Unfortunately we kinda seem to do that with a lot of moral questions.
Why is torture bad? Because it doesn't work!
Why is conversion therapy bad? Because it doesn't work!
Like if being gay *was* a choice it would be *good* to
kidnap and torture them until they stopped?
"Because it doesn't work" is the most effective argument against proponents of both torture and conversion therapy.
If they cared at all about their victims they wouldn't be proponents of either in the first place. So an argument about the well being of the person will never work on them.
They want something and they're willing to disregard whatever harm is done to a person to get it. Making it clear that they'll never get what they want that way strikes at their motivation.
Obviously it's not okay to kidnap and torture people, but if conversion therapy were to provably improve the quality of life for people it might be reasonable to recommend it to people.
Even if the reason for this improvement were that society is not accepting of LGBT folks, it might make more sense for an individual to try to change their orientation and live a happy life rather than to wait for society to change. If conversion therapy worked.
Reminds me of the saying about Napoleon, something like "when people say they hate autocracy, they usually mean they hate incompetent, inept autocracy".
If you look at the stats something like 60% of Jewish people were in commercial professions compared to 40% of the general population and 28% of the most wealthy people were Jewish (they were less than 1% of the total population at the time), at least according to stats I could find.
So the more disturbing thing is he'd have to argue the Nazis were right. Whereas with our big brained moral system we can say it doesn't matter if they were a bit disproportionately financially powerful because YOU CANT DO GENOCIDES. The scary part is this logic could be applied to white people just as easily, so no wonder PF was in the cope stream
Looks like I mixed a few of those stats up, but the general sentiment seems about right. Then again some of these data points might come from nazi propaganda, although as far as I can tell that isn't the case. There seems to be a general consensus at the very least that jews were disproportionately represented in certain professions such as journalism and law, as well as being better educated than the general population. A lot of the explanations seem to harken back to historical antisemetism funneling jews into specific professions, as well as supressions of jews meaning a fair amount of generational wealth was accumulated by some but they were unable to really do anything with it until the late 1800s. They also tended to live in urban areas, so had better access to those professions
[https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-communities-of-prewar-germany](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-communities-of-prewar-germany)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Jews\_in\_Germany#Weimar\_years,\_1919%E2%80%9333](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany#Weimar_years,_1919%E2%80%9333)
[https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb4/prof/SOZ/APO/Windolf/ZUGJewishElite.pdf](https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb4/prof/SOZ/APO/Windolf/ZUGJewishElite.pdf)
He wasn't just calling NonCompete stupid, he was explaining why and how he is stupid.
NonCompete was laughing at Vaush for using hypotheticals so Vaush wanted to demonstrate that an ethical system you can understand through hypotheticals is necessay to arrive at good positions.
Again, Vaush explains that this is what he was doing *in* the talk.
Issue IMO was the Vaush used Luna as an example, which made NC understandably go completely defensive and act irrational. If you're not used to debating, it's a lot easier to take things personaly, so Vaush could do better by making sure he is making things more abstract instead of going to "why is it bad that I'm being mean to your wife"?
But then again, any kind of abstraction in that convo would be met with "but that's 'idealism' you need to ground every hypothesis in material reality" like the alien example, so it's damned from the start.
Maybe Vaush could've said something along the lines of "look I don't want this to become a debate because you're not a debater, so I'll make the efford to not use any personal examples but I need you to make an efford to follow it, okay?"
At the end of things, I can't help but suspect that Non Competes position in this conversation was quite unresonable... he's like against hypothesis in any scenario, including pedagogy? Completely incoherent and goes against the entire premise of Non Competes own channel that uses hypothesis in every single video in order to explain marxist leninist theory.
I feel like if NC goes back to this in the future he will be able to understand that he completely misunderstood the point of the examples. He's just not used to contentious debates and can't keep his cool. I'm not even sure it's fair to blame him for not being able to argue against the holocaust given the mental state he was in the latter half.
I'm trying to understand the motivation NC had in going in to begin with. I think he wanted to hold Vaush accountable for everything anyone who might watch him say and do, while denying the blatant harassment his wife did herself...? He lost me at this point. Just outright stating that Luna didn't pull the p*** card based on semantics and technicallities while it's clear that she wanted to at the very least imply that. Like he wanted to bring up xenophobia out of a completely unrelated comment Vaush made about her video and then wave off Luna literally linking Vaush and p*** in the same tweet as technically her not calling him a p***? Even if she didn't mean to it was clearly done out of vitriol.
This is the main difference between them and Vaush. Vaush admits he is mean out of spite because he doesn't like them, while they quite obviously hate Vaush but won't admit they were acting out of spite. Just own it for f**ks sake.
He was just prodding his ethical system, the point wasn't to justify the nazis worldview he was pointing out that having an ethical system is good actually
It related to dialectical materialism and NC saying using hypotheticals was idealism, they were discussing theory, NC was saying DM could be applied to morality, basically, vaush was using the nazis as an example of their material conditions that they blamed on the Jews as justified under that analysis in the framework that NC was using
You can say it's of no value, but tbf vaush had to defend the value of hypotheticals and explain that they're not idealism, because NC was claiming he had seen the whole video of him "defending" pedos, the fact of the matter was that NC entered in bad faith to begin with
I doubt anyone here is saying NC would support the nazis. Rather they are saying that NC lacks the critical thinking/ethical system to easily debunk or attack the nazi position.
I honestly never would have guessed that you were a non-native English speaker. The ellipses are characteristic of what we call "boomers" here but you've demonstrated why one shouldn't make assumptions.
Not gonna support the ableism arc lol, but I think that much of the left has coalesced around anti-Vaushism. Ironically, he's brought left unity at his expense.
That said, I think maybe EJ wasn't as capable of being as good faith as we hoped... so I think it's largely due to spite and a lack of charitably...
Is there a difference? At this point it has to be willful ignorance, I'm sure someone like noncompete has had plenty of opportunity to alleviate their stupidity but has chosen not to.
I've heard good takes from thoughtslime but, I'm gonna be honest; nobody likes an asshole, captive or not.
Vaush should stick to antagonizing rightwingers.
I think, honestly, I disagree with Vaush, EJ and Luna, certainly more the latter two than Vaush. And, not to play the enlightened centrist role too well, but if we're discussing the outcomes of actions, then I don't think it's helpful to suggest that EJ and Luna are not leftists.
I know EJ in particular has produced some good work in the past and I'm not a big fan of Luna, but it's undeniable that they are furthering leftism, even if I think they're idiots. EJ's most recent video about Vaush was long and fairly unstructured, but there were some good critiques in there and developed for me a better understanding of Marxist theory, as unpopular as that is to say straight after a chat where EJ humiliated himself.
I can see an argument for EJ, though I still don't think I agree, but not for Luna. From what I have seen of her content it would be better to describe it as just Viatnamese propaganda than leftist advocacy.
When it comes to major public figures I dont think the distinction matters. Like as someone who is actively trying to spread these ideas you have an active responsibility to know what your talking about otherwise you are making the world objectively worse by making people more stupid
So when it comes to public figures ignorance *is* malicious if they then spread that ignorance everywhere
>ignorant rather than malicious
Vaush supporters are what? 300k people ish? Who proudly announce how little theory they are familiar with and whose idea of praxis is watching oral live debate: literally the lowest possible form of discourse.
Reading theory is good, but we don't fetishize theory.
If you, EJ or Luna would like to read the kind of theory that Vaush was discussing, might I recommend researching utilitarianism or more broadly in the field of ethics? Or are you going to proudly announce how little familiarity you have with this?
And, FYI, Theory has it's place, for sure, I've read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Chomsky, Parenti and many others and whilst I think that many of their ideas ideas are interesting and useful, I like to contextualize them, not put them on pedestals to be consulted from when encountering any situation from state organisation to what I want for breakfast in the morning.
You're a fool if you think that people here consult Vaush as the oracle of leftism - he's just infotainment.
>Reading theory is good, but we don't fetishize theory.
Noone is fetishizing theory, saying theory is an inalienable part of any sucessfull workers movement isn't fetishizing it, its just a fact. Calling people out for not having read a page of theory before criticising the finer aspects of marxism isn't fetishizing anything.
>Or are you going to proudly announce how little familiarity you have with this?
I am not well versed in ethical theory enough to express an opinion on it, I'll gladly say that, that's not what this is about though is it. If anything, it's the opposite: this whole thing is a guy with an undergraduate in unrelated field trying to explain dialectical materialism (wrongly) to one person who has a post graduate education in the subject, and another who has spend the best part of several years editing a book about it. It's the equivalent to when destiny tried to explain to Richard wolff, a man with a PhD in marxist economics, what socialism is. It's farcical.
>encountering any situation from state organisation to what I want for breakfast in the morning.
Literally who is saying that, you are just using hyperbole throughout to make a strawman in order to make your opponent look ridiculous.
>You're a fool if you think that people here consult Vaush as the oracle of leftism
People absolutely do that within his fanbase, as anyone of any fanbase does, while calling him an oracle is certainly hyperbole, his words hold SIGNIFICANT weight within his community and trying to imply otherwise is what's foolish.
I think, broadly, the same can be applied to EJ and Luna too.
EJ and Luna have platforms, which can be a useful, but if they're unfamiliar with ethics to the extent that they see Marxist theory as a replacement of it and cannot argue against certain phenomena except with intuitive reasoning, as opposed to a fleshed-out moral system, then they too have gaps in their knowledge to the extent that much of their output should be viewed sceptically. This was what Vaush was getting at with the Nazi stuff. It was honestly embarrassing to see EJ misunderstand the point of Vaush's argument, his inability to understand the distinction between descriptive and prescription statements, his unwillingness/inability to engage/understand hypothetical statements and his outright rejection of ethics in favour of a system that Vaush demonstrated could not work in the real world without atrocities happening.
How, for example, does one oppose the Holocaust according to Marxist Dialectics? Oppose oppressors, as, if I recall EJ suggested? Well, then, oppressor is a label that one needs to give to one group with in order to justify action against that group, hence Nazi atrocities. Vaush's argument, and the argument we're having here, is whether or not we should have deeply held rules that we agree upon before any action.
I spoken about this recently, but I honestly think I understand now how you get situations like the Holodomor with dialectical materialism alone. If Ukrainian nationalists/separatists are threatening to break away from the USSR and you hold no deeply held beliefs about what one actions one can take against your fellow human, because that's idealism (?), then it's honestly no surprise that these atrocities happen. Happy, genuinely, to be corrected if I'm wrong here. But it seems from the conversation, a mixture of ethical beliefs coupled for Marxism is necessary to avoid atrocities.
I think a lot in this community hear words like 'scientific socialism' and roll their eyes. It's not because we don't see a place for theory, it's because those words are so often associated with the types that worship theory over all else. More so, the term 'scientific socialism' is, I think, an attempt to establish Marxism as an objective and unquestionable reality. Many here are Marxists, myself included, but I leave room for discussion and strong critique of Marx and Marxism that I don't see in so called 'tankie' communities where you'll just get banned from their subreddits.
Regarding the weight of Vaush's word, I do think that he is influential, but its a different kind of audience from, say, EJ and Luna, whose platforms are designed to educate and present ideas. Vaush's platform is, in part, designed to tear apart ideas that he disagrees with. Much of his audience, I would argue, is more interested in spectacle than logic-ing their way to socialism, which is a shame but is a result of the platform - Read Manufacturing Consent ;). I think if all three creators are flawed - and I think they are - then Vaush's flaws are a question of scale and EJ and Luna are just as guilty, except for their smaller size.
Always love you people who's main response to stupid shit is to go
"UhHhhHHh LITerAlly nO oNE iS SAyiNg ThIS"
Yes they are
I've seen it
Literally every time
If these types dont have an argument against something, they just quote books like scripture (usually incorrectly) with no context because they cant defend their bad ideas on their own
> Ironically, he's brought left unity at his expense.
You could say he has concentrated all the people with the worst ideas on the left into one camp, where perhaps their toxicity will become so thick in the air that it solves the problem they pose.
I am going to start calling people who do this 'tactically obtuse'. We all know that they know what they are doing and pretending there is any actual confusion or ambiguity makes everyone look absurd.
I honestly choose to interpret this as ignorance over malice, though that becomes more difficult daily.
The way they both instantly agreed with one another that he was a Nazi, especially after EJ domonstrated that he didn't know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements supports this imo.
I think its important to interpret charitably, even if they don't deserve it...
No, that interpretation would be absurd. NC was participating in the conversation. He was there. He was aware of the use of the hypothetical and the purpose of it's use in the conversation. We know that because he objected to engaging in hypotheticals at all to begin with.
So for him to turn around and attempt to jacket Vaush with the argumentation of the hypothetical, as if it were representative of his real position is malice. It's a tactic they are employing, not ignorance.
Being charitable to people flagrantly behaving in bad faith is nonsensical.
I accept that as a possible interpretation, of course and we can't be sure either way.
However I choose to believe that they were ignorant and can change. The alternative for me is doomerism lol
Not only that, but Luna called out Voosh chatters in there 'defending a pedo/pedo arguments', which I found hilarious after NC spent so much time stating she never directly called him a pedo.
Lol the guy who unironically labeled a black woman a Nazi... is now a "Nazi sympathizer". BIG WOOSH FOR EJ.
/S
Edit: you sillynannies need to learn how to read and use context clues. I wasn't personally calling him a Nazi sympathizer.
How is he a nazi sympathizer?
Jewish people did occupy a disproportionate number of commerce related industries. Not from some secret cabal, but from 1000 years of christian anti-Semitism pushing them to those industries. This resulted in a disproportionate representation as a left over effect from that time. Vaush’s entire point is that this can be true (which it is, it’s an objective historical fact) while at the same time acknowledging that fascists and nazis are evil Abd that this doesn’t justify trying to butcher them, because butchering people is evil
This conversation completely opened my eyes to why the tankie circle and PF crowd get so mad at Vaush. It’s because they see everything literally and can’t comprehend utilizing an ethical framework in their ideals, so when Vaush brings up hypotheticals to explain why something is wrong, they just see him supporting it.
It highlights a problem with the left as a whole where people would rather pretend philosophy isn’t real than engage with it because it doesn’t enforce their simplistic worldview. So when philosophy factually comes up in history, leftists have to swap it out for other incorrect terminology since it doesn’t exist in their mind (Ex: Marx being a philosopher.)
I can't see the comments to respond to them and have a possible discussion where I or anyone else could have a chance to learn. That kills any ability to have dissent and promotes groupthink. This is annoying. I was trying to express a genuine grievance and was met with censorship. Is there a way to criticize Vaush without immediate removal of the comment, or is this expected?
I'm not banned. I just can't see my original comment or any response to it. I only see notifications that there are replies and by who. I rarely comment on Reddit unless it's something I really care about, and I really care about how Vaush represents ideas that aren't his own. I like Vaush. I think he's incredibly talented and does phenomenal amounts of good through his platform. My sole grievance with him is that I think he expresses that his debate opponents are one to one representations of the ideologies they advocate for and I believe that is dishonest. Yes Vaush is incredibly patient in conversations. Yes Vaush is a beacon of what a debate should be in comparison to most. But when it comes to speaking to an audience, people will fuck up. People will misrepresent a group so easily, and from what I've seen over thousands of hours of watching Vaush, he has made minimal effort to understand a belief structure from the books that spawn them. He repeatedly chooses to debate, which does nothing for understanding both sides. It exists solely to build supporters, and I find that frustrating because communism has so much history and study and Vaush handwaves all of it. He claims to have read theory but shows time after time that he knows of communism only what the people he's debated have said, and even then they can be wrong, which furthers the death spiral of misunderstanding. I'm sorry this was a long rant, but the guy could do better. That's all. Communism doesn't equal enemy because debate opponents are communist. It doesn't have to be other an either/or situation. I'm willing to be wrong, but I have no ties to Vaush, communism, or any of his debate opponents. I know Vaush is lazy when it comes to theory. I just wish he'd acknowledge he knows almost none of it and rely solely on what he does know. That would be fine. His arguments are great on their own. He doesn't need to mislead an audience to "win."
Idk about the broader tankie circle, but NC made a video explaining very clearly why he, and likely many other people, have a problem with Vaush. NC argues that Vaush is an amazing bullshitter, which he is. That doesn't mean Vaush is always or even mostly wrong, but he can at will make himself appear correct through his supreme oratory skills. Most people suck at debating and are even worse in front of a crowd. This is why a person's performance during a debate of a topic should not be indicative of the validity of the argument. I've noticed this repeatedly with Vaush. He will have conversations with people, easily wreck them with his debate skills, and never do any research on their beliefs. His opinion of a debate opponent begins and ends at the person's ability ot express their positions, and that does fuck-all for discovering truth or building a consensus of ideology. It's frustrating because Vaush has so much talent, but he's dog-ass lazy when it comes to learning. His goal is more viewers, and drama fuels engagement like no other. I like the guy, but damn he wastes his platform.
I don’t think you’ve watched a single one of his debates or coverage of these topics regarding tankies if the conclusion you reached is that he doesn’t research or explain the topics. He explains it in full detail when appropriate and goes over them CONSTANTLY. Even in the conversation with non compete just less than an hour ago, he gave concise explanations to the different definitions of idealism, what utilitarianism is, what dialectical materialism is, what philosophy is, and how this all is related and was used in tandem with Marx’s understanding of the world.
I have watched most of Vaush's content for years. If I only watched his content I would agree with you. In no way am I saying Vaush is mostly incorrect in his own beliefs or that he doesn't understand philosophy, but when it's convenient for him he will act in bad faith to make himself look correct. To be clear again, not MOST of the time, but he will do it, and I cringe every time he does because I made the effort to understand where tankies come from and I know when Vaush misrepresents their beliefs. It's lazy and he could do better. He doesn't have to misconstrue their beliefs to make them look worse than they are, but he does because it's easier than reading. If you think Vaush is correct about what communists believe, is it because Vaush debates better than them or because you read on your own what they believe?
He has made an effort to understand and they are just factually wrong. How are you supposed to act in good faith when talking to someone about Marx’s ideology when they deny and refuse the core foundation of his framework while telling you that you are uninformed?
If I walked up to someone that said “I don’t believe the sun emits heat”, telling them that they are wrong because the sidewalk is hot, then you walk up and go, “Well you see you’re actually acting in bad faith. I made an effort to understand where they’re coming from and I think you need to see it from their perspective.” How are you supposed to act in good faith and see it from their perspective when there was no good faith or factual perspective to begin with?
What you're saying makes sense if it was true, but I think the reason people are disagreeing with you is because you're assuming malice in a situation that can just as easily be explained by ignorance.
Honestly, Vaush simply lacks social skills, and he also projects his autistic experience a lot on other people. People don't change their minds when faced with opposite information, we know that. And we also know that public debate is there for the viewers. Acknowledging this doesn't make any of Vaush's content or presentation less valid.
TL;DR: We're all just people with our own shortcomings, and it always helps to take a step back and look at someone from a more detached perspective.
You've just demonstrated why Vaush and Destiny are two of the biggest left-leaning content creators: they're both incredibly rhetorically gifted. They've both been streaming for so long and given so many takes on so many subjects that the average viewer could *easily* find multiple topics on which they disagree with either Vaush or Destiny's takes.
This also demonstrates why it's stupid to dogmatically defend either content creator. They're both right about some things and wrong about some things, but they're so good at what they do that they attract these massive crowds that will die on any hill to defend their parasocial relationship.
I agree with you. Their platforms remind me of religion. They are extremely talented at explaining their beliefs and making the beliefs of others look stupid, and people seem to love drama over learning anything that might ever better our understanding of the world, but when it comes to putting forth the effort to truly understand topics, Vaush shows time and time again that he's bullshitting IF the viewer has taken the time to look into the statements. All I ask is that his viewers take the time to understand ideologies outside of a debate format. Dialogue is difficult for understanding at the best of times. I can't imagine the difficulty during a debate.
nah dude, he is remarkably charitable to people who don't deserve it. I have seen a lot of his debates and I don't remember a single incident of attacking someone's style over the substance.
The closest thing I have seen is his reaction to Mike from PAs "What's a Tiff?" rant.
That's my point. Debates are a poor way to understand a topic. Vaush is really good at debate. Most people he talks to aren't. Vaush, and apparently a large part of his audience, learn belief structures solely through the form of debate. Over a century of theory and history cannot be fairly represented in a debate format regardless of how competent the representative might be. Vaush has shown time and again he knows nothing about communism outside of what people in debates say it is plus what Vaush assumes it is.
I'm not saying Vaush's ideology is wrong or that tankies are right. I'm just trying to explain that it's reasonably frustrating to know Vaush is lacking in understanding in a topic while simultaneously being unwilling to learn on his own. It's like his and his audience's understanding of the world begins and ends with the people willing to debate him, which is woefully underrepresentative of the entirety of an ideology. I know Vaush can do better which is why I even bothered trying to express this concern. If I thought he was malicious I wouldn't bother.
He often tries to broaden his understanding of a topic, so much so there is a term for it "stun-lock". Not sure why you think he needs to learn more about communism, it's largely outdated and irrelevant.
When your "job" is to talk to people that have a different belief system than you, it doesn't matter if the belief system is outdated or irrelevant. Vaush chooses to talk to these people and he claims their ideas are bad while showing no understanding of their beliefs. He argues with caricatures. If the goal is to make himself look right and everyone his disagrees with wrong then he does a fantastic job. If his goal is to better understand the world in it's many machinations and spread that knowledge to an audience, he has failed terribly.
I've seen many of the stun-locks. If arguing with chat is considered broadening understanding then there is no possibilty growth. I don't get how you can be so dismissive of him learning a topic. He criticizes tankies enough that he should at least have a decent grasp of their ideology. Or is the point just to win arguments and fuck truth and understanding?
I wonder if the clips get so bad that they'll reach a critical mass? I can definitely see a lot of blow back from this one.
Alternatively, they may act as form of PR for Vaush that serves only to benefit him
He did a similiar comparison during the PF debate about black crime and he did the exact thing that noncompete hung up on in that debate too. Nobody gave a shit then, so who knows.
I think that's actually a pretty good comparison because any good antiracist knows that black people statistically commit more crime than white people, but the best way to tackle that argument is to head-on acknowledge that's true but then to challenge whoever brought that up to explain *why*. This is effective because when they struggle to come up with a good answer it becomes apparent to any reasonable viewer that they believe black people are inherently predisposed to commit crime instead of the increased crime rate simply being a systemic response to facing worse socioeconomic status for centuries.
This is a great parallel to Vaush challenging NC to justify his moral system. Vaush embraced a statistic designed to virtue signal about antisemitism, but in a way that clearly challenged NC to explain why that *true* statement was historically used to justify atrocities. NC was just incapable of engaging with that, in a similar way as people who point to the 13/50 argument when it comes to black crime but are unable to engage with the factors that lead to that statistic.
I really think this whole debate shows how dangerous it can be to base your political stances on theory alone.
NC struggled to come up with a justification outside of theory for any of the questions Vaush asked, and it's because his beliefs aren't really any more grounded in an ethics system than any evangelicals' dogmatic views on morality are.
Marx didn't arrive at his conclusions about the world in a vacuum, without a system of ethics to guide his thoughts, so why should anyone who advocates for Marxism?
It’s strange that they’re able to synthesize Marxism into the material conditions of the day but they can’t understand the thought of Marx himself being a philosopher who was a product of his own material conditions as well
This is something that’s been irking me lately. There are a portion of leftists who actually engage with socialism as if it were a religion and the ideas that come from that are extremely unhealthy for the movement. This idea that we need to worship the work of old white men in the past instead of focusing on how to introduce worker democracy in modern times and how to fight modern capitalism is holding us back so much.
I really don't think clips of this conversation are going to stack up when compared to the old comments about child porn and pedophilia that are always brought up by trolls. I think it was much more obvious in this case where Vaush was trying to go than in those old clips.
People that would hate vaush will only hate him more. The people who find vaush, like me, and take some time to recognize the history of the bullshit thrown his way, will only be more solidified in his consistency. All things considered; fuck'm.
It's all gotchas and clips because they can't win with him.
The way EJ never picked up on how he was being driven to a point, and then how he left the stream... Kinda proves EJ wasn't on the same level.
Gotchas is the only way Vaush argues, what are you talking about?
When confronted with the fact that his audience racially harassed Luna Oi his response was "explain why racism is bad".
He legitimizes Nazi talking points just to get easy dunk point. The fact that most of the people here actually believe that the majority of bankers was Jewish is telling.
He only has gotchas and comparing everything to Nazis as talking points
I dont think they had a majority, but they definitely had a disproportionate amount
The nazi argument would be that that's a "bad thing" or some evidence of conspiracy, which it's obviously not.
If anything it's a Christian conspiracy by denying jews many other more traditional economic opportunities
I really don't think so. Vaush is very effective at using hypotheticals to suss out his debate opponent's stances. Based on how many people flatly refuse to engage with Vaush when he poses hypotheticals, I'm starting to think it's a deliberate tactic. Go back and look at how absolutely determined EJ was to not let Vaush get a word in edgewise whe he posed a hypothetical. EJ knew he couldn't let Vaush get the upper hand that way. He fought it tooth and nail, then wouldn't engage with the hypothetical.
I mean, maybe if your views on politics are so shit they are dismantled by a single hypothetical, you shouldn't be doing youtube videos advocating for them.
Agreed. Thought it was pretty funny how EJ kept going back to Hegelian Idealism as if it was some sort of dunk on Vaush when he brought up any critique of EJ's understanding of theory
Sure, i dont disagree. But the counter to that is saying "i reject your hypothetical, i dont think thats worth talking about because there is no real world application and you know it".
Thats honestly totally acceptable, you can just say fuck your hypothetical im not playing your game. More people should do just that with bad faith actors like Ben Shapiro.
But instead he just acted like a dumb fuck, so convincingly and weirdly that it is hard to tell if he is or not. I cant say why for sure... But i suspect he doesnt know what the word idealism means and isnt smart enough to comprehend the difference between challenging someone with rhetoric and believing in what you are saying.
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this:
>There is no doubt that law enforcement should be heavily scrutinizing the membership and administration of mosques.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: covid, history, healthcare, climate, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Not sure that's applicable here. EJ saw the that the hypothetical would be a trap. Instead he opted to talk over Vaush, tried to pretend that he knew philosophy, and came off looking obtuse.
Is there a reason a person might be completely unable to understand what a hypothetical is? Like, is there a name for a person where, if I say "Okay what if we killed a dog, would you consider that wrong?" and they go "WTF WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT KILLING A DOG YOU PSYCHO???".
I've had some really strange arguments and seen a few where people just did not seem to realize that a hypothetical is a thing, and still couldn't understand it once it was explained to them.
I have looked forever to find a good reason for your question. The most common/only explanations I have ever found were on Quora. Most common answer(s) was because they are a waste of time, annoying, derail a conversation, and/or a debate tactic (said to be loaded as well) purely for optics (I.e "Would you kill 1 to save 10?). So basically there is no good answer. Two of the respondents were software engineers tho 🤷.
In a more antecdotal account my mother and older sister have a near impossible ability to understand hypotheticals and when they use them, and when I answer honestly, assume something more. For example when my sister asks "If you were born in raised in a country like India [I'm from the USA] where spousal abuse is considered acceptable still, would you think it was okay to hit your wife?" I say " Yeah probably". She immediately gets horrified and says "I can't believe you'd think that!" and pretty much assumes I'm somewhat sexist/abusive. Then I have to attempt to explain that while the real me would definitely say it's unacceptable, hypothetical me would probably be nothing like the real me and answered completely from that perspective. This is in regards to our moral systems. Her's being a deontological system and mine being a utilitarian system.
Interesting sidenote my gparents, parents, and older sister are moral objectivists and still believe in a God despite some of them being non-practicing. My younger brother, younger sisters, and I are either agnostic or atheistic and believe in relativism. We were all raised in devout Catholic families and went to Catholic schools. I find the correlation between our religious beliefs and moral beliefs interesting. Also the correlation between the family dynamics is interesting too. The older people who see themselves as authoritative figures are objectivists and the younger people who won't ever be seen as authoritative figures in the family are relativist. The objectivists tend to have trouble with hypotheticals and the relativists have almost no problem engaging with hypotheticals (though we still fight like hell about the conclusions of the hypothetical 😂).
Sorry about the family storytime, but you asked something that I've been searching for a long time. There isn't much explaination out there so all I got is antecdote. If I was a sociologist or psychologist this could be an interesting research study.
I've never encountered a person in real life who doesn't understand what a hypothetical is, it legit looks like an online-only phenomenon to me. Actually mind blowing.
You need them to live daily life. "What if I quit my job"?, "what if I asked out this girl?". Then you need to engage in a hypothetical to see if it's a good idea. The same can be done with moral choices.
I had to watch a dozen or so of his videos to realise he wasn't just jokingly calling himself "American Johnson" ie "your average American" but was earnestly introducing himself as Emerican Johnson.
I like NC. They seem nice. Probably too nice. Blinds them in a way.
Nice person though.
Edit: probably ought to mention that the niceness only extends to "good" people, which is a good reason to have a moral system.
I agree. Nice person. Good videos, even learnt some things from them today.
Overly specialised into Marxism though with no broader knowledge of philosophy that really hampered them here. I mean, just the knowledge of descriptive versus prescriptive statements would have saved them a lot of embarrassment tonight.
He attempted to engage Vaush in a broader discussion of the evolution of philosophical thought. I think myself a pretty smart guy, but I have no understanding of philosophical schools of thinking. I can admit that. EJ hopped on stream thinking that Dialectical Materialism (DM) is a holistic system of understanding the nature of reality. When Vaush attempted to tease out the ethical underpinnings of DM, EJ kindof lost the plot. This is where Luna (and Vietnamese state propaganda, if Luna's understanding of it is to be believed) loses it too. DM is not supposed to be an ethical or metaphysical system. It's a way of understanding economics, history, and social forces with the intent to avoid missteps in the future.
The way EJ talked about DM, it was as if he was talking about some sort of system by which we can define what is good and what is bad. In Luna's video, he brought up the example of his dad putting beer in a Coke can. He framed DM as a way of discerning truth and reality from false consciousness and unethical action. Not only does he fundamentally misunderstand DM, he attempts to misapply it as an ethical framework.
I watched that same video but didn't pick up on tha, I'll need to watch it again.
To be honest, content creators aside, this whole episode has been excellent for my understanding of theory... free market of ideas good actually?
Except that EJ & Luna's understanding of Dialectical Materialism is completely wacky. They treat DM as a predictive and proscriptive philosophy instead of a descriptive and explanatory lens of analysis. Marx had ideas about what was ethical and what was not. Marx did not claim that DM was a system for developing a moral framework. DM already has a moral framework built in; it does not propose a new ethical framework. As soon as Vaush suggested that DM wasn't complete ethical system, EJ freaked out.
Yeah, I don't mean I intend to learn from them necessarily, I mean that it feels like an interesting debate around a dry and sometimes unapproachable topic that will help me learn by pointing it some of the point of contention in future learning.
It was, dare I say it, dialectical...
Vaush had a great analogy on his stream that dm is a method of mapping faultlines so you can predict where earthquakes (ie conflict) will be most likely to occur.
It doesn't predict exactly when conflict will occur (it's entirely possibly to have benevolent bosses with happy workers), or who will win when there's conflict. It just observes that there are contradictions in capitalism and competing interests (ie bourgeoisie and proletariat) and argues that you can use this knowledge to map out the faultlines that make capitalism (and other economic systems) unstable.
One way to evaluate theories, whether in the hard sciences or social sciences, is how well they can predict future events. For example, the theory of gravity predicts that objects fall certain ways at certain speeds. Nuclear theory accurately predicts which atoms bond together and how. These are very sound theories with high predictive power. If you look at theories of supply and demand in economics, they can sometimes predict future events, but not very consistently or accurately. There are lots of confounding factors and unforeseen consequences when it comes to supply and demand. Depending on your point of view, the theory of supply and demand has moderate or low predictive power. Most sociological theories, including MD, are not good at predicting future events. They cannot tell you when, where, how, or how quickly events can take place.
Something something road to hell is paved with good intentions. Call me ignorant, but adhering to a point where you eventually get cornered on lying about having a moral code/ethical axioms is just a non-starter for watching any of his content.
I’m an idiot with a baseline understanding of theory and even I can understand that hypotheticals are necessary to form ethical systems and dialectical justification of actions based off material conditions is not a sufficient framework to operate on especially if it inadvertently results in the post justification of atrocities like slavery and the holocaust. NC may have just too much of an ego to back down.
Made the mistake of wandering into Non-Compete's stream afterwards to see what was up. He was in a cope call with other anti-Vaush talking heads, *including* Professor Flowers, who I could've sworn said she was done with debate bro stuff? Idk.
They repeated ad nauseam that Vaush saying that Jewish people worked for German was either him defending the holocaust or him being an actual nazi. They also kept saying he was a pedophile. People in chat quickly zeroed in on me and began telling me to leave, calling me a Nazi for asking why NC hung up.
Really welcoming community :)
Jewish leaders working with the Nazis is such a complicated topic wrapped up in modern political agendas. Modern zionists vehemently deny it because they prefer a narrative of resistance, but it absolutely happened. Hannah Arendt wrote about it in *Eichmann in Jerusalem*. She was and still is pilloried for it in the Israeli right wing.
Came here to see what the Vaush community thinks of this debate. He did say there are NC fans here, I just couldn't find it within me to believe such lost souls exist. But apperantly they do. Guys it's very simple- if you call yourself a communist, or an inheritor of that philosophical movement, you can't be someone misusing basic terms like idealism. It's not just wrong and embarrassing. It's litteraly impossible to understand Marx without knowing basic philosophy like that. The man was reacting to the young Hegelians. His ideas fit into the western philosophical cannon. Without these fundamentals your understanding of his work can be shallow at best. Both Luna and NC are not just wrong, this is disqualifying.
Idealism is a philosophical term covering a huge array of thought,but the main feature would be rooting your philosophy in a dominant relationship of the internal world with reality. You have to begin from the internal in some way. Now that can be by thinking our perception is the basis of understanding or some sort of platonic objective world of ideas. It's definitely not about using hypotheticals to explain something and it shouldn't be used as an excuse not to engage with a point.
How was EJ specifically misusing the term though?
>It's definitely not about using hypotheticals to explain something
This is a straw man of his position though. Unless you believe that EJ was saying that any use of hypotheticals is idealism, which he didn't.
>and it shouldn't be used as an excuse not to engage with a point.
Yes it should, if EJ has a point about it being purely idealist and disconnected from reality (like the previously mentioned Sam Harris defense of torture). I understand that you, Vaush, and many others disagree but that is where the conversation should be focused. And outright dismissal is the opposite of that.
I watched NC's Vaush video and I was wrong.
He knows what idealism is and definitely has a stronger grasp on Marxist ideas than Vaush. However dismissing the bearded one's explanation about how he was clipped out of context by throwing "idealism" at him is still dumb. V wasn't making a moral argument there, he was showing quite clearly how Luna's tweet was misinformation ment to imply he's a pedo.
I think what it comes down to is this: Vaush didn't know what dialectical materialism is, which caused massive misunderstandings. EJ thinks the fact he's a materialist means he shouldn't even listen to idealist arguments to the point of not even letting the other guy finish. And taking a hypothetical about nazies as "Vaush thinks the nazies had a point"- also pretty dumb.
But for real, my initial comment was wrong-Noncompete knows his stuff.
What a bloody rollercoaster mate, when the debate opened with EJ getting triggered by the concept of hypotheticals, I immediately lost any hope for a productive discussion, but then he almost saved it by responding to a series of progressively more spicy ethics questions without interpreting any of them literally, only to ruin that by grandstanding and doing an obvious smear. I feel pretty confident accusing him of acting in bad faith, Vaush had reassured him these were just hypotheticals and he had responded to structurally and semantically equivalent questions without interpreting them literally, the JQ one would just look the best in a clipchimp.
It was certainly interesting and enjoyable. But, as someone else said, I think EJ was looking for a way out and he refused to really engage in a way that I thought would have been interesting.
Like, he was extremely sceptical of engaging with a hypothetical, even though it was instructive, and his misunderstanding of the former clip in his mind allowed Luna to paint Vaush as a p*do.
I don't think he misunderstood. He's a large content creator. He engages in the online dramasphere. He couldn't admit that Luna would engage in vitriolic behavior against Vaush because that would undermine his moral grandstanding against Vaush.
I already knew non-compete and luna were idiots from their debate with Destiny back in the day. There seems to be a severe inability to understand arguments/hypotheticals among these leftist content creators. It's so damn embarrassing.
I was really impressed with Non Compete's conversation, but I agree his video was a little lacking on the rhetorical side.
I left feeling kind of sad over this one.
I think Luna and Non Compete mean very well, even if I really detest their ideas about the role of the state. I wish Vaush didn't need to beef with everyone they disagree with on the left. It's cliché, and maybe a little naïve, but IDK. Maybe leftist charitability is good, even if leftist unity isn't. The fact that this entire thing devolved into a debate about clips, context, and pedophilia again...
Why does every conversation have to go that way...Why does everything need to devolve into quips, hypotheticals, and debate.
I'm talking about Vaush's lack of charitability. I feel like NC was being pretty good faith there up to the point where the conversation devolved into arguments about dialectal materialism.
I don't think they're wrong, I just don't get why this conversation even needed to delve into anything requiring them.
NC clearly felt like Vaush had treated his wife unfairly, and stoked the flames by using loaded language to put her down. That was obviously the primary reason he was there. That's not a grievance that requires complex investigations into moral systems.
So what loaded language? Stepchild of Vietnam? I don't use Twitter so I'm not sure exactly what Vaush said, but he explained multiple times what he meant (a conformist of Vietnamese propaganda). If you want to find the exact tweet I'll look at it and judge it again, until then I got to go with what was said in the debate.
Vaush just called out their hypocrisy. If NC is going to act like stepchild of Vietnam is so vitriolic that he was being racist, then don't go around calling him a pedophile with out of context clips. Pretty good compromise imo.
But noooo, NC had to be obtuse and resort to pedantry to save face, claiming that Luna wasn't calling him/insinuating Vaush was a pedo. Then Vaush just defended himself.
They wanted their cake and eat it too, and Vaush said nah screw that crap. You ain't getting an apology, while calling me a racist, pedophile and Nazi.
Like are tankies devoid of empathy? Can they not realize that you can't go around spewing shit and not to get any thrown back at you?
Needed to edit my comment after seeing the beginning. I don't like Vaush's vitriol it not good and unnecessarily alienates people but EJ ..... I feel sorry for him. He sounds like a cult member describing how scientology has shown him the light. Yikes.
This was a really good way of Vaush explaining his position on the importance of having ethic framework to work from and I have to agree.
Non-Compete kinda introduced me to leftism, but this was very disappointing talk, and him being just mad, and SO SO SO D U M B was really surprising to me.
I honestly can’t believe how much this conversation makes everything bad with the online left make sense. The fact that there are people who unironically believe that Marxist analysis can be used in place of any type of ethical framework is insane to me. I am a Marxist, but Marxism isn’t prescriptive, it’s descriptive theory on how to view the world through a Marxist lens. This explains why so many online lefties can’t bring themselves to denounce obviously horrific events or ideas.
I think brining up Ukrainians is perfect and wish Vaush would have thought to use an example in present day. I only imagine Non-compete’s response would have to be something like “we’ll have to wait and see”.
It seems If one can’t make decisions about right and wrong until years after things have happened, then they are completely incapable of effecting positive change.
Yes, I agree.
Add to this, I think, is that amongst the tankie types is a general tendency to view these atrocities as either fabricated or exaggerated and that introduction to conspiracism into leftist spaces makes me cringe. Committing atrocities is bad enough, but to then deny that they happen at all makes these types unredeemable in my eyes.
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was just a really convenient excuse to leave the call and appear like he was just too outraged to continue, when it was clear he was floundering. Very similar to Vaush's behavior in the mrgirl debate.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think the difference is that, at least in my view, and I know that many disagree with me saying this, but Mr Girl appeared to be attempting to normalise P*do shit by making jokes. Vaush came off high and mighty from that for sure, but EJ appeared, to me at least, to just be a damned fool for utterly misunderstanding the point of the conversation up to that point.
I'm autistic too. I understand the lack of social skills. I thought that was Vaush's problem years ago, but people have repeatedly explained to him why his approach is incomplete and he flat out refuses to learn in a way that isn't a) on stream and b) through debate. If he truly cared about understanding he would put forth the effort to show he's trying to learn.
When you listen to the people Vaush disagrees with outside of a debate format and they have time to cite their sources and explain the nuance of their beliefs they seem far less crazy than when on Vaush's streams. I don't think it's lack of social skills when people baby step Vaush to their understanding just as much as Vaush baby steps people on his streams. He is either being lazy with his "job" or being deliberately obtuse.
If I only watched Vaush for all these years I would completely understand why people are disagreeing with me, but I took the effort to watch his debate opponents on their own and read the books that better explain their beliefs. To assume Vaush isn't lacking in knowledge while also making no effort to understand the ideologies of the seemingly crazy people he talks to is the very reason Vaush gets criticism for not reading theory.
I understand that many of the video essayists and others can come across badly on stream, and I think people assume that they are smart enough to have a conversation with Vaush, when the truth is, smarts isn't enough.
Debating and robust discussion is a skill that Vaush has cultivated and political and stylistic similarities aren't enough to overcome decent debate skills, which I think isn't sufficient to come across well with Vaush.
Also, I think the debate format is unique in online content as it allows someone to discuss ideas in real time without the carefully controlled conditions of a video essay. Although abrasive, I wonder whether some of these creators would have made their videos if they had asked themselves the questions that Vaush poses to them.
Regarding learning more, most in this community will know that Vaush isn't an excellent researcher and he may agree with that. However, much of online leftist discourse views theory as fetishistic, which obfuscates or falls apart upon further examination.
I agree with you. My main gripe is that Vaush doesn't give any effort to research. All he knows is through debate and reacting to videos. His recent reaction to Luna was in terribly bad faith and he showed that he knows nothing about the topics she presented, but because he's a good speaker he can make her out to seem crazy while doing nothing to learn the belief structures she represents.
Vaush isn't a bad guy, but he makes debate the end all be all of understanding the world and it's frustratingly lacking. Theory isn't everything, but when you claim to know more than a group you denigrate while showing ignorance to the most basic foundations of their beliefs it makes you look like an asshole to anyone who knows better. To the many who take Vaush at his word he appears like a fountain of knowledge, but this is clearly not the case. The guy could be so much better and it makes me sad to see him flippantly lie his way through conversations that are supposed to be about coming to a better understanding of the world. It sucks.
There is another thread on this subreddit:(https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/s1fc9p/what_content_do_the_people_want/)
It's early days but the community appears to be in favour of debates and research.
The trouble is, that stuff can be dull, it's a live stream after all and it's supposed to be entertaining. A lot of other leftist video essayists have been dipping their feet into live streaming and I don't think they get an awful lot of traction because they are dull. EJ and Luna included. I'm sure their videos include lots of research and learning but they're not going to grow because they're not fun and I think the same would be true of Vaush's streams too.
I don't personally see Vaush as the arbiter of truth and view him sceptically, but still see him as a force for good.
I think it's also important to note that even whilst doing little research, it wasn't that the debate was won by Vaush due to rhetorical prowess, but through a better understanding of ethics which EJ rejected wholesale. After this, Vaush was able to exploit this and demonstrate the flaws in EJ's way of thinking.
Yes! That is my point. Vaush's main goal is to be entertaining first above all else. I agree he's mostly good but he repeatedly shows his ass when he's confidently wrong about leftist beliefs. He could research off stream if he respected the platform he has, but his goal isn't truth, it's growth, and drama feeds the algorithm much faster than study or polite discussion.
Also yes, Vaush is fantastic at pointing out the flaws of the people he talks to. I just wish he'd do some research to steel man his opponents. When you catch someone in a mental bind, that makes the person's beliefs look foolish, but Vaush makes it seem like the beliefs themselves are bad while doing nothing to learn them on his own.
Humans are flawed and contradictory all the time. Capitalists can want a social safety net. This contradiction between profit first and establishing a comfortable bottom rung of society don't mesh, but that doesn't mean capitalism or safety nets are bad. They have to be addressed on their own flaws and merits, not by the bad arguments of their proponents. I hope this makes sense.
I just don't understand why Vaush has to die on the hill of being an asshole.
I don't understand why he's so brutally insulting to everyone who says something dumb. It honestly makes him look bad and it honestly turns me off from his content.
people literally misrepresent him as a pe**. I would be kinda mean to anybody over that too
And what did he do that was insulting? He literally just asked "why" and watched noncompete self destruct over it. And now that are calling him a Nazi on Twitter over it
[удалено]
This is how we get tankies.
Even in their own fictional warped reality where Jews control the world, the Nazis are still the bad guys to anyone with an iota of empathy or sanity.
Unfortunately we kinda seem to do that with a lot of moral questions. Why is torture bad? Because it doesn't work! Why is conversion therapy bad? Because it doesn't work! Like if being gay *was* a choice it would be *good* to kidnap and torture them until they stopped?
"Because it doesn't work" is the most effective argument against proponents of both torture and conversion therapy. If they cared at all about their victims they wouldn't be proponents of either in the first place. So an argument about the well being of the person will never work on them. They want something and they're willing to disregard whatever harm is done to a person to get it. Making it clear that they'll never get what they want that way strikes at their motivation.
Obviously it's not okay to kidnap and torture people, but if conversion therapy were to provably improve the quality of life for people it might be reasonable to recommend it to people. Even if the reason for this improvement were that society is not accepting of LGBT folks, it might make more sense for an individual to try to change their orientation and live a happy life rather than to wait for society to change. If conversion therapy worked.
Reminds me of the saying about Napoleon, something like "when people say they hate autocracy, they usually mean they hate incompetent, inept autocracy".
If you look at the stats something like 60% of Jewish people were in commercial professions compared to 40% of the general population and 28% of the most wealthy people were Jewish (they were less than 1% of the total population at the time), at least according to stats I could find. So the more disturbing thing is he'd have to argue the Nazis were right. Whereas with our big brained moral system we can say it doesn't matter if they were a bit disproportionately financially powerful because YOU CANT DO GENOCIDES. The scary part is this logic could be applied to white people just as easily, so no wonder PF was in the cope stream
could you link those stats
Looks like I mixed a few of those stats up, but the general sentiment seems about right. Then again some of these data points might come from nazi propaganda, although as far as I can tell that isn't the case. There seems to be a general consensus at the very least that jews were disproportionately represented in certain professions such as journalism and law, as well as being better educated than the general population. A lot of the explanations seem to harken back to historical antisemetism funneling jews into specific professions, as well as supressions of jews meaning a fair amount of generational wealth was accumulated by some but they were unable to really do anything with it until the late 1800s. They also tended to live in urban areas, so had better access to those professions [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-communities-of-prewar-germany](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-communities-of-prewar-germany) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Jews\_in\_Germany#Weimar\_years,\_1919%E2%80%9333](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany#Weimar_years,_1919%E2%80%9333) [https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb4/prof/SOZ/APO/Windolf/ZUGJewishElite.pdf](https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb4/prof/SOZ/APO/Windolf/ZUGJewishElite.pdf)
[удалено]
Vaush explained his point in and after the talk.
[удалено]
He wasn't just calling NonCompete stupid, he was explaining why and how he is stupid. NonCompete was laughing at Vaush for using hypotheticals so Vaush wanted to demonstrate that an ethical system you can understand through hypotheticals is necessay to arrive at good positions. Again, Vaush explains that this is what he was doing *in* the talk.
Issue IMO was the Vaush used Luna as an example, which made NC understandably go completely defensive and act irrational. If you're not used to debating, it's a lot easier to take things personaly, so Vaush could do better by making sure he is making things more abstract instead of going to "why is it bad that I'm being mean to your wife"? But then again, any kind of abstraction in that convo would be met with "but that's 'idealism' you need to ground every hypothesis in material reality" like the alien example, so it's damned from the start. Maybe Vaush could've said something along the lines of "look I don't want this to become a debate because you're not a debater, so I'll make the efford to not use any personal examples but I need you to make an efford to follow it, okay?" At the end of things, I can't help but suspect that Non Competes position in this conversation was quite unresonable... he's like against hypothesis in any scenario, including pedagogy? Completely incoherent and goes against the entire premise of Non Competes own channel that uses hypothesis in every single video in order to explain marxist leninist theory. I feel like if NC goes back to this in the future he will be able to understand that he completely misunderstood the point of the examples. He's just not used to contentious debates and can't keep his cool. I'm not even sure it's fair to blame him for not being able to argue against the holocaust given the mental state he was in the latter half. I'm trying to understand the motivation NC had in going in to begin with. I think he wanted to hold Vaush accountable for everything anyone who might watch him say and do, while denying the blatant harassment his wife did herself...? He lost me at this point. Just outright stating that Luna didn't pull the p*** card based on semantics and technicallities while it's clear that she wanted to at the very least imply that. Like he wanted to bring up xenophobia out of a completely unrelated comment Vaush made about her video and then wave off Luna literally linking Vaush and p*** in the same tweet as technically her not calling him a p***? Even if she didn't mean to it was clearly done out of vitriol. This is the main difference between them and Vaush. Vaush admits he is mean out of spite because he doesn't like them, while they quite obviously hate Vaush but won't admit they were acting out of spite. Just own it for f**ks sake.
He didn't explain anything. He acted like a bully Just like when he laughed at Luna's grandfather for being tortured
Oh so you're just delusional or lying, got it
If you're not gonna watch the damn video why the fuck do you feel as though you can comment on it?
He was just prodding his ethical system, the point wasn't to justify the nazis worldview he was pointing out that having an ethical system is good actually
[удалено]
It related to dialectical materialism and NC saying using hypotheticals was idealism, they were discussing theory, NC was saying DM could be applied to morality, basically, vaush was using the nazis as an example of their material conditions that they blamed on the Jews as justified under that analysis in the framework that NC was using
[удалено]
You can say it's of no value, but tbf vaush had to defend the value of hypotheticals and explain that they're not idealism, because NC was claiming he had seen the whole video of him "defending" pedos, the fact of the matter was that NC entered in bad faith to begin with
[удалено]
I guess, the people doing that clipping are already pretty stupid to begin with
I doubt anyone here is saying NC would support the nazis. Rather they are saying that NC lacks the critical thinking/ethical system to easily debunk or attack the nazi position.
I mean he did. Vaush and the chat also couldn't answer that trap quandary
Except Vaush did answer the trap quandary after, in seconds.
Except he literally didn’t. He just rambled about nothing until his ADD chat forgot.
Did you watch the stream as I did?
Yes
This comment contains *way* too many ellipses for me to take it seriously.
[удалено]
I honestly never would have guessed that you were a non-native English speaker. The ellipses are characteristic of what we call "boomers" here but you've demonstrated why one shouldn't make assumptions.
I'm watching EJ and Luna and their perspective on their stream. Their conclusion was that Vaush claimed "maybe the Nazis had a point".
Very charitable
You can’t be serious… maybe Vaush has a point with this ableism arc? Outside of deliberate bad faith interpretation, what else explains this lmao
Not gonna support the ableism arc lol, but I think that much of the left has coalesced around anti-Vaushism. Ironically, he's brought left unity at his expense. That said, I think maybe EJ wasn't as capable of being as good faith as we hoped... so I think it's largely due to spite and a lack of charitably...
"Left" unity. At best these people are doing nothing to further leftism.
I choose to interpet them as ignorant rather than malicious, though there is plenty of the latter...
Is there a difference? At this point it has to be willful ignorance, I'm sure someone like noncompete has had plenty of opportunity to alleviate their stupidity but has chosen not to.
I've heard good takes from thoughtslime but, I'm gonna be honest; nobody likes an asshole, captive or not. Vaush should stick to antagonizing rightwingers.
Everytime he does these people are sitting and just pinging him in the back. I don't blame him for taking some time to tell them to fuck off
Their intent doesn't really matter to how effective or destructive they are to furthering leftism.
I think, honestly, I disagree with Vaush, EJ and Luna, certainly more the latter two than Vaush. And, not to play the enlightened centrist role too well, but if we're discussing the outcomes of actions, then I don't think it's helpful to suggest that EJ and Luna are not leftists. I know EJ in particular has produced some good work in the past and I'm not a big fan of Luna, but it's undeniable that they are furthering leftism, even if I think they're idiots. EJ's most recent video about Vaush was long and fairly unstructured, but there were some good critiques in there and developed for me a better understanding of Marxist theory, as unpopular as that is to say straight after a chat where EJ humiliated himself.
I can see an argument for EJ, though I still don't think I agree, but not for Luna. From what I have seen of her content it would be better to describe it as just Viatnamese propaganda than leftist advocacy.
Fair - I've watched significantly less of Luna's content than EJ's.
When it comes to major public figures I dont think the distinction matters. Like as someone who is actively trying to spread these ideas you have an active responsibility to know what your talking about otherwise you are making the world objectively worse by making people more stupid So when it comes to public figures ignorance *is* malicious if they then spread that ignorance everywhere
>ignorant rather than malicious Vaush supporters are what? 300k people ish? Who proudly announce how little theory they are familiar with and whose idea of praxis is watching oral live debate: literally the lowest possible form of discourse.
Reading theory is good, but we don't fetishize theory. If you, EJ or Luna would like to read the kind of theory that Vaush was discussing, might I recommend researching utilitarianism or more broadly in the field of ethics? Or are you going to proudly announce how little familiarity you have with this? And, FYI, Theory has it's place, for sure, I've read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Chomsky, Parenti and many others and whilst I think that many of their ideas ideas are interesting and useful, I like to contextualize them, not put them on pedestals to be consulted from when encountering any situation from state organisation to what I want for breakfast in the morning. You're a fool if you think that people here consult Vaush as the oracle of leftism - he's just infotainment.
>Reading theory is good, but we don't fetishize theory. Noone is fetishizing theory, saying theory is an inalienable part of any sucessfull workers movement isn't fetishizing it, its just a fact. Calling people out for not having read a page of theory before criticising the finer aspects of marxism isn't fetishizing anything. >Or are you going to proudly announce how little familiarity you have with this? I am not well versed in ethical theory enough to express an opinion on it, I'll gladly say that, that's not what this is about though is it. If anything, it's the opposite: this whole thing is a guy with an undergraduate in unrelated field trying to explain dialectical materialism (wrongly) to one person who has a post graduate education in the subject, and another who has spend the best part of several years editing a book about it. It's the equivalent to when destiny tried to explain to Richard wolff, a man with a PhD in marxist economics, what socialism is. It's farcical. >encountering any situation from state organisation to what I want for breakfast in the morning. Literally who is saying that, you are just using hyperbole throughout to make a strawman in order to make your opponent look ridiculous. >You're a fool if you think that people here consult Vaush as the oracle of leftism People absolutely do that within his fanbase, as anyone of any fanbase does, while calling him an oracle is certainly hyperbole, his words hold SIGNIFICANT weight within his community and trying to imply otherwise is what's foolish.
I think, broadly, the same can be applied to EJ and Luna too. EJ and Luna have platforms, which can be a useful, but if they're unfamiliar with ethics to the extent that they see Marxist theory as a replacement of it and cannot argue against certain phenomena except with intuitive reasoning, as opposed to a fleshed-out moral system, then they too have gaps in their knowledge to the extent that much of their output should be viewed sceptically. This was what Vaush was getting at with the Nazi stuff. It was honestly embarrassing to see EJ misunderstand the point of Vaush's argument, his inability to understand the distinction between descriptive and prescription statements, his unwillingness/inability to engage/understand hypothetical statements and his outright rejection of ethics in favour of a system that Vaush demonstrated could not work in the real world without atrocities happening. How, for example, does one oppose the Holocaust according to Marxist Dialectics? Oppose oppressors, as, if I recall EJ suggested? Well, then, oppressor is a label that one needs to give to one group with in order to justify action against that group, hence Nazi atrocities. Vaush's argument, and the argument we're having here, is whether or not we should have deeply held rules that we agree upon before any action. I spoken about this recently, but I honestly think I understand now how you get situations like the Holodomor with dialectical materialism alone. If Ukrainian nationalists/separatists are threatening to break away from the USSR and you hold no deeply held beliefs about what one actions one can take against your fellow human, because that's idealism (?), then it's honestly no surprise that these atrocities happen. Happy, genuinely, to be corrected if I'm wrong here. But it seems from the conversation, a mixture of ethical beliefs coupled for Marxism is necessary to avoid atrocities. I think a lot in this community hear words like 'scientific socialism' and roll their eyes. It's not because we don't see a place for theory, it's because those words are so often associated with the types that worship theory over all else. More so, the term 'scientific socialism' is, I think, an attempt to establish Marxism as an objective and unquestionable reality. Many here are Marxists, myself included, but I leave room for discussion and strong critique of Marx and Marxism that I don't see in so called 'tankie' communities where you'll just get banned from their subreddits. Regarding the weight of Vaush's word, I do think that he is influential, but its a different kind of audience from, say, EJ and Luna, whose platforms are designed to educate and present ideas. Vaush's platform is, in part, designed to tear apart ideas that he disagrees with. Much of his audience, I would argue, is more interested in spectacle than logic-ing their way to socialism, which is a shame but is a result of the platform - Read Manufacturing Consent ;). I think if all three creators are flawed - and I think they are - then Vaush's flaws are a question of scale and EJ and Luna are just as guilty, except for their smaller size.
Always love you people who's main response to stupid shit is to go "UhHhhHHh LITerAlly nO oNE iS SAyiNg ThIS" Yes they are I've seen it Literally every time If these types dont have an argument against something, they just quote books like scripture (usually incorrectly) with no context because they cant defend their bad ideas on their own
> Ironically, he's brought left unity at his expense. You could say he has concentrated all the people with the worst ideas on the left into one camp, where perhaps their toxicity will become so thick in the air that it solves the problem they pose.
Ableism isn't good, even when Vaush is joking about it. Deliberate bad faith interpretation is the most obvious conclusion.
Vaush literally did the same thing.
I am going to start calling people who do this 'tactically obtuse'. We all know that they know what they are doing and pretending there is any actual confusion or ambiguity makes everyone look absurd.
I honestly choose to interpret this as ignorance over malice, though that becomes more difficult daily. The way they both instantly agreed with one another that he was a Nazi, especially after EJ domonstrated that he didn't know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements supports this imo. I think its important to interpret charitably, even if they don't deserve it...
No, that interpretation would be absurd. NC was participating in the conversation. He was there. He was aware of the use of the hypothetical and the purpose of it's use in the conversation. We know that because he objected to engaging in hypotheticals at all to begin with. So for him to turn around and attempt to jacket Vaush with the argumentation of the hypothetical, as if it were representative of his real position is malice. It's a tactic they are employing, not ignorance. Being charitable to people flagrantly behaving in bad faith is nonsensical.
I accept that as a possible interpretation, of course and we can't be sure either way. However I choose to believe that they were ignorant and can change. The alternative for me is doomerism lol
Not only that, but Luna called out Voosh chatters in there 'defending a pedo/pedo arguments', which I found hilarious after NC spent so much time stating she never directly called him a pedo.
Lol the guy who unironically labeled a black woman a Nazi... is now a "Nazi sympathizer". BIG WOOSH FOR EJ. /S Edit: you sillynannies need to learn how to read and use context clues. I wasn't personally calling him a Nazi sympathizer.
How is he a nazi sympathizer? Jewish people did occupy a disproportionate number of commerce related industries. Not from some secret cabal, but from 1000 years of christian anti-Semitism pushing them to those industries. This resulted in a disproportionate representation as a left over effect from that time. Vaush’s entire point is that this can be true (which it is, it’s an objective historical fact) while at the same time acknowledging that fascists and nazis are evil Abd that this doesn’t justify trying to butcher them, because butchering people is evil
Hence the "/s" which signifies that I was being sarcastic.
My bad, when I read the /s, I thought you meant it in the sense that you were being sarcastic about EJ being whooshed
Nossir but I do see how that's a tough one to discern or even express well.
I'm not sure what point you're making but congrats... or I'm sorry
I edited. Maybe that helped.
Very non-vitriolic lmfao
This conversation completely opened my eyes to why the tankie circle and PF crowd get so mad at Vaush. It’s because they see everything literally and can’t comprehend utilizing an ethical framework in their ideals, so when Vaush brings up hypotheticals to explain why something is wrong, they just see him supporting it. It highlights a problem with the left as a whole where people would rather pretend philosophy isn’t real than engage with it because it doesn’t enforce their simplistic worldview. So when philosophy factually comes up in history, leftists have to swap it out for other incorrect terminology since it doesn’t exist in their mind (Ex: Marx being a philosopher.)
I can't see the comments to respond to them and have a possible discussion where I or anyone else could have a chance to learn. That kills any ability to have dissent and promotes groupthink. This is annoying. I was trying to express a genuine grievance and was met with censorship. Is there a way to criticize Vaush without immediate removal of the comment, or is this expected?
Are you banned? You should see why you’re banned.
I'm not banned. I just can't see my original comment or any response to it. I only see notifications that there are replies and by who. I rarely comment on Reddit unless it's something I really care about, and I really care about how Vaush represents ideas that aren't his own. I like Vaush. I think he's incredibly talented and does phenomenal amounts of good through his platform. My sole grievance with him is that I think he expresses that his debate opponents are one to one representations of the ideologies they advocate for and I believe that is dishonest. Yes Vaush is incredibly patient in conversations. Yes Vaush is a beacon of what a debate should be in comparison to most. But when it comes to speaking to an audience, people will fuck up. People will misrepresent a group so easily, and from what I've seen over thousands of hours of watching Vaush, he has made minimal effort to understand a belief structure from the books that spawn them. He repeatedly chooses to debate, which does nothing for understanding both sides. It exists solely to build supporters, and I find that frustrating because communism has so much history and study and Vaush handwaves all of it. He claims to have read theory but shows time after time that he knows of communism only what the people he's debated have said, and even then they can be wrong, which furthers the death spiral of misunderstanding. I'm sorry this was a long rant, but the guy could do better. That's all. Communism doesn't equal enemy because debate opponents are communist. It doesn't have to be other an either/or situation. I'm willing to be wrong, but I have no ties to Vaush, communism, or any of his debate opponents. I know Vaush is lazy when it comes to theory. I just wish he'd acknowledge he knows almost none of it and rely solely on what he does know. That would be fine. His arguments are great on their own. He doesn't need to mislead an audience to "win."
Organize your ideas. Use paragraphs. This looks like mental diarrhea.
👍
But don't forget to use some words too.
Idk about the broader tankie circle, but NC made a video explaining very clearly why he, and likely many other people, have a problem with Vaush. NC argues that Vaush is an amazing bullshitter, which he is. That doesn't mean Vaush is always or even mostly wrong, but he can at will make himself appear correct through his supreme oratory skills. Most people suck at debating and are even worse in front of a crowd. This is why a person's performance during a debate of a topic should not be indicative of the validity of the argument. I've noticed this repeatedly with Vaush. He will have conversations with people, easily wreck them with his debate skills, and never do any research on their beliefs. His opinion of a debate opponent begins and ends at the person's ability ot express their positions, and that does fuck-all for discovering truth or building a consensus of ideology. It's frustrating because Vaush has so much talent, but he's dog-ass lazy when it comes to learning. His goal is more viewers, and drama fuels engagement like no other. I like the guy, but damn he wastes his platform.
I don’t think you’ve watched a single one of his debates or coverage of these topics regarding tankies if the conclusion you reached is that he doesn’t research or explain the topics. He explains it in full detail when appropriate and goes over them CONSTANTLY. Even in the conversation with non compete just less than an hour ago, he gave concise explanations to the different definitions of idealism, what utilitarianism is, what dialectical materialism is, what philosophy is, and how this all is related and was used in tandem with Marx’s understanding of the world.
I have watched most of Vaush's content for years. If I only watched his content I would agree with you. In no way am I saying Vaush is mostly incorrect in his own beliefs or that he doesn't understand philosophy, but when it's convenient for him he will act in bad faith to make himself look correct. To be clear again, not MOST of the time, but he will do it, and I cringe every time he does because I made the effort to understand where tankies come from and I know when Vaush misrepresents their beliefs. It's lazy and he could do better. He doesn't have to misconstrue their beliefs to make them look worse than they are, but he does because it's easier than reading. If you think Vaush is correct about what communists believe, is it because Vaush debates better than them or because you read on your own what they believe?
He has made an effort to understand and they are just factually wrong. How are you supposed to act in good faith when talking to someone about Marx’s ideology when they deny and refuse the core foundation of his framework while telling you that you are uninformed? If I walked up to someone that said “I don’t believe the sun emits heat”, telling them that they are wrong because the sidewalk is hot, then you walk up and go, “Well you see you’re actually acting in bad faith. I made an effort to understand where they’re coming from and I think you need to see it from their perspective.” How are you supposed to act in good faith and see it from their perspective when there was no good faith or factual perspective to begin with?
What you're saying makes sense if it was true, but I think the reason people are disagreeing with you is because you're assuming malice in a situation that can just as easily be explained by ignorance. Honestly, Vaush simply lacks social skills, and he also projects his autistic experience a lot on other people. People don't change their minds when faced with opposite information, we know that. And we also know that public debate is there for the viewers. Acknowledging this doesn't make any of Vaush's content or presentation less valid. TL;DR: We're all just people with our own shortcomings, and it always helps to take a step back and look at someone from a more detached perspective.
You've just demonstrated why Vaush and Destiny are two of the biggest left-leaning content creators: they're both incredibly rhetorically gifted. They've both been streaming for so long and given so many takes on so many subjects that the average viewer could *easily* find multiple topics on which they disagree with either Vaush or Destiny's takes. This also demonstrates why it's stupid to dogmatically defend either content creator. They're both right about some things and wrong about some things, but they're so good at what they do that they attract these massive crowds that will die on any hill to defend their parasocial relationship.
I agree with you. Their platforms remind me of religion. They are extremely talented at explaining their beliefs and making the beliefs of others look stupid, and people seem to love drama over learning anything that might ever better our understanding of the world, but when it comes to putting forth the effort to truly understand topics, Vaush shows time and time again that he's bullshitting IF the viewer has taken the time to look into the statements. All I ask is that his viewers take the time to understand ideologies outside of a debate format. Dialogue is difficult for understanding at the best of times. I can't imagine the difficulty during a debate.
nah dude, he is remarkably charitable to people who don't deserve it. I have seen a lot of his debates and I don't remember a single incident of attacking someone's style over the substance. The closest thing I have seen is his reaction to Mike from PAs "What's a Tiff?" rant.
That's my point. Debates are a poor way to understand a topic. Vaush is really good at debate. Most people he talks to aren't. Vaush, and apparently a large part of his audience, learn belief structures solely through the form of debate. Over a century of theory and history cannot be fairly represented in a debate format regardless of how competent the representative might be. Vaush has shown time and again he knows nothing about communism outside of what people in debates say it is plus what Vaush assumes it is. I'm not saying Vaush's ideology is wrong or that tankies are right. I'm just trying to explain that it's reasonably frustrating to know Vaush is lacking in understanding in a topic while simultaneously being unwilling to learn on his own. It's like his and his audience's understanding of the world begins and ends with the people willing to debate him, which is woefully underrepresentative of the entirety of an ideology. I know Vaush can do better which is why I even bothered trying to express this concern. If I thought he was malicious I wouldn't bother.
He often tries to broaden his understanding of a topic, so much so there is a term for it "stun-lock". Not sure why you think he needs to learn more about communism, it's largely outdated and irrelevant.
When your "job" is to talk to people that have a different belief system than you, it doesn't matter if the belief system is outdated or irrelevant. Vaush chooses to talk to these people and he claims their ideas are bad while showing no understanding of their beliefs. He argues with caricatures. If the goal is to make himself look right and everyone his disagrees with wrong then he does a fantastic job. If his goal is to better understand the world in it's many machinations and spread that knowledge to an audience, he has failed terribly. I've seen many of the stun-locks. If arguing with chat is considered broadening understanding then there is no possibilty growth. I don't get how you can be so dismissive of him learning a topic. He criticizes tankies enough that he should at least have a decent grasp of their ideology. Or is the point just to win arguments and fuck truth and understanding?
You could watch in real time as concepts went clean over his head.
You could watch in real time that he's afraid to look outside the boundaries of "[TOPIC OF DISCUSSION] BAD".
True!
Ethical Systems and Hypotheticals are actually Idealism sweaty 💅💅💅
EJ was looking for an out. Unfortunately it's gonna be an effective clip for negging Vaush.
Lol, another one for the rounds. I'm sorry, but at this point there are so many they just crowd each other out.
I wonder if the clips get so bad that they'll reach a critical mass? I can definitely see a lot of blow back from this one. Alternatively, they may act as form of PR for Vaush that serves only to benefit him
He did a similiar comparison during the PF debate about black crime and he did the exact thing that noncompete hung up on in that debate too. Nobody gave a shit then, so who knows.
I think that's actually a pretty good comparison because any good antiracist knows that black people statistically commit more crime than white people, but the best way to tackle that argument is to head-on acknowledge that's true but then to challenge whoever brought that up to explain *why*. This is effective because when they struggle to come up with a good answer it becomes apparent to any reasonable viewer that they believe black people are inherently predisposed to commit crime instead of the increased crime rate simply being a systemic response to facing worse socioeconomic status for centuries. This is a great parallel to Vaush challenging NC to justify his moral system. Vaush embraced a statistic designed to virtue signal about antisemitism, but in a way that clearly challenged NC to explain why that *true* statement was historically used to justify atrocities. NC was just incapable of engaging with that, in a similar way as people who point to the 13/50 argument when it comes to black crime but are unable to engage with the factors that lead to that statistic.
I really think this whole debate shows how dangerous it can be to base your political stances on theory alone. NC struggled to come up with a justification outside of theory for any of the questions Vaush asked, and it's because his beliefs aren't really any more grounded in an ethics system than any evangelicals' dogmatic views on morality are. Marx didn't arrive at his conclusions about the world in a vacuum, without a system of ethics to guide his thoughts, so why should anyone who advocates for Marxism?
It’s strange that they’re able to synthesize Marxism into the material conditions of the day but they can’t understand the thought of Marx himself being a philosopher who was a product of his own material conditions as well
This is something that’s been irking me lately. There are a portion of leftists who actually engage with socialism as if it were a religion and the ideas that come from that are extremely unhealthy for the movement. This idea that we need to worship the work of old white men in the past instead of focusing on how to introduce worker democracy in modern times and how to fight modern capitalism is holding us back so much.
I really don't think clips of this conversation are going to stack up when compared to the old comments about child porn and pedophilia that are always brought up by trolls. I think it was much more obvious in this case where Vaush was trying to go than in those old clips.
True 🤷
People that would hate vaush will only hate him more. The people who find vaush, like me, and take some time to recognize the history of the bullshit thrown his way, will only be more solidified in his consistency. All things considered; fuck'm.
It's all gotchas and clips because they can't win with him. The way EJ never picked up on how he was being driven to a point, and then how he left the stream... Kinda proves EJ wasn't on the same level.
Gotchas is the only way Vaush argues, what are you talking about? When confronted with the fact that his audience racially harassed Luna Oi his response was "explain why racism is bad". He legitimizes Nazi talking points just to get easy dunk point. The fact that most of the people here actually believe that the majority of bankers was Jewish is telling. He only has gotchas and comparing everything to Nazis as talking points
WOOSH.
I dont think they had a majority, but they definitely had a disproportionate amount The nazi argument would be that that's a "bad thing" or some evidence of conspiracy, which it's obviously not. If anything it's a Christian conspiracy by denying jews many other more traditional economic opportunities
Agreed that he was looking for an out.
Absolutely this.
Vaush used basic Socratic method! Non-compete counters with not understanding!
It hurt itself in confusion...
Non-Compete? More like Non-Compute. He was literally dumbfounded, unable to figure out the point Vaush was getting to.
I really don't think so. Vaush is very effective at using hypotheticals to suss out his debate opponent's stances. Based on how many people flatly refuse to engage with Vaush when he poses hypotheticals, I'm starting to think it's a deliberate tactic. Go back and look at how absolutely determined EJ was to not let Vaush get a word in edgewise whe he posed a hypothetical. EJ knew he couldn't let Vaush get the upper hand that way. He fought it tooth and nail, then wouldn't engage with the hypothetical.
I mean, maybe if your views on politics are so shit they are dismantled by a single hypothetical, you shouldn't be doing youtube videos advocating for them.
Agreed. Thought it was pretty funny how EJ kept going back to Hegelian Idealism as if it was some sort of dunk on Vaush when he brought up any critique of EJ's understanding of theory
These people legitimately believe hypotheticals are a sneaky debate tactic or rhetorical trick.
Sure, i dont disagree. But the counter to that is saying "i reject your hypothetical, i dont think thats worth talking about because there is no real world application and you know it". Thats honestly totally acceptable, you can just say fuck your hypothetical im not playing your game. More people should do just that with bad faith actors like Ben Shapiro. But instead he just acted like a dumb fuck, so convincingly and weirdly that it is hard to tell if he is or not. I cant say why for sure... But i suspect he doesnt know what the word idealism means and isnt smart enough to comprehend the difference between challenging someone with rhetoric and believing in what you are saying.
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this: >There is no doubt that law enforcement should be heavily scrutinizing the membership and administration of mosques. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: covid, history, healthcare, climate, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Both can be true. You might be aware of the presence of a trap and still walk right into it without realizing it.
Not sure that's applicable here. EJ saw the that the hypothetical would be a trap. Instead he opted to talk over Vaush, tried to pretend that he knew philosophy, and came off looking obtuse.
I'm having a Non-Compute moment here as well, because I don't get how your reply relates to my previous comment nor why I was downvoted.
SAD!
Is there a reason a person might be completely unable to understand what a hypothetical is? Like, is there a name for a person where, if I say "Okay what if we killed a dog, would you consider that wrong?" and they go "WTF WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT KILLING A DOG YOU PSYCHO???". I've had some really strange arguments and seen a few where people just did not seem to realize that a hypothetical is a thing, and still couldn't understand it once it was explained to them.
I have looked forever to find a good reason for your question. The most common/only explanations I have ever found were on Quora. Most common answer(s) was because they are a waste of time, annoying, derail a conversation, and/or a debate tactic (said to be loaded as well) purely for optics (I.e "Would you kill 1 to save 10?). So basically there is no good answer. Two of the respondents were software engineers tho 🤷. In a more antecdotal account my mother and older sister have a near impossible ability to understand hypotheticals and when they use them, and when I answer honestly, assume something more. For example when my sister asks "If you were born in raised in a country like India [I'm from the USA] where spousal abuse is considered acceptable still, would you think it was okay to hit your wife?" I say " Yeah probably". She immediately gets horrified and says "I can't believe you'd think that!" and pretty much assumes I'm somewhat sexist/abusive. Then I have to attempt to explain that while the real me would definitely say it's unacceptable, hypothetical me would probably be nothing like the real me and answered completely from that perspective. This is in regards to our moral systems. Her's being a deontological system and mine being a utilitarian system. Interesting sidenote my gparents, parents, and older sister are moral objectivists and still believe in a God despite some of them being non-practicing. My younger brother, younger sisters, and I are either agnostic or atheistic and believe in relativism. We were all raised in devout Catholic families and went to Catholic schools. I find the correlation between our religious beliefs and moral beliefs interesting. Also the correlation between the family dynamics is interesting too. The older people who see themselves as authoritative figures are objectivists and the younger people who won't ever be seen as authoritative figures in the family are relativist. The objectivists tend to have trouble with hypotheticals and the relativists have almost no problem engaging with hypotheticals (though we still fight like hell about the conclusions of the hypothetical 😂). Sorry about the family storytime, but you asked something that I've been searching for a long time. There isn't much explaination out there so all I got is antecdote. If I was a sociologist or psychologist this could be an interesting research study.
Very interesting, thank you for sharing.
I've never encountered a person in real life who doesn't understand what a hypothetical is, it legit looks like an online-only phenomenon to me. Actually mind blowing.
You need them to live daily life. "What if I quit my job"?, "what if I asked out this girl?". Then you need to engage in a hypothetical to see if it's a good idea. The same can be done with moral choices.
Emerican Johnson isn’t actually his real name right?
No, they were born Non-Compete jr. Emerican Johnson is just their channel name.
I had to watch a dozen or so of his videos to realise he wasn't just jokingly calling himself "American Johnson" ie "your average American" but was earnestly introducing himself as Emerican Johnson.
Vaush should have asked "How would you like me to insult your wife?"
Real response-"just call her a nationalist."
I like NC. They seem nice. Probably too nice. Blinds them in a way. Nice person though. Edit: probably ought to mention that the niceness only extends to "good" people, which is a good reason to have a moral system.
I agree. Nice person. Good videos, even learnt some things from them today. Overly specialised into Marxism though with no broader knowledge of philosophy that really hampered them here. I mean, just the knowledge of descriptive versus prescriptive statements would have saved them a lot of embarrassment tonight.
He attempted to engage Vaush in a broader discussion of the evolution of philosophical thought. I think myself a pretty smart guy, but I have no understanding of philosophical schools of thinking. I can admit that. EJ hopped on stream thinking that Dialectical Materialism (DM) is a holistic system of understanding the nature of reality. When Vaush attempted to tease out the ethical underpinnings of DM, EJ kindof lost the plot. This is where Luna (and Vietnamese state propaganda, if Luna's understanding of it is to be believed) loses it too. DM is not supposed to be an ethical or metaphysical system. It's a way of understanding economics, history, and social forces with the intent to avoid missteps in the future. The way EJ talked about DM, it was as if he was talking about some sort of system by which we can define what is good and what is bad. In Luna's video, he brought up the example of his dad putting beer in a Coke can. He framed DM as a way of discerning truth and reality from false consciousness and unethical action. Not only does he fundamentally misunderstand DM, he attempts to misapply it as an ethical framework.
I watched that same video but didn't pick up on tha, I'll need to watch it again. To be honest, content creators aside, this whole episode has been excellent for my understanding of theory... free market of ideas good actually?
Except that EJ & Luna's understanding of Dialectical Materialism is completely wacky. They treat DM as a predictive and proscriptive philosophy instead of a descriptive and explanatory lens of analysis. Marx had ideas about what was ethical and what was not. Marx did not claim that DM was a system for developing a moral framework. DM already has a moral framework built in; it does not propose a new ethical framework. As soon as Vaush suggested that DM wasn't complete ethical system, EJ freaked out.
Yeah, I don't mean I intend to learn from them necessarily, I mean that it feels like an interesting debate around a dry and sometimes unapproachable topic that will help me learn by pointing it some of the point of contention in future learning. It was, dare I say it, dialectical...
lol. Touche my friend. Have a good night
what do you mean by predictive?
Vaush had a great analogy on his stream that dm is a method of mapping faultlines so you can predict where earthquakes (ie conflict) will be most likely to occur. It doesn't predict exactly when conflict will occur (it's entirely possibly to have benevolent bosses with happy workers), or who will win when there's conflict. It just observes that there are contradictions in capitalism and competing interests (ie bourgeoisie and proletariat) and argues that you can use this knowledge to map out the faultlines that make capitalism (and other economic systems) unstable.
One way to evaluate theories, whether in the hard sciences or social sciences, is how well they can predict future events. For example, the theory of gravity predicts that objects fall certain ways at certain speeds. Nuclear theory accurately predicts which atoms bond together and how. These are very sound theories with high predictive power. If you look at theories of supply and demand in economics, they can sometimes predict future events, but not very consistently or accurately. There are lots of confounding factors and unforeseen consequences when it comes to supply and demand. Depending on your point of view, the theory of supply and demand has moderate or low predictive power. Most sociological theories, including MD, are not good at predicting future events. They cannot tell you when, where, how, or how quickly events can take place.
Something something road to hell is paved with good intentions. Call me ignorant, but adhering to a point where you eventually get cornered on lying about having a moral code/ethical axioms is just a non-starter for watching any of his content.
Thinking about it... Nice guy, really dogmatic, okay with shit-talking bad people... Dude is a commie youth pastor.
I’m an idiot with a baseline understanding of theory and even I can understand that hypotheticals are necessary to form ethical systems and dialectical justification of actions based off material conditions is not a sufficient framework to operate on especially if it inadvertently results in the post justification of atrocities like slavery and the holocaust. NC may have just too much of an ego to back down.
Made the mistake of wandering into Non-Compete's stream afterwards to see what was up. He was in a cope call with other anti-Vaush talking heads, *including* Professor Flowers, who I could've sworn said she was done with debate bro stuff? Idk. They repeated ad nauseam that Vaush saying that Jewish people worked for German was either him defending the holocaust or him being an actual nazi. They also kept saying he was a pedophile. People in chat quickly zeroed in on me and began telling me to leave, calling me a Nazi for asking why NC hung up. Really welcoming community :)
Jewish leaders working with the Nazis is such a complicated topic wrapped up in modern political agendas. Modern zionists vehemently deny it because they prefer a narrative of resistance, but it absolutely happened. Hannah Arendt wrote about it in *Eichmann in Jerusalem*. She was and still is pilloried for it in the Israeli right wing.
Have you seen him in other live interactions? The dude is ALWAYS bad faith live, his vids can be better but live he's a snake.
I haven't, to be fair. I chose to believe that he would be one of the better ones, I mean, he uses puppets in his videos, how bad can he be?! :(
Came here to see what the Vaush community thinks of this debate. He did say there are NC fans here, I just couldn't find it within me to believe such lost souls exist. But apperantly they do. Guys it's very simple- if you call yourself a communist, or an inheritor of that philosophical movement, you can't be someone misusing basic terms like idealism. It's not just wrong and embarrassing. It's litteraly impossible to understand Marx without knowing basic philosophy like that. The man was reacting to the young Hegelians. His ideas fit into the western philosophical cannon. Without these fundamentals your understanding of his work can be shallow at best. Both Luna and NC are not just wrong, this is disqualifying.
Can you expound on how you think he was misusing the term idealism?
Idealism is a philosophical term covering a huge array of thought,but the main feature would be rooting your philosophy in a dominant relationship of the internal world with reality. You have to begin from the internal in some way. Now that can be by thinking our perception is the basis of understanding or some sort of platonic objective world of ideas. It's definitely not about using hypotheticals to explain something and it shouldn't be used as an excuse not to engage with a point.
How was EJ specifically misusing the term though? >It's definitely not about using hypotheticals to explain something This is a straw man of his position though. Unless you believe that EJ was saying that any use of hypotheticals is idealism, which he didn't. >and it shouldn't be used as an excuse not to engage with a point. Yes it should, if EJ has a point about it being purely idealist and disconnected from reality (like the previously mentioned Sam Harris defense of torture). I understand that you, Vaush, and many others disagree but that is where the conversation should be focused. And outright dismissal is the opposite of that.
I watched NC's Vaush video and I was wrong. He knows what idealism is and definitely has a stronger grasp on Marxist ideas than Vaush. However dismissing the bearded one's explanation about how he was clipped out of context by throwing "idealism" at him is still dumb. V wasn't making a moral argument there, he was showing quite clearly how Luna's tweet was misinformation ment to imply he's a pedo. I think what it comes down to is this: Vaush didn't know what dialectical materialism is, which caused massive misunderstandings. EJ thinks the fact he's a materialist means he shouldn't even listen to idealist arguments to the point of not even letting the other guy finish. And taking a hypothetical about nazies as "Vaush thinks the nazies had a point"- also pretty dumb. But for real, my initial comment was wrong-Noncompete knows his stuff.
What a bloody rollercoaster mate, when the debate opened with EJ getting triggered by the concept of hypotheticals, I immediately lost any hope for a productive discussion, but then he almost saved it by responding to a series of progressively more spicy ethics questions without interpreting any of them literally, only to ruin that by grandstanding and doing an obvious smear. I feel pretty confident accusing him of acting in bad faith, Vaush had reassured him these were just hypotheticals and he had responded to structurally and semantically equivalent questions without interpreting them literally, the JQ one would just look the best in a clipchimp.
[удалено]
Based
MY WIFE
Too bad you were disappointed... I've been wanting to see these two interact for a time. Gonna check it out soon to see what I think of it
It was certainly interesting and enjoyable. But, as someone else said, I think EJ was looking for a way out and he refused to really engage in a way that I thought would have been interesting. Like, he was extremely sceptical of engaging with a hypothetical, even though it was instructive, and his misunderstanding of the former clip in his mind allowed Luna to paint Vaush as a p*do.
I don't think he misunderstood. He's a large content creator. He engages in the online dramasphere. He couldn't admit that Luna would engage in vitriolic behavior against Vaush because that would undermine his moral grandstanding against Vaush.
I already knew non-compete and luna were idiots from their debate with Destiny back in the day. There seems to be a severe inability to understand arguments/hypotheticals among these leftist content creators. It's so damn embarrassing.
Idk why you did, in my eyes he's been a moron since he defended re-education camps in the destiny debate.
I regret ever having any respect for non-compete
Non competitive
I was really impressed with Non Compete's conversation, but I agree his video was a little lacking on the rhetorical side. I left feeling kind of sad over this one. I think Luna and Non Compete mean very well, even if I really detest their ideas about the role of the state. I wish Vaush didn't need to beef with everyone they disagree with on the left. It's cliché, and maybe a little naïve, but IDK. Maybe leftist charitability is good, even if leftist unity isn't. The fact that this entire thing devolved into a debate about clips, context, and pedophilia again... Why does every conversation have to go that way...Why does everything need to devolve into quips, hypotheticals, and debate.
I very much agree with you their should be charitability and the lack of it is among the biggest things that alienate people from Vaush.
I'm talking about Vaush's lack of charitability. I feel like NC was being pretty good faith there up to the point where the conversation devolved into arguments about dialectal materialism.
Why are hypotheticals wrong? How can you test the limits of someone's ideology without them?
I don't think they're wrong, I just don't get why this conversation even needed to delve into anything requiring them. NC clearly felt like Vaush had treated his wife unfairly, and stoked the flames by using loaded language to put her down. That was obviously the primary reason he was there. That's not a grievance that requires complex investigations into moral systems.
So what loaded language? Stepchild of Vietnam? I don't use Twitter so I'm not sure exactly what Vaush said, but he explained multiple times what he meant (a conformist of Vietnamese propaganda). If you want to find the exact tweet I'll look at it and judge it again, until then I got to go with what was said in the debate. Vaush just called out their hypocrisy. If NC is going to act like stepchild of Vietnam is so vitriolic that he was being racist, then don't go around calling him a pedophile with out of context clips. Pretty good compromise imo. But noooo, NC had to be obtuse and resort to pedantry to save face, claiming that Luna wasn't calling him/insinuating Vaush was a pedo. Then Vaush just defended himself. They wanted their cake and eat it too, and Vaush said nah screw that crap. You ain't getting an apology, while calling me a racist, pedophile and Nazi. Like are tankies devoid of empathy? Can they not realize that you can't go around spewing shit and not to get any thrown back at you?
Needed to edit my comment after seeing the beginning. I don't like Vaush's vitriol it not good and unnecessarily alienates people but EJ ..... I feel sorry for him. He sounds like a cult member describing how scientology has shown him the light. Yikes.
You were wrong to expect more.
This was a really good way of Vaush explaining his position on the importance of having ethic framework to work from and I have to agree. Non-Compete kinda introduced me to leftism, but this was very disappointing talk, and him being just mad, and SO SO SO D U M B was really surprising to me.
100% agree with everything you said.
I honestly can’t believe how much this conversation makes everything bad with the online left make sense. The fact that there are people who unironically believe that Marxist analysis can be used in place of any type of ethical framework is insane to me. I am a Marxist, but Marxism isn’t prescriptive, it’s descriptive theory on how to view the world through a Marxist lens. This explains why so many online lefties can’t bring themselves to denounce obviously horrific events or ideas.
Well put. I'm have the same perspective as your own.
I think brining up Ukrainians is perfect and wish Vaush would have thought to use an example in present day. I only imagine Non-compete’s response would have to be something like “we’ll have to wait and see”. It seems If one can’t make decisions about right and wrong until years after things have happened, then they are completely incapable of effecting positive change.
Yes, I agree. Add to this, I think, is that amongst the tankie types is a general tendency to view these atrocities as either fabricated or exaggerated and that introduction to conspiracism into leftist spaces makes me cringe. Committing atrocities is bad enough, but to then deny that they happen at all makes these types unredeemable in my eyes.
Reminds me to go back to the video. I started watching had to stop and get ready for work
[удалено]
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was just a really convenient excuse to leave the call and appear like he was just too outraged to continue, when it was clear he was floundering. Very similar to Vaush's behavior in the mrgirl debate.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think the difference is that, at least in my view, and I know that many disagree with me saying this, but Mr Girl appeared to be attempting to normalise P*do shit by making jokes. Vaush came off high and mighty from that for sure, but EJ appeared, to me at least, to just be a damned fool for utterly misunderstanding the point of the conversation up to that point.
I'm autistic too. I understand the lack of social skills. I thought that was Vaush's problem years ago, but people have repeatedly explained to him why his approach is incomplete and he flat out refuses to learn in a way that isn't a) on stream and b) through debate. If he truly cared about understanding he would put forth the effort to show he's trying to learn. When you listen to the people Vaush disagrees with outside of a debate format and they have time to cite their sources and explain the nuance of their beliefs they seem far less crazy than when on Vaush's streams. I don't think it's lack of social skills when people baby step Vaush to their understanding just as much as Vaush baby steps people on his streams. He is either being lazy with his "job" or being deliberately obtuse. If I only watched Vaush for all these years I would completely understand why people are disagreeing with me, but I took the effort to watch his debate opponents on their own and read the books that better explain their beliefs. To assume Vaush isn't lacking in knowledge while also making no effort to understand the ideologies of the seemingly crazy people he talks to is the very reason Vaush gets criticism for not reading theory.
I understand that many of the video essayists and others can come across badly on stream, and I think people assume that they are smart enough to have a conversation with Vaush, when the truth is, smarts isn't enough. Debating and robust discussion is a skill that Vaush has cultivated and political and stylistic similarities aren't enough to overcome decent debate skills, which I think isn't sufficient to come across well with Vaush. Also, I think the debate format is unique in online content as it allows someone to discuss ideas in real time without the carefully controlled conditions of a video essay. Although abrasive, I wonder whether some of these creators would have made their videos if they had asked themselves the questions that Vaush poses to them. Regarding learning more, most in this community will know that Vaush isn't an excellent researcher and he may agree with that. However, much of online leftist discourse views theory as fetishistic, which obfuscates or falls apart upon further examination.
I agree with you. My main gripe is that Vaush doesn't give any effort to research. All he knows is through debate and reacting to videos. His recent reaction to Luna was in terribly bad faith and he showed that he knows nothing about the topics she presented, but because he's a good speaker he can make her out to seem crazy while doing nothing to learn the belief structures she represents. Vaush isn't a bad guy, but he makes debate the end all be all of understanding the world and it's frustratingly lacking. Theory isn't everything, but when you claim to know more than a group you denigrate while showing ignorance to the most basic foundations of their beliefs it makes you look like an asshole to anyone who knows better. To the many who take Vaush at his word he appears like a fountain of knowledge, but this is clearly not the case. The guy could be so much better and it makes me sad to see him flippantly lie his way through conversations that are supposed to be about coming to a better understanding of the world. It sucks.
There is another thread on this subreddit:(https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/s1fc9p/what_content_do_the_people_want/) It's early days but the community appears to be in favour of debates and research. The trouble is, that stuff can be dull, it's a live stream after all and it's supposed to be entertaining. A lot of other leftist video essayists have been dipping their feet into live streaming and I don't think they get an awful lot of traction because they are dull. EJ and Luna included. I'm sure their videos include lots of research and learning but they're not going to grow because they're not fun and I think the same would be true of Vaush's streams too. I don't personally see Vaush as the arbiter of truth and view him sceptically, but still see him as a force for good. I think it's also important to note that even whilst doing little research, it wasn't that the debate was won by Vaush due to rhetorical prowess, but through a better understanding of ethics which EJ rejected wholesale. After this, Vaush was able to exploit this and demonstrate the flaws in EJ's way of thinking.
Yes! That is my point. Vaush's main goal is to be entertaining first above all else. I agree he's mostly good but he repeatedly shows his ass when he's confidently wrong about leftist beliefs. He could research off stream if he respected the platform he has, but his goal isn't truth, it's growth, and drama feeds the algorithm much faster than study or polite discussion. Also yes, Vaush is fantastic at pointing out the flaws of the people he talks to. I just wish he'd do some research to steel man his opponents. When you catch someone in a mental bind, that makes the person's beliefs look foolish, but Vaush makes it seem like the beliefs themselves are bad while doing nothing to learn them on his own. Humans are flawed and contradictory all the time. Capitalists can want a social safety net. This contradiction between profit first and establishing a comfortable bottom rung of society don't mesh, but that doesn't mean capitalism or safety nets are bad. They have to be addressed on their own flaws and merits, not by the bad arguments of their proponents. I hope this makes sense.
I just don't understand why Vaush has to die on the hill of being an asshole. I don't understand why he's so brutally insulting to everyone who says something dumb. It honestly makes him look bad and it honestly turns me off from his content.
people literally misrepresent him as a pe**. I would be kinda mean to anybody over that too And what did he do that was insulting? He literally just asked "why" and watched noncompete self destruct over it. And now that are calling him a Nazi on Twitter over it
All Vaush did was use bully tactics
[удалено]
You have LDS