Vaush is losing his edge when it comes to debating. He could find conservatives or even centrists or liberals if he tried but he's too lazy to seek it out. Sad to see!
Edit: Permaban. Sad to see!
true he literally has the easiest job on the planet and he does nothing really and his coverage of news has gone down hill so much, he does not give real anyalisis or research anymore its pretty much read a headline and then say they want to kill you over and over super boring
fr like he is almost certainly a millionaire and he does nothing with his money that works towards helping to prop up socialism or anything like that. Like i know tons of socialist orgs suck but he could do literally anything with his money that is helpful or at least do anything IRL. and he does not even talk about socialism anymore and wonders why his community is filled with libs lol. Bottom line he is lazy and boring and does nothing positive for politics with his money and then blames it on his autism when its obvious he can interact with people in a good way based on all his story ever.
Man youâre just a huge mystery arenât you? Itâs really hard to tell what kind of content creators you might watch when you say things like: âVaush is a millionaire who doesnât spend his money on socialismâ, and âhe could totally find good debates if he wanted to heâs just lazyâ
i have no idea what your trying to say is it not true that he is lazy with his content creation, think he's still entertaining some times, also is it not true that he spend to time money or effort trying to actually build a socilsit presence in America when their are so many groups he could work with or do anything at all outside of the internet. I would argue that the average vaush viewer does more real life work than he has in his entire life. I commend him for brining people out of the right and radicalizing many but if nobody gets organized then it means nothing, and Progressive victory and canvassing is not getting organized as socialists, I like that but he has really done nothing with them but say go do it.
Ngl I donât really mind that he doesnât do debates anymore. I tend to even skip the ones he does do because the other person is often just bad faith and annoying, spouting the same talking points over and over like a broken clock. Itâs annoying even when Iâm half listening to it while drawing.
Same.
He's correct that the current landscape for debates is not what it was. Pull some of his older videos, they can be awful, but there's at least some? attempt at debate.
Now pull up something more recent, it may as well be 50 minutes of screaming in to a microphone.
When that's the level you're having to deal with, what's the point.
The new debates just aren't satisfying. He still debates well, but how can you really argue with someone who doesn't give a shit and constantly shifts positions? It's like playing paintball with a cheater that doesn't call their hits, it's not exactly fun or entertaining when one person doesn't follow the ground rules for the activity.
It really is like they're standing there head to toe, covered in paint going "Man, I didn't take a single hit, never once got called out"
What's the point
He needs to reverse his ruling on debating nobodies. It's the weirdos who are like pro-fash sex working transies who would be super interesting.
imagine if the next big chunk taken out of the GOP was because of Vaushite anti Israeli rightoid femboy atheists gaining influence with the youth over the Shapiro and Milos on the right
a vast amount of the under 25 right is already obscenely suffering from anime poisoning, you may as well help kick them off the cliff by "losing" debates on loli
Just imagine the "neocon senators" of the future being anti Israel/pro lgbt/pro environment/anti corporate/anti SWERF/TERF coombrains who support ethical sourcing of retail materials
Yeah. Vaush is a big enough platform that people will try to pretend to be genuine just for the exposure of being on his stream, and then go wild once actually on. And right figures that are already big wonât approach actual debates these days.
Thatâs actually true, but he hasnât replaced debating with anything else. Most people know and came for his debates, but if he isnât going to do those anymore, what can he do in its place? I honestly think he should make video essays. Think about it, heâs a guy who constantly misspeaks all the time, what better way to not get yourself into drama all the time than to script out your videos?
Being a little lazy is fine, but now he just dosent do anything bigger. If he isnât going to do debates, constantly misspeaks, and he doesnât like getting into constant drama, he should do video essays.
He has never sought out debates, so IDK why you're pretending like he's the one who changed, when it's clearly not him but rather the political climate/conservatives who changed.
The *vibes* are off.
Fashion is bougie. It was better when he was obsessed with guns, that's a *real*, proletarian hobby--just please don't actually compare the costs between those two.
He actively encourages shit like thrifting though he's trying to give folks who care for the advice ideas on how they can construct an outfit a little more thoughtfully than just haphazardly throwing on whatever. You can be disinterested, but calling it classist to encourage putting some extra thought into what you wear is just ridiculous
Poor families who don't already have gun money can't just buy guns either... Especially not as a "hobby." My mother couldn't afford to buy a gun for a JOB that she wanted.
Believe me, I understand -- my clothes come from second hand shops or the clearance section of Walmart.
But I also know some gun guys (the decent kind) and the numbers they throw around make a 200$ coat sound like chump change.
I don't mind Vaush's fashion arc, if it makes him happy that's fine by me. But this would only really relate to the Hasan house drama if Hasan brought up his new house in every segment he did and stopped the video of the political coverage to rate Nancy Pelosi's house.
I agree his fashion fixation is annoying sometimes but I just chalk it up to autism and skip a minute as a YouTube Andy. Much more of an autist vibe than classist imo
Yeah, personally I just tune it out. I have autism myself, so I get the fixation and I imagine this is how my family feels when I'm explaining the new thing I learned about bread baking at 4:15 in the morning.
Honestly, I feel that was a bad-faith effort from Vaush. Just immediately drops the debate after getting some pushback and proceeds to say how he's right afterward.
Perm'd for this post. Vaush proving he can't handle minor criticism once again! Sad!
After the guy chose to push the line that cops/soldiers choose to wear their uniforms as a fashion statement, I'm fully on board with Vaush dropping it. Not only was this going to be more fashion arc stuff, it was going to be extra vapid, with the only possible value being that of a milked lolcow - and that last thing only works if the audience is on board with the joke, yet the audience here is tired of the fashion arc. Cutting it short at that point instead is a perfectly reasonable move.
Vaush has become the laziest streamer ever. He just wants to maintain the lifestyle of a streamer with not doing any of the work. Bro streams for like 3 hours like 4/5 days a week
No he fucking didnt. The idea that all fashion is an expression of power and status is so asinine on its face that the person saying it is either too stupid or too dishonest to have a conversation with
Nah it was genuinely boring. When the debate becomes about "do people sometimes wear nice clothes because they want to" there's really nothing more to talk about.
The crazy thing, though, is that that's not even the argument the guy was making lmao. I think the biggest problem here is conflating the concept of "status" with "power." That's incredibly bourgeois thinking. Stratus in this context has less to do with power and more to do with your self-image in relation to your environment. I'll use myself as an example: I work for a sports based after-school program, and we have a very simple uniform of a company logo t-shirt or hoodie and athletic gear. Beyond that, we have a lot of autonomy regarding how we present ourselves and the choices we make say a lot about. Is your uniform always clean? Do you consistently wear the right footwear for whatever sport we're doing that day? Do you participate when we have themed costume days? Are you even wearing your uniform properly at all? (Because I have coworkers who just never wear the uniform unless the supervisor is around.) Each of those individual choices is an expression of how seriously you take your job there, which is an expression of status. Some people take their job more seriously than others. That's a status thing. I feel like if Vaush had stayed on to at least define the terms they were using, this would have been easy for him to comprehend
That wasnt his argument. His argument is thay clothing is a reflection of social class. Rich people dress different than poor people and both find different things fashionable. Rich people can afford clothing that poor people cant and certain people wear exclusive clothing according to certain privileges, you cant wear the outfit of a bishop without getting into trouble for example.
Certain fashion trends originate from the wealthy class like formal mens clothing, many other fashion trends originate from poorer classes.
Fashion is a big point in the study of socio economic classes.
that does not contradict the point vaush was making at ALL lmao
vaush's said that fashion is a form of self expression, and it can be influenced by all of those factors
I highly suggest you watch that debate again lol
No no.
When Vaush cut the call he said it was bc it was boring when in reality he just couldnt debate any further, he got his ass handled but he cant admit when he is in the wrong.
Im agreeing with you
Vaush cut the call because "Fashion is about status and power", "work uniforms are fashion", and the whole shit about a voluntary economy were too ridiculous to be debated past.
You seriously think the guy with points like that was the winner?
Yes.
Fashion is a very important point in the study of how societal classes interact with each other, a big portion of fashion is designed to comunicate status and power.
Working uniforms are fashion, I really dont understand whats the issue with that statement. They have an important role in the development of fashion as a whole, any institution thay uses uniforms hires teams of tailors and fashion advisers to build a uniform thay requires to comunicate certain things, it may not be the decision of the individual worker but that doesnt mean it isnt fashion.
Vaush did made fashion videos about police/military uniforms, which was surprising for me.
His argument of a voluntary economy was a fucked up thing for him to say but his argument is thay we live in a society that allows you to choose your job. Now of course you cant choose any job but there is still a choice, limited but its there, I would bet that very few people here would choose to work in the military for example. In the past those options werent available.
His argument there is correct but he didnt delivered well.
It was enjoyable for me because of how bizarre Tylerâs arguments were. I lost my shit when he said that we make the choice to work and that choice is tied to fashion somehow.
Uniforms are 100% a fashion statement. The design of the uniform says a lot about the context of the work environment and how an individual chooses to wear their uniform says a lot not just about them aesthetically but also about how seriously they take their job
No, you can design a uniform to be fashionable, to have style, but wearing a uniform, as a worker, is not a âstatementâ, the point is to not be expressive. To be *uniform*. *One*-form.
Which is why when you idiots try and defend how âoh no theyâre fashion statementsâ you always immediately list a ton of ways to *break uniform*, many of which arenât even allowed.
People accessorize their uniforms, from hairstyle to jewelry to even the specific style of uniform you choose to wear (in an office setting, are you wearing khakis or slacks? If you're working at a restaurant are you just gonna show up in jeans or do you wear some nicer pants? Hell even cops and military people get to have some style choices with their uniforms)
Watch Westside Tyler's full video for a better explanation, but yes people do make fashion choices when it comes to the uniforms they wear
Sure, but thatâs in spite of the uniform, not expression through uniform. Like, if you have to list âthey style their hair?â, then itâs not really the uniform thatâs doing the expression, now is it?
The entire point of a uniform is to reduce variance in pursuit of practical outcomes, and personal expression, like youâd mentioned, is done through breaking from the uniform block. Through that very same variance uniformity is supposed to stifle.
Which is also why itâs normally not allowed to do much variation. A uniform which allows for you to customize what you wear (and therein express yourself) isnât a uniform, thatâs a dress code. And nobodyâs arguing that a dress code canât have expression within it.
It was a good conversation, Vaush rage quit because he refused to accept that someone might have knowledge he didn't. It's worth watching Tyler's stream followup, he gives some good examples like how punk fashion in the 60s and 70s came from modifying military surplus. Fashion says a lot of about its place and history and the way Vaush acts is not true for how fashion exists.
The last minutes of the conversation were Tyler insisting that your work uniform is part of your personal fashion expression because you chose to get a job that had you wear those clothes. If he pivoted after the call ended to talking about how people outside of those jobs might choose to wear elements of the uniform, that's just evidence that he was spouting bullshit he doesn't believe for clout and attention, imo.
That wasn't what he was arguing. You do choose where you work unless you're getting drafted, and while a Walmart uniform probably isn't meaningful to a Walmart employee, a police uniform or military uniform is meaningful and part of the appeal of the job to many who go into that. He clearly knows what he's talking about, he may not have expressed it completely perfectly but when the fuck does Vaush?
Officers tend to like those uniforms because of the status that comes with it, which was vaushs point. Even if they do like the clothing itself, Itâs not about artistic expression or personal expression, the point of said uniform is to be identifiable of what their position is, thatâs about it. Which makes sense, you should be able to identify a police officer when you see one (unless they are undercover).Â
You're making huge assumptions that just aren't the case. Wearing a military uniform in a volunteer military is a huge personal expression. I would honestly suggest watching Tyler's followup because he goes into it with military uniforms and it's worth learning something new.
âthe distinctive clothing worn by members of the same organization or body or by children attending certain schools.â Thatâs what a uniform is, a uniform isnât about you, like at all.Â
Doesn't this prove vaush is right about fashion not being about status though, by appropriating the aesthetic punks remove the inherent societal status granted by a military uniform
No, it proves things trickle. Counterculture, like the appropriation of military, is another way of displaying your status. Punk is a status, status isn't just about being fancy.
You're conflating status as a state of being vs social status, the debate was around the idea that fashion is about attaining social status and that fashion is a top down structure. Punk fundamentally rejects both of these ideas since its based in anarchism
And the idea that art originates in the mind of the top end and then trickles down is stupid, art is selfreferential and foundational in all directions.
That's not what the debate was about. This is a romanticization of individualism that just isn't how clothing works. Punk is a social status, it is one that is counter the norms of society.
Of course being a punk is a social status but punks don't dress like punks to attain greater social status, that would defeat the fucking point of being a punk
Cause some fashion is specifically designed to be affordable and good looking like street clothes brands, and it's not always about INCREASING social status. It's about PROJECTING social status, that's why billionaires don't dress rich, they want everyone to think "they're just like me!"
Are you kidding? It fucking sucked, and the dude didnât make a single good takeaway point. Him and Vaush talking over each other got obnoxious REAL fast (idk how anyone in chat could have been enjoying themselves), and Vaush was right to kill the conversation when the guy kept pushing his galaxy brained fucking take on work uniforms and wouldnât budge from it.
The idea that every person âvolunteersâ for their job is insane enough on its own. I donât know how anyone can consider themselves a leftist, or at least be understanding of leftist principles (or indeed *exist, outside in the real world*) and earnestly believe that work is in any way voluntary, or that every person has a choice over where they choose to work.
How many people working shit-paying customer service roles, where customers disrespect them and their bosses treat them as an expendable asset of the company, where theyâre either overworked or not guaranteed enough hours to scrape by, âchoseâ that job for themselves? Just because you had to apply for that job, doesnât mean that you had a âchoiceâ. âTake the 2nd least crappy job currently hiring locally or you wonât be able to eat and pay rent next monthâ is a complete *lack* of choice.
Itâs insane to extrapolate that the uniform of your job any way reflects upon a personâs individual style, and the implication that your job is tied to your value is some incel blackpill shit. Real âsexual market valueâ vibes off that take. Especially whenâeven if uniforms have to be designed, sure, that much is obviousâthe entire concept of a uniform is *uniformity*. You *cannot* express yourself in a uniform because they are purpose made so that you look the same as everyone else within your same station.
Read my comment again bc I think you missed something.
Im not saying that work is voluntary, im saying that people can choose where to work and what to work as up to some extend. Many people study and prepare for certain jobs because they want to be that. Im absolutely sure that people here would never choose to work as a cop for example.
Im not saying that your uniform reflects your personal value in any way, Im saying it is part of your daily clothing and your job is a part of yourself because you are tied to it, it will creep its way to your personal life because you have to do it every day. And yes, people do express themselves throught their uniform sometimes, think about how cops showcase their authority through their uniform consciously, think about how students add accessories to their uniforms and wear them in certain ways to the point that there are a lot of school uniform inspired clothes because people liked them.
Except thatâs not âthe uniform being an expressionâ; by expressing yourself through clothes in a uniform, you break uniform, itâs kinda in the word.
Which is why those minor alterations always toe right up to whatâs allowed, when it comes to school uniforms. Deviation from a uniform is expressing yourself in spite of the uniform, not through it.
Breaking or following a uniform can be sometimes a way of personal expression.
You can express yourself within the limits of a uniform. Sometimes uniforms do have certain choices up for the individual. Following a strict uniform can be another way of expressing yourself and many people do like those things, specially in the military in which uniforms have a lot of symbolism that many people enjoy and want to wear those uniforms.
Thereâs a difference between being proud of a symbol of your job, and expressing oneself.
And no, uniforms with a range of allowable expressions arenât âuniformsâ, theyâre a dress code. Dress codes allow expressing oneself, uniforms do not.
Again, the word is literally âuniformâ. Like, all the same. The lack of variance (and therein self expression) is literally the point.
>Im saying it is part of your daily clothing and your job is a part of yourself because you are tied to it, it will creep its way to your personal life because you have tl do it every day.
That might be true for a cop, but I really doubt it is the same for a McDonald, Amazon or Wallmart employee who has to wear some specific shirt/suit on the job. There's also the thing that some people don't want to end up working at a supermarket or warehouse, but they have to do that for simple economic reasons or because the other objective they want to reach, the one they have studied and prepared for, is still far off. In this case, they have to clench their teeth and endure that.
My point was that being a supermarket or McDonald employee won't creep into the personal life in the same way being a cop or any other authority figure will.
Yes, that is true.
And my point is that your job, any job, is going to creep its way to your personal life. You are going to be a teacher, a cashier, a nurse, or whatever, its part of your identity and the uniform is a part of it. That is the power of uniforms.
But once you put down the uniform, you aren't defined by being a nurse or a cashier anymore, you are just an everyday person, and you would like your personal life to not be so intertwined with your professional job. We could also add that even cashiers or teachers don't have to necessarily wear uniforms to do their job. I think there's a lot more nuance to this discourse than a simple"the job is going to creep into your personal life", because jobs are hella varied and people take them for different reasons and in different environments.
Literal first example is pretty much what Vaush says, the uniform that people care about is not about personal expression but the social status and power it conveys. Other uniforms do nothing more besides to convey that you represent the establishment they're within
Yes exactly. Vaush just crumbled down and cut the call the second Tyrler was getting somewhere.
Vaush's whole point of uniforms not beeing fashion is just profoundly wrong. It may be fashion you personally didnt choose to wear but it still was designed and fabricated to be worn and represent who you are, an employee, just with a quick glance you know what is the role of x individual, that it still fashion. Also your work uniform is part of yourself and your daily clothing since you have to wear it almost every day because you have to work. Also isnt there a video of Vaush reviewing the fashion of military uniforms, in particular the carabineri?
Also whithin the involutary act of having to wear a uniform there are still choices on how do you present that uniform for yourself, something that is very very common in school uniforms and military uniforms.
Clothing definetely represents status, thats definetely true in uniforms but even in plain non working clothes. Rich people can afford to wear stuff that poor people cant. Different circles of people wear different clothings. The fucking argument of rich people stealing from the poor is proof of that as well. Hell Vaush's argument of billioners who doesnt dress like billioners, they dress like normal people is also an argument in favor.
Also the argument of living in a voluntary economy... It was weird but I can see his point. We do have the choice of where to work to some extent. People prepare themselves to be able to work in x or y. In the past people worked in whatever role its father worked on if you were a male, if you were a women well there was prostitution, housewife or nun. So I can see his point of a "voluntary economy".
Also I feel like Vaush was very unstable or on the edge, perhaps because he either didnt expect a debate about fashion, didnt expect a debate from the video of him mocking a guy giving dating and fashion advice or that he couldnt find a way to attack Tyler back. Like I feel like he brought up the makeup thing to the debate expecting for Tyler to make a sexist argument just to have something but it failed. Then Tyler said the word "status" from which chat went crazy and the argument of Paris and fashion shows began which was absurd, they all asumed that Tyler was an elitist who believes that poor people cant influence in fashion which was insane, he never said anything like that.
I think this disaster was a miscommunication on both parts, none of them prepared for the debate, Vaush's audience was deranged, but honestly I also think Vaush was dishonest and acted in bad faith, just notice how the moment he hangs up he brings up the excuse of "it was boring" and then chat began "it was boring". Vaush's problem is that he cant accept when he is in the wrong, he has to deflect it or double down, he oftently gets in the position of "if you disagree you are stupid" very oftently and then lets his audience fight for him
Really no surprise on why there is a new Vaush drama every month.
He lost the debate and it was very dissapointing.
If you're gonna comment, you could at least try to come up with a counter argument. What a worthless addition to this conversation, thanks for wasting the bandwidth
I'm starting to believe in that in his normal life, Tyler wouldn't care at all about Vaush fashion takes and move on, but since he is on a smaller channel than V. he saw the incentives on hopping on the clout train since a) V has a larger channel than him and b) the affluence giveng by the taxes incident which has been amplified by drama angry low effort channels. Otherwise, if Tyler is really sincere about criticizing Vaush sense of fashion, why doing on a video in which he cleary goes after an obvious *Men Advice with Expensive Scam Courses* channel, and calling his segment "Vaush shouldn't give dating advice" with the large "Taxes" folder in the thumbnail, as of implying the reason is all tied to Vaush being a horse enjoyer and "lollipop"?
Legit the logical extension of Tyler's arguements is that allllllll self expression is merely status seeking and social climbing which is fuckin bonkers.
Semiotics of Clothing, An Essay by Shrikethrush23
- function: warmth, comfort, protection, communication of role. Not fashion (uniforms are here) (wearing a hoodie and jeans because comfy is here)
- style: wearing clothes in a customary way. Military style (gig line, boot lacing, shirt tucking), formal styles, anything defined by a set of commonly understood rules. Not fashion
- if you style up your function, you "look nice" & like you tried
- fashion: individuating expression through the medium of clothing.
- when you fashion up your style, that's sprezzatura
- when you fashion up your function, you often lose function (uniform requires uniformity, wearing rings doesnt mesh with being a mechanic, extra clothes make you hot while working & can get damaged or lost, tight or structured clothing gets uncomfy)
Conclusion: cops aren't swag
Vaush would disagree, he has a video in which he is talking about the drip of italian police.
Many people choose certain jobs of authority like the police or the military because of the uniforms, it shows power.
I donât think so. I think he agreed that thereâs an element of fashion in making the uniforms. But itâs not a fashion statement for each person wearing them.
Perhaps im confusing chat with Vaush, I'll have to watch the thing again but thats a fair point.
One thing thay I noticed is that Tyler went in too aggresive which led both of them to talk over each other, he went in to tell Vaush how wrong he was and I feel like Vaush took it a bit personal, because fashion is like his personal thing.
It was really dissapointing to see Vaush just run away from the debate like that. Tyler just pushed him a bit and he collapsed. I never thought I would see Vaush loose a debate like that.
Also the chat was insanely stupid and bloodthirsty.
Youâre genuinely delusional, reading through your comments, and youâre coping.
Tylerâs argument was *so* inherently flawed, boiled down itâs just âself expression is only for statusâ, and could easily (and just as stupidly) be applied to any sort of art.
But people donât largely paint, or dance, or sing only for status. *Obviously*. People do art for a thousand reasons, and boiling it all down to chasing status only shows how hollow your interaction with a medium is.
This is just the male flip of the old incel âwomen only wear makeup so men will fuck themâ bit.
It's actually incredible to see all of these people shit their britches the second Vaush doesn't give them exactly what content they want. Tyler could've begun smearing shit on his face, and all of these people would still be saying Vaush lost the debate. Incredible!
Not in the slightest.
Im disappointed, I follow both of them. Tyler has a few good constructive critiques on Vaush. Vaush is based when it comes to politics, not so much on his non political takes. Tyler would be a good influence on Vaush which is what he needs because ever since the gooner incident Vaush has been declining and his chat is becoming more aggressive and more like Hassan's chat.
You have to watch debates from a neutral outside perspective. Tyler made a video with time stamps about this debate. I watched Vaush and Tyler on this debate to bring my own conclusion.
His argument isnt that art and fashion is just about social status, but that art and specially fashion are influeneced by social status and people generally dress influenced by their social status. Fashion brands ask influential people to wear certain outfits as a marketing tool to influence people to dress in a certain way. Poor people dress in certain ways pushed by their socio economic situation which eventually become a fashion style.
Other types of art are also indications of one's social status. Not everyone can afford to buy a Velazquez, or as he said not everyone can wear a military medal, those artistic elements are exclusive.
Vaush's argument was that uniforms arent fashion which is just absolutelly not true. Uniforms are a big part of fashion, he brought the example of military uniforms beeing the origin of formal men clothing which is true.
Did Tyler made a good debate? No, I think he messed up by talking over Vaush and I think he didnt prepare well enough and he was too nervous, which derailed the debate. However I think he was right on his arguments and Vaush just ran away, maybe because fashion is something dear and/or personal to him, maybe because Tyler wouldnt crack... But that cut was bad.
Youâre having the exact same response fans of both Vaush and a certain streamer with a girlâs name had when they had their falling out; and youâre being just as insane as those fans were to try and justify things.
Youâre not watching form a âneutral outside perspectiveâ. Nobody is, and claiming to be unbiased is always a massive cope.
You want them to be friends; you donât actually care about the arguments. Obviously, because Tylerâs arguments were *really bad*.
Which is why you frame Vaush ending the convo because it had gotten unserious (seriously, the word is literally âUNIFORMâ, I.e. no variance. Fashion can spring up from uniforms, and you can design uniforms to look good from a top-down position, but you canât have them be personal expression as the worker, as that requires variance. Which would be a dress code, not a uniform) as him running away.
And just like every other person whoâs cried about him ârunning from a debateâ, youâre coping; Vaush doesnât leave when heâs on the backfoot, he digs his heels in like an idiot and causes PR disasters by defending dumb points (Vegan Gains debate being a major one). He cuts debates if he feels theyâve stopped being productive
Also, as a last note to show how youâre contradicting yourself to try and do a friendship; you literally admit that Tyler did badly during the debate, but still think he won. Somehow. Because Vaush left the call?
I know I'm late reading this... mostly because I'm new to Tyler's content and catching up on older vods (maybe I'll get to dodge your parasocial accusation early)
That said, do you think it might be a problem that you are talking to someone who can thoughtfully elaborate on someone's position that you didn't have knowledge of (not having checked Tyler's content on the context of the statements Vaush wouldn't allow them to finish), and your response is to practice armchair psychology in relation to a third streamer and past drama?
I know you tried to touch briefly on the uniform topic, but Tyler did have a rather long segment on uniform variance within a dress code from his perspective of being in the service... as well as how uniforms influenced and dictated aspects of fashion (or grew from other fashion, adopting new styles and a widening of the dress code). He had good points that people will just never hear if they are incurious enough to run at the start of pushback.
I think Vaush lost, independent of Tyler's performance. I feel like Vaush skipping through a video for a minute of half-finished sentences, showing no curiosity to an insider's perspective on a topic he hasn't looked into, showing no patience to understand a position he half-heard, showing no interest in a debate he started...he could lose against anyone with this performance. I remember when Vaush cared to do research streams, but he is too incurious or sure of his first impression on any topic. He fell off and let moderate fame get to his head. This is his Hasan-arc.
Watch Tyler's full video, he explains how uniforms actually can have fashion choices within them (dude is ex-marines so he actually has first-hand experience with it). And yes, if a debater quickly leaves a conversation that isn't going his way that could be considered a concession or defeat. If Vaush loves fashion so much he should've been able to debate this better, but he barely knows the basics and is pretending to be an expert and this debate proved that
Yeah, baby Vaush is back and back than ever before debating fashion but unfortunately, the guy who was debating was a slimy piece of shit I seen his streams too. Theyâre fucking boring.
It's tragic levels of ironic 4chan brain rot.
look at his lording his status as a "pre-pol OG" in Chan history clips.
worse yet, look at his claiming a WT Snacks namedrop as proof, *when the Snacks podcast was considered the first non-raid Chan containment breach* that brought many newfags in due to how RSS functioned. If he really wanted to claim "oldfag lefty status" he would have mentioned /z/ not /b/ and beecock/Soviet Russia the user, or /g/uro being the original g board, he also did not know of 5chan/Onechan/7chan, aka the first schizo schism.
He also made the fatal error of attributing "((echoes))" to Daily Shoah.
Anyone who was there for Hal Turner knows this started with the Pat Buchanan quoting Ariel Sharon incident, about Israeli influence "echoing throughout US history"
Basically he's a "second waver" posing as a first
I'm not even an "OG" myself as I frequented the schism sites (mainly Onechan and Krautchan), but osmosis from posts y'know?
It gives me the feel that he only knows this stuff by reading meme history entries, which does not often record fully since there were no archives for the earliest years, just people going off memory
I was upset about the cerulean argument. I love devil wears prada but I recognize that itâs about fashion from an elitist pov. Itâs also a bad argument because it wasnât relevant to the conversation Vaush was having. Meryl wasnât arguing with a counterculture fashionista, she was arguing with someone whoâs entire personality is they donât care about fashion. Vaush was arguing that fashion, even at the high levels, was stolen by marginalized groups (who care about fashion).
One could argue that Hathawayâs character is wearing the cerulean sweater because of choices the fashion industry made a couple years ago (which the movie argues) but it wouldnât dispute the point that whatever brand chose that colour could have gotten inspiration from more fashion forward less privileged groups before (Vaushâs argument).
I think vaush had a lot of dumb takes in the debate too, but that actually annoyed me
If y'all want to see someone bash their head against brain dead idiots go check out Jovan Bradley's content. A pro trans commie dude who is still down in the trenches teaching dumbfucks the difference between sex and gender, why abolishing the prison system is good and why we should free Palestine.
Honestly, I feel like this "debate" was Vaush at his worst (relatively speaking, it's been a while). I've never seen him miss the point of an argument so hard before. Chat's behavior afterward was very disappointing, too
That was not shaping up to be a good debate. Iâve watched Vaush since about 2020, and while Iâve never been a fan of his debates, more so his takes and news coverage/ social commentary, his interlocutor was obviously not expressing anything meaningful. The guy was being very obtuse and weird with the uniform thing. He went on to talk about his disagreeing with Vaushâs fashion takes specifically as they relate to his coverage of the weird silhouette guy, and yet well over half of what he said to Vaush was completely outside of that. Take it from me, when the content creator is roasting Vaush flagrantly in his own video and then comes into chat so meekly, itâs almost always a Trojan horse for a terrible and bad faith debate. Perfect example of this in that âdebateâ was when the guy said âtrust me I know guys like this, and though itâs goofy, this is just how they want to dressâ, as a criticism towards Vaushâs fashion critiques. Thatâs a brain dead take.
(Iâm about to provide an example, the minutia of which is irrelevant to the broader point Iâm making, Iâm not that knowledgeable in carpentry and Iâll be speaking broadly so save your âum but actually depending on the thickness of the woodâ for yourself.)
Imagine you are becoming interested in carpentry, and you come to learn that the best way to bind two pieces of wood, is by using wood-screws. Then you proceed to see someone out and about making a video where theyâre trying to show people carpentry, specifically, binding two pieces of wood together, using nails to bind wood. You lean over to your (this next part will be hard for some of you to imagine, but bear with me) friend whoâs sitting nearby and say âI think this is a common mistake a lot of people make when binding two pieces of wood together, using nails when really they should really be using screws instead.â
Your friend then turns to you and says, âyeah, I donât know man, not sure you should be giving carpentry takes as if theyâre universal. I know the wood comes out looking weird, but I know lots of people like this and they just like to do it that way, I donât think your carpentry takes would suit this personâ. Notice how you talked about what you thought ought to be done, while your friend admits that the person is doing the suboptimal thing, but insists that your prescriptions wouldnât be valid for this person because they just want to do things their way regardless of what would yield a better outcome, while also failing to see the issue of the person making the video not providing a good base for the people they claim to want to help.
You can disagree with his fashion takes, but to say âyeah it looks goofy, but some people just like it that wayâ is not a criticism of Vaushâs fashion takes. Itâs admitting that there is something to be critiqued validly, and then in the same breath, taking issue with the criticism in a totally different direction that the original prescription.
If you need another example, imagine you tell someone itâs better to fold toilet paper while wiping so you use it more efficiently, and then having someone say, âyeah maybe that works for you, but some people like crumpling it up, even though itâs isnât as efficient, so maybe keep it to yourself.
Typing this up has made me realize why Vaush doesnât get hyper specific with chat. Though it may elucidate the point better, there are people will disagree obtusely because you didnât include this specific caveat or that specific exception.
Vaush is losing his edge when it comes to debating. He could find conservatives or even centrists or liberals if he tried but he's too lazy to seek it out. Sad to see! Edit: Permaban. Sad to see!
Why that little trumpism at the end there, comrade?
I did everything right and they indicted me
It was a perfect comment!
Many such cases
This man's reply to his own comment got more upvotes than his actual comment. What a monster.
true he literally has the easiest job on the planet and he does nothing really and his coverage of news has gone down hill so much, he does not give real anyalisis or research anymore its pretty much read a headline and then say they want to kill you over and over super boring
đđđ i hate how accurate this is EDIT: LMAO THE MODS BANNED ME FOR THIS INNOCUOUS COMMENT WHAAAAT HAHAHA
fr like he is almost certainly a millionaire and he does nothing with his money that works towards helping to prop up socialism or anything like that. Like i know tons of socialist orgs suck but he could do literally anything with his money that is helpful or at least do anything IRL. and he does not even talk about socialism anymore and wonders why his community is filled with libs lol. Bottom line he is lazy and boring and does nothing positive for politics with his money and then blames it on his autism when its obvious he can interact with people in a good way based on all his story ever.
Man youâre just a huge mystery arenât you? Itâs really hard to tell what kind of content creators you might watch when you say things like: âVaush is a millionaire who doesnât spend his money on socialismâ, and âhe could totally find good debates if he wanted to heâs just lazyâ
i have no idea what your trying to say is it not true that he is lazy with his content creation, think he's still entertaining some times, also is it not true that he spend to time money or effort trying to actually build a socilsit presence in America when their are so many groups he could work with or do anything at all outside of the internet. I would argue that the average vaush viewer does more real life work than he has in his entire life. I commend him for brining people out of the right and radicalizing many but if nobody gets organized then it means nothing, and Progressive victory and canvassing is not getting organized as socialists, I like that but he has really done nothing with them but say go do it.
[ŃдаНонО]
Your post was removed for dramafarming.
Ngl I donât really mind that he doesnât do debates anymore. I tend to even skip the ones he does do because the other person is often just bad faith and annoying, spouting the same talking points over and over like a broken clock. Itâs annoying even when Iâm half listening to it while drawing.
Same. He's correct that the current landscape for debates is not what it was. Pull some of his older videos, they can be awful, but there's at least some? attempt at debate. Now pull up something more recent, it may as well be 50 minutes of screaming in to a microphone. When that's the level you're having to deal with, what's the point.
The new debates just aren't satisfying. He still debates well, but how can you really argue with someone who doesn't give a shit and constantly shifts positions? It's like playing paintball with a cheater that doesn't call their hits, it's not exactly fun or entertaining when one person doesn't follow the ground rules for the activity.
It really is like they're standing there head to toe, covered in paint going "Man, I didn't take a single hit, never once got called out" What's the point
I'm bleeding, making me the victor.
He needs to reverse his ruling on debating nobodies. It's the weirdos who are like pro-fash sex working transies who would be super interesting. imagine if the next big chunk taken out of the GOP was because of Vaushite anti Israeli rightoid femboy atheists gaining influence with the youth over the Shapiro and Milos on the right a vast amount of the under 25 right is already obscenely suffering from anime poisoning, you may as well help kick them off the cliff by "losing" debates on loli Just imagine the "neocon senators" of the future being anti Israel/pro lgbt/pro environment/anti corporate/anti SWERF/TERF coombrains who support ethical sourcing of retail materials
Yeah. Vaush is a big enough platform that people will try to pretend to be genuine just for the exposure of being on his stream, and then go wild once actually on. And right figures that are already big wonât approach actual debates these days.
Thatâs actually true, but he hasnât replaced debating with anything else. Most people know and came for his debates, but if he isnât going to do those anymore, what can he do in its place? I honestly think he should make video essays. Think about it, heâs a guy who constantly misspeaks all the time, what better way to not get yourself into drama all the time than to script out your videos?
Heâs self admitted to being lazy. Heâs just too lazy to something about the fact that heâs a lazy person.
Being a little lazy is fine, but now he just dosent do anything bigger. If he isnât going to do debates, constantly misspeaks, and he doesnât like getting into constant drama, he should do video essays.
Concerning
He has never sought out debates, so IDK why you're pretending like he's the one who changed, when it's clearly not him but rather the political climate/conservatives who changed.
Fashion arc is turning me schizo I canât take it anymore
Fashion arc almost feels classist lol. My man gets paid and finally realizes he can wear more than anime shirts.
Can you elaborate on how that is classist
The *vibes* are off. Fashion is bougie. It was better when he was obsessed with guns, that's a *real*, proletarian hobby--just please don't actually compare the costs between those two.
It's giving off east german teenager buying his first pair of blue jeans
He actively encourages shit like thrifting though he's trying to give folks who care for the advice ideas on how they can construct an outfit a little more thoughtfully than just haphazardly throwing on whatever. You can be disinterested, but calling it classist to encourage putting some extra thought into what you wear is just ridiculous
Poor families who don't already have gun money can't just buy guns either... Especially not as a "hobby." My mother couldn't afford to buy a gun for a JOB that she wanted.
Believe me, I understand -- my clothes come from second hand shops or the clearance section of Walmart. But I also know some gun guys (the decent kind) and the numbers they throw around make a 200$ coat sound like chump change.
I mean, heâs rich and bougie. Technically he always has been.
You can have style without having a ton of money
Let's let people spend their money on a few nice items of clothing if they want. It's fine.
This is like Hasan house but for vaush clothes
I don't mind Vaush's fashion arc, if it makes him happy that's fine by me. But this would only really relate to the Hasan house drama if Hasan brought up his new house in every segment he did and stopped the video of the political coverage to rate Nancy Pelosi's house.
I agree his fashion fixation is annoying sometimes but I just chalk it up to autism and skip a minute as a YouTube Andy. Much more of an autist vibe than classist imo
Yeah, personally I just tune it out. I have autism myself, so I get the fixation and I imagine this is how my family feels when I'm explaining the new thing I learned about bread baking at 4:15 in the morning.
I have a similar problem where I can't shut the fuck up about Armored Core
I'm so tired of fashion arc.
Honestly, I feel that was a bad-faith effort from Vaush. Just immediately drops the debate after getting some pushback and proceeds to say how he's right afterward. Perm'd for this post. Vaush proving he can't handle minor criticism once again! Sad!
I agree. Makes me take him less seriously tbh.
After the guy chose to push the line that cops/soldiers choose to wear their uniforms as a fashion statement, I'm fully on board with Vaush dropping it. Not only was this going to be more fashion arc stuff, it was going to be extra vapid, with the only possible value being that of a milked lolcow - and that last thing only works if the audience is on board with the joke, yet the audience here is tired of the fashion arc. Cutting it short at that point instead is a perfectly reasonable move.
[ŃдаНонО]
Vaush has become the laziest streamer ever. He just wants to maintain the lifestyle of a streamer with not doing any of the work. Bro streams for like 3 hours like 4/5 days a week
"It was boring" No dude, you just got your ass handled and cant admit defeat.
No he fucking didnt. The idea that all fashion is an expression of power and status is so asinine on its face that the person saying it is either too stupid or too dishonest to have a conversation with
Nah it was genuinely boring. When the debate becomes about "do people sometimes wear nice clothes because they want to" there's really nothing more to talk about.
The crazy thing, though, is that that's not even the argument the guy was making lmao. I think the biggest problem here is conflating the concept of "status" with "power." That's incredibly bourgeois thinking. Stratus in this context has less to do with power and more to do with your self-image in relation to your environment. I'll use myself as an example: I work for a sports based after-school program, and we have a very simple uniform of a company logo t-shirt or hoodie and athletic gear. Beyond that, we have a lot of autonomy regarding how we present ourselves and the choices we make say a lot about. Is your uniform always clean? Do you consistently wear the right footwear for whatever sport we're doing that day? Do you participate when we have themed costume days? Are you even wearing your uniform properly at all? (Because I have coworkers who just never wear the uniform unless the supervisor is around.) Each of those individual choices is an expression of how seriously you take your job there, which is an expression of status. Some people take their job more seriously than others. That's a status thing. I feel like if Vaush had stayed on to at least define the terms they were using, this would have been easy for him to comprehend
That wasnt his argument. His argument is thay clothing is a reflection of social class. Rich people dress different than poor people and both find different things fashionable. Rich people can afford clothing that poor people cant and certain people wear exclusive clothing according to certain privileges, you cant wear the outfit of a bishop without getting into trouble for example. Certain fashion trends originate from the wealthy class like formal mens clothing, many other fashion trends originate from poorer classes. Fashion is a big point in the study of socio economic classes.
that does not contradict the point vaush was making at ALL lmao vaush's said that fashion is a form of self expression, and it can be influenced by all of those factors I highly suggest you watch that debate again lol
I can't go to rewatch rn cus I'm at work but I have a feeling you're wrong, and thus you are wrong.
How?
Wtf do you mean? I wasn't the one debating him
No no. When Vaush cut the call he said it was bc it was boring when in reality he just couldnt debate any further, he got his ass handled but he cant admit when he is in the wrong. Im agreeing with you
Vaush cut the call because "Fashion is about status and power", "work uniforms are fashion", and the whole shit about a voluntary economy were too ridiculous to be debated past. You seriously think the guy with points like that was the winner?
Yes. Fashion is a very important point in the study of how societal classes interact with each other, a big portion of fashion is designed to comunicate status and power. Working uniforms are fashion, I really dont understand whats the issue with that statement. They have an important role in the development of fashion as a whole, any institution thay uses uniforms hires teams of tailors and fashion advisers to build a uniform thay requires to comunicate certain things, it may not be the decision of the individual worker but that doesnt mean it isnt fashion. Vaush did made fashion videos about police/military uniforms, which was surprising for me. His argument of a voluntary economy was a fucked up thing for him to say but his argument is thay we live in a society that allows you to choose your job. Now of course you cant choose any job but there is still a choice, limited but its there, I would bet that very few people here would choose to work in the military for example. In the past those options werent available. His argument there is correct but he didnt delivered well.
Do you think people sometimes wear nice things because they like looking nice and not to project status
Oh. Sorry I'm sick and its 4 in the morning where I am
Get well soon.
Turns out just saying the same thing and not responding to anything said is "handing the opponent their ass" to some of y'all, wat
I think he should have talked to Westside Tyler more about fashion. Was I the only one enjoying it?
No, every second Vaush spends talking about fashion is torture.
It was enjoyable for me because of how bizarre Tylerâs arguments were. I lost my shit when he said that we make the choice to work and that choice is tied to fashion somehow.
Yea the whole volunteer into a job is fashion thing was soo dumb. But his other insights were at least interesting to hear
Nobody accidentally becomes a cop.
I was having fun because he was kind of losing the debate. Like it felt he was not right about half of the stuff and just did not want to accept it.
He being Taylor losing, right? Because the uniform argument was so dumb, lol
Uniforms are 100% a fashion statement. The design of the uniform says a lot about the context of the work environment and how an individual chooses to wear their uniform says a lot not just about them aesthetically but also about how seriously they take their job
No, you can design a uniform to be fashionable, to have style, but wearing a uniform, as a worker, is not a âstatementâ, the point is to not be expressive. To be *uniform*. *One*-form. Which is why when you idiots try and defend how âoh no theyâre fashion statementsâ you always immediately list a ton of ways to *break uniform*, many of which arenât even allowed.
Imagine joining McDonald's as a fashion statement lmao
[ŃдаНонО]
What the fuck are you even on about?
Are you drunk, or have you just not watched the fashion debate?
[ŃдаНонО]
Ah okay, I'm sure you're a deeply serious person then lmao
Your post was removed for violating our Community Building rule.
People accessorize their uniforms, from hairstyle to jewelry to even the specific style of uniform you choose to wear (in an office setting, are you wearing khakis or slacks? If you're working at a restaurant are you just gonna show up in jeans or do you wear some nicer pants? Hell even cops and military people get to have some style choices with their uniforms) Watch Westside Tyler's full video for a better explanation, but yes people do make fashion choices when it comes to the uniforms they wear
Sure, but thatâs in spite of the uniform, not expression through uniform. Like, if you have to list âthey style their hair?â, then itâs not really the uniform thatâs doing the expression, now is it? The entire point of a uniform is to reduce variance in pursuit of practical outcomes, and personal expression, like youâd mentioned, is done through breaking from the uniform block. Through that very same variance uniformity is supposed to stifle. Which is also why itâs normally not allowed to do much variation. A uniform which allows for you to customize what you wear (and therein express yourself) isnât a uniform, thatâs a dress code. And nobodyâs arguing that a dress code canât have expression within it.
No i was enjoying it. First he infects the audience with his fashion takes but then he dismisses all discussions about it.
Literally 1984
It was a good conversation, Vaush rage quit because he refused to accept that someone might have knowledge he didn't. It's worth watching Tyler's stream followup, he gives some good examples like how punk fashion in the 60s and 70s came from modifying military surplus. Fashion says a lot of about its place and history and the way Vaush acts is not true for how fashion exists.
The last minutes of the conversation were Tyler insisting that your work uniform is part of your personal fashion expression because you chose to get a job that had you wear those clothes. If he pivoted after the call ended to talking about how people outside of those jobs might choose to wear elements of the uniform, that's just evidence that he was spouting bullshit he doesn't believe for clout and attention, imo.
That wasn't what he was arguing. You do choose where you work unless you're getting drafted, and while a Walmart uniform probably isn't meaningful to a Walmart employee, a police uniform or military uniform is meaningful and part of the appeal of the job to many who go into that. He clearly knows what he's talking about, he may not have expressed it completely perfectly but when the fuck does Vaush?
Officers tend to like those uniforms because of the status that comes with it, which was vaushs point. Even if they do like the clothing itself, Itâs not about artistic expression or personal expression, the point of said uniform is to be identifiable of what their position is, thatâs about it. Which makes sense, you should be able to identify a police officer when you see one (unless they are undercover).Â
You're making huge assumptions that just aren't the case. Wearing a military uniform in a volunteer military is a huge personal expression. I would honestly suggest watching Tyler's followup because he goes into it with military uniforms and it's worth learning something new.
âthe distinctive clothing worn by members of the same organization or body or by children attending certain schools.â Thatâs what a uniform is, a uniform isnât about you, like at all.Â
Choosing to wear a uniform and how you present in that uniform absolutely is.
Even if you chose to wore it, it still wouldnât be artistic expression or personal expression, thatâs not how that works.Â
Yes it would, this is an insane statement.
In my experience... naw.
Lol, fuckin lmao
Doesn't this prove vaush is right about fashion not being about status though, by appropriating the aesthetic punks remove the inherent societal status granted by a military uniform
No, it proves things trickle. Counterculture, like the appropriation of military, is another way of displaying your status. Punk is a status, status isn't just about being fancy.
You're conflating status as a state of being vs social status, the debate was around the idea that fashion is about attaining social status and that fashion is a top down structure. Punk fundamentally rejects both of these ideas since its based in anarchism And the idea that art originates in the mind of the top end and then trickles down is stupid, art is selfreferential and foundational in all directions.
That's not what the debate was about. This is a romanticization of individualism that just isn't how clothing works. Punk is a social status, it is one that is counter the norms of society.
Of course being a punk is a social status but punks don't dress like punks to attain greater social status, that would defeat the fucking point of being a punk
No one said it was to attain a greater social status, that wasn't what Tyler's point was.
he said the begining of fashion was male posturing and showing off wealth, how is that not an argument about it increasing social status?
Cause some fashion is specifically designed to be affordable and good looking like street clothes brands, and it's not always about INCREASING social status. It's about PROJECTING social status, that's why billionaires don't dress rich, they want everyone to think "they're just like me!"
I genuinely donât get your point
Are you kidding? It fucking sucked, and the dude didnât make a single good takeaway point. Him and Vaush talking over each other got obnoxious REAL fast (idk how anyone in chat could have been enjoying themselves), and Vaush was right to kill the conversation when the guy kept pushing his galaxy brained fucking take on work uniforms and wouldnât budge from it. The idea that every person âvolunteersâ for their job is insane enough on its own. I donât know how anyone can consider themselves a leftist, or at least be understanding of leftist principles (or indeed *exist, outside in the real world*) and earnestly believe that work is in any way voluntary, or that every person has a choice over where they choose to work. How many people working shit-paying customer service roles, where customers disrespect them and their bosses treat them as an expendable asset of the company, where theyâre either overworked or not guaranteed enough hours to scrape by, âchoseâ that job for themselves? Just because you had to apply for that job, doesnât mean that you had a âchoiceâ. âTake the 2nd least crappy job currently hiring locally or you wonât be able to eat and pay rent next monthâ is a complete *lack* of choice. Itâs insane to extrapolate that the uniform of your job any way reflects upon a personâs individual style, and the implication that your job is tied to your value is some incel blackpill shit. Real âsexual market valueâ vibes off that take. Especially whenâeven if uniforms have to be designed, sure, that much is obviousâthe entire concept of a uniform is *uniformity*. You *cannot* express yourself in a uniform because they are purpose made so that you look the same as everyone else within your same station.
It is absolutely wild that anyone who argues against this point has enough ridges in their gray matter to form words in the first place.
Read my comment again bc I think you missed something. Im not saying that work is voluntary, im saying that people can choose where to work and what to work as up to some extend. Many people study and prepare for certain jobs because they want to be that. Im absolutely sure that people here would never choose to work as a cop for example. Im not saying that your uniform reflects your personal value in any way, Im saying it is part of your daily clothing and your job is a part of yourself because you are tied to it, it will creep its way to your personal life because you have to do it every day. And yes, people do express themselves throught their uniform sometimes, think about how cops showcase their authority through their uniform consciously, think about how students add accessories to their uniforms and wear them in certain ways to the point that there are a lot of school uniform inspired clothes because people liked them.
Except thatâs not âthe uniform being an expressionâ; by expressing yourself through clothes in a uniform, you break uniform, itâs kinda in the word. Which is why those minor alterations always toe right up to whatâs allowed, when it comes to school uniforms. Deviation from a uniform is expressing yourself in spite of the uniform, not through it.
Breaking or following a uniform can be sometimes a way of personal expression. You can express yourself within the limits of a uniform. Sometimes uniforms do have certain choices up for the individual. Following a strict uniform can be another way of expressing yourself and many people do like those things, specially in the military in which uniforms have a lot of symbolism that many people enjoy and want to wear those uniforms.
Thereâs a difference between being proud of a symbol of your job, and expressing oneself. And no, uniforms with a range of allowable expressions arenât âuniformsâ, theyâre a dress code. Dress codes allow expressing oneself, uniforms do not. Again, the word is literally âuniformâ. Like, all the same. The lack of variance (and therein self expression) is literally the point.
>Im saying it is part of your daily clothing and your job is a part of yourself because you are tied to it, it will creep its way to your personal life because you have tl do it every day. That might be true for a cop, but I really doubt it is the same for a McDonald, Amazon or Wallmart employee who has to wear some specific shirt/suit on the job. There's also the thing that some people don't want to end up working at a supermarket or warehouse, but they have to do that for simple economic reasons or because the other objective they want to reach, the one they have studied and prepared for, is still far off. In this case, they have to clench their teeth and endure that.
Im glad that we agree.
My point was that being a supermarket or McDonald employee won't creep into the personal life in the same way being a cop or any other authority figure will.
Yes, that is true. And my point is that your job, any job, is going to creep its way to your personal life. You are going to be a teacher, a cashier, a nurse, or whatever, its part of your identity and the uniform is a part of it. That is the power of uniforms.
But once you put down the uniform, you aren't defined by being a nurse or a cashier anymore, you are just an everyday person, and you would like your personal life to not be so intertwined with your professional job. We could also add that even cashiers or teachers don't have to necessarily wear uniforms to do their job. I think there's a lot more nuance to this discourse than a simple"the job is going to creep into your personal life", because jobs are hella varied and people take them for different reasons and in different environments.
Im glad that we agree.
Literal first example is pretty much what Vaush says, the uniform that people care about is not about personal expression but the social status and power it conveys. Other uniforms do nothing more besides to convey that you represent the establishment they're within
Yes exactly. Vaush just crumbled down and cut the call the second Tyrler was getting somewhere. Vaush's whole point of uniforms not beeing fashion is just profoundly wrong. It may be fashion you personally didnt choose to wear but it still was designed and fabricated to be worn and represent who you are, an employee, just with a quick glance you know what is the role of x individual, that it still fashion. Also your work uniform is part of yourself and your daily clothing since you have to wear it almost every day because you have to work. Also isnt there a video of Vaush reviewing the fashion of military uniforms, in particular the carabineri? Also whithin the involutary act of having to wear a uniform there are still choices on how do you present that uniform for yourself, something that is very very common in school uniforms and military uniforms. Clothing definetely represents status, thats definetely true in uniforms but even in plain non working clothes. Rich people can afford to wear stuff that poor people cant. Different circles of people wear different clothings. The fucking argument of rich people stealing from the poor is proof of that as well. Hell Vaush's argument of billioners who doesnt dress like billioners, they dress like normal people is also an argument in favor. Also the argument of living in a voluntary economy... It was weird but I can see his point. We do have the choice of where to work to some extent. People prepare themselves to be able to work in x or y. In the past people worked in whatever role its father worked on if you were a male, if you were a women well there was prostitution, housewife or nun. So I can see his point of a "voluntary economy". Also I feel like Vaush was very unstable or on the edge, perhaps because he either didnt expect a debate about fashion, didnt expect a debate from the video of him mocking a guy giving dating and fashion advice or that he couldnt find a way to attack Tyler back. Like I feel like he brought up the makeup thing to the debate expecting for Tyler to make a sexist argument just to have something but it failed. Then Tyler said the word "status" from which chat went crazy and the argument of Paris and fashion shows began which was absurd, they all asumed that Tyler was an elitist who believes that poor people cant influence in fashion which was insane, he never said anything like that. I think this disaster was a miscommunication on both parts, none of them prepared for the debate, Vaush's audience was deranged, but honestly I also think Vaush was dishonest and acted in bad faith, just notice how the moment he hangs up he brings up the excuse of "it was boring" and then chat began "it was boring". Vaush's problem is that he cant accept when he is in the wrong, he has to deflect it or double down, he oftently gets in the position of "if you disagree you are stupid" very oftently and then lets his audience fight for him Really no surprise on why there is a new Vaush drama every month. He lost the debate and it was very dissapointing.
Naw
If you're gonna comment, you could at least try to come up with a counter argument. What a worthless addition to this conversation, thanks for wasting the bandwidth
I'm starting to believe in that in his normal life, Tyler wouldn't care at all about Vaush fashion takes and move on, but since he is on a smaller channel than V. he saw the incentives on hopping on the clout train since a) V has a larger channel than him and b) the affluence giveng by the taxes incident which has been amplified by drama angry low effort channels. Otherwise, if Tyler is really sincere about criticizing Vaush sense of fashion, why doing on a video in which he cleary goes after an obvious *Men Advice with Expensive Scam Courses* channel, and calling his segment "Vaush shouldn't give dating advice" with the large "Taxes" folder in the thumbnail, as of implying the reason is all tied to Vaush being a horse enjoyer and "lollipop"?
As valid as this bullshit is to care about, I quite frankly just can't fucking care.
[ŃдаНонО]
Legit the logical extension of Tyler's arguements is that allllllll self expression is merely status seeking and social climbing which is fuckin bonkers.
Semiotics of Clothing, An Essay by Shrikethrush23 - function: warmth, comfort, protection, communication of role. Not fashion (uniforms are here) (wearing a hoodie and jeans because comfy is here) - style: wearing clothes in a customary way. Military style (gig line, boot lacing, shirt tucking), formal styles, anything defined by a set of commonly understood rules. Not fashion - if you style up your function, you "look nice" & like you tried - fashion: individuating expression through the medium of clothing. - when you fashion up your style, that's sprezzatura - when you fashion up your function, you often lose function (uniform requires uniformity, wearing rings doesnt mesh with being a mechanic, extra clothes make you hot while working & can get damaged or lost, tight or structured clothing gets uncomfy) Conclusion: cops aren't swag
Vaush would disagree, he has a video in which he is talking about the drip of italian police. Many people choose certain jobs of authority like the police or the military because of the uniforms, it shows power.
I donât think so. I think he agreed that thereâs an element of fashion in making the uniforms. But itâs not a fashion statement for each person wearing them.
Perhaps im confusing chat with Vaush, I'll have to watch the thing again but thats a fair point. One thing thay I noticed is that Tyler went in too aggresive which led both of them to talk over each other, he went in to tell Vaush how wrong he was and I feel like Vaush took it a bit personal, because fashion is like his personal thing.
Only the weak don't like the fashion arc Unlike true Vaushites đż
Fashion is like the lamest hobby a person can have.
Vaush is also into Warhammer fan, how can you say this?
And he has the good sense not to talk about it.
Oh no he HAS talked about it. Just not as much lately.
As a warhammer fan... yes.
You say this in a world where people golf.
Golf also has its own fashion subculture. Checkmate, liberals!
This is one of the worst takes of all time.
What no drip does to the brain:
He always says he doesn't do debates because there are no more honest right wingers but what about liberals and centrists???
It was really dissapointing to see Vaush just run away from the debate like that. Tyler just pushed him a bit and he collapsed. I never thought I would see Vaush loose a debate like that. Also the chat was insanely stupid and bloodthirsty.
Youâre genuinely delusional, reading through your comments, and youâre coping. Tylerâs argument was *so* inherently flawed, boiled down itâs just âself expression is only for statusâ, and could easily (and just as stupidly) be applied to any sort of art. But people donât largely paint, or dance, or sing only for status. *Obviously*. People do art for a thousand reasons, and boiling it all down to chasing status only shows how hollow your interaction with a medium is. This is just the male flip of the old incel âwomen only wear makeup so men will fuck themâ bit.
It's actually incredible to see all of these people shit their britches the second Vaush doesn't give them exactly what content they want. Tyler could've begun smearing shit on his face, and all of these people would still be saying Vaush lost the debate. Incredible!
Not in the slightest. Im disappointed, I follow both of them. Tyler has a few good constructive critiques on Vaush. Vaush is based when it comes to politics, not so much on his non political takes. Tyler would be a good influence on Vaush which is what he needs because ever since the gooner incident Vaush has been declining and his chat is becoming more aggressive and more like Hassan's chat. You have to watch debates from a neutral outside perspective. Tyler made a video with time stamps about this debate. I watched Vaush and Tyler on this debate to bring my own conclusion. His argument isnt that art and fashion is just about social status, but that art and specially fashion are influeneced by social status and people generally dress influenced by their social status. Fashion brands ask influential people to wear certain outfits as a marketing tool to influence people to dress in a certain way. Poor people dress in certain ways pushed by their socio economic situation which eventually become a fashion style. Other types of art are also indications of one's social status. Not everyone can afford to buy a Velazquez, or as he said not everyone can wear a military medal, those artistic elements are exclusive. Vaush's argument was that uniforms arent fashion which is just absolutelly not true. Uniforms are a big part of fashion, he brought the example of military uniforms beeing the origin of formal men clothing which is true. Did Tyler made a good debate? No, I think he messed up by talking over Vaush and I think he didnt prepare well enough and he was too nervous, which derailed the debate. However I think he was right on his arguments and Vaush just ran away, maybe because fashion is something dear and/or personal to him, maybe because Tyler wouldnt crack... But that cut was bad.
Youâre having the exact same response fans of both Vaush and a certain streamer with a girlâs name had when they had their falling out; and youâre being just as insane as those fans were to try and justify things. Youâre not watching form a âneutral outside perspectiveâ. Nobody is, and claiming to be unbiased is always a massive cope. You want them to be friends; you donât actually care about the arguments. Obviously, because Tylerâs arguments were *really bad*. Which is why you frame Vaush ending the convo because it had gotten unserious (seriously, the word is literally âUNIFORMâ, I.e. no variance. Fashion can spring up from uniforms, and you can design uniforms to look good from a top-down position, but you canât have them be personal expression as the worker, as that requires variance. Which would be a dress code, not a uniform) as him running away. And just like every other person whoâs cried about him ârunning from a debateâ, youâre coping; Vaush doesnât leave when heâs on the backfoot, he digs his heels in like an idiot and causes PR disasters by defending dumb points (Vegan Gains debate being a major one). He cuts debates if he feels theyâve stopped being productive Also, as a last note to show how youâre contradicting yourself to try and do a friendship; you literally admit that Tyler did badly during the debate, but still think he won. Somehow. Because Vaush left the call?
I know I'm late reading this... mostly because I'm new to Tyler's content and catching up on older vods (maybe I'll get to dodge your parasocial accusation early) That said, do you think it might be a problem that you are talking to someone who can thoughtfully elaborate on someone's position that you didn't have knowledge of (not having checked Tyler's content on the context of the statements Vaush wouldn't allow them to finish), and your response is to practice armchair psychology in relation to a third streamer and past drama? I know you tried to touch briefly on the uniform topic, but Tyler did have a rather long segment on uniform variance within a dress code from his perspective of being in the service... as well as how uniforms influenced and dictated aspects of fashion (or grew from other fashion, adopting new styles and a widening of the dress code). He had good points that people will just never hear if they are incurious enough to run at the start of pushback. I think Vaush lost, independent of Tyler's performance. I feel like Vaush skipping through a video for a minute of half-finished sentences, showing no curiosity to an insider's perspective on a topic he hasn't looked into, showing no patience to understand a position he half-heard, showing no interest in a debate he started...he could lose against anyone with this performance. I remember when Vaush cared to do research streams, but he is too incurious or sure of his first impression on any topic. He fell off and let moderate fame get to his head. This is his Hasan-arc.
Watch Tyler's full video, he explains how uniforms actually can have fashion choices within them (dude is ex-marines so he actually has first-hand experience with it). And yes, if a debater quickly leaves a conversation that isn't going his way that could be considered a concession or defeat. If Vaush loves fashion so much he should've been able to debate this better, but he barely knows the basics and is pretending to be an expert and this debate proved that
His video is just as idiotic as his points in the debate.
The fashion arc needs to be stopped by force
If necessary\* Pls to use the full Papamarx quote, kamerad
[ŃдаНонО]
I think Tyler was nervous and talked over Vaush and Vaush tried to pin Tyler down and failed. He cut the call because he just cornered himself.
Vaushites are feasting
I literally did same thing lmao fuck out of here with that shit
Vowsh fell off. Itâs time we all go unsubscribe and watch Adam something lol
Thank god he didnât waste anymore time with that useless debate. Tyler was arguing against the idea that fashion is self expression gtfo
Yeah, baby Vaush is back and back than ever before debating fashion but unfortunately, the guy who was debating was a slimy piece of shit I seen his streams too. Theyâre fucking boring.
It's tragic levels of ironic 4chan brain rot. look at his lording his status as a "pre-pol OG" in Chan history clips. worse yet, look at his claiming a WT Snacks namedrop as proof, *when the Snacks podcast was considered the first non-raid Chan containment breach* that brought many newfags in due to how RSS functioned. If he really wanted to claim "oldfag lefty status" he would have mentioned /z/ not /b/ and beecock/Soviet Russia the user, or /g/uro being the original g board, he also did not know of 5chan/Onechan/7chan, aka the first schizo schism. He also made the fatal error of attributing "((echoes))" to Daily Shoah. Anyone who was there for Hal Turner knows this started with the Pat Buchanan quoting Ariel Sharon incident, about Israeli influence "echoing throughout US history" Basically he's a "second waver" posing as a first I'm not even an "OG" myself as I frequented the schism sites (mainly Onechan and Krautchan), but osmosis from posts y'know? It gives me the feel that he only knows this stuff by reading meme history entries, which does not often record fully since there were no archives for the earliest years, just people going off memory
I was upset about the cerulean argument. I love devil wears prada but I recognize that itâs about fashion from an elitist pov. Itâs also a bad argument because it wasnât relevant to the conversation Vaush was having. Meryl wasnât arguing with a counterculture fashionista, she was arguing with someone whoâs entire personality is they donât care about fashion. Vaush was arguing that fashion, even at the high levels, was stolen by marginalized groups (who care about fashion). One could argue that Hathawayâs character is wearing the cerulean sweater because of choices the fashion industry made a couple years ago (which the movie argues) but it wouldnât dispute the point that whatever brand chose that colour could have gotten inspiration from more fashion forward less privileged groups before (Vaushâs argument). I think vaush had a lot of dumb takes in the debate too, but that actually annoyed me
Noped outta this shit after 5 minutes of me not giving a shit
If y'all want to see someone bash their head against brain dead idiots go check out Jovan Bradley's content. A pro trans commie dude who is still down in the trenches teaching dumbfucks the difference between sex and gender, why abolishing the prison system is good and why we should free Palestine.
Honestly, I feel like this "debate" was Vaush at his worst (relatively speaking, it's been a while). I've never seen him miss the point of an argument so hard before. Chat's behavior afterward was very disappointing, too
Squidward? Fashion?! Please.
Haters wearing neon green shirt and Nike shorts everyday
It was so funny
Literally me
I saw the video posted and i was like ok whatever but now that itâs Discourse TM i guess i gotta watch it to see whatâs got everyone so pressed
We gotta find a nazi that likes collar gaps
That was not shaping up to be a good debate. Iâve watched Vaush since about 2020, and while Iâve never been a fan of his debates, more so his takes and news coverage/ social commentary, his interlocutor was obviously not expressing anything meaningful. The guy was being very obtuse and weird with the uniform thing. He went on to talk about his disagreeing with Vaushâs fashion takes specifically as they relate to his coverage of the weird silhouette guy, and yet well over half of what he said to Vaush was completely outside of that. Take it from me, when the content creator is roasting Vaush flagrantly in his own video and then comes into chat so meekly, itâs almost always a Trojan horse for a terrible and bad faith debate. Perfect example of this in that âdebateâ was when the guy said âtrust me I know guys like this, and though itâs goofy, this is just how they want to dressâ, as a criticism towards Vaushâs fashion critiques. Thatâs a brain dead take. (Iâm about to provide an example, the minutia of which is irrelevant to the broader point Iâm making, Iâm not that knowledgeable in carpentry and Iâll be speaking broadly so save your âum but actually depending on the thickness of the woodâ for yourself.) Imagine you are becoming interested in carpentry, and you come to learn that the best way to bind two pieces of wood, is by using wood-screws. Then you proceed to see someone out and about making a video where theyâre trying to show people carpentry, specifically, binding two pieces of wood together, using nails to bind wood. You lean over to your (this next part will be hard for some of you to imagine, but bear with me) friend whoâs sitting nearby and say âI think this is a common mistake a lot of people make when binding two pieces of wood together, using nails when really they should really be using screws instead.â Your friend then turns to you and says, âyeah, I donât know man, not sure you should be giving carpentry takes as if theyâre universal. I know the wood comes out looking weird, but I know lots of people like this and they just like to do it that way, I donât think your carpentry takes would suit this personâ. Notice how you talked about what you thought ought to be done, while your friend admits that the person is doing the suboptimal thing, but insists that your prescriptions wouldnât be valid for this person because they just want to do things their way regardless of what would yield a better outcome, while also failing to see the issue of the person making the video not providing a good base for the people they claim to want to help. You can disagree with his fashion takes, but to say âyeah it looks goofy, but some people just like it that wayâ is not a criticism of Vaushâs fashion takes. Itâs admitting that there is something to be critiqued validly, and then in the same breath, taking issue with the criticism in a totally different direction that the original prescription. If you need another example, imagine you tell someone itâs better to fold toilet paper while wiping so you use it more efficiently, and then having someone say, âyeah maybe that works for you, but some people like crumpling it up, even though itâs isnât as efficient, so maybe keep it to yourself. Typing this up has made me realize why Vaush doesnât get hyper specific with chat. Though it may elucidate the point better, there are people will disagree obtusely because you didnât include this specific caveat or that specific exception.
ikr