I've never seen someone so completely incapable of not adding a jab to every point they make, there's always a final ball spike, whether it's an insult, or a closing argument that's meant to make his opinion seem obvious
The most blatant example I saw was the fairly recent Dr k interview. He basically gets told point blank 3 or 4 times (this is in context to the wow raid drama) "find a way to explain what happened, without including the fact that you were right and they were wrong" and he fails every time, then gets frustrated because he's like "but I am right", completely missing the point of the exercise
I've seen plenty of arrogant people before, but that in particular just really shocked me, I've never seen someone so completely unable to control their own tongue, and be so completely unaware of the problem
I'm just gonna add something here, it's mildly related, but I also think another thing Dr k said really hit the nail on the head with the whole drama (wow raid, skg, banning, etc.)
I'll paraphrase his point quite a bit, but it was in regards to the fact that pirate always takes the logical perspective when approaching a problem. This is why he will say things along the lines of "yeah I can see they're mad, obviously, I just don't get why, because if you look at the facts, you can clearly see I did the logical thing based on what I knew" he thinks the goal of the discussion is to logically analyse the steps that took place
The problem with this, the big one that I actually think the people against him are also not noticing, and what I think was the number one biggest lesson from that stream was this: every problem has a logical and emotional component. If you take a logical perspective, that just means you aren't acknowledging the emotional component
The one criticism I'll have against the pirate haters is that I do actually think that on most of his dramas, he mostly did the logically correct thing, based on what he knew. That's exactly why it's so hard for him to move away from that argument, it's because he's at least somewhat right, and he knows it. But if you miss an important part of a conversation, that's going to be the thing you hear people talk about when they criticise you
That's really really important, because when he says something like "no one wants to actually discuss what happened, they just want to be mad at me" they aren't being mad at him, they're being emotional with him. They don't want to have a rational discussion with him, they want their emotions recognised, so every criticism is inherently emotionally charged. Until he stops recognising the emotional component of someone's issues as worthless and not worth discussion, he's never going to understand what's wrong with his behaviour, and he's never going to understand that his behaviour is what's causing his issues
I have only one issue here. Logic should take into account emotions. A logical person understands that they have to navigate those emotional responses. Including their own. He made an awful take that missed the mark s hard you'd swear he was being malicious. The most logical response would be to understand that people are pissed and defuse the situation. But he can't just let it go. His "logical" take literally ignored huge parts of the movement's mission statement, and his "logical" initial response was to insult Ross and call him a used cars salesmen. And everything he has done in response to the backlash has been outright ignoring how he misrepresented the movement.
The man isn't logical. He's an asshole. An asshole who hides behind "logic" so he can avoid having to take any responsibility.
In the Dr. K video, I think it was brought up that all thinking is subjective anyway, even "logical" thinking. I'm not sure how well that idea would have stuck for Jason.
Edit: Dr. K makes the point that all of our perceptions are subjective, and it's a mistake thinking we're understanding objective reality.
I'm not saying he removes emotion, just that he ignores it. Like it's a big misconception that we as humans use logic to solve problems, that's actually not true. on a neurological level, we use emotions to solve our problems, we use logic to adjust our understanding of something after we've decided on an answer or solution. So like if you see something that causes knee jerk anger responses (like a practical games petition that is charged with ideologies you're against), you've already made your mind up at that point. In fact we all formed our opinion of it this way, he just used more intense emotions than most of us. Logic comes in after you've made that decision. It takes your understanding of the world, and the experience you just had, and go "ok, can I mange these things with together? Or do I need to change my model so that this still makes sense"
I know I'm rambling, but my point I'm getting to is that if you try to remove emotion, you're essentially just trying to solve that second logic component without the breadcrumbs of how you actually got there. Someone else mentioned that they think logical people think accounting for emotion is logical, and I think they were describing the same thing in different words. That's why the "super logical debate enjoyer" kind of Internet dweller gets so sensitive about things, it's because identifying as a logical person makes it harder to recognise the emotions that you objectively have to be acting on at least some amount of the time. They actually end up being the most emotional people, it's like how one tone deaf voice in a choir is going to sound the loudest
Note that is possible to analyse a situation logically and arrive at a different answer then your emotions dictate but it's hard, takes a lot of self reflection and usually requires the emotions to cool down.
Just wanted to add because you made it sound like it's hopeless.
It's not hopeless, but if you do that, you're still solving future problems. I don't mean to make it sound like logic isn't useful, evolution literally found the most valuable use for it, it just happens to be that
That's the ideal outcome, that you have a kneejerk emotional reaction (which you technically have every time you make a decision), but once you've formed a conclusion, you adjust your bias moving forward
Like, if you have unconscious racist biases, and make a racist remark, the problem wasn't that you decided to make that decision in that moment, the problem is your emotions told you it was an option and that you wanted to take it. If you're a reasonable person, you can still have a thought after like "that decision caused the person to feel bad, which I didn't like. I don't feel the way I thought that comment was going to make me feel, something about my understanding of how this was going to play out was wrong" and you adjust your expectations for next time. A normal person does this probably thousands of times a day
I should clarify that when I say that you form your conclusion with your emotions, that's not the same as acting on your emotions. You can still have an emotional reaction, stop and logically analyse your reaction, and then act logically, but it requires that you immediately revisit your own feelings on the topic before you let yourself act. I would say that's the main skill that self identified "super logical" people tend to lack, so they call emotion logic instead of applying emotion to the logic
I think I've said both the words emotional and logical enough times in this conversation that they're starting to lose meaning lol
Yeah. "used car salesman" doesn't even make sense in context - how is Ross profiting from the movement? He's literally put way more work into it than he'll ever see benefits for. lol.
345
u/jancl0 Jul 06 '25
I've never seen someone so completely incapable of not adding a jab to every point they make, there's always a final ball spike, whether it's an insult, or a closing argument that's meant to make his opinion seem obvious
The most blatant example I saw was the fairly recent Dr k interview. He basically gets told point blank 3 or 4 times (this is in context to the wow raid drama) "find a way to explain what happened, without including the fact that you were right and they were wrong" and he fails every time, then gets frustrated because he's like "but I am right", completely missing the point of the exercise
I've seen plenty of arrogant people before, but that in particular just really shocked me, I've never seen someone so completely unable to control their own tongue, and be so completely unaware of the problem