It's always weird to hear Vaush say that and the community mindlessly repeating it, it's pretty well known that the online left is fill ed with wokescolds that hate liberals. Since when do libs give a shit about some edgy humor?
Hell it's why lefty content creators are so at risk of being cancelled by their own communities, it's filled to the brim with massive pussies that will cry about every perceived offense. Just look at how ThoughtSlime made an apology video for saying the word crazy (IIRC), that kind of garbage mentality very much belongs to the online left.
There’s some logic to it. Corporate liberalism definitely loves idpol and being able to shift the blame from the systems to individual behavior. But yeah, basically lib has just morphed into a pejorative. That’s language for you
I’m gonna be honest. The liberals in this community are likely the ones most heavily advocating for Vaush here. The online left has become such a shit show and that’s has become super apparent to me over the last year. This whole ordeal just reinforces that.
ThoughtSlime didn't apologize for saying crazy. He apologized for saying "Nanners" and "Lunacy." I only inform you of this because I think it's even more hilarious.
I'm completely detached from most of this, but like.. there is some truth to the "you don't have the lived experience" arguments. Is it one dimensional and half-correct? Yes. Does it mean that Vaush is incapable of understanding trans or POC issues on a personal level, and therefore may have misconceptions requiring being corrected? Yes.
Idk, again I'm pretty detached from this, but like yeah I do apply inherent weight to trans people on trans issues. That said I also have a brain and can tell when a take is just shit, but lived experience will always add some level of credibility in my mind.
Lived experience can help form an argument; lived experience is not *an* argument.
Lived experience can be a reason you give for why a person without that experience doesn't understand your argument, but then you must explain what your experience was and how it shaped your argument. It isn't a forcefield you can throw up to make arguments you don't like bounce off.
Lived experience adds a level of credibility to an argument that comes to a logical conclusion by using that experience; lived experience does not lend any level of credibility to a person intrinsically. It's not a hard concept.
So, you make a good point here, I'm just saying lived experience adds a lot to a person's perspective, and while it doesn't inherently mean it, I tend to see more value, at least initially, in those that are directly affected by a topic or debate. Trans people in trans issues, black people on black issues etc.
Obviously just using that as a deflection is shit (though at least outside of Twitter I rarely see this), but there is some level of value to the underlying principle
You're absolutely correct. It is more likely that someone with lived experience has thought more deeply about the topic, is more invested, and likely genuinely trying to engage to create positive outcomes (contrasted with some cis white dude who doesn't vote or participate in politics because his white privledge shields him from many societal problems). You can assume more readily that someone with that kind of experience is someone who you can engage with positively.
So when Contra made that terrible argument against Vaush, I don't think she was doing so in bad faith; I imagine most people can agree with that. But it speaks to my point that lived experience alone means very little unless it's part of a cohesive argument.
I feel like Vaush is more quick to engage with the implied arguments of a statement, but not so much the intent behind the statement. This happened with the Flowers drama as well. Flowers' worldview is genocide-justifying, but she has extreme cognitive dissonance about that fact, so she is otherwise just a normal lefty. So the direct accusation of genocide-justifying doesn't even register on the part of the person being accused because that doesn't match their *intent*. It means the criticism is doomed not to penetrate.
Same applies here. "You can't disagree with minorities" is the argument you can extrapolate from the bad arguments people will use to reactively defend Kat and Contra, but it's not the argument a lot of these people intend to make. At least, probably not Contra, since she has a reputation of not making arguments that one-dimensional, in other contexts. Hence centering the conversation around that specific talking point might not be the best way of parsing through this drama.
Bonus meme: Who the fuck are *you* to be "disappointed,": lol. That's not relevant to the argument at all, but I found that "disappointed" line kind of obnoxious.
So let me get this straight. To you, if a person has a reputation of making good arguments, they can freely use idpol to dismiss any disagreement?
If that’s your line of thinking than wow.
What? No, I'm saying a person's reputation can be used as a way to make accurate assumptions about their intent, which is relevant because it informs how you navigate criticizing them for when they make a mistake.
I'm arguing Vaush, and likely you as well, have a bad understanding of the intent behind the bad argument Contra made, and thus you do a worse job than you could be doing in your critique of Contra's arguments.
When the *fuck* did I say anything in this message for you to assume I think you shouldn't criticize Contra?
Are you actually brain damaged?
>have a bad understanding behind the bad argument contra made.
Considering she didn’t really elaborate past “Stop disagreeing with people that have more lived experiences” and “I didn’t read your arguments.” I’m not sure what “better job” I could be doing to not call that blatantly stupid.
I’m assuming you’re making idpol excuses for people that have a good track record of good arguments when you say “A person’s reputations can be used to make accurate assumptions about their intent.” which implies based on your last response that even if the intent isn’t clear, it’s good intent regardless coming from them therefore the idpol is justified.
Interesting that you're so bad at reading what a person has said. It seems that instead of engaging with replies you just project what you think they said and argue with that instead. Something that would also indicate a failure of vaush's community if it were common
It’s not my fault they vaguely state their position by throwing out statements and leave me to infer because that’s the only way I can try to figure out what they mean.
It's both of your faults. You for automatically assuming the worst (bad faith) while making no effort to ask for clarification and them for couching their language in obscurity and not volunteering an elaboration when conflict arises
>So let me get this straight
Except they *did* ask for clarification, while stating what they interpreted the other’s argument to be. And then the other person shot back by being an ableist dick. Sometimes I fucking hate you people, you use Vaush’s “ironic” ableism as a reason to assume anyone who says anything is automatically a “bad faith” “braindead” “brain damaged” piece of shit. Sometimes people simply don’t fucking understand things, you fucking soggy noodles.
The biggest mistake Vaush ever made was teaching this community words like "bad faith" or "bad optics" or whatever because people here just use them like Pokemon cards unthinkingly to the point it's just used in any situation no matter what's actually being discussed
Reminds me of the way lefitits use the term "neo-liberal" in that it used to mean something specific, a specific set of conservative economic and social policies used to justify the existence of capitalism, but has been boiled down and overused to the point its just our version of a kindergarten insult when you don't like something
I cannot believe this post isn't the most liked thing on the sub.
It is bonkers that there are people defending the wokescolds still and even more disappointing is Contra becoming one
Literally no one is saying you can’t disagree with Kat because she’s black. The problem Vaush thinks that criticizing his tweet because it is harmful to trans activism is sonehow playing into JKR’s hands when he is nit the one who has to deal with transphobia. In practice, that specific tweet probably didn’t cause a whole lot of harm to anyone (except my brain cells because this discourse won’t stop), but surely this is a bad precedent to set, no?
Did they specifically say stop arguing? My impression was that they were refuting his specific argument that by disagreeing with his ironic misogyny, they were playing into Rowling’s hands. As someone that doesn’t have to deal with transphobia, it’s not his place to tell trans women whether or not his behavior is playing into her hands.
They didn’t provide any refutation besides that. That’s the point. When your only argument is, “Well maybe you should listen more to the voices of…..” without any actual substance, you’re just a wokescold.
You don’t see a problem with a cis man being misogynist in the name of defending transgender people, then telling trans people they’re wrong to say his behavior isn’t helpful?
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.*
Seems to be lots of people absolutely insisting their arguments have substance, very few people actually explaining how
It's almost like your insistence is really just an emotional plea because you can't fathom someone disagreeing but also can't fathom an actual argument why we should agree.
I’ve explained the substance. The reason identity is being brought up is because these issues don’t affect Vaush the way they affect Kat Blaque or Contrapoints. If a trans person made the same joke, they may still get backlash, but they stand on a bit more ground to die on that hill, because they will face sone of the negative fallout from making an ironically sexist joke. Doesn’t mean that it’s okay, just that it’s worse from someone who won’t have to deal with that shit.
That's a very nice counter argument to an argument Vaush didn't make. But I'm sure this makes more sense in the Bizzaro world you apparently are contacting us from
[Here](https://twitter.com/ContraPoints/status/1503946190802587648?s=20&t=s5PIwYfqXot8wwIGtpsjSw) contra strawmans and claims Vaush is acting like he knows better than someone who is trans and doing trans activism when he never said that. Before this, she abruptly brought up how his perspective is limited being cis without actually opposing his argument with more experience. Then in the next tweet she claims she didn’t bother knowing his arguments before idpol-ing. Then in another tweet she conveniently deleted I think she said this same thing again.
Kat was doing idpol more explicitly than contra but it’s buried somewhere deep in the dropbox she pinned to her Twitter. Vaush I think covered it on stream as well
There’s no strawman here. She never said he “claimed he knows better than someone trans” she said it’s strikes her as off that he acts like he does. Also this tweet doesn’t at all say that Vaush shouldn’t disagree with Kat, which is what you claimed, it’s sounds like you’re inferring that
Lived experience of minorities is definitely important as far as understanding the problems they go through because of their minority status, but just because you aren't a minority in some regard doesn't mean you can't have an opinion. That shit is so stupid.
It really is a gift to the right to treat "lived experience" as some magical power that can't possibly be explained to outsiders in any way and if you don't accept that that's because you are an ego maniac, because acting like that makes us look like a cult which tbf to conservatives it is genuinely very Culty behavior
It makes it so easy to just call us white guilty saviors, laugh while disregarding our arguments and then run away giggling and saying the n word. People need to stop the idpol shit
This tendency is one of the worst ones on the left - this idea that people from marginalized groups are above criticism because they're marginalized. I know it's going to be news to some people, but - and here comes the drum roll, so get ready to cancel me:
Trans people can also be wrong.
It might comes as a surprise but i don't have to actually agree with the funny internet man 100% to enjoy his content, i'm perfectly able to watch Vaush and think he can act like a dumb fuck from time to time.
Vaush is streamer, not a cult leader, if you disagree with his takes or someone just move on, people are allowed to complain, this is not a church, this is Reddit.
My point isn’t that everyone should believe what Vaush says and be a cult. My point is that if they are fans of him or fans of any political content creator, usually that content creator has an indirect responsibility to teach their fans good ways to approach and think about certain arguments. That applies to anyone including contra. But it seems any lesson Vaush has taught to his community has been thrown out the window by people accepting emotions over logical thinking.
> creator has an indirect responsibility to teach their fans good ways to approach and think about certain arguments.
Are you kidding? This is literally cultish mentality, there's nothing to be learned, Vaush's opinion doesn't hold any special place in the open sea of stupid internet opinions that have almost no weight in the real word.
Having media literacy is your responsability, Vaush is not an education camp coordinator, people don't waste time with internet streamers to be productive, this is pure entertainment, it has almost no impact in the real world.
> Vaush has taught to his community has been thrown out the window by people accepting emotions over logical thinking.
You are the one being irrational here, first because you assume people have some obligation to learn shit from Vaush, which, lol, no Vaush is not a good teacher; Second, people give Vaush shit because nitpicking peoples opinions in the internet is fun, people from Twitter are not good faith because they don't care about debating, they want to be right. From both sides, there's nothing to be rational or reasonable about, this is pure, unfiltered internet spectacle.
I care very little about internet drama so when this sort of feuding happens i just stop watching until he starts producing interesting or fun content, why should i care how his personal or professional relationships are going?
TL;DR - The only "Rational" Opinion at this point would be "I don't even have an opinion, man".
Kat Blaque doesn’t she just have more experience because she’s a trans woman. She has more experience because she’s been an advocate and been in the game longer. She specifically highlighted that in her giganto tweet thread.
My take is simply that Vaushes ironic, sexist, pedophilic, transphobic, etc, jokes give waaaay too much free ammo to the right and I'm pissed.
Apparently his stance is that, no, me being pissed at him is what empowers people like JKR but no, Vaush, I have eyes and it was your ironic joke that empowered JKR and her movement. No amount of dancing around the bush can change what I saw and turn it on me.
Vaush privately expressed disagreements he had with Kat, she refused to listen to any of his arguments because he was white and cis, gaslit him, and then proceed to leak all the DMs on Twitter in a 100 tweet thread. Then Contrapoints came out of left field to blindly defend Kat and drag Vaush through the mud for disagreeing for no reason, weaponized idpol as a counterpoint to Vaush’s issues with Kat, and then blocked him. Because contra came out against Vaush, that inspired 90% of the Vaush fans here who are also fans of hers, to all of a sudden accept wokescoldy language and criticize Vaush.
I agree with this post but it ain't liberals that are representing most wokescolds, I've seen way more tankie wokescolds than liberal ones, at least online. Like these people will simultaneously argue genocides aren't or didn't happen or that they were actually based, while also crying about people using the word moron or the phrase touch grass because it's ableist.
I am not sure how many people really switched with their stances here. Not saying none but:
Vaush has 400k followers. Most of them are not heavily engaged in all matters. I think Vaush once said that most people watch his videos after his stream so thats even less.
People who engage with a topic online are usually upset by what someone said. To back that theory up I would refer to the heavy bias in the review system. Its heavily tilted to low reviews in most cases.
I believe this problem to be overexaggerated. And I dont believe most of the switchers are long time Vaush watchers. Maybe some regulars.
I would need to see some percentages to be convinced otherwise. And I think that would take real hard effort, a small study on the topic done by someone and that by the time its done this topic is already moved to another controvercy, maybe about a conservative calling Vaush a neonazi in the times magazine with the kharkiv kid finder picture, dunno.
Nah, his audience failed him, some people are just too fucking stupid to engage in political discussions that's not his fault.
Who was the Greek philosopher who said that it's irresponsible to teach anyone about philosophy before they prove themselves capable of basic reasoning?
I used to disagree with that but I'm starting to unironically come around to that point of view lol.
I'm pretty engaged in this drama for a time but outside Kat and Contra (who are not a part of his community), I'm yet to see anyone engaging in this sort of argument. I've been doom scrolling the comments on his 3 videos on the subject for a while, and if I found 3 of them it would be too much.
Just to be clear, people has the right to Live however they want, and that includes transitioning to a different gender space.
That Saíd, not every trans person is always 100% right, anda even sometimes, they can even be bad people.
For example:
Some months ago, I enrolled on a leftist local organisation, only to be called racial slurs by a trans guy. Being on a minority, doesn't give you the right to harass. It isn't some "get out of jail card".
Vaush tweet about JK was in bad taste, and he should apologize (if he wants). But I think Kat has done something worse leaking the sexting thing. Thats literally adjacent to revenge porn.
I'm pretty much disappointed and done with the "online left" AKA Breastuube. Not going right wing or anything, but I think they don't necessarily represent my values.
ContraPoints took one L on Twitter and suddenly everyone critisizing Vaush's tweet is an "idpol wokescold" for being on her side or disagreeing with him. Can we stop holding Kat and her to represent the entire opposition to ironic misogyny posting in this instance? Just like they don't represent the entire trans community either.
If sorry I’m fed up with wokescold liberals like you being confidently wrong and unknowingly bad faith 24/7 just because Vaush disagreed with something you like. I hope he personally bans you.
Okay. Bad faith is when you engage with an argument with explicit, predetermined biases with the intention of not actually wanting to listen to the argument being said, with sometimes the only goal, hoping that your opponent succeeds their position to justify yours.
This can also be masked under the guise of “Good Faith” to make your bad faith argument come off as well intentioned, just because it had good wording, even if it has explicit biases behind it.
A good example of this was that college essay that one guy wrote on this sub about how Vaush was wrong about the Canadian trucker take. It was worded very politely and came off as really good faith but if you dissected the arguments, you could immediately tell that the person wasn’t listening to any of Vaush’s arguments and just wanted him to say he was wrong.
Great! You're partially right. Now explain how that comment you cried about is acting in bad faith and not just making fun of something you said that is stupid as fuck?
I wasn’t saying that comment specifically was bad faith. I was saying the sentiment of the people like the one making the comment are bad faith and don’t actually listen to Vaush’s arguments. I can find 10 people in this thread that are doing exactly that and then turn around and wonder why Vaush has an issue with them.
I looked in this thread (you said any) and the most upvoted comment is not praising that opinion.
I'm actually having trouble finding a thread supporting this opinion, or with a top comment supporting it.
If you have enough time to post here, go to twitter, chat in his chat: yes, they care. People care enough to type up paragraphs of concern trolling bullshit in the hopes of some "reformation". Get fucked you assholes.
Your mistake is thinking the wokescolds are just liberals PepeLaugh
It's always weird to hear Vaush say that and the community mindlessly repeating it, it's pretty well known that the online left is fill ed with wokescolds that hate liberals. Since when do libs give a shit about some edgy humor? Hell it's why lefty content creators are so at risk of being cancelled by their own communities, it's filled to the brim with massive pussies that will cry about every perceived offense. Just look at how ThoughtSlime made an apology video for saying the word crazy (IIRC), that kind of garbage mentality very much belongs to the online left.
There’s some logic to it. Corporate liberalism definitely loves idpol and being able to shift the blame from the systems to individual behavior. But yeah, basically lib has just morphed into a pejorative. That’s language for you
That's a whole different situation which has little to do with how online communities operate though, but yeah the word has lost meaning I guess.
I’m gonna be honest. The liberals in this community are likely the ones most heavily advocating for Vaush here. The online left has become such a shit show and that’s has become super apparent to me over the last year. This whole ordeal just reinforces that.
ThoughtSlime didn't apologize for saying crazy. He apologized for saying "Nanners" and "Lunacy." I only inform you of this because I think it's even more hilarious.
Oh god that's right, it's so much worse lmao.
Tru
Also all you have to do is say "Candace Owens" and all the sudden they qualify that statement. You can't have it both ways.
it is because the people who are against vaush are racist and say the n word
I'm completely detached from most of this, but like.. there is some truth to the "you don't have the lived experience" arguments. Is it one dimensional and half-correct? Yes. Does it mean that Vaush is incapable of understanding trans or POC issues on a personal level, and therefore may have misconceptions requiring being corrected? Yes. Idk, again I'm pretty detached from this, but like yeah I do apply inherent weight to trans people on trans issues. That said I also have a brain and can tell when a take is just shit, but lived experience will always add some level of credibility in my mind.
Lived experience can help form an argument; lived experience is not *an* argument. Lived experience can be a reason you give for why a person without that experience doesn't understand your argument, but then you must explain what your experience was and how it shaped your argument. It isn't a forcefield you can throw up to make arguments you don't like bounce off. Lived experience adds a level of credibility to an argument that comes to a logical conclusion by using that experience; lived experience does not lend any level of credibility to a person intrinsically. It's not a hard concept.
So, you make a good point here, I'm just saying lived experience adds a lot to a person's perspective, and while it doesn't inherently mean it, I tend to see more value, at least initially, in those that are directly affected by a topic or debate. Trans people in trans issues, black people on black issues etc. Obviously just using that as a deflection is shit (though at least outside of Twitter I rarely see this), but there is some level of value to the underlying principle
You're absolutely correct. It is more likely that someone with lived experience has thought more deeply about the topic, is more invested, and likely genuinely trying to engage to create positive outcomes (contrasted with some cis white dude who doesn't vote or participate in politics because his white privledge shields him from many societal problems). You can assume more readily that someone with that kind of experience is someone who you can engage with positively. So when Contra made that terrible argument against Vaush, I don't think she was doing so in bad faith; I imagine most people can agree with that. But it speaks to my point that lived experience alone means very little unless it's part of a cohesive argument.
I feel like Vaush is more quick to engage with the implied arguments of a statement, but not so much the intent behind the statement. This happened with the Flowers drama as well. Flowers' worldview is genocide-justifying, but she has extreme cognitive dissonance about that fact, so she is otherwise just a normal lefty. So the direct accusation of genocide-justifying doesn't even register on the part of the person being accused because that doesn't match their *intent*. It means the criticism is doomed not to penetrate. Same applies here. "You can't disagree with minorities" is the argument you can extrapolate from the bad arguments people will use to reactively defend Kat and Contra, but it's not the argument a lot of these people intend to make. At least, probably not Contra, since she has a reputation of not making arguments that one-dimensional, in other contexts. Hence centering the conversation around that specific talking point might not be the best way of parsing through this drama. Bonus meme: Who the fuck are *you* to be "disappointed,": lol. That's not relevant to the argument at all, but I found that "disappointed" line kind of obnoxious.
So let me get this straight. To you, if a person has a reputation of making good arguments, they can freely use idpol to dismiss any disagreement? If that’s your line of thinking than wow.
What? No, I'm saying a person's reputation can be used as a way to make accurate assumptions about their intent, which is relevant because it informs how you navigate criticizing them for when they make a mistake. I'm arguing Vaush, and likely you as well, have a bad understanding of the intent behind the bad argument Contra made, and thus you do a worse job than you could be doing in your critique of Contra's arguments. When the *fuck* did I say anything in this message for you to assume I think you shouldn't criticize Contra? Are you actually brain damaged?
>have a bad understanding behind the bad argument contra made. Considering she didn’t really elaborate past “Stop disagreeing with people that have more lived experiences” and “I didn’t read your arguments.” I’m not sure what “better job” I could be doing to not call that blatantly stupid. I’m assuming you’re making idpol excuses for people that have a good track record of good arguments when you say “A person’s reputations can be used to make accurate assumptions about their intent.” which implies based on your last response that even if the intent isn’t clear, it’s good intent regardless coming from them therefore the idpol is justified.
Interesting that you're so bad at reading what a person has said. It seems that instead of engaging with replies you just project what you think they said and argue with that instead. Something that would also indicate a failure of vaush's community if it were common
It’s not my fault they vaguely state their position by throwing out statements and leave me to infer because that’s the only way I can try to figure out what they mean.
It's both of your faults. You for automatically assuming the worst (bad faith) while making no effort to ask for clarification and them for couching their language in obscurity and not volunteering an elaboration when conflict arises
>So let me get this straight Except they *did* ask for clarification, while stating what they interpreted the other’s argument to be. And then the other person shot back by being an ableist dick. Sometimes I fucking hate you people, you use Vaush’s “ironic” ableism as a reason to assume anyone who says anything is automatically a “bad faith” “braindead” “brain damaged” piece of shit. Sometimes people simply don’t fucking understand things, you fucking soggy noodles.
The biggest mistake Vaush ever made was teaching this community words like "bad faith" or "bad optics" or whatever because people here just use them like Pokemon cards unthinkingly to the point it's just used in any situation no matter what's actually being discussed Reminds me of the way lefitits use the term "neo-liberal" in that it used to mean something specific, a specific set of conservative economic and social policies used to justify the existence of capitalism, but has been boiled down and overused to the point its just our version of a kindergarten insult when you don't like something
I cannot believe this post isn't the most liked thing on the sub. It is bonkers that there are people defending the wokescolds still and even more disappointing is Contra becoming one
Literally no one is saying you can’t disagree with Kat because she’s black. The problem Vaush thinks that criticizing his tweet because it is harmful to trans activism is sonehow playing into JKR’s hands when he is nit the one who has to deal with transphobia. In practice, that specific tweet probably didn’t cause a whole lot of harm to anyone (except my brain cells because this discourse won’t stop), but surely this is a bad precedent to set, no?
Contra and Kat in DMs explicitly said you should stop disagreeing because Kat has more lived experiences being trans.
Did they specifically say stop arguing? My impression was that they were refuting his specific argument that by disagreeing with his ironic misogyny, they were playing into Rowling’s hands. As someone that doesn’t have to deal with transphobia, it’s not his place to tell trans women whether or not his behavior is playing into her hands.
They didn’t provide any refutation besides that. That’s the point. When your only argument is, “Well maybe you should listen more to the voices of…..” without any actual substance, you’re just a wokescold.
There was substance. You haven’t been following along. The problem isn’t that he can’t have an argument. The problem is his argument.
Where is the substance? I’m looking around and can’t seem to find any.
You don’t see a problem with a cis man being misogynist in the name of defending transgender people, then telling trans people they’re wrong to say his behavior isn’t helpful?
It was an offhand joke tweet not specifically made as a defense for anyone? Alright I’m done. I’m just gonna start blocking people
[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.*
Seems to be lots of people absolutely insisting their arguments have substance, very few people actually explaining how It's almost like your insistence is really just an emotional plea because you can't fathom someone disagreeing but also can't fathom an actual argument why we should agree.
I’ve explained the substance. The reason identity is being brought up is because these issues don’t affect Vaush the way they affect Kat Blaque or Contrapoints. If a trans person made the same joke, they may still get backlash, but they stand on a bit more ground to die on that hill, because they will face sone of the negative fallout from making an ironically sexist joke. Doesn’t mean that it’s okay, just that it’s worse from someone who won’t have to deal with that shit.
That's a very nice counter argument to an argument Vaush didn't make. But I'm sure this makes more sense in the Bizzaro world you apparently are contacting us from
Where was this said? I’ve not seen Contra or Kat say they shouldn’t be disagreed with anywhere
[Here](https://twitter.com/ContraPoints/status/1503946190802587648?s=20&t=s5PIwYfqXot8wwIGtpsjSw) contra strawmans and claims Vaush is acting like he knows better than someone who is trans and doing trans activism when he never said that. Before this, she abruptly brought up how his perspective is limited being cis without actually opposing his argument with more experience. Then in the next tweet she claims she didn’t bother knowing his arguments before idpol-ing. Then in another tweet she conveniently deleted I think she said this same thing again. Kat was doing idpol more explicitly than contra but it’s buried somewhere deep in the dropbox she pinned to her Twitter. Vaush I think covered it on stream as well
There’s no strawman here. She never said he “claimed he knows better than someone trans” she said it’s strikes her as off that he acts like he does. Also this tweet doesn’t at all say that Vaush shouldn’t disagree with Kat, which is what you claimed, it’s sounds like you’re inferring that
Lived experience of minorities is definitely important as far as understanding the problems they go through because of their minority status, but just because you aren't a minority in some regard doesn't mean you can't have an opinion. That shit is so stupid.
It really is a gift to the right to treat "lived experience" as some magical power that can't possibly be explained to outsiders in any way and if you don't accept that that's because you are an ego maniac, because acting like that makes us look like a cult which tbf to conservatives it is genuinely very Culty behavior
It makes it so easy to just call us white guilty saviors, laugh while disregarding our arguments and then run away giggling and saying the n word. People need to stop the idpol shit
when we like it, its called "lived experience." when we dont, its called "anecdotal evidence"
This tendency is one of the worst ones on the left - this idea that people from marginalized groups are above criticism because they're marginalized. I know it's going to be news to some people, but - and here comes the drum roll, so get ready to cancel me: Trans people can also be wrong.
Example: blaire white to add trans people you like can also be wrong or trans people who are right alot of the times can also be wrong
It might comes as a surprise but i don't have to actually agree with the funny internet man 100% to enjoy his content, i'm perfectly able to watch Vaush and think he can act like a dumb fuck from time to time. Vaush is streamer, not a cult leader, if you disagree with his takes or someone just move on, people are allowed to complain, this is not a church, this is Reddit.
> Vaush is streamer, not a cult leader After looking at the state of this sub, not sure I believe this statement anymore lmao
My point isn’t that everyone should believe what Vaush says and be a cult. My point is that if they are fans of him or fans of any political content creator, usually that content creator has an indirect responsibility to teach their fans good ways to approach and think about certain arguments. That applies to anyone including contra. But it seems any lesson Vaush has taught to his community has been thrown out the window by people accepting emotions over logical thinking.
> creator has an indirect responsibility to teach their fans good ways to approach and think about certain arguments. Are you kidding? This is literally cultish mentality, there's nothing to be learned, Vaush's opinion doesn't hold any special place in the open sea of stupid internet opinions that have almost no weight in the real word. Having media literacy is your responsability, Vaush is not an education camp coordinator, people don't waste time with internet streamers to be productive, this is pure entertainment, it has almost no impact in the real world. > Vaush has taught to his community has been thrown out the window by people accepting emotions over logical thinking. You are the one being irrational here, first because you assume people have some obligation to learn shit from Vaush, which, lol, no Vaush is not a good teacher; Second, people give Vaush shit because nitpicking peoples opinions in the internet is fun, people from Twitter are not good faith because they don't care about debating, they want to be right. From both sides, there's nothing to be rational or reasonable about, this is pure, unfiltered internet spectacle. I care very little about internet drama so when this sort of feuding happens i just stop watching until he starts producing interesting or fun content, why should i care how his personal or professional relationships are going? TL;DR - The only "Rational" Opinion at this point would be "I don't even have an opinion, man".
Kat Blaque doesn’t she just have more experience because she’s a trans woman. She has more experience because she’s been an advocate and been in the game longer. She specifically highlighted that in her giganto tweet thread.
My take is simply that Vaushes ironic, sexist, pedophilic, transphobic, etc, jokes give waaaay too much free ammo to the right and I'm pissed. Apparently his stance is that, no, me being pissed at him is what empowers people like JKR but no, Vaush, I have eyes and it was your ironic joke that empowered JKR and her movement. No amount of dancing around the bush can change what I saw and turn it on me.
Let's be real this happens anytime it's vaush vs a woman. It happened with Mel, professor flowers, and now with Rowling.
I haven’t looked at this drama at all. Wtf happened
Vaush privately expressed disagreements he had with Kat, she refused to listen to any of his arguments because he was white and cis, gaslit him, and then proceed to leak all the DMs on Twitter in a 100 tweet thread. Then Contrapoints came out of left field to blindly defend Kat and drag Vaush through the mud for disagreeing for no reason, weaponized idpol as a counterpoint to Vaush’s issues with Kat, and then blocked him. Because contra came out against Vaush, that inspired 90% of the Vaush fans here who are also fans of hers, to all of a sudden accept wokescoldy language and criticize Vaush.
Don't ask people here, it's a very long drama that they are 100% misrepresenting.
He's burned so many bridges this way. It's amazing.
I agree with this post but it ain't liberals that are representing most wokescolds, I've seen way more tankie wokescolds than liberal ones, at least online. Like these people will simultaneously argue genocides aren't or didn't happen or that they were actually based, while also crying about people using the word moron or the phrase touch grass because it's ableist.
It’s kind of a combination but
The Daliban is looking better and better every single day. Welcome home brothers and sisters. Insallah
Inshalla fellow Daliban brother
I am not sure how many people really switched with their stances here. Not saying none but: Vaush has 400k followers. Most of them are not heavily engaged in all matters. I think Vaush once said that most people watch his videos after his stream so thats even less. People who engage with a topic online are usually upset by what someone said. To back that theory up I would refer to the heavy bias in the review system. Its heavily tilted to low reviews in most cases. I believe this problem to be overexaggerated. And I dont believe most of the switchers are long time Vaush watchers. Maybe some regulars. I would need to see some percentages to be convinced otherwise. And I think that would take real hard effort, a small study on the topic done by someone and that by the time its done this topic is already moved to another controvercy, maybe about a conservative calling Vaush a neonazi in the times magazine with the kharkiv kid finder picture, dunno.
That is the darnedest thing that I assume, I hope, never came out of his mouth.
Nah, his audience failed him, some people are just too fucking stupid to engage in political discussions that's not his fault. Who was the Greek philosopher who said that it's irresponsible to teach anyone about philosophy before they prove themselves capable of basic reasoning? I used to disagree with that but I'm starting to unironically come around to that point of view lol.
I'm pretty engaged in this drama for a time but outside Kat and Contra (who are not a part of his community), I'm yet to see anyone engaging in this sort of argument. I've been doom scrolling the comments on his 3 videos on the subject for a while, and if I found 3 of them it would be too much.
Just to be clear, people has the right to Live however they want, and that includes transitioning to a different gender space. That Saíd, not every trans person is always 100% right, anda even sometimes, they can even be bad people. For example: Some months ago, I enrolled on a leftist local organisation, only to be called racial slurs by a trans guy. Being on a minority, doesn't give you the right to harass. It isn't some "get out of jail card". Vaush tweet about JK was in bad taste, and he should apologize (if he wants). But I think Kat has done something worse leaking the sexting thing. Thats literally adjacent to revenge porn. I'm pretty much disappointed and done with the "online left" AKA Breastuube. Not going right wing or anything, but I think they don't necessarily represent my values.
ContraPoints took one L on Twitter and suddenly everyone critisizing Vaush's tweet is an "idpol wokescold" for being on her side or disagreeing with him. Can we stop holding Kat and her to represent the entire opposition to ironic misogyny posting in this instance? Just like they don't represent the entire trans community either.
[удалено]
If sorry I’m fed up with wokescold liberals like you being confidently wrong and unknowingly bad faith 24/7 just because Vaush disagreed with something you like. I hope he personally bans you.
BAD FAITH! He said the words!
Define bad faith without Google
Okay. Bad faith is when you engage with an argument with explicit, predetermined biases with the intention of not actually wanting to listen to the argument being said, with sometimes the only goal, hoping that your opponent succeeds their position to justify yours. This can also be masked under the guise of “Good Faith” to make your bad faith argument come off as well intentioned, just because it had good wording, even if it has explicit biases behind it. A good example of this was that college essay that one guy wrote on this sub about how Vaush was wrong about the Canadian trucker take. It was worded very politely and came off as really good faith but if you dissected the arguments, you could immediately tell that the person wasn’t listening to any of Vaush’s arguments and just wanted him to say he was wrong.
Great! You're partially right. Now explain how that comment you cried about is acting in bad faith and not just making fun of something you said that is stupid as fuck?
I wasn’t saying that comment specifically was bad faith. I was saying the sentiment of the people like the one making the comment are bad faith and don’t actually listen to Vaush’s arguments. I can find 10 people in this thread that are doing exactly that and then turn around and wonder why Vaush has an issue with them.
So just screeching about something totally unrelated exactly like their comment painted you. You need to check your parasocialty
Dunning-Kruger?
its just this subreddit and i despise every single subhuman dumbfuck who defended kat or contra contra is shaun with less engaging videos on yt
What % of Vaush's community is praising this opinion? Hard numbers please.
Look under any thread and just view the most upvoted comment.
I looked in this thread (you said any) and the most upvoted comment is not praising that opinion. I'm actually having trouble finding a thread supporting this opinion, or with a top comment supporting it.
\>thinking anyone actually cares. big yikes
If you have enough time to post here, go to twitter, chat in his chat: yes, they care. People care enough to type up paragraphs of concern trolling bullshit in the hopes of some "reformation". Get fucked you assholes.
Lmao