Support the stream, we read donations live. Donate here:https://www.streamelements.com/noncompete/tip/Support us on Patreon and Comradery:https://www.patreon...
Vaush proving what we all already knew: That all pedophiles are nazis and all nazis are pedophiles.
how do you argue with someone so completely insufferable that they think "but why is it bad that my followers send racist slurs to your wife?" is an appropriate topic to have an EpIc DeBaTe about
NonCompete was attempting to answer the questions in a way that would discover common ground. Thinking, "hey, we can at least agree that harassing my wife with racism is bad, right?"
V*ush was barely paying attention because he was not trying to find common ground. He was focused on a childish debate to gambit of repeatedly asking, "why?" to every response he received because he wanted NonCompete to end up at first principles on ethics. This is something NonCompete would not do precisely because an appreciation of the material context prevents giving a shit about such abstract first principles. This is also part of why NonCompete repeatedly returned to describing dialectical materialism in that exchange.
But really, the core of it was just a bad faith attempt by V*ush to repeat his point or find some skin-deep inconsistency to pounce on, because if the other person can be shown to be inconsistent he can declare victory, insult them, and move on from the pile of lies he dropped down and cannot answer for.
V*ush is every toxic Reddit debatebro lib combined with a facade of smugness that he uses to deflect from his insecurities - like when he confuses dialectical materialism and historical materialism and simply changes the subject because he at least knows that he fucked up, but it would destroy him to admit it publicly.
The problem is that this appeals to an army of insecure and ignorant white dudes, particularly younger ones, who think that a confident tone and lulz is the same as having actual confidence and being in a position to lecture others
fuck i also had the misfortune to find this clip from the same debate
how do you argue with someone so completely insufferable that they think "but why is it bad that my followers send racist slurs to your wife?" is an appropriate topic to have an EpIc DeBaTe about
It's much dumber than that.
NonCompete was attempting to answer the questions in a way that would discover common ground. Thinking, "hey, we can at least agree that harassing my wife with racism is bad, right?"
V*ush was barely paying attention because he was not trying to find common ground. He was focused on a childish debate to gambit of repeatedly asking, "why?" to every response he received because he wanted NonCompete to end up at first principles on ethics. This is something NonCompete would not do precisely because an appreciation of the material context prevents giving a shit about such abstract first principles. This is also part of why NonCompete repeatedly returned to describing dialectical materialism in that exchange.
But really, the core of it was just a bad faith attempt by V*ush to repeat his point or find some skin-deep inconsistency to pounce on, because if the other person can be shown to be inconsistent he can declare victory, insult them, and move on from the pile of lies he dropped down and cannot answer for.
V*ush is every toxic Reddit debatebro lib combined with a facade of smugness that he uses to deflect from his insecurities - like when he confuses dialectical materialism and historical materialism and simply changes the subject because he at least knows that he fucked up, but it would destroy him to admit it publicly.
The problem is that this appeals to an army of insecure and ignorant white dudes, particularly younger ones, who think that a confident tone and lulz is the same as having actual confidence and being in a position to lecture others
Oh, you think it's bad to be racist? Name 100 reasons why.
You think you know about racism, kid? Name your top 5 racists, then. I'm waiting...