Not only is Sean admitting to the crime but he is also educating us on proper argument structure so we can properly represent him on Reddit when this reaches media sources.
Maybe he only killed his public persona and not his personal life? What if you had a separate life for each identity or name you use, and you could continue living as long as you had at least one left?
Mr. Graham I would like to compliment your words and add a particularly interesting point, he is also espetacular for those who wants to learn how to speak English, it is just a joy to listen to.
Day9, I was wondering by chance have you studied radio&television as a major? Because the way you talk and no matter whatever you are talking about, you keep it interesting makes me feel like you could host a radio show, which is not really very different than Twitch anyways.
Three years ago when I listened to this I had just graduated college with a MIS degree, all math and not really any writing, and this video was interesting then. Now that I'm in grad school and pursuing another degree that requires tons of writing...oh my goodness this video is so incredibly helpful.
Oh frick, I'm back at the end of another semester to reference this argument sequence...apparently Day9 is a better teacher than some of my professors.
This sort of thing is why I really valued the elementary logic class I took in college. The goodness or badness of argument forms isn't just opinion, it's actually provable in a way very similar to proofs in math. Learning this sort of thing really helps you to notice when someone's point doesn't actually mean anything for the argument you're actually having or if their conclusion just plain doesn't follow from all of their points.
The thing is, those people aren't arguing. They are sharing (read: shouting) their opinion at the world. They aren't trying to argue a theoretical point, they have already made up their minds and are letting as many people as will listen/read know what they feel. If someone comes to challenge their opinion, then they may try and argue, but that is certainly not the starting point. To use your female streamer example, the bad sad cry sad bad (by the way, those hand gestures will forevermore be "Twitch chat," to me) is "X female streamer sucks, they're just using their body, wah." That's not an argument. It's not even *trying* to be an argument. Whether it actually offends them, they're jumping on a bandwagon, they're jealous, what have you, this straw person I made up is simply shouting their opinion to be heard. Those people that you mentioned might theoretically exist? The ones that have a list of logical reasons, evidence to back them up, and a cogent thesis to tie them all together? Those are the only ones really arguing. Everything else is just noise. Even this post is just an opinion. I made a couple cogent points, and I even have some evidence to back up what I'm saying, but this isn't an argument by any stretch. It's just my opinion written in such a way as to illustrate my thought process.
that's probably where the example of female streamers falls a bit short. those who are crying about it are probably not even getting challenged on that subject so who cares about the evidence and if the point would hold up in court. better example would be some serious issue that gets debated from both sides. in politics people so often go into strawmen and ad hominem attacks instead of presenting a point
I think this is exactly the point that he is making. People start at the conclusion, when they should start with coherent reasoning and then draw a conclusion from that reasoning.
But where Sean and I differ is the assumption of intent. Sean's whole spiel is predicated on the idea that these people on the internet want to argue. They want to bring others to their side with a reasonable discussion. In contrast, I'm positing that they couldn't give less of a fuck if they bring others to their side. I believe it's all (usually) a statement of opinion and nothing more.
Sean's spiel is about "why its really frustrating to read opinions on the internet" (he says this 15 seconds into the video). He's not making any assumptions about other's intentions, he's simply presenting an argument about why its really frustrating to read opinions on the internet.
Damnit man, why no teacher/professor ever put writing an argumentative paper in 1-3-1 in terms of a murder trial I will never know. That made so much freaking sense in explaining how to format the conclusion. Lol...
Terms that aid with this: Ethos/Pathos/Logos Reason/Logic/Fallacy Loaded/Bias/Habit IF you are ever to make a claim, make sure you have gone through the process of self-criticism, analyzing and presenting evidence, and trying to not be so absolute and inconsiderate. Also, I'm not sure if I agree that providing evidence is enough to justify presenting bad ideas. Congestion of argument space, shift and twisted rhetoric, and regressive rallying could arise. We really need logic police, calling out these bad ideas. This way people are still allowed to speak out their bad ideas, but are commonly shown to be fallacious, closed-minded, or simply incorrect. Also, remember, argumentation isn't meant to be negative or positive. It is meant to be a platform for ideas to be shared and tested. If you get a bad vibe, it may not be argumentation.
Sean, I know you may never see this, know who I am or even know I exist but you have had such a profound effect on my life in a more positive way than you could ever imagine. Thank you for your intellect, humor, talent, and passion for cool shit. You’re an awesome human.
Recently started watching your Starcraft videos to get into the game, never thought I'd see a philosophy video on here, but I love it! Thanks for bringing this content to the masses!
These videos are awesome, I want more of this "extra" content, Sean's thoughts and stories / topics are always interesting to hear, I actually learn things (or refresh knowledge that I already had but it's good to remember)
If you don't wanna wait for more highlights on this channel, you could check out "narwhals8mysister". She's the editor that got hired to do these, because she did such a good job of it on her own channel for a long time
So I actually found this to be really informative and helpful. What are the odds of getting more videos like this? They don't even have to be about this particular topic.
I know this is two years old but I remember being taught this format in school. I think they called it 5 by 5 essay. And they literally taught us that the conclusion paragraph is a rephrased intro paragraph. I didn’t care, it made essay writing for marks painless.
I think that one of the main things not considered here is that every argument isn't an appeal to reason. For many arguments, the purpose is to appeal to emotion, because many people are more likely to be moved by emotional arguments than rational ones.
I've come from a schooling system which continually teaches to restate the thesis... So I'm going to take Sean's advice and try not to fail my next English exam.
I will not agree that sky is blue. It is not, it curves light so we perceive it as blue but it is not blue by itself (it is transparent) :). You know just something to be smug about ;). Joking aside - great video and great message, thanks for that, internet needs more people like you.... cause reasons and in conclusion internet needs more people like you ;)
I agree with everything you have said, but I observe a major problem with this in practice: stupid people demand the conclusion be identical to the introduction. The proliferation of what stupid people do, in this case, results in expectation that one follow the "accepted" format (lest you yourself be considered "stupid"). I wish I could hear Sean's thoughts on this.
I don't quite get the whole point about the way the conclusion should be. You say that the structure is quite simple: there is an introduction, where one introduces the topic and states the argument and its strcuture there is the body, where one fleshes out the argument there is the conclusion, where one does not simply restate the argument, but ties it in together. What I don't understand is the difference between "restating the argument" and "tieing it together" From what you said in the video it seems that in the conclusion you indeed restate the argument, but adding also that the three together show "how Sean commited the murder". I don't understand how I can bring it all together without restating the argument. Is it just a stylistic trick? Does it change the actual content of the conclusion? I am particularly interested because I always restate my argument at my conclusion and I am almost graduating from uni :D Thank you!
I think an issue as to why this type of argument isn't found very often on the internet is because it takes more effort, is generally ignored, and doesn't consign itself to an efficient cancel culture environment.
Day9, I was wondering by chance have you studied radio&television as a major? Because the way you talk and no matter whatever you are talking about, you keep it interesting makes me feel like you could host a radio show, which is not really very different than Twitch anyways.
Being mad at a female streamer for getting views because of her looks has always seemed weird to me. The way I see it there are two main reasons that people watch a twitch stream. 1. To learn from someone really good 2. To hang out with someone who also happens to be playing a game. (Sean mostly falls into this category) A lot of guys enjoy hanging out with cute girls. If you are watching twitch to learn gameplay a girl who is streaming solely because she is cute probably isn't the stream for you. But those streams aren't stealing views away from more "legitimate"(in your eyes) streams because those people weren't going to watch a try hard stream anyway. They were just looking to hang out with a cute girl. In the end, the girl isn't forcing people to tune into her stream. She is getting views because people want to watch her.
I know it's an old post, but hey, I would like to get some argument exercise in: I believe people don't always have a clear aim at what they are doing, and in fact, get easily distracted by cute girl streamers. 1. Sexual desires (or aka watching pretty girls) are no small things, and can really gravitate young men, both in IRL and digitally, and this is demonstrated by the demands for porn. 2. Huge population of twitch users are young males ranging from 10s to 30s, who would most likely have harder time controlling their desires. 3. We also do not have a clear boundary which says how much "sexual" a content can get. (Is accentuating cleavage okay?) Female twitch streamer who focuses more on sexual content is utilizing the points I stated above, seems to be luring more young male audience to their channel. It is not that they should be banned or condemned for what they are doing, but it seems as though we may need more regulation on sexual content in gaming channels to keep it as is.
@@justwill8239 Once again an old post, but somewhat interesting due to the recent spotlight on "simping" or "being a simp". To disagree with your position, I believe that yes, people don't have a clear aim of what they want, or what their goal in terms of relaxation or entertainment is. I'm sure a lot of people simply open CZcams, Twitch, Reddit, twitter, etc, just on muscle memory alone. Then they just scroll and find something that catches their eye. I don't really see how there is anything wrong with this as an issue. Whether it be clickbait, a cute female content provider, or anything under the sun deemed less worthy, it's all pretty innocent. 1. *Everyone has sexual desires.* Sure I can agree that we all have sexual desires. I sometimes think wistfully of securing the attention of a pretty girl, joking, laughing and in general just having fun with said girl. I don't actually see an issue with this, I think it's quite a natural desire. I certainly don't believe that people are unable to control their sexual desire to the point where it could become harmful to any real degree. We don't have complete anarchy with regard to guys (or girls) fulfilling their sexual desires, people can control themselves. Of course occasional crimes are committed by the more unhinged among us (an extremely low percentage), additionally, the greater majority of these people certainly do not just come straight from a twitch girl's stream and before going out into the world to commit their serious crime. 2. I was once 15 years old, I can tell you that I never had the urge to act on any desires. Neither did my friends, neither did anyone from my school for that matter. 3. CZcams and other platforms do regulate this. That's why we don't see nudity, sexual acts, etc on stream. I think if you look at it reasonably it's not hard to see where the line should be drawn *(regarding accentuating cleavage)*. If you think about girls when they dress up for a ball, or a party or to go out your perception of what's reasonable shifts, girls and guys often try to dress in a way that plays to their strengths, e.g. Tyler1 (a league streamer) will often wear tank tops because he gyms a lot and has a body to show for it, by the same token, a girl who takes the time to stay fit, will probably wear clothing that complements their body type. The real questions to ask at the end of the day are: Are these people malicious? Do they deserve less success for any reason other than personal prejudices? Are they hurting people anymore than an aggressive male streamer? Or a male streamer who has a meaner on-stream persona? If a female streamer gyms every day, eats clean and takes care of themselves all to keep in shape, and that decision is a conscious one that is business orientated in addition to a regular lifestyle choice, can you really claim that they're getting easy views, or being a negative influence on 20-something year old men? If there is a market for something, I'd say power to them for putting in the work and securing viewership.
Day9TV 8:40 - 9:10 Isn't that position an argument(claim), and that argument an argument(claim) + reasoning + conclusion - evidence? I'm so confused with the English terminology now...
Not entirely relevant, but I once saw a video of Sky Williams discussing a "female streamer" issue with Kayceytron. The argument gets very heated and almost pathetic, when suddenly Total Biscuit joins in and the discussion changes completely. It was truly amazing to see just how much of an impact the presence of a man that knew how to argue properly could make. Absolutely worth checking out (be warned though, its super long)
why 3 tries to guess a password, why 3 points to prove an argument, why 3 chances to prove yourself. You've gotta be critical of arbitrary unproven numbers. Premises to support conclusions, good, the magic number three... you probably need context to decide a truly appropriate number.
There is a reason for people to state their conclusion first, and then elaborate on the evidence. The Internet is flooded with information, and people get to choose to digest what appeals to them and discard what not. Clickbait titles are attractive exactly because it's emotional, not because it's convincing. If you watched the wowhead channel on CZcams because you are a Blizzard fanboy like me, you probably notice how the host (is she called Pancer?) always states repeatedly "now I don't hate this feature, in fact I love it and I love Blizzard for doing this and that", before she even start to explain the flaw she sees in the mentioned feature. That is because on the Internet, people needs to feel emotionally sympathetic before they proceed to read/watch on and to explore the arguments. oh also I love day9, and I don't hate him oops too late?
Ting Fai LAM very good point, but this isn't restricted to the internet, it's a common trend that existed long before digital media called confirmation bias. people generally don't get invested into argumentative content of any kind in order to form an opinion or consider new points, but to get satisfaction out of having their pre-existing opinion confirmed. our subconscience filters information based on its proximity to familiar information, and when an argument works well within our own belief systems and ideas, we automatically consider it to be more sound and reasonable, even if closer logical examination could reveal the opposite
Counterpoint: If Day[9] murdered DjWheat, he will go to prison and won't be able to stream. Therefore Day[9] *didn't* murder DjWhit and you must acquit. The argument is now finit and I will sit.
never seen any point arguing on the net. yesterday read some comments about vaccines for giggles, there was a person stating vaccine angainst measles is obsolete since measles morbidity is so low. (please note it's low because of vaccination)
@DearSean: U know, I have taught quite a bit at some German Universitys in the past. So, when I see some internet-"discussion" about girl streamers, I try to make YOUR POINT, by stating something like: "Those girl-streamers, they are just boobs and slime (slimy)!" And people react by typing something like: "YES, and they take away all the viewers from the REAL streamers!" And I think to myself: Woah. The internet is not as bad as I thought - they TOTALLY GET MY POINT!!! Amirite, dear Day9? :D
Why do you always need 3 points? Is it easier to digest? What if 2 is enough (i.e. we found a photo of Day9 stabbing Marcus, and then we found the knife with Day9's fingerprints)
You don't need 3 points, this is just a basic structure taught in schools because they want everything to be structured and provides a semi useful template for people who don't know what to do. Three is a decent number, as the more points you have usually the better the argument, although that is not always the case, for example if you have video evidence of someone committing a murder, do you really need anything else? And likewise if you have a dozen facts that are only semi-relevant do they really help your case?
When I installed Hearthstone 2 years ago never could I have predicted I'd to listen to a dude so attentively today. I dunno what your job is outside of streaming but I advise you start teaching.
Emotion is commonly used within courtrooms to persuade jurors either way. Starting with a believable conclusion is a common practice because it can immediately shift perceptions. Sean is making it seem like courtroom jurors are experts who are able to intake information and make perfect objective decisions, while in reality these people are emotionally influenced (just as we all are). While I do agree it is more effective to create arguments with concrete supporting details/ideas in a purely logical situation, purely logical situations rarely occur outside of a philosophy class. Emotion is always involved and by excluding it you lose a portion of the audience/participants.
Sean have you ever considered pursuing a career as a teacher? On the case regarding female streamers. Tough luck man, this is a free market and every marketing strategy is allowed. Instead of crying like a baby, perhaps one should grow a spine and develop a new strategy to make ones streaming more appealing.
I think Sean is just trying to tell us that he murdered DJWheat.
We all have his confession here. Someone alert the cops.
Best two comments I've ever seen on CZcams xD
Definitely killed him
Not only is Sean admitting to the crime but he is also educating us on proper argument structure so we can properly represent him on Reddit when this reaches media sources.
I like that you're still getting referred to as Day[9] in your trial for murder.
Well, he did murder _djWheat_ so it only makes sense. I bet the judge goes by "Dr. Justice" or something.
Maybe he only killed his public persona and not his personal life?
What if you had a separate life for each identity or name you use, and you could continue living as long as you had at least one left?
@@ElGringoCastellano You should write a book. That sounds like an awesome thriller.
Sean is an amazing speaker! his pacing, tone and body language are always on point. Props from someone who has studied public speaking.
Mr. Graham I would like to compliment your words and add a particularly interesting point, he is also espetacular for those who wants to learn how to speak English, it is just a joy to listen to.
also, he has very healthy and constructive starting points for any given topic...communication, relationships, work attitude etc
djuraster, got worried when you said healthy.. with the sweaty game grump. Then switched to female streamers.. wooo.
Day9, I was wondering by chance have you studied radio&television as a major? Because the way you talk and no matter whatever you are talking about, you keep it interesting makes me feel like you could host a radio show, which is not really very different than Twitch anyways.
He really is! what my teachers can't explain for like a month, day9 can in a 12 min video.
"Fish fart into the air bringing that blue ocean water up. That is why the sky is blue." now that's a man with a sound argument that I can support.
Provisions DAY9 FOR PRESIDENT
Three years ago when I listened to this I had just graduated college with a MIS degree, all math and not really any writing, and this video was interesting then. Now that I'm in grad school and pursuing another degree that requires tons of writing...oh my goodness this video is so incredibly helpful.
Oh frick, I'm back at the end of another semester to reference this argument sequence...apparently Day9 is a better teacher than some of my professors.
Why I never had a professor like Day9?
This sort of thing is why I really valued the elementary logic class I took in college. The goodness or badness of argument forms isn't just opinion, it's actually provable in a way very similar to proofs in math. Learning this sort of thing really helps you to notice when someone's point doesn't actually mean anything for the argument you're actually having or if their conclusion just plain doesn't follow from all of their points.
The thing is, those people aren't arguing. They are sharing (read: shouting) their opinion at the world. They aren't trying to argue a theoretical point, they have already made up their minds and are letting as many people as will listen/read know what they feel. If someone comes to challenge their opinion, then they may try and argue, but that is certainly not the starting point.
To use your female streamer example, the bad sad cry sad bad (by the way, those hand gestures will forevermore be "Twitch chat," to me) is "X female streamer sucks, they're just using their body, wah."
That's not an argument. It's not even *trying* to be an argument. Whether it actually offends them, they're jumping on a bandwagon, they're jealous, what have you, this straw person I made up is simply shouting their opinion to be heard.
Those people that you mentioned might theoretically exist? The ones that have a list of logical reasons, evidence to back them up, and a cogent thesis to tie them all together? Those are the only ones really arguing. Everything else is just noise.
Even this post is just an opinion. I made a couple cogent points, and I even have some evidence to back up what I'm saying, but this isn't an argument by any stretch. It's just my opinion written in such a way as to illustrate my thought process.
that's probably where the example of female streamers falls a bit short. those who are crying about it are probably not even getting challenged on that subject so who cares about the evidence and if the point would hold up in court. better example would be some serious issue that gets debated from both sides. in politics people so often go into strawmen and ad hominem attacks instead of presenting a point
How is this possible? You literally just restated what the video said and got a shit ton of thumbs up.
I think this is exactly the point that he is making. People start at the conclusion, when they should start with coherent reasoning and then draw a conclusion from that reasoning.
But where Sean and I differ is the assumption of intent.
Sean's whole spiel is predicated on the idea that these people on the internet want to argue. They want to bring others to their side with a reasonable discussion.
In contrast, I'm positing that they couldn't give less of a fuck if they bring others to their side. I believe it's all (usually) a statement of opinion and nothing more.
Sean's spiel is about "why its really frustrating to read opinions on the internet" (he says this 15 seconds into the video). He's not making any assumptions about other's intentions, he's simply presenting an argument about why its really frustrating to read opinions on the internet.
guys please note that people arguing is conceptually different from persuading
Damnit man, why no teacher/professor ever put writing an argumentative paper in 1-3-1 in terms of a murder trial I will never know. That made so much freaking sense in explaining how to format the conclusion. Lol...
Terms that aid with this:
Ethos/Pathos/Logos
Reason/Logic/Fallacy
Loaded/Bias/Habit
IF you are ever to make a claim, make sure you have gone through the process of self-criticism, analyzing and presenting evidence, and trying to not be so absolute and inconsiderate.
Also, I'm not sure if I agree that providing evidence is enough to justify presenting bad ideas. Congestion of argument space, shift and twisted rhetoric, and regressive rallying could arise. We really need logic police, calling out these bad ideas. This way people are still allowed to speak out their bad ideas, but are commonly shown to be fallacious, closed-minded, or simply incorrect.
Also, remember, argumentation isn't meant to be negative or positive. It is meant to be a platform for ideas to be shared and tested. If you get a bad vibe, it may not be argumentation.
Sean, I know you may never see this, know who I am or even know I exist but you have had such a profound effect on my life in a more positive way than you could ever imagine. Thank you for your intellect, humor, talent, and passion for cool shit. You’re an awesome human.
Recently started watching your Starcraft videos to get into the game, never thought I'd see a philosophy video on here, but I love it! Thanks for bringing this content to the masses!
I love the way you explain this stuff. Great job Sean :)
Day9 better than most of my highschool teachers.
I like these highlights so much I downloaded them all to listen to on the way to work xD
yeah this was very enjoyable. I also like that you underline everything with meaningful handgestures.
Thank you, Sean for this gem of a video.
Nice video. Wouldn't mind you making more of these Sean. It's like fun school lol
These videos are awesome, I want more of this "extra" content, Sean's thoughts and stories / topics are always interesting to hear, I actually learn things (or refresh knowledge that I already had but it's good to remember)
If you don't wanna wait for more highlights on this channel, you could check out "narwhals8mysister". She's the editor that got hired to do these, because she did such a good job of it on her own channel for a long time
That´s actually great, thanks ! I'll check those out as well ! Cheers
so, when is Sean called to a highschool to talk with kids about the important topics?
So I actually found this to be really informative and helpful. What are the odds of getting more videos like this? They don't even have to be about this particular topic.
i love these little lessons
Man, after not watching Day9 since he left sc2, this brought me back
Thank you for this lesson in rhetoric Dr. Plott.
I wish I saw this before I graduated high school. This is so much better than what all my teachers told me
i'm glad the internet has you, Sean :)
If only i knew this in highschool, then i might have given a shit
I know this is two years old but I remember being taught this format in school. I think they called it 5 by 5 essay. And they literally taught us that the conclusion paragraph is a rephrased intro paragraph. I didn’t care, it made essay writing for marks painless.
I think that one of the main things not considered here is that every argument isn't an appeal to reason. For many arguments, the purpose is to appeal to emotion, because many people are more likely to be moved by emotional arguments than rational ones.
day9 you can stream at 6k bitrate now.
Do it plz.
I want to actually enjoy you in non pixel man form.
I've come from a schooling system which continually teaches to restate the thesis... So I'm going to take Sean's advice and try not to fail my next English exam.
I remember this stream!
I will not agree that sky is blue. It is not, it curves light so we perceive it as blue but it is not blue by itself (it is transparent) :). You know just something to be smug about ;). Joking aside - great video and great message, thanks for that, internet needs more people like you.... cause reasons and in conclusion internet needs more people like you ;)
This video was so neat
Learned more here than at school today. ;)
You should move to another school then.
When you are beginning to write an essay and this shows up in recommended. Must be a sign.
The tshirt fits the theme of the video so well... :D
9:28 Thank you, Sean! This is exactly my thoughts on people hating Belle Delphine, you just worded it so well
Well, just something I wanted. Nice!
I agree with everything you have said, but I observe a major problem with this in practice: stupid people demand the conclusion be identical to the introduction. The proliferation of what stupid people do, in this case, results in expectation that one follow the "accepted" format (lest you yourself be considered "stupid"). I wish I could hear Sean's thoughts on this.
I kinda wish I had day9's high school teacher. My teachers told me to restate the thesis in the conclusion.
I don't quite get the whole point about the way the conclusion should be.
You say that the structure is quite simple:
there is an introduction, where one introduces the topic and states the argument and its strcuture
there is the body, where one fleshes out the argument
there is the conclusion, where one does not simply restate the argument, but ties it in together.
What I don't understand is the difference between "restating the argument" and "tieing it together"
From what you said in the video it seems that in the conclusion you indeed restate the argument, but adding also that the three together show "how Sean commited the murder".
I don't understand how I can bring it all together without restating the argument.
Is it just a stylistic trick? Does it change the actual content of the conclusion?
I am particularly interested because I always restate my argument at my conclusion and I am almost graduating from uni :D
Thank you!
I think an issue as to why this type of argument isn't found very often on the internet is because it takes more effort, is generally ignored, and doesn't consign itself to an efficient cancel culture environment.
Day9, I was wondering by chance have you studied radio&television as a major? Because the way you talk and no matter whatever you are talking about, you keep it interesting makes me feel like you could host a radio show, which is not really very different than Twitch anyways.
Glorious
bad sad cry frown bad.
loved it. omg cant stop laughing
Being mad at a female streamer for getting views because of her looks has always seemed weird to me. The way I see it there are two main reasons that people watch a twitch stream.
1. To learn from someone really good
2. To hang out with someone who also happens to be playing a game. (Sean mostly falls into this category)
A lot of guys enjoy hanging out with cute girls. If you are watching twitch to learn gameplay a girl who is streaming solely because she is cute probably isn't the stream for you. But those streams aren't stealing views away from more "legitimate"(in your eyes) streams because those people weren't going to watch a try hard stream anyway. They were just looking to hang out with a cute girl.
In the end, the girl isn't forcing people to tune into her stream. She is getting views because people want to watch her.
I know it's an old post, but hey, I would like to get some argument exercise in:
I believe people don't always have a clear aim at what they are doing, and in fact, get easily distracted by cute girl streamers.
1. Sexual desires (or aka watching pretty girls) are no small things, and can really gravitate young men, both in IRL and digitally, and this is demonstrated by the demands for porn.
2. Huge population of twitch users are young males ranging from 10s to 30s, who would most likely have harder time controlling their desires.
3. We also do not have a clear boundary which says how much "sexual" a content can get. (Is accentuating cleavage okay?)
Female twitch streamer who focuses more on sexual content is utilizing the points I stated above, seems to be luring more young male audience to their channel.
It is not that they should be banned or condemned for what they are doing, but it seems as though we may need more regulation on sexual content in gaming channels to keep it as is.
@@justwill8239 Once again an old post, but somewhat interesting due to the recent spotlight on "simping" or "being a simp".
To disagree with your position, I believe that yes, people don't have a clear aim of what they want, or what their goal in terms of relaxation or entertainment is. I'm sure a lot of people simply open CZcams, Twitch, Reddit, twitter, etc, just on muscle memory alone. Then they just scroll and find something that catches their eye. I don't really see how there is anything wrong with this as an issue. Whether it be clickbait, a cute female content provider, or anything under the sun deemed less worthy, it's all pretty innocent.
1. *Everyone has sexual desires.* Sure I can agree that we all have sexual desires. I sometimes think wistfully of securing the attention of a pretty girl, joking, laughing and in general just having fun with said girl. I don't actually see an issue with this, I think it's quite a natural desire. I certainly don't believe that people are unable to control their sexual desire to the point where it could become harmful to any real degree. We don't have complete anarchy with regard to guys (or girls) fulfilling their sexual desires, people can control themselves. Of course occasional crimes are committed by the more unhinged among us (an extremely low percentage), additionally, the greater majority of these people certainly do not just come straight from a twitch girl's stream and before going out into the world to commit their serious crime.
2. I was once 15 years old, I can tell you that I never had the urge to act on any desires. Neither did my friends, neither did anyone from my school for that matter.
3. CZcams and other platforms do regulate this. That's why we don't see nudity, sexual acts, etc on stream. I think if you look at it reasonably it's not hard to see where the line should be drawn *(regarding accentuating cleavage)*. If you think about girls when they dress up for a ball, or a party or to go out your perception of what's reasonable shifts, girls and guys often try to dress in a way that plays to their strengths, e.g. Tyler1 (a league streamer) will often wear tank tops because he gyms a lot and has a body to show for it, by the same token, a girl who takes the time to stay fit, will probably wear clothing that complements their body type.
The real questions to ask at the end of the day are:
Are these people malicious? Do they deserve less success for any reason other than personal prejudices? Are they hurting people anymore than an aggressive male streamer? Or a male streamer who has a meaner on-stream persona? If a female streamer gyms every day, eats clean and takes care of themselves all to keep in shape, and that decision is a conscious one that is business orientated in addition to a regular lifestyle choice, can you really claim that they're getting easy views, or being a negative influence on 20-something year old men? If there is a market for something, I'd say power to them for putting in the work and securing viewership.
Day9 is really smart.
Day9TV 8:40 - 9:10
Isn't that position an argument(claim), and that argument an argument(claim) + reasoning + conclusion - evidence?
I'm so confused with the English terminology now...
Oh my god Sean, we're still talking about Brood War? Its 2016 man.
/s
Not entirely relevant, but I once saw a video of Sky Williams discussing a "female streamer" issue with Kayceytron. The argument gets very heated and almost pathetic, when suddenly Total Biscuit joins in and the discussion changes completely. It was truly amazing to see just how much of an impact the presence of a man that knew how to argue properly could make. Absolutely worth checking out (be warned though, its super long)
Can you help me with the link for that?
My girlfriends said thanks, this has helped with her essay :)
In conclusion - Day[9] can't focus a camera. #circumstancialnonsense
thx.
This is actually how our brains work. you should check out The righteous mind by Jonathon Haidt
Dig it.
You should be a hand model
Day9 why did you stop doing sc2?!
This would have helped a lot a decade ago. It's hard being taught structure by teachers that don't understand it either!
the kerning on that shirt is annoying.
TheKingOfApples100 if you hate someone, teach him to recognize bad kerning.
TheKingOfApples100 what wrong with the keming?
Blinky OR the distance between the R and the A compared to the I
Adilos reread my comment, you missed the joke.
@@DubbHub how has no one applauded you for this joke in three years hahaha
why 3 tries to guess a password, why 3 points to prove an argument, why 3 chances to prove yourself. You've gotta be critical of arbitrary unproven numbers. Premises to support conclusions, good, the magic number three... you probably need context to decide a truly appropriate number.
"Suppose I say... That I want to teach you, how to be... Villains!"
There is a reason for people to state their conclusion first, and then elaborate on the evidence. The Internet is flooded with information, and people get to choose to digest what appeals to them and discard what not. Clickbait titles are attractive exactly because it's emotional, not because it's convincing. If you watched the wowhead channel on CZcams because you are a Blizzard fanboy like me, you probably notice how the host (is she called Pancer?) always states repeatedly "now I don't hate this feature, in fact I love it and I love Blizzard for doing this and that", before she even start to explain the flaw she sees in the mentioned feature. That is because on the Internet, people needs to feel emotionally sympathetic before they proceed to read/watch on and to explore the arguments. oh also I love day9, and I don't hate him oops too late?
Ting Fai LAM very good point, but this isn't restricted to the internet, it's a common trend that existed long before digital media called confirmation bias. people generally don't get invested into argumentative content of any kind in order to form an opinion or consider new points, but to get satisfaction out of having their pre-existing opinion confirmed. our subconscience filters information based on its proximity to familiar information, and when an argument works well within our own belief systems and ideas, we automatically consider it to be more sound and reasonable, even if closer logical examination could reveal the opposite
Counterpoint: If Day[9] murdered DjWheat, he will go to prison and won't be able to stream. Therefore Day[9] *didn't* murder DjWhit and you must acquit. The argument is now finit and I will sit.
Where I come from, we call it a five paragraph essay.
The nomenclature for people who draw conclusion/accusation without structured evidences on the internet: Online Trolls. OMG.
so, anyone have good links to videos of fish farting? for research porpoises . . .
Most "arguments" on the internet are simply informal logical fallacies. The most common one I see is argument from assertion.
That reminds me I have a paper I should be writing :^)
Day 9 philosophy time
never seen any point arguing on the net. yesterday read some comments about vaccines for giggles, there was a person stating vaccine angainst measles is obsolete since measles morbidity is so low. (please note it's low because of vaccination)
Video on april 14th - baby face. Video on april 21st - fucking Hagrid on a week long binge drinking.
this teachers name even sounds like a professors name...
And this.. is how "Lets learn Starcraft" was born... :)
@DearSean: U know, I have taught quite a bit at some German Universitys in the past. So, when I see some internet-"discussion" about girl streamers, I try to make YOUR POINT, by stating something like: "Those girl-streamers, they are just boobs and slime (slimy)!" And people react by typing something like: "YES, and they take away all the viewers from the REAL streamers!" And I think to myself: Woah. The internet is not as bad as I thought - they TOTALLY GET MY POINT!!! Amirite, dear Day9? :D
Does anyone know what keyboard Sean is using?
Sean has multiple keyboards from WASD Keyboards ( www.wasdkeyboards.com/ ).
he should teach
Im not retaining this all
nattacka it's the idea that's important. explaining your opinion.
Now, I believe you murdered djWHEAT/Marcus.
The "bad" part at 7:50 sounds like speeches from Trump. :o
Why do you always need 3 points? Is it easier to digest? What if 2 is enough (i.e. we found a photo of Day9 stabbing Marcus, and then we found the knife with Day9's fingerprints)
You don't need 3 points, this is just a basic structure taught in schools because they want everything to be structured and provides a semi useful template for people who don't know what to do. Three is a decent number, as the more points you have usually the better the argument, although that is not always the case, for example if you have video evidence of someone committing a murder, do you really need anything else? And likewise if you have a dozen facts that are only semi-relevant do they really help your case?
Cheers man, that helps clear it up
When I installed Hearthstone 2 years ago never could I have predicted I'd to listen to a dude so attentively today. I dunno what your job is outside of streaming but I advise you start teaching.
Hagedorn army represent!
One of the few videos of day9 that are completely wrong.There is nothing wrong about thinking you are right and trying to prove it in an argument.
YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS VIDEO LAST YEAR DURING THE U.S. ELECTION CAMPAIGNS!
Idra vs Day9 state of the game
i dont do paragraphs bud...
only 87 comments dayum step it up subs!
Why did you murder DJWheat though?
sup Sean "Blur[9]" Sharp
Emotion is commonly used within courtrooms to persuade jurors either way. Starting with a believable conclusion is a common practice because it can immediately shift perceptions. Sean is making it seem like courtroom jurors are experts who are able to intake information and make perfect objective decisions, while in reality these people are emotionally influenced (just as we all are). While I do agree it is more effective to create arguments with concrete supporting details/ideas in a purely logical situation, purely logical situations rarely occur outside of a philosophy class. Emotion is always involved and by excluding it you lose a portion of the audience/participants.
...
Sean have you ever considered pursuing a career as a teacher?
On the case regarding female streamers.
Tough luck man, this is a free market and every marketing strategy is allowed.
Instead of crying like a baby, perhaps one should grow a spine and develop a new strategy to make ones streaming more appealing.
..
In otherwords, we can stop saying Livibee is literally Hitler because her skill level drops on stream.
600 views
59 likes + 1 dislike = 60
600/60=10
The Fast and The Furious 10 confirmed.
wait.. you mean to tell me.. that the sky is NOT blue because of fish farts?? ..my life has been a lie..
Day9 murdered DJWheat confirmed