Opinion Zuby's "20 Things I've Learned About Humanity During The Pandemic"

[BIKES!]

I didn’t accept it at all. That is you deciding I was. I came in and saw that you pulled a tonni and called you out in it. You’re can’t discredit him based on arbitrary criteria that he isn’t an expert, while refusing to cite other experts or a criteria that you would concede to

My colleague just said he’s so hungry he could crush two burgers. He’s not a credible source on world hunger or the meat packing industry so I dismissed his hunger pains.

 

[panamaican]

Poorer thinkers, haha. Large coming from you.

I could give two fucks who said those words in the Op. There is truth to nearly all of it. I know partisan low IQ wannabe intellectuals need a “credible” source. Credible as in a group-think circle jerk kind of way.

That's brilliant. You don't need credible sources because that's a group think circle jerk. Well, it certainly explains a lot.

If it agrees with what you already think then there's truth to it and if it doesn't agree with what you already think, there's no truth to it. Of course, the question of "How do I know there's truth to it?" isn't something you're going to ask. You're assigning truth because you agree with something, not because it's necessarily true.

I mock this type of thinking everywhere that I see it.

 

[BIKES!]

That's brilliant. You don't need credible sources because that's a group think circle jerk. Well, it certainly explains a lot.

If it agrees with what you already think then there's truth to it and if it doesn't agree with what you already think, there's no truth to it. Of course, the question of "How do I know there's truth to it?" isn't something you're going to ask. You're assigning truth because you agree with something, not because it's necessarily true.

I mock this type of thinking everywhere that I see it.

This type of thinking? As in people that read the words in the OP that provoked thought? Those people that considered the opinion rather than immediately looked for a credible source on a generic statement?

Yeah, shame on me for ignoring race and the background of the person stating a broad brush opinion that was void of anything that could be objectively disproven.

 

[panamaican]

I didn’t accept it at all. That is you deciding I was. I came in and saw that you pulled a tonni and called you out in it. You’re can’t discredit him based on arbitrary criteria that he isn’t an expert, while refusing to cite other experts or a criteria that you would concede to

I didn't discredit him based on arbitrary critieria. I pointed out that he was granted credibility on arbitrary criteria. No one starts with credibility, it has to be earned.

I'm pointed out that this individual has not earned any credibility. Rather than look closely at the source material, you've questioned why I have not assigned this person credibility. I don't assign him credibility because there's no reason to. It's a random rapper's opinion. If you want me to treat him as credible then give me a reason. Don't expect me to simply accept what he is saying without a reason.

I asked you what is his credibility and your response is that he doesn't need any credibility. Okay, if he doesn't need credibility then why does it matter what he's saying? Should I simply pick random tweets and assign them value out of thin air?

Let me put this to the test:

I say "Why does LBJ have any credibility on this subject? He's just a basketball player." Are you going to say he doesn't need credibility, he has 49 MILLION followers and has a podcast?

To me, neither Zuby nor LBJ have any credibility on these subjects, they have opinions. I see no reason debate Zuby or LBJ's opinion on these things. Your argument (and the argument of others) is that neither of these people need to be credible on the subjects they're talking about.

 

[BIKES!]

I didn't discredit him based on arbitrary critieria. I pointed out that he was granted credibility on arbitrary criteria. No one starts with credibility, it has to be earned.

I'm pointed out that this individual has not earned any credibility. Rather than look closely at the source material, you've questioned why I have not assigned this person credibility. I don't assign him credibility because there's no reason to. It's a random rapper's opinion. If you want me to treat him as credible then give me a reason. Don't expect me to simply accept what he is saying without a reason.

I asked you what is his credibility and your response is that he doesn't need any credibility. Okay, if he doesn't need credibility then why does it matter what he's saying? Should I simply pick random tweets and assign them value out of thin air?

Let me put this to the test:

I say "Why does LBJ have any credibility on this subject? He's just a basketball player." Are you going to say he doesn't need credibility, he has 49 MILLION followers and has a podcast?

To me, neither Zuby nor LBJ have any credibility on these subjects, they have opinions. I see no reason debate Zuby or LBJ's opinion on these things. Your argument (and the argument of others) is that neither of these people need to be credible on the subjects they're talking about.

LBJ is implying an objective issue, one that can easily be disproven through a multitude of statistics and even qualitative metrics. In this case he was completely wrong if you knew this case an he backtracked.

He is entitled to his opinion. Obviously the outcry is because he’s very stupid, barely high school educated and spouted this nonsense form his mansion having never experienced any real issues or adversity. His kids have it better than 99.999% of the world.

 

[panamaican]

This type of thinking? As in people that read the words in the OP that provoked thought? Those people that considered the opinion rather than immediately looked for a credible source on a generic statement?

Yeah, shame on me for ignoring race and the background of the person stating a broad brush opinion that was void of anything that could be objectively disproven.

And people who want to debate a random rapper's opinion can certainly do so. I never stopped them. Your panties are in a bunch because I think the guy has no credibility therefore I question why anyone should agree or disagree with him.

I think it's emblematic of bad thinking from the very beginning, you pick a random tweet from a random person and then discuss it like it's the second coming of Christ. I think people who do that should be more discerning of what they elevate to the level of discussion. If you have a low bar for what you want to discuss, go ahead. I think it's a low bar and I'll say so.

 

[BIKES!]

And people who want to debate a random rapper's opinion can certainly do so. I never stopped them. Your panties are in a bunch because I think the guy has no credibility therefore I question why anyone should agree or disagree with him.

I think it's emblematic of bad thinking from the very beginning, you pick a random tweet from a random person and then discuss it like it's the second coming of Christ. I think people who do that should be more discerning of what they elevate to the level of discussion. If you have a low bar for what you want to discuss, go ahead. I think it's a low bar and I'll say so.

Woah bro. It provoked mild thought for a few minutes. I agree with many parts but by no means is that impactful or thorough enough to be anything more than a quick thought provoker. He’s not a messiah but he does sound like he sees the bigger picture to the extent I wouldn’t mind hearing more…

 

[panamaican]

LBJ is implying an objective issue, one that can easily be disproven through a multitude of statistics and even qualitative metrics. In this case he was completely wrong if you knew this case an he backtracked.

He is entitled to his opinion. Obviously the outcry is because he’s very stupid, barely high school educated and spouted this nonsense form his mansion having never experienced any real issues or adversity. His kids have it better than 99.999% of the world.

No, LBJ is doing the exact same thing as Zuby. He's opining from his perspective.

And he didn't backtrack because he was wrong, he stated his reasoning in his post. But it doesn't really matter, you're making my point for me. You're debating LBJ's opinion like it fucking matters. It doesn't matter what LBJ thinks. And it doesn't matter what Zuby thinks.

This is the credibility problem that I'm pointing to. You're arguing with LBJ's opinion because you don't agree with him. You're supporting Zub'y opinion because you do agree with him. You're treating these things like they're worthy of discussion. I'm saying that they're tweets and they have no credibility because the tweeter has no credibility.

The intellectually rigorous thing is to say "Why am I even discussing this person's perspective?" Instead, you're accepting it as valuable and treating it as such just because it's in the public square.

 

[Cyrano200]

You must not know what "deflecting" means.

I know exactly who Zuby is - which is why I know that Zuby isn't a credible source for political commentary.

1) Rogan's platform does not transform Rogan's guest into something the guest is not. This is the logical fallacy "appeal to false authority" in practice. Rogan might be a great podcast host. But Rogan's quality as a podcast host does not transfer credibility to Rogan's guests on any subject. Rogan's quality as a podcast host is only applicable to the question of "Is Rogan a good podcast host?". It has zero bearing on "Is this random Rogan guest credible on a random topic?"

2) And when I mocked the number of followers, the mockery is not that no one has heard of this person. It's that a reference to the number of followers does not grant a person credibility. There are plenty of people with more followers. If the number of followers conveys credibility then those other people are equally, if not more, credible. If a random rapper with 500k followers is credible then a random thot with 700k followers is even more credible since she has more followers. A random singer with 5 million followers is even more credible than both of them. That's idiotic. The number of followers has zero bearing on if the individual knows what they're talking about.

Now, if you're going to disagree with me on this, here's an interesting question for you: What is the basis for Zuby's credibility on this subject?

I don't deflect on things related to culture. I comment on why those things are not what you think they are. If a guy says that "the blue car was flying too fast, how do we slow it down?" and I say "No, the vehicle is a red truck and it was driving". That's not a deflection. You want to argue about how fast and completely ignore if the rest of the statement is even true. Arguing about something that's not true is not a good discussion and I don't do it. I simply point out that the initial premise is not true.

You call it deflecting because you don't care if the premise is true or not. You want me to accept the false premise as true and when I don't, you claim "deflection". Which tells me that you don't know what deflection means.

This and every subsequent post is in defense of your initial ad hominiem. You assert he has no credibility and therefore it isn't worth debating what he actually said. As for followers, you are the one who started talking about numbers of followers.

 

[ElKarlo]

I didn't discredit him based on arbitrary critieria. I pointed out that he was granted credibility on arbitrary criteria. No one starts with credibility, it has to be earned.

I'm pointed out that this individual has not earned any credibility. Rather than look closely at the source material, you've questioned why I have not assigned this person credibility. I don't assign him credibility because there's no reason to. It's a random rapper's opinion. If you want me to treat him as credible then give me a reason. Don't expect me to simply accept what he is saying without a reason.

I asked you what is his credibility and your response is that he doesn't need any credibility. Okay, if he doesn't need credibility then why does it matter what he's saying? Should I simply pick random tweets and assign them value out of thin air?

Let me put this to the test:

I say "Why does LBJ have any credibility on this subject? He's just a basketball player." Are you going to say he doesn't need credibility, he has 49 MILLION followers and has a podcast?

To me, neither Zuby nor LBJ have any credibility on these subjects, they have opinions. I see no reason debate Zuby or LBJ's opinion on these things. Your argument (and the argument of others) is that neither of these people need to be credible on the subjects they're talking about.

And you’ve managed to lecture me all the while not addressing my actual point. You’re entirely focused on Twitter followers and are incredibly myopic about this. Zuby debates and engages in discussions. Lebron probably isn’t literate about the 3rd grade level. You using followers is an abused measure and really is meaningless. Look at his debates and the points he’s made. That shows he’s at least fairly well educated on social matters and how to discuss them. If he’s let’s talk about lebron and how he probably doesn’t even know the capital of his state.

 

[BIKES!]

No, LBJ is doing the exact same thing as Zuby. He's opining from his perspective.

And he didn't backtrack because he was wrong, he stated his reasoning in his post. But it doesn't really matter, you're making my point for me. You're debating LBJ's opinion like it fucking matters. It doesn't matter what LBJ thinks. And it doesn't matter what Zuby thinks.

This is the credibility problem that I'm pointing to. You're arguing with LBJ's opinion because you don't agree with him. You're supporting Zub'y opinion because you do agree with him. You're treating these things like they're worthy of discussion. I'm saying that they're tweets and they have no credibility because the tweeter has no credibility.

The intellectually rigorous thing is to say "Why am I even discussing this person's perspective?" Instead, you're accepting it as valuable and treating it as such just because it's in the public square.

Making a claim to an objective point is not an opinion. Why not post the early Tweet when he falsely accused that cop of killing the innocent man? You see, when he slanders a person or claims an objective fact (blacks are killed more by cops) it’s not a broad brush opinion. You were the same person that was for censoring opinions stating Covid Vaccines were dangerous. That is an opinion that can be argued much like LBJ, not Zaby’s broad brush thoughts. LBJ was malicious as well and should be sued for libel by the cop. I think he might be too.

 

[panamaican]

Woah bro. It provoked mild thought for a few minutes. I agree with many parts but by no means is that impactful or thorough enough to be anything more than a quick thought provoker. He’s not a messiah but he does sound like he sees the bigger picture to the extent I wouldn’t mind hearing more…

You don't got to lie.

If it was mild thought for a few minutes, you wouldn't be so upset that I don't think it's valuable and said so. You'd have said your piece and moved on. You're emotionally responding to the fact that I think it has no value.

But I say this in every thread started with a random celebrity opinion - why should we care? The Dave Chappelle skit about "What would Ja Rule say?" is often quoted in these types of threads for the same reason. In fact it was cited in this thread too. The theme is the same - stop treating random opinions like they matter. They don't. People keep saying "sheeple" to insult others. Fine but what's a better example of sheeple than treating some random opinion as noteworthy just because the person who tweeted it is famous.

 

[BIKES!]

You don't got to lie.

If it was mild thought for a few minutes, you wouldn't be so upset that I don't think it's valuable and said so. You'd have said your piece and moved on. You're emotionally responding to the fact that I think it has no value.

But I say this in every thread started with a random celebrity opinion - why should we care? The Dave Chappelle skit about "What would Ja Rule say?" is often quoted in these types of threads for the same reason. In fact it was cited in this thread too. The theme is the same - stop treating random opinions like they matter. They don't. People keep saying "sheeple" to insult others. Fine but what's a better example of sheeple than treating some random opinion as noteworthy just because the person who tweeted it is famous.

You answered it earlier. LBJ has 50M followers so when he states an opinion as fact, people want to dig deeper and respond to baseless emotional cries from a flopping filthy rich primadonna.

 

[panamaican]

And you’ve managed to lecture me all the while not addressing my actual point. You’re entirely focused on Twitter followers and are incredibly myopic about this. Zuby debates and engages in discussions. Lebron probably isn’t literate about the 3rd grade level. You using followers is an abused measure and really is meaningless. Look at his debates and the points he’s made. That shows he’s at least fairly well educated on social matters and how to discuss them. If he’s let’s talk about lebron and how he probably doesn’t even know the capital of his state.

Yes, I've addressed your point:

First, to repeat myself:
2) And when I mocked the number of followers, the mockery is not that no one has heard of this person. It's that a reference to the number of followers does not grant a person credibility. There are plenty of people with more followers. If the number of followers conveys credibility then those other people are equally, if not more, credible. If a random rapper with 500k followers is credible then a random thot with 700k followers is even more credible since she has more followers. A random singer with 5 million followers is even more credible than both of them. That's idiotic. The number of followers has zero bearing on if the individual knows what they're talking about.

Second --
Just because Zuby comments in public about his opinion, what is his credibility on this subject?

Notice what's happening here. I say neither LBJ nor Zuby are credible. You keep going on about LBJ isn't credible and Zuby is but you already said that Zuby doesn't need credbiility.

So basically you’re just resorting to “he’s not an authority “ even though there basically aren’t any.

So why does LBJ need to be an authority if this Zuby guy doesn't? Again, I don't think LBJ is credible and neither do you. But when it comes to Zuby, you're saying there are no authorities so everyone is credible but when it comes to LBJ, he's not credible because he's not adequately educated.

That's the type on intellectual bad reasoning that I'm pointing out. LBJ isn't sufficiently educated to speak on something but Zuby's education on what he's speaking on is irrelevant. Why do you have different standards?

 

[legomaheggroll]

I'm glad he's a rapper since I was going to ask Ja Rule for his opinion.

“its murder”

 

[panamaican]

This and every subsequent post is in defense of your initial ad hominiem. You assert he has no credibility and therefore it isn't worth debating what he actually said. As for followers, you are the one who started talking about numbers of followers.

How about you address what I said about "appeals to false authority"?

And, no, I didn't start talking about followers.

. He has 439,000 twitter followers and has appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast.

That's in the OP.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Most just sound like they are trying to sound smart. You know what it sounds like when you try to sound smart??

 

[Natural Order]

How about you address what I said about "appeals to false authority"?

And, no, I didn't start talking about followers.


That's in the OP.

You’re intelligent enough to understand the conundrum you’ve created by pretending to tell others who to give credibility to on opinions, all the while being a random nobody....on a karate forum....right?

Just follow the logic for a moment to understand the absurdity of your position.

 

[panamaican]

You answered it earlier. LBJ has 50M followers so when he states an opinion as fact, people want to dig deeper and respond to baseless emotional cries from a flopping filthy rich primadonna.

And those people are wasting their time. Because LBJ is a basketball player. He's entitled to his opinion but it provides no more insight just because he has 50M followers than if I asked some bum on the street. And Zuby is a rapper, his opinion provides no more insight than that same bum.

But if 500,000 followers means we should care then 50,000,000 must mean we should care even more. I think both of those positions are absurd - followers don't mean the person knows what they're talking about. But I'm consistent here and many of you are not.

 

[Natural Order]

And those people are wasting their time. Because LBJ is a basketball player. He's entitled to his opinion but it provides no more insight just because he has 50M followers than if I asked some bum on the street. And Zuby is a rapper, his opinion provides no more insight than that same bum.

But if 500,000 followers means we should care then 50,000,000 must mean we should care even more. I think both of those positions are absurd - followers don't mean the person knows what they're talking about. But I'm consistent here and many of you are not.

Except blatantly missing the gut wrenching hypocrisy of your entire premise...