why we need to make arguments and refute people. Ben is very skilled at this, but Yarvin spends a lot of time shifting the goal posts, cherry picking obscure historical examples, and returning to ad hominems about Ben's "narrative." The moderator did a horrible job, I thought. This discussion needed to be more grounded in specific topics, with clear points and counter-points.
You're absolutely on point. I didnt think at first that Yarvin's bs about narrative was ad hominem, but it is. At the same time however,, how could we expect anything less than a shit show when debating the merits of democracy--in the 21st fuckin century!--with a degenerate monarchist?!
Completely agree
Yeah at the end of the day, the moderator made this way worse.
Ben can’t answer the difficult and uncomfortable questions Yarvin posed.
It suggests that he is in fact trapped in a narrative, because there are things he apparently can’t talk about.
You said nothing.
Norway has traditionally had less crime due to cultural homogeneity and small transparent societies - until immigration reached a tipping point... Now most prisoners in Norway are immigrants and crime is escalating. The lean sentencing and "humane" justice system is a magnet for foreign criminals and organised crime because crime is a low risk / high gain venture with minimal punishment for highly profitable crime.
Yeah but have they tried more socialism? More socialism solves everything didn’t they listen to Ben?
@weignerleigner3037 lots of immigration is more socialism. I'm sure they'll try still more though. Socialism isn't successful until there is an absolutely equal distribution of misery.
And they are net takers of the social safety net, which will inevitably collapse when net takers outweigh the doers.
Anyone who brings up Scandinavian democracy as proof for socialism is flagging themselves as a fool, leftist or not. It's like someone bringing the conversation down to "the Koch brothers" or referencing Michael Moore. They're signaling that they're not worth your time talking to. It only works in those countries because of racial and cultural solidarity, that is, a high trust society. Immigration, moral relativism, and atheism destroy social trust. And these countries have flat taxes that would be wholly unaccepted in the US but are also foundational in allowing socialism to function.
one of the first things the curtis fella said was something about police brutality and then appealed to the authority of dave chapelle and chris rock as some kind of potential point for his argument. he also casually mentioned, without citing any specific fact or passage, a handful of books that ben aught to read, as if to appeal to the authority of the authors to bolster his argument. then he said something to ben about appeals to/argument from authority. am i missing something here? do i not fully understand the argument from authority concept, or is curtis just being hypocritical?
Bens arguments are old and stale, thrashed out in the 1990s and involve no original thought of Bens. Ben is simply memorizing what left wing historians wrote and regurgitating.
Curtis is saying we now have access to primary sources. Please read something.
@@talkingrefugees3845 please give an example of an old and stale argument Ben used and why it's no longer relevant or useful. Please give an example of Curtis using "primary sources" and why thats important, or relevant. Explain why that makes him correct on any specific issue. See, you have to give examples to back up your claims otherwise your arguments come across as incoherent, insufficient, and weak. please read something about how to formulate and argument then talk to me. lastly I don't see how any of what you claimed was relevant to my original post. fail. sad.
The most tired idea Burgis is selling is that Socialism would work if everyone just believed it would work.
And if you don't understand why reading primary sources would be superior to the revisionist summaries of leftist historians like Zinn selling socialism, I can't help you.
Yes. You are missing a lot.
@@payleryder45 like what? give one example.
@14:11 Funniest part of the whole debate. He's heating up. Mencius Boomshakalaka!
Yarvin responding to every argument by recommending a list of books in the most condescending way possible is hilarious. Dude's awful.
Because his almost singular point isn’t landing:
“What else is the difference between Chicago and Norway?"
"How would you apply your Norwegian model to Haiti?"
"What's your best example of third world socialism?"
"What would be your expectation if, leaving the governments the same, we transport all the Haitians to Japan, and all the Japanese people to Haiti?"
The implication is that it's easier to explain weak governments as representations of the underlying populations than it is to explain them in terms of the policies that were supposedly prevented due to imperialist interventions.
His dad was involved in State Dept interventions south of the US. That says it all.
That unlike an armchair philosopher or ideologue he has first hand observations and experience of the borders of empire?
Elite irrationality has an identifiable nucleus.
I mean, for someone who is so dedicated to the idea of having a strong master Curtis doesn't seem to have an understanding of how mastery works. The master doesn't care about any of this stuff he's talking about (left or right, democracy or autocracy, etc.) what the master of the American empire cares about is successfully appropriating whatever possibilities may pop up back into capitalism by whatever means is expedient. So he runs around yelling about all these 'left' projects being carried out by the united states in a neurotic obsessive way, while ignoring all the right projects and not recognizing that there is a distinction between the left of capitalism and the left of socialism and not realizing that of course these people are going to be threading a very narrow needle to make all of this work.
Ben came off as such an unreasonable asshole here it was pretty sad. he was never able to even engage at any level with what Curtis was putting down and resorted to chicanery and evasive debating.
I'm sorry, but you're just trapped in your narrative. You need to read books from outside of your echo chamber. You need to defer to the lived experiences of those who lived in regions adjacent to the subject of our discussion for a little while. Now I'm going to accuse you of getting your whole worldview from a random historian you've never heard of. And your arguments are Appeal to Authority fallacies because historians I disagree with agree with them. Also, Fox News is representative of your politics, and any disagreement you have with mainstream conservatives is the narcissism of small differences.
Any derision of what I said above is unreasonable, pretty sad, and a refusal to engage at any level with what I'm putting down and resorting to chicanery and evasive debating.
😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏
Burgis is selling socialism, Yarvin the uncomfortable truth people cannot self-govern.
I think Yarvin's assessment that Burgis is trapped within his own narrative is absolutely true, but it was also highly offensive.
I need to drink some magic mind so I can understand what Yarvin is saying
It boils down to an argument that the differences in populations undermine many of the ideas of enlightenment rationalism that Ben is operating on - the idea that humans are blank slates that can be made to think or care, if only they had the right coaxing.
@@MrClockw3rk
What "Enlightenment rationalism" says that humans are blank slates? Are you maybe thinking of lockean empricism, the opposite of rationalism? Most Enlightenment philosophers did not believe man started as a blank slate. Nowhere from Kant to Rousseau do you find this blank slate which supposedly is the basis of enlightenment "rationalism", whatever that means. You're trying to use some big words but failing miserably. How do differences in population (Again, whatever that is supposed to mean) undermine the enlightenment ideals (Which also ben isn't operating under. He's a socialist, not a liberal)?
Haiti will never be Denmark. And it’s not race based. “Why can’t we all
Be Nordic countries” is cringe and the unipolar collective west is only exacerbating the discrepancy. Tentacles of the NATO NAFO useless elitists are destroying third world progress
@@MrClockw3rk what differences in populations would those be?
@@potatopotatow the ones that account for much of the difference between Chicago and Norway, and between Japan and Haiti.
Culture, behavioral genetics and IQ.
Monarch in brazil worked very well for 50 years
I remember watching this around the time it went up because of Thaddeus. How are these people so tolerant towards someone like Ben Burgers is beyond me
Watching Ben makes me feel better about myself.
He's constantly on the edge of courting physical confrontation but does not seem to be prepared or skilled at it. A "man" can only get this way by living in decadent academic settings his entire adult life, where his obsesity is mistaken for physical strength among similarly soft-handed Low-T "men."
@@payleryder45 😂
Yarvin's understanding of history is so confused and unsupported by evidence that it's hard to know where to start with debunking him. His claim that labor unions are "wildly anachronistic" in the 21st century is also rich coming from someone who wants to impose monarchy. So unions are outdated but kings and queens aren't? GTFOH, horrible arguments and deranged worldview.
i would encourage you to read very narrow primary sources that specifically support my thesis and also disregard the totality of other historical record that doesn’t. Also, have you even been to Haiti? Because my hairdresser has, and he told me there are innate differences between the haitians and japanese. No, I won’t be taking questions on that.
@@potatopotatow lol. You captured his smug tone and meandering, anecdotal style of argument perfectly.
@@potatopotatow “hairdresser” lol. a dig within a dig. you’re as cold as ice and i’m here for it.
Monarchs have existed for millenniums. Labour unions were a century-long flash in the pain. Not that difficult to understand.
@@bradders9743 The same argument could be used to defend slavery, human sacrifice, female genital mutilation, foot binding, and child labor. The longevity of a practice says nothing about its inevitability or desirability. Even if I granted your (false) premise about longevity, though, your argument still fails. Labor unions descend from craft guilds, which existed for millennia prior to the Industrial Revolution. The earliest labor strike in the historical record occurred in Egypt in 1170 BCE. It is very easy to find examples of organized workers going on strike and demanding better pay and conditions before the 19th century. So you're wrong on both counts.
It is crazy how he can claim that using facts supported by most historians is just a appeal to authority while he wants us to live under a singlar authority
Maybe because the first is an appeal to authority: "most historians", while wanting to live under a single authority doesn't change or contradict that fact?
@@richrdroma Ben doesn't do this though. He makes an argument that most historians make, but he doesn't rely on you believing him just because the historians do. He's making the argument by itself without appealing to the authority of the historians.
@@cmiozzi8940 True but if asked about where Ben gets his version of history from and why he believe it is the truth what would be his answer? Yarvin is doing an assumption. Is he wrong in the assumption?
@@richrdroma no but that's not really interesting. He's doing the same thing with his interpretation of history
Maybe it's because his theory is more complex than you think .
"everyone agrees with you, therefore you're arguing from authority"
"Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right" is a phrase I'm sure you're familiar with. If you are an intellectual your justification, when challenged on something should not just be that it's the current consensus.
I think a leftist using that as an argument for anything is quite ironic as, from a leftist perspective , the US government and media consensus on a broad range of issues is resisted vigorously. The premise of Howard Zinn's book, referenced in debate here, is that it's set against the "officially accepted narrative".
@@johnford2517
Ben: So, the argument from authority is that I said something most historians would agree with.
Curtis: Yes, that's right.
Everyone who watches these debates knows an argument isn't guilty of the Argument from Authority fallacy just because a lot of historians agree with it.
Curtis failed. He humiliated himself. He embarrassed you and everyone who agrees with you. Stop trying to defend him. He represented your opinions very poorly. If there was anyone who watched this and could've been persuaded of either position, that interaction ensured they were persuaded by Ben. Lick your wounds and find someone who can make a better case for your positions.
@@Synerco For sure Ben was better rhetorically but I can't understand anyone who doesn't think Curtis is way more interesting.
@@johnford2517 People don't believe historians because they are popular, we believe them because their arguments make sense!
@@richrdroma It's not a question of who's better rhetorically or who's more interesting. It's a question of who gave better arguments, and Ben is clearly better in this regard
And Curtis is interesting in the same way Kanye West is interesting. There's a certain kind of person who enjoys gawking at cringe, and I certainly see how Curtis entertains such people, but he's less than useless to the people who want to advance the politics he articulates
It did not get testy. "Moldbug" as always, tried to use shutting the fuxk for onc3.
just had a some constructive criticism as a fan of your work and fellow phl nerd.
Although you were right on most of the merits, I do not believe you came off too well in your debate with Yarvin. Tonally and rhetorically, you were off your usual calm, collected, yet passionate and entertaining game. Your best work in this regard is your debate with Charlie Kirk. With Yarvin, I believe you came off, with all due respect, a little petulant and defensive.
Rest assured though 99% of us just watching and not actually debating would do much much much much worse, and it’s not lost on me how difficult it is to do public debates and juggle all these plates successfully.
Im not so sure. The tone of this debate was definitely not friendly, and probably didn't win over anyone who already agrees with yarvin or any ancap libertarians who are already too far gone, but for viewers with a more fuzzy viewpoint i think it was really good to basically give this guy no quarter. his main rhetorical strategy seems to be obscuring or misconstruing his actual project (to install a dictator) by getting the opponent to concede to some superficially shared opinion and then talking like that means we're all in agreement on his reactionary viewpoint. never, ever conceding to any point of agreement and occasionally calling out his 'you'd agree with me if you read this book' approach (even it did reveal some frustration on dr. b's part) was necessary to reinstate the clear lines Yarvin was trying to blur.
Yarvin did succeed in getting the under Ben's skin. Yarvin is insanely frustrating to listen to. Incessantly insisting historical facts are actually the opposite of what is widely accepted by the vast majority of scholars would drive anyone nuts. I'd say given Yarvin's talking points and demeanor, Ben held it together pretty well. Someone like Kirk is an sitting duck for Ben. Yarvin's a berserking goose.
Yarvin is like a wasted uncle holding forth at the pub, while Ben is the designated driver trying to keep the shit together. I don’t blame Ben for getting petulant. It’s the privilege of the babysitter.
Mencius moldbug fantástico 👏👏👏
Yarvin: "Let me ask you a question..."
"Just say what you want to say!"
Thank you, Ben. Theres nothing worse than a wannabe Sócrates.
"asking questions makes you a wannabe socrates."
leftists are demented, and socrates hated democracy lol. I wouldn't be surprised if Ben wanted to go back to democratic trials
Wilson 14 Points #6: "VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy."
Looks like Curtis was right
18:55 Holy shit! He babbled for _more than seven minutes_ and didn't address the point at all!! 😵
I'm with Yarvin generally but Ben is correct about american meddling in Latin countries being the real issue there most likely though they were super susceptible to Soviet brainwashing no one can deny. Ben was a very worthy opponent. I think diff systems are applicable to diff regions. Brazil Thailand and Ethiopia all want their king back...but I also acknowledge that Sweden Finland's system works great for them. No one size fits all me thinks.
Bruh, Soviet meddling you sleep, USA meddling you wake.
Most of this meddling by the US was a direct response to Soviet meddling.
Where do you think Che Guevara got all the troops training and arms from for the Cuban Revolution. Out of his rear?
Where do you think the ideas and activists of Cuba who primed Cuban public for revolution came from, from Cuba itself?
I think this is undoubtedly true. I think time also changes what system will work in a particular region as well. Best to imagine economic and political systems as tools to be utilized rather than ideologies to guide every move.
Latin America wasn't exactly doing great before US meddling...
Yarvin’s method is to drop historical anecdotes so rapidly that you won’t notice they’ve detoured into nonsense. Glad Ben is well read enough to call him on the BS.
Once you pause and analyze Yarvin, you realize he has no case. Like, he’s not even good at arguing for authoritarianism in our current climate. He’s just sitting around angry saying “I wish the British had won.”
@@roberth9814 hes a writer not a debator, ive listened/read nearly everything he's wrote and he sold me although i was always skeptical of pure democracy
@@JallyJam oh great, a guy who has propagandized himself for years agrees with Crutis.
@@julianjanssen5499 I mean isn't that what you do when you dive into any political philopshy, it's not like I haven't encountered any other political thinker left or right.
Curtis's deconstruction of power, how they function in institutions, historically, how our "democracy" that so many leftist fetishize actually works and a explanation how it seems the left was "always on the right side"( everyone ignores socalism and communism)
@@JallyJam he isn't compelling at all. He is woefully ill-informed, as this debate shows... and yet he is condescending. I guess the attitude that one knows it all is more important to you than being correct and well-informed.
Never debate religious people Curtis, it's a waste of time and energy.
How the hell does Ben not know what ESG is?? At 1:58
Ben, you seem to be obsessed with Curtis. Are you okay man? Why so resentful?
LMAO @ 13:48
Holy hell, Yarvin's meandering and incoherent talking.. jesus, it has close to zero informational content.
What Ben doesn't realize (I lived for a while in Europe, I doubt he did) was that Norwegians in the US are considerably richer than in Norway. In Norway and those "social democrat" countries you make less in real income, you pay more in taxes (42% for a normal wage earner is typical rather than 22% here in the US) and you get less housing for your money. In fact, if you compare per capita income, Sweden would be poorer than all but one US state - Mississippi.
got any sources for that?
@@potatopotatow just look up tax rates over there.
Now go to Norway and compare the standard of living of most citizens of Norway or Sweden with any American state including California or New York. Compare infrastructure, or the level of state services, healthcare or the environment. Average statistical numbers may be on the US side, but that absolutely doesn't matter if we take society as a whole and those who make up the majority in it.
If I eat two chickens and you eat none, statistically we each ate one on average. Except in reality You're hungry.
Standard of living matters more than hard cash.
Yeah, and Scandinavia scores higher on every important social metric. Lots of us don't want to live in a world where suburban dum dums have a mansion, boats, and a car collection while the rest of society crumbles.
I really appreciate your depth of knowledge to follow his self congratulatory trip through his own version of history. Well done. He never really made an argument for monarchy, just was trying to poke holes in democracy historically which we would all agree has plenty of issues. But I guess it's all hard so ... King anyone?
Democracy was the discussion topic
@@bradders9743 so? He could have made his case for Monarchy... and didn't
He does so elsewhere, but his challenge here was to get Ben to admit that increasing democracy isn't without problems.
@@MrClockw3rk Yarvin just seems kinda ill informed, in general. Are you really going around being an apologist for Yarvin without billionaire money from Yarvin's acolytes? Sad.
@@julianjanssen5499 that’s a strange personal attack that doesn’t even seem to make a point.
what is even the point they have completely different Epistemology and Weltanschauung
tRUE
Without gain of function research there would be no virology. Curtis doesn't know what he is talking about in virology. Likewise, he admits to not being up on basic media managerial realities and it shows. Don't quit your day job Foldbug.
Most people just hear that and get scared because they know nothing
i'm leftist but yarvin made burgis look stupid lol :3 a lot of yarvins philosophy is lame but he's one of the only right-wing theorist that can come up with good points, and has interesting critiques of leftism. plus panarchy (what he calls patchwork) is p dope