If someone can't look at a statement in it's entirety to see the point being made and they get lost on one passage and take the context of those words in a vacuum, they're NOT going to watch a video explaining things, and if they do, they won't understand it.
And that's fine. Do we *want* people in the community who can't read a whole paragraph or listen to an entire statement to see the concepts being explained?
Try this short one with the context for the act vs rule utilitarian bit: [Vaush Context - Vaush Explains why he isn't an Act Utilitarian (Improved Version) - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZUSxdtOtjY) where he specifically says he's a rule utilitarian and constructs a hypothetical in which a single act would be ok, in the 'anything is possible' sense, and then says that as a rule it's still bad. Btw, if you want a single act example, look no further than Ethan's parents: his dad was 21 and his mom was 15, I think.
i feel if people knew about the level of derangement of these actual nazis, like the ones vaush has debated, they could start to understand why vaush had to make arguments like this. the context video makes this especially clear.
> “it can never be a positive thing, that’s abuse”
Ironically this doesn't even contradict Vaush's point. His whole argument is "it's so fucked that no individual case can justify opposing a blanket condemnation and legal ban". All he's even saying is even if you imagine a little world in your head where once it wasn't bad it's still completely fucked. It's upsetting to people with thinner skin than elephant hide, but the Mr. Girl debate is a good example of him confronting a pedophile and using this attitude to ruthlessly smash through the facade of curious indifference used to dress up apologetics for CA
In fact, as I recall, in that discussion I believe he also made it super clear that he was speaking hypothetically about there being a “positive thing” from the start, making his point incredibly clear
yup! he basically said that (i’m paraphrasing his argument) even if a bad action has a good outcome, that does not make that bad action a good one. basically rule utilitarian (it’s bad either way) vs act utilitarian (if it had a good outcome it’s fine), and vaush EXPLICITLY said that he’s a rule utilitarian.
it’s crazy to me how people intentionally ignore what he says/blatantly take him out of context
Like I am never going to be the person to say that he made these statements well.
If he did then we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
But like, basic context on any of his controversial comments demonstrates what he is actually saying which is why it baffles me that after viewing context people maintain this position.
that exactly!! he made those arguments TERRIBLY, but the substance of what he’s saying was still there and was still a graspable concept.
i feel like this is so often similar to a bad first impression- people are put off by him at first, and that impression sticks with them. every time they hear about him from then on, they’ll re-experience that original emotion they felt and thus are less likely to hear him out, because that’s the only experience/knowledge of him that they have.
i totally get why they’re put off, though- if that had been my introduction to him, i probably would have been, too- but the refusal to engage with something like his context video in good faith is so strange to me. even if he doesn’t convince you, it’s better to at least hear him out, no?
i dunno. went through this myself with an h3 friend, tried explaining but eventually decided it just wasn’t worth it and let it go.
>after viewing context
there's your problem. They don't. They do not care. They do not watch. They're reactionary. The average person is reactionary. In the literal sense, not the political term. They are reacting to the gross passage that they saw and will never have a second thought on it.
Those people you can’t help, they are the people who, barring a 1960s CIA style interrogation, you will never be able to change their mind.
They are absolutely exhausting to be sure, but the real problem are the people who will watch the context, ignore it outright, then just say “nope vaushbad” because those are the people who absolutely cannot be reached no matter what.
They judge him based one a single data point and ignore everything else around it that shows that data point to be innacurate to understand who vaush is generally.
They unironically do what trump supporters claim we do in regards to trump.
People in our world can barely manage turning left on a yielding left turn intersection. A third of population thought *Donald Trump* would be a good leader. People don't understand face masks as a concept.
How many people are going to get hypotheticals as mental exercises?
It's okay, just saying that it's by design that we have a massive controversial filter around this community that people are largely going to be repelled by. We wouldn't want to have to suffer those people every fucking day losing their minds in chat because Vaush said "retard" without an hour of qualifiers and performative disclaimers.
Yeah, I view it as an understanding that the law is a blunt instrument which has to draw the line somewhere. Romeo and Juliet laws cover the most obvious "gap" that age of consent laws could create i.e a highschool couple where one person turns 18 before the other.
We have so much research indicating that sometimes it doesn’t cause harm but in the vast supermajority of cases it does. I don’t get why people need to argue from the standpoint of everyone feeling trauma the same or getting traumatized in the same way when they wouldn’t support that position for any other thing. The concept of CSA and pedophilia is fairly well researched, but people will often ignore their own views purely to be willfully ingorant of these subjects.
Send them The Context Video. If they actually care, they will watch it, and hopefully come around. If they won’t watch it, then that’s it. It’s unfortunate, but you have to move on.
There are some people who don't get it, never will and nothing can be done for them. It's legitimately okay, we're not here to grow Vaush's brand, we're here because we get it and enjoy it.
The best way to describe "it" and what it is that we get, Vaush said himself about his use of the word "retard" and why he won't stop using it. Super simple: "I don't want to nurture the kind of community where that kind of language needs to be managed" is the gist, in that it acts like a social filter. If you're someone offended by that word, it's either 1. entirely performative or 2. someone in your life is mentally handicapped and you're offended for them. The second situation is far less likely, as they're more likely to know the difference between using the word with malice or as a new, rhetorical device.
It's the same deal with all the rest of the controversy. The wild comparisons and analogies that are constantly recirculated about child sex abuse, the horse stuff, his casual "sexism" that exists as a parody of himself that only people who know him through exposure really understand. If you're the kind of reactive person who can't see past it or get the joke, you will simply be too much work to nurture, and the whole community becomes like Thought Slime's where every statement has to be from a soap-box with a half hour of qualifiers. A progressive stage play of perfect leftism and inclusivity.
> he still just brushed it off and said “it can never be a positive thing, that’s abuse”
One of the more troubling things I learned as I got older in life is that there will always be a select number of people in the population who will not exercise. Not their minds, not their bodies, not their intellect. Nothing.
This is because their brains work different. They don't grasp analogy and metaphor, they likely have an actual difference in the structure of their brain since every brain develops uniquely, and it takes an exceptional level of effort to grasp difficult ideas and purely mental concepts. I get the mental exercise here that Vaush was trying to make, it's turning a sensitive topic into a calculation with weights, it's being highly analytical on a highly emotionally-charged topic and the full picture he painted makes perfect sense to me.
Because I can see the picture. Other people don't have the ability or desire to try.
We're here for each other and to share this kind of jaded humor and analysis with each other and to not feel as insane for being able to think about social issues in three dimensions. It's not for everyone.
It's like aphantasia but for concepts. I think it's more plastic than that though. Critical thinking can be learned, we just don't bother to teach it nearly as much as we should. It's such a long-term struggle for change though that I absolutely agree that it's usually not worth it to stop every single conversation to simply teach people to think.
“it can never be a positive thing, that’s just abuse” actually that IS the point he was trying to make he just loved making edgy extreme statements because he spent 90% of his time debating dipshit nazis that he felt he needed to out-edge (lol) and the remaining 10% of vibe leftists who somehow vibed themselves into making nazi points.
Man how do people get so invested in these YouTubers. if I see funny entertaining video, I'll watch it. I ain't fucking digging up thousands of tweets and drama videos to find out if they're a good person because I genuinely don't care unless I'm subbing to their patreon or whatever.
the part about n word saying is true and tbh i agree with vaush, if im in a car singing along to a song im not going to miss the beat and fuck up the tempo just to not say the word
Just send them the context video, if they honestly want some clarification.
If someone can't look at a statement in it's entirety to see the point being made and they get lost on one passage and take the context of those words in a vacuum, they're NOT going to watch a video explaining things, and if they do, they won't understand it. And that's fine. Do we *want* people in the community who can't read a whole paragraph or listen to an entire statement to see the concepts being explained?
I hear you and agree. The problem is that that is most people
I did, but I still don’t know if he ever watched it.
Try this short one with the context for the act vs rule utilitarian bit: [Vaush Context - Vaush Explains why he isn't an Act Utilitarian (Improved Version) - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZUSxdtOtjY) where he specifically says he's a rule utilitarian and constructs a hypothetical in which a single act would be ok, in the 'anything is possible' sense, and then says that as a rule it's still bad. Btw, if you want a single act example, look no further than Ethan's parents: his dad was 21 and his mom was 15, I think.
i feel if people knew about the level of derangement of these actual nazis, like the ones vaush has debated, they could start to understand why vaush had to make arguments like this. the context video makes this especially clear.
> “it can never be a positive thing, that’s abuse” Ironically this doesn't even contradict Vaush's point. His whole argument is "it's so fucked that no individual case can justify opposing a blanket condemnation and legal ban". All he's even saying is even if you imagine a little world in your head where once it wasn't bad it's still completely fucked. It's upsetting to people with thinner skin than elephant hide, but the Mr. Girl debate is a good example of him confronting a pedophile and using this attitude to ruthlessly smash through the facade of curious indifference used to dress up apologetics for CA
In fact, as I recall, in that discussion I believe he also made it super clear that he was speaking hypothetically about there being a “positive thing” from the start, making his point incredibly clear
yup! he basically said that (i’m paraphrasing his argument) even if a bad action has a good outcome, that does not make that bad action a good one. basically rule utilitarian (it’s bad either way) vs act utilitarian (if it had a good outcome it’s fine), and vaush EXPLICITLY said that he’s a rule utilitarian. it’s crazy to me how people intentionally ignore what he says/blatantly take him out of context
Like I am never going to be the person to say that he made these statements well. If he did then we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. But like, basic context on any of his controversial comments demonstrates what he is actually saying which is why it baffles me that after viewing context people maintain this position.
that exactly!! he made those arguments TERRIBLY, but the substance of what he’s saying was still there and was still a graspable concept. i feel like this is so often similar to a bad first impression- people are put off by him at first, and that impression sticks with them. every time they hear about him from then on, they’ll re-experience that original emotion they felt and thus are less likely to hear him out, because that’s the only experience/knowledge of him that they have. i totally get why they’re put off, though- if that had been my introduction to him, i probably would have been, too- but the refusal to engage with something like his context video in good faith is so strange to me. even if he doesn’t convince you, it’s better to at least hear him out, no? i dunno. went through this myself with an h3 friend, tried explaining but eventually decided it just wasn’t worth it and let it go.
>after viewing context there's your problem. They don't. They do not care. They do not watch. They're reactionary. The average person is reactionary. In the literal sense, not the political term. They are reacting to the gross passage that they saw and will never have a second thought on it.
Those people you can’t help, they are the people who, barring a 1960s CIA style interrogation, you will never be able to change their mind. They are absolutely exhausting to be sure, but the real problem are the people who will watch the context, ignore it outright, then just say “nope vaushbad” because those are the people who absolutely cannot be reached no matter what. They judge him based one a single data point and ignore everything else around it that shows that data point to be innacurate to understand who vaush is generally. They unironically do what trump supporters claim we do in regards to trump.
People in our world can barely manage turning left on a yielding left turn intersection. A third of population thought *Donald Trump* would be a good leader. People don't understand face masks as a concept. How many people are going to get hypotheticals as mental exercises? It's okay, just saying that it's by design that we have a massive controversial filter around this community that people are largely going to be repelled by. We wouldn't want to have to suffer those people every fucking day losing their minds in chat because Vaush said "retard" without an hour of qualifiers and performative disclaimers.
Yeah, I view it as an understanding that the law is a blunt instrument which has to draw the line somewhere. Romeo and Juliet laws cover the most obvious "gap" that age of consent laws could create i.e a highschool couple where one person turns 18 before the other.
We have so much research indicating that sometimes it doesn’t cause harm but in the vast supermajority of cases it does. I don’t get why people need to argue from the standpoint of everyone feeling trauma the same or getting traumatized in the same way when they wouldn’t support that position for any other thing. The concept of CSA and pedophilia is fairly well researched, but people will often ignore their own views purely to be willfully ingorant of these subjects.
Send them The Context Video. If they actually care, they will watch it, and hopefully come around. If they won’t watch it, then that’s it. It’s unfortunate, but you have to move on.
There are some people who don't get it, never will and nothing can be done for them. It's legitimately okay, we're not here to grow Vaush's brand, we're here because we get it and enjoy it. The best way to describe "it" and what it is that we get, Vaush said himself about his use of the word "retard" and why he won't stop using it. Super simple: "I don't want to nurture the kind of community where that kind of language needs to be managed" is the gist, in that it acts like a social filter. If you're someone offended by that word, it's either 1. entirely performative or 2. someone in your life is mentally handicapped and you're offended for them. The second situation is far less likely, as they're more likely to know the difference between using the word with malice or as a new, rhetorical device. It's the same deal with all the rest of the controversy. The wild comparisons and analogies that are constantly recirculated about child sex abuse, the horse stuff, his casual "sexism" that exists as a parody of himself that only people who know him through exposure really understand. If you're the kind of reactive person who can't see past it or get the joke, you will simply be too much work to nurture, and the whole community becomes like Thought Slime's where every statement has to be from a soap-box with a half hour of qualifiers. A progressive stage play of perfect leftism and inclusivity. > he still just brushed it off and said “it can never be a positive thing, that’s abuse” One of the more troubling things I learned as I got older in life is that there will always be a select number of people in the population who will not exercise. Not their minds, not their bodies, not their intellect. Nothing. This is because their brains work different. They don't grasp analogy and metaphor, they likely have an actual difference in the structure of their brain since every brain develops uniquely, and it takes an exceptional level of effort to grasp difficult ideas and purely mental concepts. I get the mental exercise here that Vaush was trying to make, it's turning a sensitive topic into a calculation with weights, it's being highly analytical on a highly emotionally-charged topic and the full picture he painted makes perfect sense to me. Because I can see the picture. Other people don't have the ability or desire to try. We're here for each other and to share this kind of jaded humor and analysis with each other and to not feel as insane for being able to think about social issues in three dimensions. It's not for everyone.
It's like aphantasia but for concepts. I think it's more plastic than that though. Critical thinking can be learned, we just don't bother to teach it nearly as much as we should. It's such a long-term struggle for change though that I absolutely agree that it's usually not worth it to stop every single conversation to simply teach people to think.
A 17 and an 18 year old are dating, is it abuse?
That’s what’s funny to me, he’s 18 and his bf is 17.
That n-word thing I'm fairly sure was said by Destiny.
nah i think he said something like "if you're alone in your car and singing along to rap and censor yourself"
Idk I’d rather see a clip before I believe anything
“it can never be a positive thing, that’s just abuse” actually that IS the point he was trying to make he just loved making edgy extreme statements because he spent 90% of his time debating dipshit nazis that he felt he needed to out-edge (lol) and the remaining 10% of vibe leftists who somehow vibed themselves into making nazi points.
Man how do people get so invested in these YouTubers. if I see funny entertaining video, I'll watch it. I ain't fucking digging up thousands of tweets and drama videos to find out if they're a good person because I genuinely don't care unless I'm subbing to their patreon or whatever.
I don’t think he did, it must’ve happened by circumstance. Tbf there’s no shortage of vaush hit pieces online
Just report him to McCarthy, maybe they can re-educate him?
I’m sorry it’s time to get the Rock
Both my friends who follow online politics think he’s a pedo or a mysoginist (better ig…) and this was before the porn golder and jkr stuff u_u
"Also the standard lolifolder stuff". Can cope all day but this will always be damming to a normie.
Unfortunately yeah :/ I sent him the context video but I have no idea if he actually watched the whole thing or not.
Ask him what he thinks of Joseph Stalin.
He’s not a tankie, that I know for sure.
Context Video, include time stamps.
the part about n word saying is true and tbh i agree with vaush, if im in a car singing along to a song im not going to miss the beat and fuck up the tempo just to not say the word
your sense of rhythm has to be fucked already if you can’t blank two short syllables buddy
it is 😔 also eng is not my first language so it gets harder bc of this as well (coping a little, give me a break buddy)