Vaush proving what we all already knew: That all pedophiles are nazis and all nazis are pedophiles.
Why should we bother to reply to Vaush? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There’s no end to that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Vaush is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything.
What if we wrote a bot and combined it with some deepfake footage and had that debate him?
Parenti Bot that distracts Vaush and we form a DotP while he isn’t looking
Yeah that's the point. It's a complete Nazi conspiracy theory. Vaush went mask off.
Imagine the state at which your brain is where you somehow devil’s advocate your way from libertarian socialism to the fucking Jewish Question. That’s like, old school Bakunin brain shit. ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat bad since the state is a tool of the Jews’ 1800’s era Marxist discourse. Mf TARDIS’d his brain back to the fucking civil war, let it ferment, and picked it up before dinner. It’s honestly sad.
Who knew that trying to be the shabibo of the left without actually addressing the fact that shabibo’s devil’s advocacy and gish galloping being problematic despite the person using them would lead you right to where shabibo is in terms of bad faith posturing yourself into further and further racism :shrug-outta-hecks:
He can’t even say it was a joke because the conversation was serious and confrontational throughout the whole thing. He was clearly frustrated and not in the mental state to be cracking jokes, especially not edgy ones.
There's no plausible deniability: he JQ'd. He got frustrated and dropped his mask. Made it clear without a reasonable doubt that he's a cryptofascist, and now only his cult-like fanbase will be unable to see it.
His audience is a cult. Let them smear their own shit all over their own asses. Everyone else is going to smell it, no matter how much they insist it doesn't stink.
This was actually the first time I ever listened to this freak idiot speak, and I'm stunned at how he's basically just Ben Shapiro or Sam Harris or Sargon or any of those other narcissist pedantic rhetoric obsessed slimeballs.
I kept hearing that his line of reasoning as somehow defeating dialectical materialism, or saying it's incomplete but it made no sense at all to me. The position was something like "No, you need to have an ethical position like utilitarianism or deontology to explain why bad things are bad." Like V**sh idiot kept going super hyperbolic, contrasting some kind of self-curated ethics with what he called intuitive ethics, saying that's why pogroms and genocides happen, because you don't voluntarily subscribe to some complicated set of rules someone made up. Idiot jumps to genocide as like the ultimate conclusion of not agreeing with every one of his ticky tacky imaginary principles he claims to follow. Yeah if only capitalists followed bushido then the world would be better.
I think he's saying bad things happen because people are bad and stupid? It made no goddamn sense at all to me compared to what the other guy was saying. Other guy was clearly shaken and not enjoying himself, but knew what he was talking about. He also did articulate an ethical framework regarding self-actualization through dialetics, but the other side didn't seem to take that as legitimate. V**sh kept trying to put him into a corner by accusing him of not saying the holocaust was bad? Well the guy did, he said things like genocide deny people their ability to self-actualize or have control over their own lives. Idiot then says denying someone the right to murder or enslave is also denying a person their ability to self-actualize. Holy shit, how does anyone have the patience for this guy? He's like a freshman philosophy student trying to trick the professor. It's the most smarmy nothing argument I've ever heard. Then he goes ahead and repeats a complete falsehood about Jews controlling banks in Germany. Then has the gall to call the other guy a holocaust denier, because he couldn't come up with a sufficiently elaborate imaginary moral framework, because saying genocide denies people freedom over their own lives apparently isn't good enough of an argument?
How the hell do y'all have the patience to listen to this person speak for more than a minute. I'm not one to get excessively angry but this guy had me vibrating with hatred.
its really dumb. society and morality at large are the result of literal thousands of years of history. yea its a bit naunced, sorry i have not perfectly articulated my position on every issue ever. guess im gonna do a genocide now :(
what does JQ'd mean edit nvm I scrolled down and saw it had to do with Nazi apologia coming from Vaush related to the "Jewish Question"
lol at the v*ushite debatebro in the top comment thread
You're right, there is no objective right or wrong, that is why it's important you are capable of explaining what good or bad mean to you and how you come to these conclusions. If you can't do that then you can never resolve any dispute on moral claims at all. When you say genocide is bad why should I listen to you over a nazi who says it's good? How can I tell who's right?
"debate me bro or else how will i know whether genocide is bad?"
edit: because i hate myself i went and had a look at r/vaushv and lol
online leftism gives you brain worms change my mind
:wonder-who-thats-for:
All he did was repeat "why?" Like a toddler and then defend nazis.
every dipshit wanna be like socrates but none of them wanna drink hemlock smh
one of the replies:
we are all nazis at the end of the day
^ 30 points on :reddit-logo:
That comment alone is why I am now tracking r/vaushv as a 'pedophile' subreddit
The comment is accurate if they're referring to V*ush and his supporters.
These people lack the basic philosophical skills they claim to adore.
Also straight up have no empathy.
Moral relativism is for cowards anyway. "Be nice to people and oppose exploitative power" isn't that fucking hard.
Moral relativism is an excuse white liberals use to justify inaction.
Everything this idiot was saying reminded me of Sam Harris and the whole moral landscape thing, like I think he was getting at a crude pseudo-utilitarianism where there's suffering points and happiness points and we have to tilt the see-saw to gain more happiness points. It goes off the rails because it came across to me like he was arguing for making ethical decisions for events before they even happen, which can't be done because they aren't real events. It just goes into the realm of imagination. Thought experiments can be useful, but if you can just make up anything, you can justify any action you want.
He seemed so rigid in his conviction that only strictly held ethical doctrines are valid he rejected anything about making moral judgements without appealing to a particular ethical ideology. It didn't make sense at all to me. The other guy clearly articulated how dialectical materialism can determine if a person or class has control over the functional aspects of their own lives and if not, what sort of barriers exist. That's the moral framework right there, have more people have more input into the content of their daily lives. Reduce or eliminate alienation. That's the greatest gift a successful Marxist movement can achieve and it's right there built into the concept. It doesn't even necessarily contradict idealist utilitarianism, at least I don't see how it would.
Idiot just rejected that entirely and backed himself into an antisemitic corner somehow, like Sideshow Bob walking into a rake but claiming he meant to do that as an experiment
I referenced the “tactical” joke (expecting him to get the reference) he found the killstream clip and was shocked and basically said he refused to watch vaush anymore. Shortly after he discovered the Poppy incident as well and it went downhill from there.
They have distinct names for the times he went mask-off lol. this guy is making an ass out of himself so often that they need code names for his reactionary blunders.
I then went on to say that even in modern day, our current media has a lot of Jewish presence in it
what. the. fuck. what the actual fuck did i just read.
Now of course my friend then essentially accused me of believing in the JQ and called what I said “antisemitism 101”. I admit maybe I phrased parts of it badly, but I assumed my friend would be smart enough to engage with my words and not believe a 10 second clip or assume I was a Nazi.
no shit sherlock. btw, you're already talking like a fucking nazi again.
jfc, i don't know if i want to read the replies when the OP is already off to a start like that. That's a troll, right? This guy is deliberately pretending to be an antisemite to make v*ush fans look even worse, right?
reads comments anyway
:jesus-christ:
Everyone acting like it's a massive dramatic betrayal of the friendship to want to distance yourself from someone you see as a nazi. These fucking people, goddamn.
Also that one dude "Your friend sounds young, they're usually dramatic like this." :wonder-who-thats-for:
Holy shit that link. Fucking epic. ... ... yep the content there is bad enough to justify tracking the entire subreddit.
This is peak "I don't argue with people John Brown would have shot".
Yeah my English teacher even thought us that in school before reading The Merchant of Venice and other works from Shakespeare, as some of the lenders in them are depicted as stereotypically Jewish.
Funny clown hammer man does not even have a middle school understanding of what he's talking about.
Same, like it was AP English but we had to write a short essay about antibsemitism of the time. I also wrote a banger of an essay about how our interpretation of Othello regarding race is modern as fuck and the relationship between the development of modern racism and capitalism. I was even kinda lib at the time, I'm proud of past me for that one.
Cool medieval Europe finance trick
Are your debts coming due? Purge the Jews! No Jews, no debt!
Are your tax revenues not meeting your expenditures? Purge the Jews and take their stuff!
Are the citizens becoming unruly? Blame all social ills on the Jews and purge them!
This happened routinely across Europe for centuries. The times when Christian officials went out of their way to protect the Jews are notable because they were so rare.
It's also notable that after the wholesale slaughter or flight of most of the Jews in mainland Europe the Europeans have continued to behave this way towards Roma people.
"If the Roma have it so bad then why do they own palaces" - Average eastern European Person
The mixture of absolute poverty + few rich people who live like the ethnic majority's bourgeoise = absolutely virulent and vile racism that attributes bourgeois class characteristics to an entire ethnicity, distracting from the actual class conflicts.
Which is kind of the why we are socialists and internationalists instead of doing "red-brown alliance" stuff like galaxy brains like Caleb Maupin would like
Doesn't France have some ruthlessly oppressed linguistic minority that, like, pronounces L slightly differently or something?
This led directly to pogroms and mass expulsions
There's this spanish "historical" drama series about the lives of the Catholic Monarchs during and post-Reconquista where they depict the expulsion of Jewish people from Spain after centuries of (relative) tolerance from the Muslim Moors.
They depict Queen Isabella as being "forced" to expulse all the Jews and feeling really bad about it and tearfully saying goodbye to her Jewish physician who saved her son's life. And there's absolutely eyerolling scene of her tearfully contemplating the expulsion of Jews as a failure on her part but one that was unavoidable.
Meanwhile IRL, Queen Isabella was probably the most enthusiastic antisemite who didn't give a fuck about about the consequences to herself or the country even when that expelled Jewish diaspora became pirates down the line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_pirates#Iberian_Jewish_pirates) as a consequence of being forced out of their homeland while having their wealth confiscated, and even when the expulsions meant that several professions suddenly had zero people to work on (silk making for example in Spain completely disappeared with the expulsion of Jews and Muslim Moriscos leading to Italy becoming the top producer of silk in Spain) it didn't matter to her because of how antisemitic she was.
It was the TV-equivalent of Americans painting the Native American Genocide as nothing more than misunderstandings and tragic (but necessary) events towards aMeRiCaN gReAtNeSs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQUU7gbzVbM&t=4516s
Takes you directly to the point.
V*sh had the argument that the Nazis violently did a revolution as oppressed people? They literally mixed voting and street violence to win an election. And uh against the Jews?
He’s so dumb and bad at this shit.
I think his point was supposed to be that, just because you think you have a righteous cause, does not mean you are automatically righteous in the enaction of violence, as it's relative to your own perception. Then he tries to defend how a Nazi would have a biased perception of the Jews. He was backed into a corner and being contrarian because he has no actual beliefs, convictions, or even a real analysis of any kind.
It's such a nothing point too, because other guy was saying ethically sound decisions cannot be made without understanding of reality, and unethical decisions will be made with improper understanding of truth. The Nazis did not have a functional worldview that reflected reality, so despite their own view they were righteously acting to save Europe or whatever, it didn't matter because that's not what was actually happening. Instead they were going on a racist genocide based on falsehood. V**sh then somehow thought it appropriate to mention Nazis were perhaps not so deluded. Goddamn.
I think if he had continued V**sh would have tried saying something like "The genocide would have been inappropriate even if everything the Nazis said was true." Well who the fuck cares you idiot, it wasn't true so why even entertain the idea that it was or could have even been possible
To be fair, he doesn't believe in consent to begin with.
Yeah. I kind of see what he was hoping for, it was a stupid angle and a waste of time, because considering Nazis aside from how to kill then is a waste of time.
Tons of people in the online debate-o-sphere just throw out arguments without any concern for arguing from a coherent worldview. They're just throwing shit out to see if some line of theirs "sticks".
EJ frustrates me at times but the way they handled that made me really proud of them. Took the energy from that awful Destiny debate, learned from it, and took down the biggest cryptofash in the left. I love them.
How does this take him down? The people who already know he sucks agree that he sucks, and his own personal cult already makes excuses for him. What does this mistake actually cost him?
They're good at one thing and one thing alone, and that's getting nazis to drop their mask.
Show the clip to people if they start to watch him, but they're not too far gone.
It's already having effects (read link in comment) https://hexbear.net/post/166227/comment/2043352
"The material conditions of 16th century agriculture demanded the existence of slavery."
No. Material conditions allowed slavery to be an effective form of exploitation, but "demanded"? No. What a fucking chud.
I hate when people use "material conditions" to act like Fatalists.
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
You think you know about racism, kid? Name your top 5 racists, then. I'm waiting...
Vaush fans 🤝 Jordan Peterson fans "You don't understand the context of what he's saying"
