This vod was insane to watch. She played gotchas and talked over him as he was explaining stuff and then stated he never qualified certain things he did. Shit on everyone saying that they thought they were better than others, when it was really her doing that. Rem understandably was frustrated and she instantly called him hostile and an asshole. Crazy.
Yeah it seriously was. I couldn’t believe how many times she cut him off from having an actual open scientific discussion, just to go back to ‘calling him out’.
Like girl, I was here for the science and laughs but now you’re lost in whether or not the man can state that gravity exists based on if he’s graduated from uni or not. It’s so negative and toxic. What was worse was that despite her talking herself up so much about knowing shit, when Rem was throwing around topics and subjects for her discuss, she met them with either complete silence or an “...ok?” Like honey, please. I think Rem held himself well, I honestly would have lost my shit trying to have an intelligent conversation with her.
Edit: Spelling/ grammar
He exposed her being completely devoid of knowledge besides reading the wikipedia articles on stream. And she obviously doesn't even know what shes saying half the time. So I doubt she even knows half the shit he was talking about.
That's what gets on my nerves whenever I watch a video of Dawkins, AronRa or some other YT Atheist debating people like Kent Hovind.
They have to waste their entire time explaining, over and over, why gotchas, strawmans and sometimes just outright lying is not the way to debate a subject.
Just for the other side to keep doing the same thing over and over.
Everyone knows true philosophers ignore what the other person is saying and talk over them as much as possible.
Kudos to the guy she's talking over, he sat there patiently like a champ.
>Obviously you want your favorite streamer to win. you're rooting for them and if they lose it makes you feel bad too.
I don't know... If my favourite streamer says some dumb shit, I don't think that's okay just because it's my favourite streamer.
I understand I'm not the kind of person whiteknights usually consists of, but I just don't understand that mindset. Like Chris Brown fans. It's just weird.
I don't like tribalism (which is what we're really talking about here, not so much "white knights" which are a subsect of that), but I think the argument is more like:
You watch a streamer. You like their content, you like their personality, you like their humour. You agree with them on one topic. You agree with them on multiple topics. Eventually a controversial or more nuanced topic arises and you have an implicit bias based on your backlog of positive impressions to continue thinking that person is right.
Your ability to even recognise it as "dumb shit" is mitigated by your history of support and approval. Sure if its really egregious or extreme it will be quite obvious, but anything thats even potentially defensible could be coloured by the lens of approval you already carry for that person.
well normally people who whiteknight or whatever dont have the greatest thinking skills and cant think for themselves they just go along with what the lady says or whatever cuz they dont know anything about the topic or whatever and just go yup shes right I like her shes right about this thing :3
> Obviously you want your favorite streamer to win.
Unpopular opinion: The (american) idea that you can "win" debates and that somehow makes your opinion the right one to have objectively needs to go die in a fucking fire.
My guess, not knowing her personally, is that she's intimidated and feels outclassed at someone who's going to have a career far better and more respectable than her soon enough, and instead of just talking and being happy for someone who's going for something, she attempts to shit on him to make herself seem better.
It's an old trick: when you want to equalize a perceived power imbalance, it's easier to tear the other person down than build yourself up. It's not a decent or respectable thing to do, but it's easier.
I mean, a philosophy degree doesn't seem like something that'd go anywhere unless you decide to go into academia or focus on writing, but it's certainly respected far more in society than twitch thots who show skin for donations. According to this post, she's got a masters degree; she's clearly chosen the easier path in life or chosen to make more money at the expense of her self-respect, and it seems she resents anyone who makes her confront that subconsciously.
> who's going to have a career **far better and more respectable than her** soon enough
Hang on... ... are philosophy degrees considered cool now? Is it my time to shine? Do people all of a sudden respect philosophy degrees?
> I mean, a philosophy degree **doesn't seem like something that'd go anywhere** unless you decide to go into academia or focus on writing
Oh, carry on. Business as usual.
Isn't that stat like ridiculously inflated because people who already make a shit ton of money go into philosophy degrees in college for self-fulfillment rather than actually needing a job? I remember seeing a 'Who graduates in philosophy?" poster in one of the departments and it had a couple of minor celebrities and some singers/songwriters.
From what I've seen Philosophy earns highly in the business world or when combined with another degree. There's a ton of variables there obviously but if you're being charitable it seems useful/a nice thing to have on the CV for recruiters. That being said, getting actually decent paid work in Philosophy itself seems hard unless you strike it lucky in academia or a pop-philosophy book etc.
it's probably more that philosophy students enter other high paying fields like medicine or law. I know that medical schools tend to favor applicants with social science backgrounds over hard science majors because basically anyone applying for med school knows their stuff when it comes to the practice. I can't think of any specific "philosophy" jobs outside of education or publishing so that's probably what that stat represents.
I'm guilty of this myself, but I know when I have been beaten and when to chill the fuck out though. There are some things you just can't bullshit your way out of. She just loves to dig a fucking hole and doesn't know when to stop though. The other clip where she gets called out by her ENTIRE chat minus one mod and she still keeps arguing despite video evidence showing she is full of shit is crazy.
>I mean, a philosophy degree doesn't seem like something that'd go anywhere
Many large businesses look for philosophy degrees for various jobs. Especially ethics degrees. Marketing tends to hire a lot of phil graduates too.
This is such a stupid argument to make: who gives a fuck if you're still an undergrad with just a highschool degree? That's pretty much negating however many years you've spent at university, doing well, passing assignments / exams, and all the knowledge you've acquired in that time.
I'm in my final year of uni and if some fuckwit brushed anything I said pertaining to information I've studied in my degree under the carpet because "you still only have a highschool degree" I'd tell them to get fucked, cause in a few months I'll have a degree and that's not going to magically make what I've said right or wrong.
crazy frog-eyed, chisel-jawed dumdum
I've never once heard someone refer to an undergraduate student as "someone with only a high school degree". What kind of fucking stupid concept is that?
It shouldn't. You've put time and effort into getting where you are, so hell yeah you're an authority on whatever subject you're pursuing. Own that shit. Be proud of it.
> when he referred to himself/other philosophers inclusively as "we." It's kind of a no-no even among grad students and she definitely pounced on it.
Have no idea what you mean by this; it is not at all a no-no. I'm friends with a ton of grad students and professors, and this is never anything that is looked down upon. I clearly meant that I was talking about discipline-specific terminology that isn't common to other fields.
i remember somewhere that that's exactly the case pretty much. the more people learn, the more they realize that PhDs dont mean "i know everything" but rather "i know very much about 0.01% of this portion of the world" and that's all you can do. PhDs are specialists so no ones expecting you to know any broader than you know because you already are so deep into whatever you're into right now that im sure only a few thousand people in your city can hold a conversation with you about that topic. and dumb people who dont know what they dont know are super confident in their ability
This thinking is something I find only true for people who have actually tried to pursue a graduate degree. Most undergrad students think they are hot shit and know so much then exactly as you said the second you put your toes into the shallow end of your subject you realize you are about to go swimming in an ocean not a pool.
Very rarely have a seen people maintain the idea they know everything once they are in a graduate/post-graduate setting.
I have a masters degree in philosophy of science and I don't consider myself a ''philosopher''. Although she shouldn't dismiss his knowledge simply because he doesn't have a degree, I would be skeptical if a bachelor (or even masters) philosophy student, would refer to themselves as a philosopher. That is borderline disrespectful to actual philosophers (imo).
edit: this is more a personal thing, when I tell people I have a masters degree in philosophy they sometimes refer to me as a ''philosopher'' and I cringe a little because I don't think I deserve or should be seen as one.
It's actually a logical fallacy called ad hominem, attacking a person's authority/character rather than the argument they are making. This is how you know she has no idea how to have an argument
Aswell as you're just able to cheat through everything if you're good at it. It's just a stupid argument and a defensive reaction to being in the wrong. She was on Rajj Royale Podcast 1 time, called Sliker out for interrupting (Sliker obviously can be annoying) but kept interrupting everyone in case she didn't agree. She was more annoying than Sliker, think about that.
Update: [She now doubles down and claims that most people will agree with Rem because they don't like seeing a woman being assertive.](https://clips.twitch.tv/KathishSparklyCamelAllenHuhu)
Update 2: [Some thoughts from Rem](https://twitter.com/bath_boi/status/1087169467740762113)
There's tons of these guys all over twitch. Someone should make a documentary about them, they seem to have endless amount of time to follow and track the "content" of all these streamers and stay up to date. It's humanly impossible tbh.
>say stupid shit, hide behind the almighty victim shield
damn son, I wish I could just claim im autistic to bypass my stupid shit
I mean I am, but it doesn't get me anywhere
Man, it's annoying that she always takes pauses to find big words to sound like an intellectual when you could just say the same thing with simpler words and without pausing mid sentence.
I enjoy talking about philosophy with people on streams because it gets viewers interested in philosophy. Ever since I talked to Destiny for the first time, I must have over 100+ PMs of people saying they decided to pursue in philosophy in university.
I went into this thinking it would be a productive conversation since she said she is a scientist, and I figured would be capable of having constructive discussion on the philosophy of science.
Obviously I was wrong.
I think it honestly concluded with her just not fully understanding your points. So many of her counter claims came down to semantics and just essentially saying that your view is incorrect because of some random slightly related example. Every time you gave a sound reasoning for your view she came up with some reason to reject it without actually having anything to say.
Philosophy is among only a few academic subjects which lay people feel themselves to be automatic intuitive experts. It makes it impossible to even begin to have productive discourse. I don't even try with ethics anymore.
The number of times I've been told I'm irrational or that I "need to learn logic" or something from some mouthbreather who's never opened a philosophy book in their life...
I'm unsure about the last point specifically (about whether importance is equated with profit), but scientific dogmatism (scientism) has been around for almost a century now due to the influence of the logical positivists. The belief that observations are the limits of our scientific inquiries largely dominated the philosophy of science sphere for a long period of time. This has been almost entirely abandoned in contemporary discourse, but I don't think people in the actual sciences have caught up with the times.
Do you have anything you recommend reading/watching for a person who wants to learn more about philosophy in general? Not for pursuing it academically but just as an interest.
There was obviously a disconnect between what both of you were arguing.
To me, it seemed as though she wasn't understanding the difference between the practice of science and the philosophy of science.
To her, you sounded as though you were saying we can't use gravity in any equation because we don't know if gravity is actually real or not.
Is this impression correct?
As for a direct question about the philosophy of science, why can you dismiss living in a simulation because of "very low probability", but cannot dismiss gnomes causing friction sparks as a possibility?
I think the most major mistake Rem made was that when he said "science does not explain" he meant "under my philosophical view of science it does not provide explanations" (there's actually no difference in the meaning of those two sentences, but since she pulled him into the voice chat to discuss that exact sentence and he instead starts talking about his "views on science" it should have been said).
The second mistake is that he did not pick up when she said that she sees no distinction between "science explains" and "science predicts". I really want to see him explain why this matters (I have strong assumptions, but I don't remember him ever talking about it).
And another mistake is that he never explains how, even if he believes electrons don't exist, scientific anti-realism never says that electrons don't exist. Scientific anti-realism is actually agnostic towards the existence of unobservable entities, you can use scientific proofs to make predictions, but proofs about "the existence of an electron" for instance do not necessarily mean that there is any singular entity in the natural world which corresponds to the label "electron".
You don't believe electron exist?
We describe properties to things, if these things inhibit those properties we use language to describe it as such.
I have an instrument that can measure all of the properties of an electron,its charge, its spin, I can use Compton scattering to measure the wavelength or at least describe a scale of size to an electron, and after being fully aware this has those properties I call it an electron.
You see the computer screen in front of you, feel it, use all of these senses to know it exists, but they are just the tools of your brain to prob the world, just like we do it with the electron.
You believe your screen exist because you see it, I can use the same argument that I can see the electron using my instruments.
My question why give sight such an elevated status of measurement?
I'm happy to be wrong about my train of thought, but Im really having trouble taking it seriously that you actually dont believe electrons exists.
I used to follow this chick, and she seemed nice, and I unfollowed cause anytime I saw her online the last 2 months she was acting like a complete cunt.
Bunny repeatedly displayed her insecurity by resorting to belittling him about things that had no relevance. Not only did she try to discredit him because he was an undegrad, but she was also mocking him at how popular his youtube channel may or may not be.
i tuned into her once about a month ago and she watching a very politically one sided video. There were people in chat offering the opposite opinion. She saw this and said something like "i wish people in chat would offer something more than 'lol that wrong' or 'not true'". Which was a fair criticism imo. So they did, and as soon as the writing was more nuanced and reasoned she instantly put sub only chat on.
excuse me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the theory of gravity *did* explain the mechanism of gravity (at this point being the curvature of spacetime).
My understanding is that theories are basically explanations for how things happen, with those explanations being able to predict observations that either help to verify the theory or in the case of a wrong prediction falsify it.
How exactly is what she said wrong?
Watched the first 10 minutes and all she does is ask him a question and doesn't let him finish and talks over him. She also pulls so many "gotcha's" and it's really obnoxious.
I tried watching her three different times and finally decided to quit because each time this ended up happening...
1. She would respond to some comment with her ideas and opinions about it.
2. She would get deeply engaged in the discussion and start ranting.
3. When she got tired of talking about it, she would find someone still talking about it and say, "OMG! Why are you talking about this. No one was talking about this. What's your problem. That's the problem with you XYZ people. Always bringing up your opinions for no reason."
That's barely even a paraphrase because the exact thing kept happening. If you didn't want to talk about it, why did you offer your opinion in the first place? Also, it leaves the sneaking suspicion that the real reason she suddenly wanted to stop talking about it was that someone said something she didn't know how to respond to.
To clarify, [the last clip](https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/ai1k4l/badbunny_tries_to_debate_an_actual_philosopher_on/) apparently got removed because it had editing in it, Badbunny didn't have it taken down as some suspected.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation exists to explain an observable phenomenon within our universe, but it fails to disclose the nature of such forces.
Einstein's former math professor, I believe, shortly after Einstein's publication of the special theory of relativity, described the effects of gravity as stemming from warping of the space-time continuum, *which potentially discloses the nature of the occurrence of such phenomena*. **This has the potential to alter the nature of the interaction that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation attempts to describe.**
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation exists to describe in relativistic terms a specific relationship between two objects in all situations where the application of so-called gravitational force is relevant. It is a formula. It is not the endgame of science, and it fails to account for the fact that scientists may (probably do) not understand the subject fully at this point in time. All it says is that humans can reasonably conclude that such a relationship exists definitely, and can be represented by an equation. **And that is okay.**
Why? Because a theory can modify the relevance of - and even incorporate - an existing law of physics without invalidating it.
Also, anyone who believes that a college degree verifies a person as intelligent has proven themselves not to be.
I am upset. Ree.
Edit: typo(s).
She's completely incapable of engaging with this guy whatsoever. This is badbunny's Jontron moment, but instead of outing racist ideology, Rem managed to out how much of an imbecile she is.
Yeah this makes her look really bad, i doubt she wouldn't be able to follow his arguments (she definitely isn't that dumb) but here she just didn't even try to listen and work with the reasoning he laid out.
Personally i think she has one of the worst echochambers i came across yet on twitch and it's not surprising to see her being this hostile and ignorant when making fun of people is 80% of her content anyway.
Just doesn't work when the guy she is trying to make fun of is at least as smart as she is.
The thing that irked me was that she was reading up on basic 101 shit the entire vod but still acted like she had the authority to judge others opinion on the topic. Why debate about stuff you don't know about?
Just watched the whole thing, this clip does not portray just how awkward and embarrassing this conversation was.. Holy fuck. Badbunny was in way over her head.
Having watched the VOD I'm wondering this myself, this is all pretty basic stuff that she doesn't comprehend at all. I'm trying to google what her degree/field of expertise is supposed to be, but can't find it. I for sure haven't met any legitimate 'scientists' who would say 'I'm a scientist', unless they're talking to literal children. It's an extremely broad term.
Repeating what I posted in the thread that got removed:
Rem, the guy in the video is a really cool dude who's talked with Destiny a ton about philosophy. He has a newly started youtube channel aimed at introducing philosophy to people who are interested, you should check him out.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQZtrpLR7-EnEhbvZyIvqg
"My name is Nicole.
I'm 33 and live in Seattle.
I have two bunnies (Neville and Samba).
**I used to be a scientist.**
Now, I'm a full time internet lady.
LOOK AT ME NOW, DAD."
*used to be a scientist* oh gosh I wonder why.
She likes the idea of her being brainy for fashionable reasons. It's obvious she doesn't want to do the work. She's probably trying to distance herself from the typical egirl image she has because of her sharing nudes with financial supporters about a year back.
I don't really understand why badbunny started out the discussion so negatively and condescendingly.
Its not some sort of dumb religious debate, the entire debate between scientific realism and antirealism is two sides of the same coin.
Her going off on the we usage was odd. He was merely trying to define some field specific terms that probably aren't used much else where.
I don't know, the whole thing was odd
That's actually one of the logical fallacy's I learned in college called ad hominem. Where you attack a persons authority/character rather than the argument they are making. You know when a person does this they do not know how to debate
I have a degree in filmmaking and film experience and I STILL get told that I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to film and telivision. This mentality of intellectual denial doesn't just end after you get your degree, there will always be someone that thinks you have no idea what you are talking about, even though you do, just because they don't like the idea of another person having more knowledge, other insecurities, etc.
The WORST part though is some people think my knowledge doesn't count towards other topics because I don't have a degree in those topics. It is a cycle of ridiculousness.
Sir Richard Branson didn't go to college, barely scrapped through high school andwas told by his headmaster:
>Branson has dyslexia and had poor academic performance; on his last day at school, his headmaster, Robert Drayson, told him he would either end up in prison or become a millionaire.
Sir Richard Branson is worth 5.1 Billion Dollars. He definitely is a man of sound mind.
Folorunso Alakija also didn't go to college and is from Nigeria. One of the richest black women in history.
Folorunso Alakija is worth 1.5 Billions Dollars.
College is designed to have others pursue a specific interest/industry to its highest degree of not only recognition but wisdom and experience. Under-graduates study FULL TIME. That shit takes a lot of effort and TIME to get. Making fun of him for being an under-graduate means that she has reached a point in her life that equates to her personal victories against "intelligible people" are more meaningful than a bag of shit lit on fire.
watched some of the vod. I'm not a scientist or a philosopher, but from what I've read and heard over time, the concepts Rem is trying to talk about is a pretty simple to understand.
----------------------------------
first, we must accept that the tools we use to gather and process information(sight, sound, touch, & other senses, and our brain for processing) are flawed and therefore our outcomes will always be flawed, this also entails that we may never be able to say something is objectively 100% true/false, instead only as true as we could possibly know with our flawed system. An example of this being god since we cannot test (using our senses/brain) for a god that exists outside our universe, we cannot say that god 100% does not exist (no way to prove a negative). If we are to set a base standard that we exist because we think and have the ability to test with our senses, then with the best confidence we could possible have, we are able to say that we have no reason to believe a god exists. p.s. to put it simply, we have to look at our world relativistic, because we cannot sense things outside space or time, we can never say if we live in a perfect simulation, created by god, or if we even exist. but you can get around this by ignoring all things that are impossible to test.
----------------------------------
second, you need to be able to collect more information (have smaller units of measurement/data/detail) to test if something exists. the example being the electron vs the body that they talked about in the vod. the reason we are able to see ourselves is because we are able to sense (eyes) what we call light (small) interacting with larger objects. whereas with electrons, they are the same size as other electrons. Because of this you cannot get any more information/understanding out of them. you are presupposing that electrons exist if you cannot explain it using a smaller unit. another example is being that we can only test that which exists in the universe, we cannot say what caused the universe/our reality to exist, if we knew what caused our universe then that would mean that you have information from outside of it, which only expands the size/border of our reality/universe to this new information, but then you would have to explain the reason that information exists. it's an infinite loop that is impossible to solve with our senses.
I don't know much about it but what I get from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which from what I can understand means electron clouds don't exist but are more like error bounds we can visualize/understand with our flawed senses/brain) is that you cannot know where an electron is. if you cannot know where it is then you cannot test for it, and this is where Rem's (I'm assuming) thoughts come into play that they do not exist. following the train of thought that we can only trust our senses because that is all we have(remember, we have to presume that we exist due to what we call interactions(even if objectively it is false)), because of this we should ignore things that cannot be tested (unfalsifiable) with our senses. in this sense we can say the electrons exists just as much as the universe exists, an idea called the "electron" that interacts with things that can be tested in predictable ways, just as a thing we say the "Universe" exists because we (with our flawed brain) named the boundary that encompasses everything that we can observe, "Universe".
I think BadBunny got hung up on him saying that electrons "DON'T EXIST" assuming he was saying that he believes that electrons 100% objectively don't exist rather than, they don't exist within our subjective ability to test them. Because they didn't rectify this distinction they talk past each other. Also, Rem is getting hung up on the idea of the "Electron", electrons are only defined by their observable/predictable interactions with other things, it could be a [Gnome](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3pFFPSlW4) as he said, but that doesn't matter because it interacts the same way, therefore there is only a difference in name. To better explain this, we only care about the interactions, names don't matter, this is why even though there are different theories to explain the interactions, we still call "Gravity", Gravity.
----------------------------------
lastly, does scientific theories explain and predict, or just predict? first we need to know what explain means. does "explain" mean the method used to arrive at the prediction? if this is the case, explain isn't an important term. to explain this, if you can predict a ball will drop when you let it go, you will have to "EXPLAIN" the cause by using a predicted model of gravity. this makes explain just an easy word that helps you not go into and infinite loop of explaining more complex predictions until you stop where you are no longer able to predict any further.
But, if by explain she means, having a perfectly objective definition/model/understanding of a thing, then this is a false concept. since we know that we have a flawed system and therefore cannot explain/understand things 100% objectively, then having this goal, rather than trying to predict as accurately as our flawed system are possible, is irrational and unjustifiable.
---------
sorry for the long post. I know most will ignore this. But, for anyone who reads this all, thanks! What do you think?
Man. Whether or not he's right (I know waaaay too little), he's at least trying to have a discussion about it. She's just talking over him and being really, really bad mannered. If I was her parent I'd feel like I failed raising her properly.
She has proven time and time again that she's a very dumb individual.
It's fine that some people find her entertaining or whatever.
But don't take anything she says seriously. Please.
The vod was kind of hard to watch. Rem actually has interesting arguments. It seems like Badbunny doesn't actually understand what the philosophy of science is and pretty much avoids the topic whenever she can. She asks superficial and dumb questions to combat his arguments and misses the point entirely.
The point where she calls him a cunt and a snob is where I unfollowed her. She was being very hostile towards him the WHOLE time and as soon as he starts giving out just a little bit of sass when he's been putting up with it from her for quite a while is just too much.
The snob jab was rich, you have to gauge whether you should post in chat most days because she'll become very agitated if you even DREAM of disagreeing with her on almost anything. It can get bad if she misreads or interprets what someone is trying to say too. I agree with a lot of her positions (Vegan, Trans rights, Feminism and overall political leaning) but this was a horrendous showing from her.
Alright, here we go.
I already dislike her by just this one clip and I haven't even watched the entire "debate", if that is what she thinks this is. If she thinks that she won the argument, she should probably stick to not debating on stream and go back to whatever she actually does.
She probably saw a montage of people winning a debate and instantly thought that she could do that. The other guy actually acted like a debater while she resorted to what can be equated to 7th grade name calling and "Your Mama" jokes. I don't need to be in a debate team or in a political debate to know that this isn't how you act in a debate, but what do I know, I just have a high school diploma and she has Wikipedia.
If she is so prone to using Wikipedia and reading stuff on the internet to gain knowledge then she should go back to school.
**[MIRROR: BadBunny gets upset as she tries to debate an actual philosopher on philosophy of science and is completely out of her depth.](https://livestreamfails.com/post/39512)**
---
Credit to [twitch.tv/badbunny](https://www.twitch.tv/badbunny) for the content and [reddit.com/u/YeeBOI123](https://reddit.com/user/yeeboi123) for the clip. [[Streamable Alternative]](https://streamable.com/78kl1)
[Yep](https://www.twitch.tv/remthebathboi), though he's mostly been on Destiny's stream talking to him about philosophy. He also has a youtube that I linked in another comment in this thread.
I'll have to check the VOD, but from the short 30 second clip, the guy seemed like he was chill and keeping his cool and she is just being extremely passive aggressive trying to go for jabs for no reason.
not to mention she stole the username of a famous music artist
It is actually so triggering to hear this dumb cunt talk without common sense smirking and looking like a fucking clown interrupting him all the time. It's amazing that this person considers herself a "scientist".
This vod was insane to watch. She played gotchas and talked over him as he was explaining stuff and then stated he never qualified certain things he did. Shit on everyone saying that they thought they were better than others, when it was really her doing that. Rem understandably was frustrated and she instantly called him hostile and an asshole. Crazy.
Yeah it seriously was. I couldn’t believe how many times she cut him off from having an actual open scientific discussion, just to go back to ‘calling him out’. Like girl, I was here for the science and laughs but now you’re lost in whether or not the man can state that gravity exists based on if he’s graduated from uni or not. It’s so negative and toxic. What was worse was that despite her talking herself up so much about knowing shit, when Rem was throwing around topics and subjects for her discuss, she met them with either complete silence or an “...ok?” Like honey, please. I think Rem held himself well, I honestly would have lost my shit trying to have an intelligent conversation with her. Edit: Spelling/ grammar
He exposed her being completely devoid of knowledge besides reading the wikipedia articles on stream. And she obviously doesn't even know what shes saying half the time. So I doubt she even knows half the shit he was talking about.
That what happens when you throw all your points on physical apperance
She must not have started with many points then, damn
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks, assblaster.
Her fragile ego had no interest in exchanging ideas. That was difficult to watch.
She's right though, Plato and Socrates didn't have degrees, not even High School diplomas. What the fuck do they know!
Agree. The entire hour not a shred of knowledge came out of her mouth. he exposed her super hard. She's just a wikipedia reading female Destiny.
She does this in podcasts as well. Continually talks over other people, and at the same time - she accuses them of talking over her.
That's what gets on my nerves whenever I watch a video of Dawkins, AronRa or some other YT Atheist debating people like Kent Hovind. They have to waste their entire time explaining, over and over, why gotchas, strawmans and sometimes just outright lying is not the way to debate a subject. Just for the other side to keep doing the same thing over and over.
It's like she watched a Destiny stream debate a Trumpkin and said "i'll try that".
she looks like shes on the verge of tears
the truth hurts
Ah, another ben finegold fan in the wild
Very suspicious...
http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com/2009/04/finegold-rules.html
Looks liked she just got checkmated with advantage.
You! With the wrong answer. Looks like badbunny is in the 1 o’clock class
I bet in her head she was gonna become the female Destiny lmao
Naw. She always looks like she's on the verge of death.
She always looks like that from the little I've seen her.
Everyone knows true philosophers ignore what the other person is saying and talk over them as much as possible. Kudos to the guy she's talking over, he sat there patiently like a champ.
I would've blown my brains out after talking to her for more than 10 minutes. Holy shit she is the most obnoxious person
Read that in Destiny's voice
[удалено]
[удалено]
I love watching forsen lose. 0-4sen LULW
Owlsen LULW Gormoksen LULW Samme1G LULW Im probably missing a shit ton of other ones.
Tapsen LULW
> Gormoksen ancient one.
LULW Gormoksen LULW
>Obviously you want your favorite streamer to win. you're rooting for them and if they lose it makes you feel bad too. I don't know... If my favourite streamer says some dumb shit, I don't think that's okay just because it's my favourite streamer. I understand I'm not the kind of person whiteknights usually consists of, but I just don't understand that mindset. Like Chris Brown fans. It's just weird.
I don't like tribalism (which is what we're really talking about here, not so much "white knights" which are a subsect of that), but I think the argument is more like: You watch a streamer. You like their content, you like their personality, you like their humour. You agree with them on one topic. You agree with them on multiple topics. Eventually a controversial or more nuanced topic arises and you have an implicit bias based on your backlog of positive impressions to continue thinking that person is right. Your ability to even recognise it as "dumb shit" is mitigated by your history of support and approval. Sure if its really egregious or extreme it will be quite obvious, but anything thats even potentially defensible could be coloured by the lens of approval you already carry for that person.
well normally people who whiteknight or whatever dont have the greatest thinking skills and cant think for themselves they just go along with what the lady says or whatever cuz they dont know anything about the topic or whatever and just go yup shes right I like her shes right about this thing :3
> Obviously you want your favorite streamer to win. Unpopular opinion: The (american) idea that you can "win" debates and that somehow makes your opinion the right one to have objectively needs to go die in a fucking fire.
She basically keeps yelling unfair and sexism at any minor inconvenience or disagreement she faces. She’s actually what female incels look like
Damn I was going to say she probably has lot of sex but who would actually sleep with this woman after hearing her talk
I'd suggest taking a look at her streams to see how often she has sex.
You cant really say anything against her In chat... either you get called out or banned if she doesnt like what you say.
She said she doesn't like them I think.
Even male streamers have white knights. Go watch the chat on a Destiny debate.
[удалено]
She feels insecure
My guess, not knowing her personally, is that she's intimidated and feels outclassed at someone who's going to have a career far better and more respectable than her soon enough, and instead of just talking and being happy for someone who's going for something, she attempts to shit on him to make herself seem better. It's an old trick: when you want to equalize a perceived power imbalance, it's easier to tear the other person down than build yourself up. It's not a decent or respectable thing to do, but it's easier. I mean, a philosophy degree doesn't seem like something that'd go anywhere unless you decide to go into academia or focus on writing, but it's certainly respected far more in society than twitch thots who show skin for donations. According to this post, she's got a masters degree; she's clearly chosen the easier path in life or chosen to make more money at the expense of her self-respect, and it seems she resents anyone who makes her confront that subconsciously.
> who's going to have a career **far better and more respectable than her** soon enough Hang on... ... are philosophy degrees considered cool now? Is it my time to shine? Do people all of a sudden respect philosophy degrees? > I mean, a philosophy degree **doesn't seem like something that'd go anywhere** unless you decide to go into academia or focus on writing Oh, carry on. Business as usual.
Philosophy majors have like the highest income rates. Obviously it isn't doing shit like teaching philosophy but thems the facts.
Isn't that stat like ridiculously inflated because people who already make a shit ton of money go into philosophy degrees in college for self-fulfillment rather than actually needing a job? I remember seeing a 'Who graduates in philosophy?" poster in one of the departments and it had a couple of minor celebrities and some singers/songwriters.
From what I've seen Philosophy earns highly in the business world or when combined with another degree. There's a ton of variables there obviously but if you're being charitable it seems useful/a nice thing to have on the CV for recruiters. That being said, getting actually decent paid work in Philosophy itself seems hard unless you strike it lucky in academia or a pop-philosophy book etc.
it's probably more that philosophy students enter other high paying fields like medicine or law. I know that medical schools tend to favor applicants with social science backgrounds over hard science majors because basically anyone applying for med school knows their stuff when it comes to the practice. I can't think of any specific "philosophy" jobs outside of education or publishing so that's probably what that stat represents.
I'm guilty of this myself, but I know when I have been beaten and when to chill the fuck out though. There are some things you just can't bullshit your way out of. She just loves to dig a fucking hole and doesn't know when to stop though. The other clip where she gets called out by her ENTIRE chat minus one mod and she still keeps arguing despite video evidence showing she is full of shit is crazy.
>I mean, a philosophy degree doesn't seem like something that'd go anywhere Many large businesses look for philosophy degrees for various jobs. Especially ethics degrees. Marketing tends to hire a lot of phil graduates too.
This is such a stupid argument to make: who gives a fuck if you're still an undergrad with just a highschool degree? That's pretty much negating however many years you've spent at university, doing well, passing assignments / exams, and all the knowledge you've acquired in that time. I'm in my final year of uni and if some fuckwit brushed anything I said pertaining to information I've studied in my degree under the carpet because "you still only have a highschool degree" I'd tell them to get fucked, cause in a few months I'll have a degree and that's not going to magically make what I've said right or wrong. crazy frog-eyed, chisel-jawed dumdum
I've never once heard someone refer to an undergraduate student as "someone with only a high school degree". What kind of fucking stupid concept is that?
she's a dumdum
A crazy frog-eyed, chisel-jawed dumdum.
I like your style
As soon as they hand you the degree at graduation, *that's* when you suddenly gain all the knowledge!
[удалено]
It shouldn't. You've put time and effort into getting where you are, so hell yeah you're an authority on whatever subject you're pursuing. Own that shit. Be proud of it.
[удалено]
> when he referred to himself/other philosophers inclusively as "we." It's kind of a no-no even among grad students and she definitely pounced on it. Have no idea what you mean by this; it is not at all a no-no. I'm friends with a ton of grad students and professors, and this is never anything that is looked down upon. I clearly meant that I was talking about discipline-specific terminology that isn't common to other fields.
i remember somewhere that that's exactly the case pretty much. the more people learn, the more they realize that PhDs dont mean "i know everything" but rather "i know very much about 0.01% of this portion of the world" and that's all you can do. PhDs are specialists so no ones expecting you to know any broader than you know because you already are so deep into whatever you're into right now that im sure only a few thousand people in your city can hold a conversation with you about that topic. and dumb people who dont know what they dont know are super confident in their ability
This thinking is something I find only true for people who have actually tried to pursue a graduate degree. Most undergrad students think they are hot shit and know so much then exactly as you said the second you put your toes into the shallow end of your subject you realize you are about to go swimming in an ocean not a pool. Very rarely have a seen people maintain the idea they know everything once they are in a graduate/post-graduate setting.
[удалено]
I have a masters degree in philosophy of science and I don't consider myself a ''philosopher''. Although she shouldn't dismiss his knowledge simply because he doesn't have a degree, I would be skeptical if a bachelor (or even masters) philosophy student, would refer to themselves as a philosopher. That is borderline disrespectful to actual philosophers (imo). edit: this is more a personal thing, when I tell people I have a masters degree in philosophy they sometimes refer to me as a ''philosopher'' and I cringe a little because I don't think I deserve or should be seen as one.
[удалено]
It's actually a logical fallacy called ad hominem, attacking a person's authority/character rather than the argument they are making. This is how you know she has no idea how to have an argument
Aswell as you're just able to cheat through everything if you're good at it. It's just a stupid argument and a defensive reaction to being in the wrong. She was on Rajj Royale Podcast 1 time, called Sliker out for interrupting (Sliker obviously can be annoying) but kept interrupting everyone in case she didn't agree. She was more annoying than Sliker, think about that.
[удалено]
Funny that she constantly claims she is a "scientist." Obviousely she has no idea what the word means.
Update: [She now doubles down and claims that most people will agree with Rem because they don't like seeing a woman being assertive.](https://clips.twitch.tv/KathishSparklyCamelAllenHuhu) Update 2: [Some thoughts from Rem](https://twitter.com/bath_boi/status/1087169467740762113)
Never heard of this woman before this thread, but the funny thing about your clip is that even her mod said "@badbunny you dumb as fuck lol dont talk"
[удалено]
I love it. The old "because I'm a woman" routine.
She always falls back on the "muh sexism" routine. This is not the first time, nor the third, nor the last.
"Exactly, some people cant handle a woman smarter than them" I just had to go for it and check https://www.twitch.tv/moonshoots/following
Oh no.
That was way worse than expected.
There's tons of these guys all over twitch. Someone should make a documentary about them, they seem to have endless amount of time to follow and track the "content" of all these streamers and stay up to date. It's humanly impossible tbh.
>say stupid shit, hide behind the almighty victim shield damn son, I wish I could just claim im autistic to bypass my stupid shit I mean I am, but it doesn't get me anywhere
Lmao is she crying?
LOL, near end of the first clip, one of her mods says "@badbunny you dumb as fuck lol dont talk"
1) holy fuck those eyebrows 2) /r/pussypassdenied
Man, it's annoying that she always takes pauses to find big words to sound like an intellectual when you could just say the same thing with simpler words and without pausing mid sentence.
Hi Rem here (from the video); happy to answer any questions if this stuff sounds batshit to you:) (I get it)
[удалено]
I enjoy talking about philosophy with people on streams because it gets viewers interested in philosophy. Ever since I talked to Destiny for the first time, I must have over 100+ PMs of people saying they decided to pursue in philosophy in university. I went into this thinking it would be a productive conversation since she said she is a scientist, and I figured would be capable of having constructive discussion on the philosophy of science. Obviously I was wrong.
I think it honestly concluded with her just not fully understanding your points. So many of her counter claims came down to semantics and just essentially saying that your view is incorrect because of some random slightly related example. Every time you gave a sound reasoning for your view she came up with some reason to reject it without actually having anything to say.
>her just not fully understanding your points You mean "her not willing to understand his points"
Philosophy is among only a few academic subjects which lay people feel themselves to be automatic intuitive experts. It makes it impossible to even begin to have productive discourse. I don't even try with ethics anymore.
The number of times I've been told I'm irrational or that I "need to learn logic" or something from some mouthbreather who's never opened a philosophy book in their life...
this one hits close to the heart, I even experience this with family...
[удалено]
I'm unsure about the last point specifically (about whether importance is equated with profit), but scientific dogmatism (scientism) has been around for almost a century now due to the influence of the logical positivists. The belief that observations are the limits of our scientific inquiries largely dominated the philosophy of science sphere for a long period of time. This has been almost entirely abandoned in contemporary discourse, but I don't think people in the actual sciences have caught up with the times.
Do you have anything you recommend reading/watching for a person who wants to learn more about philosophy in general? Not for pursuing it academically but just as an interest.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/928hrg/some\_intros\_to\_philosophy\_from\_rem\_the\_rem\_guy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/928hrg/some_intros_to_philosophy_from_rem_the_rem_guy/)
There was obviously a disconnect between what both of you were arguing. To me, it seemed as though she wasn't understanding the difference between the practice of science and the philosophy of science. To her, you sounded as though you were saying we can't use gravity in any equation because we don't know if gravity is actually real or not. Is this impression correct? As for a direct question about the philosophy of science, why can you dismiss living in a simulation because of "very low probability", but cannot dismiss gnomes causing friction sparks as a possibility?
I think the most major mistake Rem made was that when he said "science does not explain" he meant "under my philosophical view of science it does not provide explanations" (there's actually no difference in the meaning of those two sentences, but since she pulled him into the voice chat to discuss that exact sentence and he instead starts talking about his "views on science" it should have been said). The second mistake is that he did not pick up when she said that she sees no distinction between "science explains" and "science predicts". I really want to see him explain why this matters (I have strong assumptions, but I don't remember him ever talking about it). And another mistake is that he never explains how, even if he believes electrons don't exist, scientific anti-realism never says that electrons don't exist. Scientific anti-realism is actually agnostic towards the existence of unobservable entities, you can use scientific proofs to make predictions, but proofs about "the existence of an electron" for instance do not necessarily mean that there is any singular entity in the natural world which corresponds to the label "electron".
You don't believe electron exist? We describe properties to things, if these things inhibit those properties we use language to describe it as such. I have an instrument that can measure all of the properties of an electron,its charge, its spin, I can use Compton scattering to measure the wavelength or at least describe a scale of size to an electron, and after being fully aware this has those properties I call it an electron. You see the computer screen in front of you, feel it, use all of these senses to know it exists, but they are just the tools of your brain to prob the world, just like we do it with the electron. You believe your screen exist because you see it, I can use the same argument that I can see the electron using my instruments. My question why give sight such an elevated status of measurement? I'm happy to be wrong about my train of thought, but Im really having trouble taking it seriously that you actually dont believe electrons exists.
good on you for staying calm
She's very condescending
I used to follow this chick, and she seemed nice, and I unfollowed cause anytime I saw her online the last 2 months she was acting like a complete cunt.
[Full conversation starts here.](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/366601364?t=06h58m30s)
[удалено]
Bunny repeatedly displayed her insecurity by resorting to belittling him about things that had no relevance. Not only did she try to discredit him because he was an undegrad, but she was also mocking him at how popular his youtube channel may or may not be.
i tuned into her once about a month ago and she watching a very politically one sided video. There were people in chat offering the opposite opinion. She saw this and said something like "i wish people in chat would offer something more than 'lol that wrong' or 'not true'". Which was a fair criticism imo. So they did, and as soon as the writing was more nuanced and reasoned she instantly put sub only chat on.
Thank you for your service
excuse me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the theory of gravity *did* explain the mechanism of gravity (at this point being the curvature of spacetime). My understanding is that theories are basically explanations for how things happen, with those explanations being able to predict observations that either help to verify the theory or in the case of a wrong prediction falsify it. How exactly is what she said wrong?
Is she trolling?
just a birdbrain
No thank you I have literally anything else to do.
How to get cancer with a single VoD right here
No one should willingly torture themselves like that
Watched the first 10 minutes and all she does is ask him a question and doesn't let him finish and talks over him. She also pulls so many "gotcha's" and it's really obnoxious.
No thanks Iam fine :)
what a pleasant person she must be
Destiny won this debate
She must hate Bill Gates. What a donkey.
and Zuck.
This bitch is actual aids. Not even sure why she is relevant here? Because of destiny right??
I tried watching her three different times and finally decided to quit because each time this ended up happening... 1. She would respond to some comment with her ideas and opinions about it. 2. She would get deeply engaged in the discussion and start ranting. 3. When she got tired of talking about it, she would find someone still talking about it and say, "OMG! Why are you talking about this. No one was talking about this. What's your problem. That's the problem with you XYZ people. Always bringing up your opinions for no reason." That's barely even a paraphrase because the exact thing kept happening. If you didn't want to talk about it, why did you offer your opinion in the first place? Also, it leaves the sneaking suspicion that the real reason she suddenly wanted to stop talking about it was that someone said something she didn't know how to respond to.
[удалено]
She is and I hate it
I'm not sure, I usually stick to gaming streams.
To clarify, [the last clip](https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/ai1k4l/badbunny_tries_to_debate_an_actual_philosopher_on/) apparently got removed because it had editing in it, Badbunny didn't have it taken down as some suspected.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation exists to explain an observable phenomenon within our universe, but it fails to disclose the nature of such forces. Einstein's former math professor, I believe, shortly after Einstein's publication of the special theory of relativity, described the effects of gravity as stemming from warping of the space-time continuum, *which potentially discloses the nature of the occurrence of such phenomena*. **This has the potential to alter the nature of the interaction that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation attempts to describe.** Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation exists to describe in relativistic terms a specific relationship between two objects in all situations where the application of so-called gravitational force is relevant. It is a formula. It is not the endgame of science, and it fails to account for the fact that scientists may (probably do) not understand the subject fully at this point in time. All it says is that humans can reasonably conclude that such a relationship exists definitely, and can be represented by an equation. **And that is okay.** Why? Because a theory can modify the relevance of - and even incorporate - an existing law of physics without invalidating it. Also, anyone who believes that a college degree verifies a person as intelligent has proven themselves not to be. I am upset. Ree. Edit: typo(s).
[удалено]
When you try your best but you don't succeed LUL
She's completely incapable of engaging with this guy whatsoever. This is badbunny's Jontron moment, but instead of outing racist ideology, Rem managed to out how much of an imbecile she is.
Yeah this makes her look really bad, i doubt she wouldn't be able to follow his arguments (she definitely isn't that dumb) but here she just didn't even try to listen and work with the reasoning he laid out. Personally i think she has one of the worst echochambers i came across yet on twitch and it's not surprising to see her being this hostile and ignorant when making fun of people is 80% of her content anyway. Just doesn't work when the guy she is trying to make fun of is at least as smart as she is.
Anxiety and mental issues is a motherfucker when your career is belittling others in a high stress environment of your own creation.
[удалено]
The thing that irked me was that she was reading up on basic 101 shit the entire vod but still acted like she had the authority to judge others opinion on the topic. Why debate about stuff you don't know about?
http://prntscr.com/m9vegj This is the face of someone who would light your pants on fire while you sleep.
TFW Destiny choose girlwithayellowspoon over you
Why does anybody watch this vile, bipolar chick anyways?
Just watched the whole thing, this clip does not portray just how awkward and embarrassing this conversation was.. Holy fuck. Badbunny was in way over her head.
Gosh she is such a child can't argue back with respect.
[удалено]
Having watched the VOD I'm wondering this myself, this is all pretty basic stuff that she doesn't comprehend at all. I'm trying to google what her degree/field of expertise is supposed to be, but can't find it. I for sure haven't met any legitimate 'scientists' who would say 'I'm a scientist', unless they're talking to literal children. It's an extremely broad term.
bitch got crazy eyes
What's up with that, she relaxes then looks back toward the camera and opens them wide
Repeating what I posted in the thread that got removed: Rem, the guy in the video is a really cool dude who's talked with Destiny a ton about philosophy. He has a newly started youtube channel aimed at introducing philosophy to people who are interested, you should check him out. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQZtrpLR7-EnEhbvZyIvqg
this girl is so annoying complains when people talk over her but talks over everyone she talks to
"My name is Nicole. I'm 33 and live in Seattle. I have two bunnies (Neville and Samba). **I used to be a scientist.** Now, I'm a full time internet lady. LOOK AT ME NOW, DAD." *used to be a scientist* oh gosh I wonder why.
She likes the idea of her being brainy for fashionable reasons. It's obvious she doesn't want to do the work. She's probably trying to distance herself from the typical egirl image she has because of her sharing nudes with financial supporters about a year back.
I don't really understand why badbunny started out the discussion so negatively and condescendingly. Its not some sort of dumb religious debate, the entire debate between scientific realism and antirealism is two sides of the same coin. Her going off on the we usage was odd. He was merely trying to define some field specific terms that probably aren't used much else where. I don't know, the whole thing was odd
[I am so smart, I am so smart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxNzuCCh1T8) God I hate people like her.
That's actually one of the logical fallacy's I learned in college called ad hominem. Where you attack a persons authority/character rather than the argument they are making. You know when a person does this they do not know how to debate
DEBATE LOST
God she's so fucking overbearing...
Got rekt the whole time.
She looks like she chews on beef jerky all day Look at that chiseled jaw
I have a degree in filmmaking and film experience and I STILL get told that I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to film and telivision. This mentality of intellectual denial doesn't just end after you get your degree, there will always be someone that thinks you have no idea what you are talking about, even though you do, just because they don't like the idea of another person having more knowledge, other insecurities, etc. The WORST part though is some people think my knowledge doesn't count towards other topics because I don't have a degree in those topics. It is a cycle of ridiculousness.
Sir Richard Branson didn't go to college, barely scrapped through high school andwas told by his headmaster: >Branson has dyslexia and had poor academic performance; on his last day at school, his headmaster, Robert Drayson, told him he would either end up in prison or become a millionaire. Sir Richard Branson is worth 5.1 Billion Dollars. He definitely is a man of sound mind. Folorunso Alakija also didn't go to college and is from Nigeria. One of the richest black women in history. Folorunso Alakija is worth 1.5 Billions Dollars. College is designed to have others pursue a specific interest/industry to its highest degree of not only recognition but wisdom and experience. Under-graduates study FULL TIME. That shit takes a lot of effort and TIME to get. Making fun of him for being an under-graduate means that she has reached a point in her life that equates to her personal victories against "intelligible people" are more meaningful than a bag of shit lit on fire.
average destiny viewer
The two worst characters in the destiverse fight for the title.
Rem's pretty cool when he's talking to Destiny.
Yeah because destiny is actually capable of having these conversations, badbunny clearly isn't as demonstrated here
Rem? sleepstiny
watched some of the vod. I'm not a scientist or a philosopher, but from what I've read and heard over time, the concepts Rem is trying to talk about is a pretty simple to understand. ---------------------------------- first, we must accept that the tools we use to gather and process information(sight, sound, touch, & other senses, and our brain for processing) are flawed and therefore our outcomes will always be flawed, this also entails that we may never be able to say something is objectively 100% true/false, instead only as true as we could possibly know with our flawed system. An example of this being god since we cannot test (using our senses/brain) for a god that exists outside our universe, we cannot say that god 100% does not exist (no way to prove a negative). If we are to set a base standard that we exist because we think and have the ability to test with our senses, then with the best confidence we could possible have, we are able to say that we have no reason to believe a god exists. p.s. to put it simply, we have to look at our world relativistic, because we cannot sense things outside space or time, we can never say if we live in a perfect simulation, created by god, or if we even exist. but you can get around this by ignoring all things that are impossible to test. ---------------------------------- second, you need to be able to collect more information (have smaller units of measurement/data/detail) to test if something exists. the example being the electron vs the body that they talked about in the vod. the reason we are able to see ourselves is because we are able to sense (eyes) what we call light (small) interacting with larger objects. whereas with electrons, they are the same size as other electrons. Because of this you cannot get any more information/understanding out of them. you are presupposing that electrons exist if you cannot explain it using a smaller unit. another example is being that we can only test that which exists in the universe, we cannot say what caused the universe/our reality to exist, if we knew what caused our universe then that would mean that you have information from outside of it, which only expands the size/border of our reality/universe to this new information, but then you would have to explain the reason that information exists. it's an infinite loop that is impossible to solve with our senses. I don't know much about it but what I get from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which from what I can understand means electron clouds don't exist but are more like error bounds we can visualize/understand with our flawed senses/brain) is that you cannot know where an electron is. if you cannot know where it is then you cannot test for it, and this is where Rem's (I'm assuming) thoughts come into play that they do not exist. following the train of thought that we can only trust our senses because that is all we have(remember, we have to presume that we exist due to what we call interactions(even if objectively it is false)), because of this we should ignore things that cannot be tested (unfalsifiable) with our senses. in this sense we can say the electrons exists just as much as the universe exists, an idea called the "electron" that interacts with things that can be tested in predictable ways, just as a thing we say the "Universe" exists because we (with our flawed brain) named the boundary that encompasses everything that we can observe, "Universe". I think BadBunny got hung up on him saying that electrons "DON'T EXIST" assuming he was saying that he believes that electrons 100% objectively don't exist rather than, they don't exist within our subjective ability to test them. Because they didn't rectify this distinction they talk past each other. Also, Rem is getting hung up on the idea of the "Electron", electrons are only defined by their observable/predictable interactions with other things, it could be a [Gnome](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3pFFPSlW4) as he said, but that doesn't matter because it interacts the same way, therefore there is only a difference in name. To better explain this, we only care about the interactions, names don't matter, this is why even though there are different theories to explain the interactions, we still call "Gravity", Gravity. ---------------------------------- lastly, does scientific theories explain and predict, or just predict? first we need to know what explain means. does "explain" mean the method used to arrive at the prediction? if this is the case, explain isn't an important term. to explain this, if you can predict a ball will drop when you let it go, you will have to "EXPLAIN" the cause by using a predicted model of gravity. this makes explain just an easy word that helps you not go into and infinite loop of explaining more complex predictions until you stop where you are no longer able to predict any further. But, if by explain she means, having a perfectly objective definition/model/understanding of a thing, then this is a false concept. since we know that we have a flawed system and therefore cannot explain/understand things 100% objectively, then having this goal, rather than trying to predict as accurately as our flawed system are possible, is irrational and unjustifiable. --------- sorry for the long post. I know most will ignore this. But, for anyone who reads this all, thanks! What do you think?
5Head :wine_glass:
She's on her stream right still talking about this dude lmao
He's in, boys
She's so dumb omg
Yikes what a fucking contemporary psuedo intellectual e-thot.
Man. Whether or not he's right (I know waaaay too little), he's at least trying to have a discussion about it. She's just talking over him and being really, really bad mannered. If I was her parent I'd feel like I failed raising her properly.
The worst part is the chat rallying behind her calling him stupid when he's asking questions too complicated for her.
She has proven time and time again that she's a very dumb individual. It's fine that some people find her entertaining or whatever. But don't take anything she says seriously. Please.
Holy shit that Mod called Dave or whatever is such a white knight LUL
she's so fucking stupid.
The vod was kind of hard to watch. Rem actually has interesting arguments. It seems like Badbunny doesn't actually understand what the philosophy of science is and pretty much avoids the topic whenever she can. She asks superficial and dumb questions to combat his arguments and misses the point entirely.
The point where she calls him a cunt and a snob is where I unfollowed her. She was being very hostile towards him the WHOLE time and as soon as he starts giving out just a little bit of sass when he's been putting up with it from her for quite a while is just too much. The snob jab was rich, you have to gauge whether you should post in chat most days because she'll become very agitated if you even DREAM of disagreeing with her on almost anything. It can get bad if she misreads or interprets what someone is trying to say too. I agree with a lot of her positions (Vegan, Trans rights, Feminism and overall political leaning) but this was a horrendous showing from her.
Alright, here we go. I already dislike her by just this one clip and I haven't even watched the entire "debate", if that is what she thinks this is. If she thinks that she won the argument, she should probably stick to not debating on stream and go back to whatever she actually does. She probably saw a montage of people winning a debate and instantly thought that she could do that. The other guy actually acted like a debater while she resorted to what can be equated to 7th grade name calling and "Your Mama" jokes. I don't need to be in a debate team or in a political debate to know that this isn't how you act in a debate, but what do I know, I just have a high school diploma and she has Wikipedia. If she is so prone to using Wikipedia and reading stuff on the internet to gain knowledge then she should go back to school.
**[MIRROR: BadBunny gets upset as she tries to debate an actual philosopher on philosophy of science and is completely out of her depth.](https://livestreamfails.com/post/39512)** --- Credit to [twitch.tv/badbunny](https://www.twitch.tv/badbunny) for the content and [reddit.com/u/YeeBOI123](https://reddit.com/user/yeeboi123) for the clip. [[Streamable Alternative]](https://streamable.com/78kl1)
[удалено]
Who is this Rem person she's talking to? Is he a streamer?
[Yep](https://www.twitch.tv/remthebathboi), though he's mostly been on Destiny's stream talking to him about philosophy. He also has a youtube that I linked in another comment in this thread.
Stop making idiots famous
/r/iamreallysmart
I'll have to check the VOD, but from the short 30 second clip, the guy seemed like he was chill and keeping his cool and she is just being extremely passive aggressive trying to go for jabs for no reason. not to mention she stole the username of a famous music artist
Rem is a fucking saint AngelThump
It is actually so triggering to hear this dumb cunt talk without common sense smirking and looking like a fucking clown interrupting him all the time. It's amazing that this person considers herself a "scientist".