You're viewing a single thread.
I get that it's a funny retort, but can we not promote this transphobe, pedo adjacent fake ass leftist on here as if he's not an awful person?
you are lucky that I personally got Biden into office because otherwise – is Hakim from Iraq? Well, hey listen ok, we're going to get Biden to get those troops out of Iraq ok – wait did he already do that? We are going to keep Biden from fucking bombing anymore of your airports ok. That's what we're going to do! - Vaush
I'm not following Vaush actively, but I've never heard any transphobic remarks from him, and the "pedo" stuff has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Do you have specific examples you could share?
https://twitter.com/beigegoat45/status/1325705005886746624
I'll amend my statement to "pedo-enabling", happy? So where's that "thorough" debunk?
Another poster has linked you to his video on this topic. Yes, he said some very stupid things to provoke discussions and reactions, and the whole thing was both immature and misguided. But shouldn't you be able to say "I did some very stupid things and will do better in the future"?
If he did something similar more recently, I'd be with you - tar and feather him, and exclude him from the community. But he hasn't (afaik). Mistakes shouldn't brand you forever, as long as you're honestly doing better and working against those mistakes.
Pretty recently, there was the incident of his porn folder being leaked on stream. H3H3 had a pretty good breakdown I thought, but the basic premise is: it's true, a lot of his past rhetoric has a lot of plausible deniability. I.e. Him using extreme examples to make what is a good point, lots of the clips turn out to just be him being baited to talk about his old clips, making it seem like he talks about it a lot more than he does, many clips are actually making the opposite point of what the clip implies he's making etc.
The thing is, he also has plenty of clips of him saying that consuming lolicon is sus and someone doing that should be scrutinized. And the thing is, the couple images that showed up (just a random sampling of recent porn he had downloaded) contained pretty unequivocal lolicon. And the worst thing was, in his two response videos he made to the H3H3 podcast, he didn't mention this central criticism of the podcast even once except for some vague allusion to plausible deniability about how old the girls looked. He didn't take responsibility, he didn't promise to examine himself or change, he just tried to sweep it under the rug and go for the much more easily defended points about the horses and various out of context clips. (The H3H3 podcast actually did an incredible job putting it all into context and for the most part they ended up seeing Vaushes side in most of the bad-faith clips.)
But as the podcast says, what Vaush is relying on is that no one in his audience actually sees the images that were on his hard drive, (which to be fair, it doesn't show up on a quick Google search, and it's not very pleasant to go hunting for the photos)
I hadn't heard about that. Are you referring to this episode? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H61pA1ZPTs8
I'll try to watch it over the next few days. Thanks for the notice!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=H61pA1ZPTs8
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yeah H3H3 did two because vaush responded to the first one and they weren't satisfied (cause as I said, he never directly addressed the core accusation) Idk, I know it's a lot to get someone to work through like 6 hours of content, especially when it's pretty grody. I have a routine that allows me to put super long videos like these on in the background but that's unique.
No, thank you for the recommendation! If I post comments defending him, I want to be informed of such things happening, because it will affect whether I keep doing it.
I'll hopefully remember to reply once I got through it all.
You are aware that 18 years old is higher than the age of consent in most of the Developed World, were it's generally set at 16: in this like in many other things it's the US that's the outlier religious nutter of the developed world.
Not to mention that your "logic" is claiming that somebody who wants to change the law is not law abidding, which is ridiculous: if that person did not care to abide by the law, why change it?!
No idea what's the full idea of this guy and if it is or not a good suggestion, but the logic and format of you counter-point has a crazy "only criminals would want to change the law" subservient statist-bitch vibe to it.
This is a good example of an argument that fails by virtue of its foundational premises. Vaush's foundational premise for age of consent is tied to socioeconomic or material factors around power. In other words, the argument is founded on the premise that a child has less power than an adult so children can't consent to intimate relationships with adults. This ignores the much more intractable argument over psychological and emotional maturity and the significance of particular age-specific life milestones that help to shape a child into an adult - a fully self-accountable member of society. Socioeconomics have mitigating influence over those things, which implies that even under socialism or any kind of post-capitalist society, that a society would have good reason to maintain agent of consent laws. It also totalizes socioeconomic factors as the defining impetus for consent, but that is in and of itself a slippery slope because you could take it to a logical extreme and argue that people of color and white people shouldn't be allowed to be in relationships, because a person of color has less socioeconomic power in America than a white person, or even that men and women shouldn't be allowed to be in relationships at all because men have greater socioeconomic power than women, which would mean that everyone should only be allowed to date same-sex members of their own race.
That's a bit troubling, though I would like to see Vaush expand on that. I could understand that the age of consent could be updated. For example, it's illegal for a 18 y/o to be with a 17 y/o, which is ridiculous to me. What are two 17 y/o kids that are dating supposed to do when the first one to turn 18 happens? We know it's not typically enforced in situations like that, but it shouldn't even be a thing because if the parents are jerks, they could come after the recent 18 y/o who is probably mentally still a kid since transitioning to adulthood doesn't happen from one day to the next. I would like to see a rolling age of consent for that age range. Maybe like a 1.5 year range between partners or something like that until the older one hits 19.5 y/o. From then on, it's a hard line at 18 y/o.
While I'm at it, I would be ok with raising the age of consent to participate in professional porn to 21 y/o.
Edit: Apparently, there are already laws that allow what I have described about with the 17/18 divide. See comments below.
This is already handled by Romeo and Juliet laws in several states. People recognize that young people are going to turn 18 while dating.
Age of consent laws aren't there to hamper people near the age of consent. They're there to stop people well above the age of consent from being sick fucks.
As an example, a 40 year old dating a 19 year old is fucked up. It'd be just as fucked up if they were 21 instead of 19, and even 25 is questionable. Not illegal, because we have to draw the line somewhere, but still despicable imo
They’re there to stop people well above the age of consent from being sick fucks. As an example, a 40 year old dating a 19 year old is fucked up.
While I agree, I think that current laws wouldn't protect the 19 y/o since any person over 18 y/o can date any other person over 18 y/o. That means that a 40 y/o can date a 19 y/o without any legal repercussions. Is this not the case?
You're correct. We have to set a line somewhere unfortunately. I don't think we could codify a "half your age plus 7"
though I would like to see Vaush expand on that.
Watch the video linked in another comment. He covers everything.
Tbf, while it is state law and so varies, many US states have a provision something like "if over 18, can't fuck under 18yo, UNLESS you're within 4yr and have met in an organic way, like school or work." So an 18yo and a 17yo from the same school would be fine, but a 21yo who met her online or at the mall would still get in trouble for the 17yo, if the parents press charges.
oh, I did not know that. I'm happy that exists then.
Wow a stupid not-thought out take on Discord from 6 years ago, he's clearly Epstein himself in disguise
I wonder what point he was trying to make in those latter two clips? I wonder if he made a dumb choice to say something extremely inflammatory in an attempt to highlight problems with other forms of child exploitation that we as a society not only accept, but actively endorse?
this transphobe
There are very few cis youtubers with more pro-trans content on Youtube than Vaush. Hate on the guy for being abrasive or because you don't like his personality or his humor or because he sometimes has dumb opinions, but there's no need to lie like this.
Yeah Vaush is a piece of shit, and he may have said some fucked up shit in the past but I don't think it's cool to brand someone like that when he's clearly shown that he's changed for the better on these issues. People gotta be more accepting of someone that has changed their minds for the better, otherwise everything will stay like it is.
But he's still a piece of shit, but for other reasons.
I guess I'll link this and ask for specifics, because I've observed quite the opposite.
Given you seem to have taken your quote about personally getting Biden into office seriously, I think it's pretty reasonable for anyone to be questioning your take here.
There's plenty to dislike vaush for, but they always go for the dumbest shit.
I can even start em off. He never does debate prep so if he's presented with a fact or statistic he doesn't know, he forms his idea of how he thinks it should work /an explanation that fits his worldview and argues that point then looks up data to back it after the fact. It comes across as super weak, especially for a guy who acts like some supreme lord of intellect.
But then again, knowing that would actually involve engaging with his content. It's much easier to clip him out of context and call him a pedo.
The guy is certainly far from perfect, but I think he's pretty reasonable overall, and that the complains above are nonsense.
He certainly slowed up on the debate prep over time, but he's also basically stopped debating. From what I understand, his rationale was that you can't get across all statistics, and that the people he was debating weren't meaningfully backed by the data in any case so it's fairly easy to find and debunk those syats/studies on the fly, which he frequently did. I don't think it negatively affected his performance all that much.
It's a valid complaint to make, though I don't personally think it's particularly material, and certainly has nothing to do with the nonsense complaints that were made above.
Oh absolutely. In fact I started watching vaush because I like debates, but Sam seder's style was really not my jam and nobody else vibes with me. Like destiny is rhetorically effective, but cedes so much ground to actual nazis that he's hard to watch. Vaush will hold them down on the premises they throw out and expect to be accepted and it's amazing to watch them squirm.
It's sad he barely debates anymore and I also don't give a shit about his fashion arc.
I couldn't agree more.
He is pro-NATO, so, not a leftist. Source
Oh imperialist expansionism forced Russia to invade a soverign country huh?
But no go ahead and keep purity testing, see how that works for you.
Not a purity test. I watch Pakman and Kyle Kulinski and the Majority Report. But, they don’t claim to be a libertarian socialist. It’s about honesty. Maybe he’s just confused. But for someone who has read “all theory,” I find his position on NATO dishonest.
And a real democratic socialist thinks russian imperialism is... Good? I mean you can't even pretend Ukraine is NATO's fault because they've been invading neighbors for over 20 years.
All imperialism is bad. A person can be against Russian imperialism, American imperialism and NATO. NATO’s original mission was a check on the socialism of the Soviet Union. Source.
Today,
Instead of being for collective self-defense, NATO is a means for several of the most powerful states in the world—including the US, Canada, the UK, France, and Germany—to maintain global control of people and resources to serve western capitalist interests. Source
Simply, as a socialist, you can’t be anti-capitalist and pro-NATO. Vaush is not a socialist. He’s a social democrat at best, which is fine. But don’t lie to your audience and misrepresent yourself.
OK, I'll let you have it because I have a separate question.
So in the ideal socialist land where nato disbands and the US is no longer the world police... Who stops Russia?
Hypothetically? It’s impossible to guess what would have happened 30 years ago if NATO had dissolved. But if I had to theorize:
If NATO had dissolved, Ukraine would still be a vassal state of Russia under Yanukovych. So, Russia would never have invaded.
But, even if the Maidan happened. Ukraine could still get help from Europe and America without NATO.
If China and the BRICS countries formed a military defensive alliance to secure their interests through trade, would Vaush be in support of that kind of imperialism? If the answer is No, then, why?
Ukraine could still get help from Europe and America without NATO.
Nope, America slashed military spending and can only defend their continental holdings. Europe has to cover it all. Wait does that make them imperialist now?
If China and the BRICS countries formed a military defensive alliance to secure their interests through trade, would Vaush be in support of that kind of imperialism? If the answer is No, then, why?
I don't like vaush enough to defend him across a whole thread. But personally I don't think you can use a defensive alliance to invade soverign countries without provocation, which is what I assume the end state would be if BRICS formed a military alliance.
Also let's pretend Iraq didn't happen. That one's on Bush.
People act like nato is some crazy imperialist project that the US psyops countries into wanting to join, when in reality they just want access to weaponry and protection from Russia. Sweden joined up fast after Ukraine got invaded. Poland ordered a shitload of HIMARS as well. Russia acts like all its neighbors seeking security from invasion (Chechnya twice, Georgia, Ukraine) is some grand plan to encircle them and... Invade?
Yeah. He gets heated in debates and doesn't really think what he says through. This being a shining example. He doesn't get how condescending this comment is to someone from Iraq.
transphobe
pedo adjacent
fake ass leftist
Literally none of that is true about Vaush though. He's been accused of all those things, but every single accusations ends up being either a massively uncharitable interpretation of something he said, or a straight up "I think Coolsville sucks" cut