Yeah, we can't forget the patsocs were an actual thing that happened. If anything there's more of them with some amount of prominence than there are prominent anticommunist "anarchists", the former has Jackson Hinckle and Haz (I know Haz only exists on the internet but it's scary that a somewhat significant number of people follow his drivel), the latter is basically just Vaush who only exists online.
Patsocs only exist online as well. Like 20 people show up in any meatings or stuff. And in online existance something like Vaush is way more prominent and and of course in real life/acedmic/ political sphere influence an anti-communist anarchist like Chomsky and others to a lesser degree and to a lesser degree have been orders and orders of magnitude more popular and impactfull than any of these people in the convo and even defined the convo and intellectual approach against communist from the left for decades. And still i think irl you would find many more anti-ML people in orgs like the DSA whether they call themselves anarchists/syndicalists/libertarian socialists.
That's pretty true. Caleb Maupin does get the platform of CPUSA and unless I'm mistaken Jackson Hinckle was on Tucker's show at least once. They get some presence in the real world which I've never seen the likes of Vaush get, yet there's also people like Chomsky who have had orders of magnitude more sway than anyone else I listed. I think I may be a little brain poisoned by the internet so I had that blind spot.
The Tucker appearences just seem to me like they were fishing for people to just come and shit on the dems and their "warmongering" from non GoP "perspectives" and since the DSA/Vaushite activists dont even have that stance or would refuse to even go they can only call up niche weirdos like Hinckle or whatever their name is to show smth
Right, but you don't see Vaush showing up to Rachel Maddow's show to rant about tankies. Maybe reactionaries are just quicker to bring alternative people to the table for the veneer of being antiestablishment, while liberals have embraced their hegemonic position so bringing anyone who doesn't fit into the tight window of respectability will never get their 15 minutes?
Also i feel like lib media do some kind of background check and care a bit about optics so if they saw any discourse online thought some articles or posts would have been made of them "inviting an alleged pedophile streamer" . And even "we should invite a poltical twitch streamer named vaush" would feel like embarrassing proposal within mainstream media. Like Dore has a radio show and is a comentator i guess, Mauphin and Hinckie or whatever can be described as political organizers or activists . So its easier to get the ok
Vaush wouldn't serve a useful purpose. The libs don't care about the Tankies that actually exist, they're shadow-boxing with bernie supporters they made up in their minds who ruined Hillary's perfect election and are secretly undermining the holy and glorious purpose of the democratic party that would definitely fix things if they weren't such gosh darn small beans. Having some weird dude who claims to be a socialist rant about tankies that no one who wantches MSNBC had ever heard of :walter-shock: wouldn't contribute to her narrative or her ratings.
I think Fox News is more willing to cater to sickos than MSNBC is (at least in the sense that a MSNBC lib sicko at least attempts to be normal.) can't imagine a normal network platforming Caleb Maupin, a man who's extremely offputting even before you find out he ran a spank cult.
I also think Fox News would be more willing to platform a "problematic leftist" because they make us look bad, which is a different dynamic than Vaush would have with MSNBC.
Yeah, we can't forget the patsocs were an actual thing that happened. If anything there's more of them with some amount of prominence than there are prominent anticommunist "anarchists", the former has Jackson Hinckle and Haz (I know Haz only exists on the internet but it's scary that a somewhat significant number of people follow his drivel), the latter is basically just Vaush who only exists online.
Patsocs only exist online as well. Like 20 people show up in any meatings or stuff. And in online existance something like Vaush is way more prominent and and of course in real life/acedmic/ political sphere influence an anti-communist anarchist like Chomsky and others to a lesser degree and to a lesser degree have been orders and orders of magnitude more popular and impactfull than any of these people in the convo and even defined the convo and intellectual approach against communist from the left for decades. And still i think irl you would find many more anti-ML people in orgs like the DSA whether they call themselves anarchists/syndicalists/libertarian socialists.
That's pretty true. Caleb Maupin does get the platform of CPUSA and unless I'm mistaken Jackson Hinckle was on Tucker's show at least once. They get some presence in the real world which I've never seen the likes of Vaush get, yet there's also people like Chomsky who have had orders of magnitude more sway than anyone else I listed. I think I may be a little brain poisoned by the internet so I had that blind spot.
The Tucker appearences just seem to me like they were fishing for people to just come and shit on the dems and their "warmongering" from non GoP "perspectives" and since the DSA/Vaushite activists dont even have that stance or would refuse to even go they can only call up niche weirdos like Hinckle or whatever their name is to show smth
Right, but you don't see Vaush showing up to Rachel Maddow's show to rant about tankies. Maybe reactionaries are just quicker to bring alternative people to the table for the veneer of being antiestablishment, while liberals have embraced their hegemonic position so bringing anyone who doesn't fit into the tight window of respectability will never get their 15 minutes?
Also i feel like lib media do some kind of background check and care a bit about optics so if they saw any discourse online thought some articles or posts would have been made of them "inviting an alleged pedophile streamer" . And even "we should invite a poltical twitch streamer named vaush" would feel like embarrassing proposal within mainstream media. Like Dore has a radio show and is a comentator i guess, Mauphin and Hinckie or whatever can be described as political organizers or activists . So its easier to get the ok
That's true too. Fair points all around.
Vaush wouldn't serve a useful purpose. The libs don't care about the Tankies that actually exist, they're shadow-boxing with bernie supporters they made up in their minds who ruined Hillary's perfect election and are secretly undermining the holy and glorious purpose of the democratic party that would definitely fix things if they weren't such gosh darn small beans. Having some weird dude who claims to be a socialist rant about tankies that no one who wantches MSNBC had ever heard of :walter-shock: wouldn't contribute to her narrative or her ratings.
you probably would if he wasn't an insufferable prick that would make most normal people change the channel if he popped up on a show.
Caleb Maupin and Jackson Hinckle are also piss babies, I doubt that's the only reason.
I think Fox News is more willing to cater to sickos than MSNBC is (at least in the sense that a MSNBC lib sicko at least attempts to be normal.) can't imagine a normal network platforming Caleb Maupin, a man who's extremely offputting even before you find out he ran a spank cult.
I also think Fox News would be more willing to platform a "problematic leftist" because they make us look bad, which is a different dynamic than Vaush would have with MSNBC.
That's definitely part of the reason. Then again, lib media will have people like Xeni Jardin on. They don't mind trainwrecks.
at least one actual american ml party is palling around with maupin and his cult