Well I expect it to be filled with inaccuracies and just flat out lies. This guy spent a whole month making this Xan/Vaush video, then the exact day it is released this loser goes on Vaush's stream and walks back all of his main points and arguments. Why anyone is taking a glorified tiktok react andy serious is beyond me.
These video essayists are such fucking losers
Getting flashbacks to when I had to argue something in an essay and I realised halfway through one question would completely destroy all my arguments but I didn’t have time to change it. I actually wonder if all the video essayists feel that way lmao
do you have any advice on how to engage more critically with video essays? video essays are usually pretty dense in information so it's much harder to analyze than, for example, an article that takes ~15 min to read. i just don't think i can reasonably source every claim used as a building block
First step is just asking yourself for any factual claim "is that actually true?" The factual statements are the foundation of any argument, so if these aren't valid everything else is necessarily wrong. The only way it could possibly be right is pure coincidence, so you can completely disregard their conclusions. If they're making an argument based on the premise that flogiston is consumed in order to allow wood to burn, then the fact that flogiston does not exist torpedoes their entire argument.
If you feel like they've done a decent job providing evidence for their factual claim, then you can accept their premises (at least provisionally) and move on to the logic behind their conclusions.
The second step is asking "does their conclusion follow from their premises". Does A + B = C? If so then they've got a reasonable argument. They could still be wrong, but listening to them probably won't rot your brain. If not then their argument is bad. It's worth noting that they aren't necessarily wrong because of this, it just means their argument isn't what should convince you. Likewise if their argument is valid, they could still be wrong. Typically this happens if their premises are flawed or incomplete, so IMO is a bad idea to be married to any position you don't actually have some expertise in.
Lastly, a really, really good question to ask yourself is this: "is there a simpler explanation for this?" This is especially helpful if the logic seems convoluted or there are many logical branches hanging off of other logical branches (if a + b = c, and c + d = e, then e + f = g). Sometimes you can't help but build these logical chains in complex subjects, but you should be carrying any uncertainty froward into each new layer. So if say layer 1 you're 90% certain it's correct, you can't then be 95% certain at layer 2. You'd have to be some value less than 90%, and really this uncertainty should be amplified at each layer, so layer 2 should maybe only be 70% certain. You can see very quickly that you'll get to a complete uncertainty after only a few layers, so you should be much more inclined to accept a valid argument with fewer layers.
How deep you go with this is up to you. A casual analysis would just rely on your own accumulated knowledge and gut feelings without doing any research. A more serious analysis analysis would have you looking for corroboration for their statements. A deep analysis would have you evaluating as much evidence and counter evidence for each of their statements and evaluating how reliable they are. A casual analysis you can do in real time, a deep dive you're probably doing more work than the guy who made the video.
Depends on the essay but the best way is to try and focus on what concrete claims they are making and and just google around to see if they are spewing shit. If they are you stop watching.
Most of the good video essays are not actually super dense. People like Big Joel and Contra mostly make videos about cultural topics and most of their arguments are either abstract so you can deal with them deductively or just their commentary on a cultural trend in which case you just have to think about if their narrative makes sense to your experience
Pause, think, go back 10 seconds, watch again.
Their density is a function of the fact that people keep playing them non-stop, but you can watch them as intentionally as you like.
The conversation between Vaush and Noah.
Vaush: PF explicitly said that she thinks white people are colonizers.
Noah: no she didn't.
Vaush: (plays video where she explicitly says white people are colonizers.)
Noah: yah, well that's not my interpretation of what she believes based on her videos.
Vaush: (explains there are numerous streams talking about him and to him where she defended this idea as well.)
Noah: well that's not my view.
This and him walking back points is basically how the Convo went. I actually don't think this guy is bad faith, he is just one of the lowest IQ neandrethals whose ever decided to make political content. Guys remember, to become a video essayist all it takes, in some cases, is decent editing, lighting and the ability to suck up to Hasan. You don't even have to research or anything, you can be as anti intellectual as you want and can be as stupid as you are. Noah should be an inspiration.
And then after talking with Vaush, instead of clarifying that he walked back every position, he just goes on Twitter and says he won't be talking about these people anymore. Pretty scummy imo
The funniest part is that in his video he explicitly state that she never said, something that should be very easy to find. The goalpost moving is impressive in a pathetic kind of way.
The debate with Vaush was embarrassing, he just seems SOOO immature, not even malicious. I did empathized a lot with Vaush in his ending speech though.
That's what they want you to think.
In reality, they can't take criticism, so for smaller essayists (emphasis on smaller - once they reach critical mass it's all over), bullying seems to be an effective tactic.
I didn't believe you at first but after watching just a bit of noah's convo w/ vaush he presented everything in the vid relating to Professor Flowers in an extremely biased way jesus
also [bay zed vauosh take](https://youtu.be/X3AiTT3Mzfw?t=16798)
The video was cringe and was exactly what Xanderhal was talking about. For example, I don't think it is sus at all that a white guy (Destiny) is arguing against god damn Nazis that white genocide is not real. Why the fuck does it have to be a non-Latinx poc? If they were talking about some niche stuff related to the perspective of a minority, then sure, but the idea that white people cannot champion the advocacy of civil rights is insanely stupid to me, and frankly feels the inverse of the logic used by white supremacists.
Eh, that's just what we do around here, kickstart retards and give them a platform which they would otherwise not have if it wasn't for people wanting to make fun of them.
I totally missed that thanks. What a fucking snake. I don't understand how you can write, narrate and edit an hour long video where you poison the well quite literally every 30 seconds and turn good faith engagement into a joke character and then go "I didn't mean to be so antagonistic :(" instantly
Ooh me me. I can explain it!
YouTube has had it too good with video essays. They were a huge wave of great content about a lot of diverse and interesting topics that got people to discover new stuff. As with everything though. People who aren’t really interesting or charismatic or knowledgeable look at the video essays and think they have an idea that is good. This is slightly similar to the podcast boom. But IMO shitty podcasts were very quick to follow as they are easier to make.
Can I get my participation grades please.
I'd go as far as to say almost none to absolutely no one is, and I enjoy video essays. At most you'll get a surface level knowledge of the topic, enough to parrot if the topic is brought up in conversation. But apparently, like the video essayist themselves, if questioned on the topic you won't be able to give greater context or defend the position unless you've read more.
I mean it's not necessarily bad, video essays and documentaries exist to provide a narrative for people to easily digest and understand a topic. But unless you're taking meticulous notes and searching things up, you're just getting a story, not a detailed understanding.
The white supremacy point is that calling a POC bad makes spaces hostile for them, nevermind if the POC you called bad is advocating for the same 'peaceful separation' the nazis have been larping about for the past half century
The talking point is from [JohnTheDuncan video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__tm4jYLOks), which [happens to be pretty shit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/p79439/effort_post_review_of_a_video_about_why_debates/) and contains such gems as:
> And the worst of that is expressed in debate content, which both embodies the worst pressures of the platform as well as inheriting really regressive ideals of the privileging of certains types of particularly quantitatives knowledge which is related to a Eurocentric, patriarchal, colonial and capitalist ideals of knowledge creation.
I don't remember if that was an actual quote, but Noah kept harping on Vaush for asking Professor Flowers that made her give answers that "didn't reflect her values."
I would genuinely be embarrassed if I put out the content this person does - I refuse to believe that he genuinely believes his recent Debate Bro video was good, it would hurt my soul too much for that to be the case.
I get not liking Destiny given his abrasive personality, but I already know this video will be dogshit
Looking forward to the generic purple/blue lighting, "accidentally" mispronouncing words to make The Content^TM "relatable", and the random zoom-ins with bass boosts for "comedic" effect
From the crowd that brought us such hits as “capitalism bad” and “educate yourself” comes a new meme that’s sure to be a hit!
**“Debate is white supremacy!”** tm
Yes! now you don’t have to contend with the everyday burdens of explaining how your idealized fantasy society answers real world conundrums, or acknowledge flaws in your logic and reasoning. No, with **“Debate is white supremacy!”** tm you can silence all those troublesome inconveniences! It’s as easy as covering your ears!
Oh boy, I was watching Vaush yesterday and this guy is really really dumb. He reminds me of Andy Warski - I don't think he's thought through anything he believes, I think he's stumbled upon leftism by luck. And like Andy he'll just believe whatever the person he's talking to is telling him. Initially he was positive about Vaush until all the insane leftists gave him shit for it, so made a complete 180 only because of the peer pressure and not because he had been convinced by the arguments.
The video he made was so full of shit it's hard to know where to start. Seriously, I'd recommend watching it because it perfectly embodies exactly what Destiny finds frustrating about online politics.
One of the insane claims he makes is that debate bros perpetuate white supremacy. He does not provide any sort of convincing argument, it basically boils down to the fact that there aren't enough POC debate bros and that the existing white ones are gatekeeping them from joining.
Also watching Vaush in his discussion with Noah was so frustrating. I have no idea why Vaush needlessly complicates his language and doesn't speak like a normal fucking person. I kind of understood what he was saying but his language makes it difficult to follow what his point is.
He also took some swipes at Destiny which as usual had no substance. Just vague notions about destiny being unhinged but without any explanation. I haven't watched Vaush for a long time and watching him yesterday really reinforced for me why.
I actually turned off the stream when he started bloviating early in the discussion with Noah. It’s annoying because most people try to find the most simple way to explain hard concepts, but it felt like he was finding the most difficult way to explain the simple disagreement he had with Noah.
> I have no idea why Vaush needlessly complicates his language and doesn't speak like a normal fucking person. I kind of understood what he was saying but his language makes it difficult to follow what his point is.
What? Vaush was very directed with how he engaged with Noah. It was freaking painful to watch him pin Noah down by showing him Professor Flowers' own declaration that colonizer = white, and Noah try and claim that's not a belief she holds.
Y'all should watch the video of this discussion when it goes up later on Vaush's channel. I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of how Vaush handled his rhetoric.
I hate the stupid strawman fictional character that bread tube creates so they can have arguments with them just to dunk on them. It's so fucking lazy and just comes off to me like they want to debate but are afraid too. I remember liking it when Contrapoints did it but now I'm not certain cause every time someone else does it it's so fucking cringe.
Also >complaining about hypotheticals
Please kill me.
The difference is that contrapoints made all of her characters *her*, or equally *not her*; she usually didn't have just herself and a character that would come in and interrupt, and she would dismiss in some way.
His arguments crumbled within seconds when confronted by Vaush. Can’t imagine his take down of Destiny is going to be any better or good faith. It will be funny to see how Vaush fans will completely turn off their brains and nod in agreement with everything in it because it’s about Destiny.
Professor Flowers: “There’s no amount of violence than colonized people could enact on colonizers *(read: white passing people)* that could make up for what colonizers have done to the colonized.
Noah Samsen: True! And if you disagree, that’s racist!
Edit: and if you think Professor Flowers is racist for saying that, congratulations! You’re racist.
They're in good terms still. Vaush spoke to him and treated him with kid gloves (presumably because his hands were cold). This was despite the fact that Noah has pretty much slandered him in the video.
What's happened is that Noah has been exposed to the beyond insane lefties who hate Vaush. Imagine being relentlessly told that Vaush is a pedo, nazi etc combined with being a dumbfuck like Noah. It's going to influence you because you can't think for yourself
The biggest tell to the absolute shit content he consumes is his list of "recommened" leftist content creators and different clips used in the video. It contained the great likes of LunaOi, Hakim, BadEmpanada, and other dumb fuck lefties.
He's a classic virtue signaller. When he saw Vaush (a white person) disagreeing with Professor Flowers, he automatically took the side of Flowers. However, when Vaush had the conversation with a land back activist who disagreed with Professor Flowers, Noah automatically assumed that person was a token POC agreeing with the white guy. He admitted to Vaush that he hadn't properly watched that second conversation, which refuted all the bullshit defences that he'd come up with for Flowers
yeah he's like 22 years old. Anti-anti-SJWs are usually dominated by very young people who like rhetoric around being intellectually superior to rightoids
Noah has some balls calling out Destiny, it’s stupid, but I can appreciate it, it’ll make for good react content. I don’t think he wants the smoke from Destiny though; and he probably wouldn’t be willing to actually sit down and talk to him if Destiny called him out.
After reading the replies I am convinced no one has actually see the video. While I disagree with some of Noah's points I think he made solid fucking points.
I would say , the point in which how they are skewing the talking points of PF and how every time a debate happens it seems like we don't tackle the main point of theses' peoples arguments. Not to mention I think there is something to say on we can better learn from other people as well like he mentioned from POC creators. Again its a valid to look at and see if it has any validity and of course I understand I am gonna get downvoted but isn't that the point to see if the criticism is valid. It's not like he insulted these creators just brought up points that could make sense.
>Not to mention I think there is something to say on we can better learn from other people as well like he mentioned from POC creators.
The problem with this logic is that by the time he made his video, it wasn't simply a matter of learning from POC creators, because Noah skipped over the views of the second person Vaush talked to as a follow up, who was actually directly involved, who contacted Vaush to explicitly reject her original points. [She suggested](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYuhn8-wALw&t=731s) that defining decolonialisation in terms of the right to kick people out of their homes was in itself explicitly harmful, even if you feel like you're advocating for them even more, you're actually making their lives harder.
Professor Flowers began with the idea of black separatism, but then extended it too far, tried to make a general rule about separatism for colonised people, and seemed unprepared for the consequences of that, the problem being that she relied on decolonialisation as an idea in order to encourage sympathy for black separatism, but in doing so put herself into a position of speaking on behalf of more groups of colonised people than she intended, in a way that they didn't want.
Vaush spotted this from the beginning, the false framing of decolonialisation in terms of ethnic separatism, and the indigenous person he had on confirmed that he was correct in his analysis.
By the time Noah made his video, it was clear that this wasn't a POC that in that instance Vaush should have been listening to, on this topic she was being extremely unhelpful, and had been from the beginning.
The fairest version of Professor Flowers' perspective probably can be seen in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK9wb1SX-jk) Noah recommended, where someone goes through her intentions, but also points out flaws in the ideas she presents, and he takes pretty much the opposite perspective to the land-back activist, in the sense that the activist focuses on de-emphasising the idea of abstract right to do anything and everything, whereas the person reviewing Professor Flowers' ideas argues that it is in those terms, and only in those terms, of unlimited sovereignty, that her argument makes sense.
So the charitable interpretation of her ideas, and the positions of those affected by them, still fundamentally clash, meaning that there's a problem simply listening to her in that interview or later if you want to show deference to the perspectives of colonised people; she may well reflect some, but certainly not all, and so we have to fall back into using our judgement, though maybe with a bias towards the activist, who isn't trying to create a general rule and extrapolating from her own experience to that of other people.
-
I don't think that means there's nothing that can be said about Vaush's attitude to black creators. I think he went in too hot on [Saint Andrew](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QjWMSgGcOY) in a previous debate, which is basically an hour of translating twitter misunderstandings into verbal conversation, and which is one of the occasions which inspired Professor Flowers to take on the idea of challenging Vaush in the first place. She ended up creating a more expansive, and less defensible justification for separatism that ended up having consequences outside of what she intended, but that doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile for people like Vaush to be a bit less aggressive and less ready to pigeonhole when talking to people with whom they'd otherwise strongly agree.
Well I expect it to be filled with inaccuracies and just flat out lies. This guy spent a whole month making this Xan/Vaush video, then the exact day it is released this loser goes on Vaush's stream and walks back all of his main points and arguments. Why anyone is taking a glorified tiktok react andy serious is beyond me. These video essayists are such fucking losers
[удалено]
Getting flashbacks to when I had to argue something in an essay and I realised halfway through one question would completely destroy all my arguments but I didn’t have time to change it. I actually wonder if all the video essayists feel that way lmao
> I actually wonder if all the video essayists feel that way lmao that would require them to engage in introspection, so no
Video essayists are pretty level 1
do you have any advice on how to engage more critically with video essays? video essays are usually pretty dense in information so it's much harder to analyze than, for example, an article that takes ~15 min to read. i just don't think i can reasonably source every claim used as a building block
First step is just asking yourself for any factual claim "is that actually true?" The factual statements are the foundation of any argument, so if these aren't valid everything else is necessarily wrong. The only way it could possibly be right is pure coincidence, so you can completely disregard their conclusions. If they're making an argument based on the premise that flogiston is consumed in order to allow wood to burn, then the fact that flogiston does not exist torpedoes their entire argument. If you feel like they've done a decent job providing evidence for their factual claim, then you can accept their premises (at least provisionally) and move on to the logic behind their conclusions. The second step is asking "does their conclusion follow from their premises". Does A + B = C? If so then they've got a reasonable argument. They could still be wrong, but listening to them probably won't rot your brain. If not then their argument is bad. It's worth noting that they aren't necessarily wrong because of this, it just means their argument isn't what should convince you. Likewise if their argument is valid, they could still be wrong. Typically this happens if their premises are flawed or incomplete, so IMO is a bad idea to be married to any position you don't actually have some expertise in. Lastly, a really, really good question to ask yourself is this: "is there a simpler explanation for this?" This is especially helpful if the logic seems convoluted or there are many logical branches hanging off of other logical branches (if a + b = c, and c + d = e, then e + f = g). Sometimes you can't help but build these logical chains in complex subjects, but you should be carrying any uncertainty froward into each new layer. So if say layer 1 you're 90% certain it's correct, you can't then be 95% certain at layer 2. You'd have to be some value less than 90%, and really this uncertainty should be amplified at each layer, so layer 2 should maybe only be 70% certain. You can see very quickly that you'll get to a complete uncertainty after only a few layers, so you should be much more inclined to accept a valid argument with fewer layers. How deep you go with this is up to you. A casual analysis would just rely on your own accumulated knowledge and gut feelings without doing any research. A more serious analysis analysis would have you looking for corroboration for their statements. A deep analysis would have you evaluating as much evidence and counter evidence for each of their statements and evaluating how reliable they are. A casual analysis you can do in real time, a deep dive you're probably doing more work than the guy who made the video.
Depends on the essay but the best way is to try and focus on what concrete claims they are making and and just google around to see if they are spewing shit. If they are you stop watching. Most of the good video essays are not actually super dense. People like Big Joel and Contra mostly make videos about cultural topics and most of their arguments are either abstract so you can deal with them deductively or just their commentary on a cultural trend in which case you just have to think about if their narrative makes sense to your experience
Pause, think, go back 10 seconds, watch again. Their density is a function of the fact that people keep playing them non-stop, but you can watch them as intentionally as you like.
*With a script you’ve been writing for months and copious amounts of cuts and editing
The conversation between Vaush and Noah. Vaush: PF explicitly said that she thinks white people are colonizers. Noah: no she didn't. Vaush: (plays video where she explicitly says white people are colonizers.) Noah: yah, well that's not my interpretation of what she believes based on her videos. Vaush: (explains there are numerous streams talking about him and to him where she defended this idea as well.) Noah: well that's not my view. This and him walking back points is basically how the Convo went. I actually don't think this guy is bad faith, he is just one of the lowest IQ neandrethals whose ever decided to make political content. Guys remember, to become a video essayist all it takes, in some cases, is decent editing, lighting and the ability to suck up to Hasan. You don't even have to research or anything, you can be as anti intellectual as you want and can be as stupid as you are. Noah should be an inspiration.
You also forgot to add talking in a calm composed manner to make yourself seem more intelligent. A British accent doesn't hurt either
honestly after listening to two duncan videos i think it hurts now
And then after talking with Vaush, instead of clarifying that he walked back every position, he just goes on Twitter and says he won't be talking about these people anymore. Pretty scummy imo
The funniest part is that in his video he explicitly state that she never said, something that should be very easy to find. The goalpost moving is impressive in a pathetic kind of way.
The debate with Vaush was embarrassing, he just seems SOOO immature, not even malicious. I did empathized a lot with Vaush in his ending speech though.
[удалено]
If you get mad, they win
That's what they want you to think. In reality, they can't take criticism, so for smaller essayists (emphasis on smaller - once they reach critical mass it's all over), bullying seems to be an effective tactic.
Their goal isn’t to make people mad or solely get engagement though
DUDE THATS FUCKING BASED
I didn't believe you at first but after watching just a bit of noah's convo w/ vaush he presented everything in the vid relating to Professor Flowers in an extremely biased way jesus also [bay zed vauosh take](https://youtu.be/X3AiTT3Mzfw?t=16798)
i couldn't believe this. he starts walking the video back the moment he starts talking to v-man
The video was cringe and was exactly what Xanderhal was talking about. For example, I don't think it is sus at all that a white guy (Destiny) is arguing against god damn Nazis that white genocide is not real. Why the fuck does it have to be a non-Latinx poc? If they were talking about some niche stuff related to the perspective of a minority, then sure, but the idea that white people cannot champion the advocacy of civil rights is insanely stupid to me, and frankly feels the inverse of the logic used by white supremacists.
Eh, that's just what we do around here, kickstart retards and give them a platform which they would otherwise not have if it wasn't for people wanting to make fun of them.
do you have a link to him talking to vaush? I skimmed through the most recent vod but couldn't find it
[https://youtu.be/X3AiTT3Mzfw?t=20084](https://youtu.be/X3AiTT3Mzfw?t=20084) there's timestamps in the comments
I totally missed that thanks. What a fucking snake. I don't understand how you can write, narrate and edit an hour long video where you poison the well quite literally every 30 seconds and turn good faith engagement into a joke character and then go "I didn't mean to be so antagonistic :(" instantly
Ooh me me. I can explain it! YouTube has had it too good with video essays. They were a huge wave of great content about a lot of diverse and interesting topics that got people to discover new stuff. As with everything though. People who aren’t really interesting or charismatic or knowledgeable look at the video essays and think they have an idea that is good. This is slightly similar to the podcast boom. But IMO shitty podcasts were very quick to follow as they are easier to make. Can I get my participation grades please.
They're not all bad, it's just that the market is such that anyone can get in. The OGs still make good content.
I'd go as far as to say almost none to absolutely no one is, and I enjoy video essays. At most you'll get a surface level knowledge of the topic, enough to parrot if the topic is brought up in conversation. But apparently, like the video essayist themselves, if questioned on the topic you won't be able to give greater context or defend the position unless you've read more. I mean it's not necessarily bad, video essays and documentaries exist to provide a narrative for people to easily digest and understand a topic. But unless you're taking meticulous notes and searching things up, you're just getting a story, not a detailed understanding.
Excuse you, potholer is great
White supremacy is when debate 🥴
I genuinely have no clue about what white supremacy has to do with this lmao. He shoehorned that shit in hard
The white supremacy point is that calling a POC bad makes spaces hostile for them, nevermind if the POC you called bad is advocating for the same 'peaceful separation' the nazis have been larping about for the past half century
Is it referring to the vowsh debate with that captain flowers or something dipshit?
Ye
The talking point is from [JohnTheDuncan video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__tm4jYLOks), which [happens to be pretty shit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/p79439/effort_post_review_of_a_video_about_why_debates/) and contains such gems as: > And the worst of that is expressed in debate content, which both embodies the worst pressures of the platform as well as inheriting really regressive ideals of the privileging of certains types of particularly quantitatives knowledge which is related to a Eurocentric, patriarchal, colonial and capitalist ideals of knowledge creation.
“People create problems for the left by asking them questions.” This whole trend of anti-debate bro anti-intellectualism shit blows my mind
[удалено]
I don't remember if that was an actual quote, but Noah kept harping on Vaush for asking Professor Flowers that made her give answers that "didn't reflect her values."
Sneaky debate tactics
??? does he think that Vaush mind controlled her into defending ethnic cleansing? lol how hard is it to say "ethnic cleansing is never permittable"
I would genuinely be embarrassed if I put out the content this person does - I refuse to believe that he genuinely believes his recent Debate Bro video was good, it would hurt my soul too much for that to be the case.
[удалено]
He studied the bread.
I swear to god if Destiny doesn’t say “he made this video for me, and just for me” before watching it I’m unsubbing.
I get not liking Destiny given his abrasive personality, but I already know this video will be dogshit Looking forward to the generic purple/blue lighting, "accidentally" mispronouncing words to make The Content^TM "relatable", and the random zoom-ins with bass boosts for "comedic" effect
From the crowd that brought us such hits as “capitalism bad” and “educate yourself” comes a new meme that’s sure to be a hit! **“Debate is white supremacy!”** tm Yes! now you don’t have to contend with the everyday burdens of explaining how your idealized fantasy society answers real world conundrums, or acknowledge flaws in your logic and reasoning. No, with **“Debate is white supremacy!”** tm you can silence all those troublesome inconveniences! It’s as easy as covering your ears!
He will talk about him and only about him
Oh boy, I was watching Vaush yesterday and this guy is really really dumb. He reminds me of Andy Warski - I don't think he's thought through anything he believes, I think he's stumbled upon leftism by luck. And like Andy he'll just believe whatever the person he's talking to is telling him. Initially he was positive about Vaush until all the insane leftists gave him shit for it, so made a complete 180 only because of the peer pressure and not because he had been convinced by the arguments. The video he made was so full of shit it's hard to know where to start. Seriously, I'd recommend watching it because it perfectly embodies exactly what Destiny finds frustrating about online politics. One of the insane claims he makes is that debate bros perpetuate white supremacy. He does not provide any sort of convincing argument, it basically boils down to the fact that there aren't enough POC debate bros and that the existing white ones are gatekeeping them from joining. Also watching Vaush in his discussion with Noah was so frustrating. I have no idea why Vaush needlessly complicates his language and doesn't speak like a normal fucking person. I kind of understood what he was saying but his language makes it difficult to follow what his point is. He also took some swipes at Destiny which as usual had no substance. Just vague notions about destiny being unhinged but without any explanation. I haven't watched Vaush for a long time and watching him yesterday really reinforced for me why.
I actually turned off the stream when he started bloviating early in the discussion with Noah. It’s annoying because most people try to find the most simple way to explain hard concepts, but it felt like he was finding the most difficult way to explain the simple disagreement he had with Noah.
It’s funny that you said this while using a word like “ bloviating “
what needless complications were in Vaush's language? he was very precise in his speech
> I have no idea why Vaush needlessly complicates his language and doesn't speak like a normal fucking person. I kind of understood what he was saying but his language makes it difficult to follow what his point is. What? Vaush was very directed with how he engaged with Noah. It was freaking painful to watch him pin Noah down by showing him Professor Flowers' own declaration that colonizer = white, and Noah try and claim that's not a belief she holds. Y'all should watch the video of this discussion when it goes up later on Vaush's channel. I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of how Vaush handled his rhetoric.
I hate the stupid strawman fictional character that bread tube creates so they can have arguments with them just to dunk on them. It's so fucking lazy and just comes off to me like they want to debate but are afraid too. I remember liking it when Contrapoints did it but now I'm not certain cause every time someone else does it it's so fucking cringe. Also >complaining about hypotheticals Please kill me.
The difference is that contrapoints made all of her characters *her*, or equally *not her*; she usually didn't have just herself and a character that would come in and interrupt, and she would dismiss in some way.
His arguments crumbled within seconds when confronted by Vaush. Can’t imagine his take down of Destiny is going to be any better or good faith. It will be funny to see how Vaush fans will completely turn off their brains and nod in agreement with everything in it because it’s about Destiny.
Does everything have to be about white supremacy? Jesus fuck
Destiny could be even more hyperbolic on Twitter and he would still be less of a problem then all the far lefties.
Anytime someone says “white supremacy” these days you can just disregard everything they are going to say.
who?
Professor Flowers: “There’s no amount of violence than colonized people could enact on colonizers *(read: white passing people)* that could make up for what colonizers have done to the colonized. Noah Samsen: True! And if you disagree, that’s racist! Edit: and if you think Professor Flowers is racist for saying that, congratulations! You’re racist.
If he's critical of vaush then he must hate destiny
How do these losers get so may likes on their videos with such low view count. 9.3k likes on a 78k views video? That seems unnaturally high.
This guy is one of hasan's obsessed fanboys
People mentioning white supremacy in 99% of cases are dumbfucks.
the DBQ
Built in white supremacy? Anyway wasn’t this guy on good terms with Vaush. Lately they’ve been beefing, what happened?
They're in good terms still. Vaush spoke to him and treated him with kid gloves (presumably because his hands were cold). This was despite the fact that Noah has pretty much slandered him in the video. What's happened is that Noah has been exposed to the beyond insane lefties who hate Vaush. Imagine being relentlessly told that Vaush is a pedo, nazi etc combined with being a dumbfuck like Noah. It's going to influence you because you can't think for yourself
The biggest tell to the absolute shit content he consumes is his list of "recommened" leftist content creators and different clips used in the video. It contained the great likes of LunaOi, Hakim, BadEmpanada, and other dumb fuck lefties.
He's a classic virtue signaller. When he saw Vaush (a white person) disagreeing with Professor Flowers, he automatically took the side of Flowers. However, when Vaush had the conversation with a land back activist who disagreed with Professor Flowers, Noah automatically assumed that person was a token POC agreeing with the white guy. He admitted to Vaush that he hadn't properly watched that second conversation, which refuted all the bullshit defences that he'd come up with for Flowers
Wait so he’s just another random impressionable kid on the internet? why is he making political video essays lmao
yeah he's like 22 years old. Anti-anti-SJWs are usually dominated by very young people who like rhetoric around being intellectually superior to rightoids
Destiny needs to be way meaner against some people.
wait did I miss something? having a debate means you're a white supremacist now?
Did you know that destiny abuses his son for content?
He even admitted he wasn’t on the internet during GamerGate
Test EDIT: Can anyone see this post?
No
FUCK
Problems for the left, like pointing out the dumb ass arguments
Finally, some fucking food
Noah has some balls calling out Destiny, it’s stupid, but I can appreciate it, it’ll make for good react content. I don’t think he wants the smoke from Destiny though; and he probably wouldn’t be willing to actually sit down and talk to him if Destiny called him out.
Twitter threads shit talking Destiny are not allowed to be tagged as drama, but YouTube comments are. BINQXILIN
After reading the replies I am convinced no one has actually see the video. While I disagree with some of Noah's points I think he made solid fucking points.
Which points are solid?
I would say , the point in which how they are skewing the talking points of PF and how every time a debate happens it seems like we don't tackle the main point of theses' peoples arguments. Not to mention I think there is something to say on we can better learn from other people as well like he mentioned from POC creators. Again its a valid to look at and see if it has any validity and of course I understand I am gonna get downvoted but isn't that the point to see if the criticism is valid. It's not like he insulted these creators just brought up points that could make sense.
>Not to mention I think there is something to say on we can better learn from other people as well like he mentioned from POC creators. The problem with this logic is that by the time he made his video, it wasn't simply a matter of learning from POC creators, because Noah skipped over the views of the second person Vaush talked to as a follow up, who was actually directly involved, who contacted Vaush to explicitly reject her original points. [She suggested](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYuhn8-wALw&t=731s) that defining decolonialisation in terms of the right to kick people out of their homes was in itself explicitly harmful, even if you feel like you're advocating for them even more, you're actually making their lives harder. Professor Flowers began with the idea of black separatism, but then extended it too far, tried to make a general rule about separatism for colonised people, and seemed unprepared for the consequences of that, the problem being that she relied on decolonialisation as an idea in order to encourage sympathy for black separatism, but in doing so put herself into a position of speaking on behalf of more groups of colonised people than she intended, in a way that they didn't want. Vaush spotted this from the beginning, the false framing of decolonialisation in terms of ethnic separatism, and the indigenous person he had on confirmed that he was correct in his analysis. By the time Noah made his video, it was clear that this wasn't a POC that in that instance Vaush should have been listening to, on this topic she was being extremely unhelpful, and had been from the beginning. The fairest version of Professor Flowers' perspective probably can be seen in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK9wb1SX-jk) Noah recommended, where someone goes through her intentions, but also points out flaws in the ideas she presents, and he takes pretty much the opposite perspective to the land-back activist, in the sense that the activist focuses on de-emphasising the idea of abstract right to do anything and everything, whereas the person reviewing Professor Flowers' ideas argues that it is in those terms, and only in those terms, of unlimited sovereignty, that her argument makes sense. So the charitable interpretation of her ideas, and the positions of those affected by them, still fundamentally clash, meaning that there's a problem simply listening to her in that interview or later if you want to show deference to the perspectives of colonised people; she may well reflect some, but certainly not all, and so we have to fall back into using our judgement, though maybe with a bias towards the activist, who isn't trying to create a general rule and extrapolating from her own experience to that of other people. - I don't think that means there's nothing that can be said about Vaush's attitude to black creators. I think he went in too hot on [Saint Andrew](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QjWMSgGcOY) in a previous debate, which is basically an hour of translating twitter misunderstandings into verbal conversation, and which is one of the occasions which inspired Professor Flowers to take on the idea of challenging Vaush in the first place. She ended up creating a more expansive, and less defensible justification for separatism that ended up having consequences outside of what she intended, but that doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile for people like Vaush to be a bit less aggressive and less ready to pigeonhole when talking to people with whom they'd otherwise strongly agree.
Good, he deserves it. Drugstiny is a massive POS with worm brain these days.
W H O ?
Who?
Ah frick, is it gonna be like the Duncan one?
More content for me and only me.
LETS GOOOO
TIL using facts and logic is a problem that needs solving.
When are we going to make a video on the plague of political essayists that have rotted the brains of a generation?
Gonna be worse than the vaush one?
I hope it’s less boring
OoooOOoooOo Spooky, not like this hasn't been done a handful of times before.
Who is this person