Atheist Debates - Hyperbole will destroy the world

A follow up to a talk I gave about assuming and assertring intent, motivations and how exaggerations shift the burden of proof and get your issues dismissed based on your dishonesty as an interlocutor.

[Nocturnalux]

I mean…Matt is also claiming that the youtubers in question were using him for views. Can he prove that was their motivation? He might be making a mistake and going “I’ll let you decide” does not change much.

[billhasntbeenreal]

The craziest part about this video is that you agree their points are valid, and then chastise them for disagreeing. And what strategy? Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt only helps him. No one cares about the assassination anymore. Weird hill to die on. I can see where you’re coming from, but to get all butthurt and block people and not talk it out makes me so disappointed in someone I used to look up to.

[exhumus]

I clicked just to say I appreciate the irony of the hyperbole in the video title.

[amateuroverlord]

Man I used to be a huge fan. I am a trial attorney and I really think your videos helped me earlier in my career make and understand logical arguments. Or at the very least helped me articulate them. I stopped following you actively around three years ago. There was something a bit off that I couldn’t quite place. I just chalked it up to the frustration that I know comes with dealing with bad faith debaters making the same flawed arguments for years. This video makes me think there’s more to it than that. The ego and arrogance to not admit you’re wrong is really off putting, and sad to see from someone I’ve previously had so much respect for.

[Egooist.]

14:30 Putting the mined quote of JD Vance in context is revealing.
Can you do the same with your Twitter convo you mentioned at the start of this video (2:15)?

[dFitness]

You sure did bring up a bunch of speculation about motives that was unrelated to the argument while denouncing that in the interlocutors. Not your best work. Still largely like what you do but this one seems at least a little hypocritical compared to your normal stuff

[Solowing]

Matt: "do not assert motivations or intentions you can't demonstrate"
Also Matt: "they used my name to get clicks because I'm the enemy or they need the views."
Pot meet kettle I guess.

[moodyrick]

*_Acting On Your Beliefs_** ;*
I may not know the motivations of a stranger, but I do understand the impact that _strongly held false beliefs_ continue to have on society.

[brandonburough]

It is good to see so many folks disagreeing with Matt here in the comments.

[brandonburough]

This video is basically an argument against the existence of dogwhistles. Dont think that was his intent, but it follows from his position here, that dogwhistles can not be identified bc we can not know someone's intent unless plainly stated by them.

[gayasparagus]

Someone needs to learn about the tolerance paradox.

[__Andrew]

Wow, so i got a notification and came back to the comments and found Matt had deleted/blocked Sarah from commenting. Posts she had made before defending herself (she was part of the topic of this video) are now just gone.

Extremely dishonest to delete those Matt. I may be next on the copping block for pointing it out but oh well. Its extreme dishonesty that needs to be called out.

[eljison]

Quote mining is an apologist trick, that is just as bad (or worse) than hyperbole.

[rsnickster]

"They use my name for views". Matt, get over yourself. And later in the same video you say "Do not assume or assert motivations or intent that you can't demonstate." ... you need to change the title to 'My hypocrisy will destroy the world'. Just stop. It's time for you to retire.

[bennimarru]

Thank you for not showing any of the comments in the video, that way you look more correct.

[Wertbag]

Apologists like to say the bible quote "blessed is the one who smashes babies on rocks" is hyperbole, but when asked if any other miracle or claim could also be hyperbole it gets a hard no without clear reason. The fundamentalist will say "it should all be taken literally", then when you point out there are parables, poems and other non-literal parts, they will change to "oh, yes there are multiple writing styles, but the parts I want to be literal are". We end up with this subjective, cherry-picked answer, that which parts are hyperbole, or which parts are literal is all up to the individual to decide and yet are held with fervour and absolute certainty.

[ThraceFulton]

I said it on the original Twitter thread, and I'm gonna say it again here. You are showing your full ass with these takes, Matt. I'm not shocked, but definitely disappointed.

[deimoskaischylos]

More of what we said would happen IS happening. Stop being so bloody proud, admit you were wrong, apologize to the people you insulted and blocked, and be the person we always thought you were. I respected you.

[SouthernMenace]

This video is confusing and frankly, a great missed opportunity at apologizing for a bad take. Others have said everything i wanted to say, so I'll just end by saying that we are all wrong sometimes, even when we are right.

[TheLeftistOwl]

Matt, I say all this because I have followed you for so long. You were essential to my journey as an atheist and gave me to tools to understand my beliefs. You're the reason I got into philosophy and have the values I do today. I am incredibly disappointed with your behavior about all this. Not only have you not shown us to be wrong, you have blatantly misrepresented our positions and acted hypocritically. How you can you in the same video say "You should not assume motivations if you cannot demonstrate they are true" and then go on to assume Jake and Suris made videos on you for clicks? How does that not make you realize you're acting against your own stated belief? And if you rebutt with "they clearly just want to use my name to drive engagement", then you've not only missed my point, but your own point about assuming motivations. Not only this, you say in the video that your issue with us was strategy, but that's not the case at all. You were pushing back against the very notion that republican lawmakers and prominent voices wanted to harm LGBTQ people. This is not a matter of strategy, it is a matter of what we're pushing against. You did not offer "we should focus on the effects of their actions, not their motivations", you offered "their intentions are good, but their policies cause harm." These are two different arguments that do two completely different things. One offers a more strategy-minded approach that may help convince specific people, but may not. The other seeks to minimize the cruelty with which these policies were constructed with. The GOP doesn't need to say "We want to put LGBTQ people in camps" for us to conclude as such when their policies directly lead to that conclusion. You have done this to christians on your very show where you lead them to the logical conclusions of their beliefs and say things like "so you believe x because that's what your other positions lead to", so I'm not sure what's so different about this. If you can agree that modern prisons are incredibly terrible places where abuses happen daily and end up traumatizing people and then agree that Republican lawmakers want to put LGBTQ people in those same prisons, then you should agree that they want to harm LGBTQ people. Do random everyday republicans deep in their souls not want to harm LGBT people while still wanting these policies? Sure, it's possible, but can't you see how impractical it is to assume good intentions when LGBTQ people are faced with such horrendous outcomes? If I was outside your house with a knife, would you assume my intentions were good? Would you be reasonable in assuming I want to help you by stabbing you to death? No, you'd be reasonable in assuming I want to kill you, even if I didn't say anything. Assuming intentions can be tricky, but when people so blatantly enact cruelties on others, I'm not going to assume they mean well. I really hope you see what people are trying to tell you, Matt. I really don't like how you've handled any of this and the hypocrisy is especially frustrating.