Vaush is a debate bro who values winning arguments above all else, including on topics he knows nothing about. He is a chauvinist who supports the plight of minorities as long as they lick his boots. If they do not, he deems them “subhuman.” He is a self-admitted sexual harasser who gave a dubious apology. Despite describing himself as an anarcho-syndicalist and libertarian socialist, he does not want to abolish the government and he has admitted that his political project is nearly identical with that of social democrats. He has cultivated a cult of personality that deflects all criticism as “out of context” when he himself proudly maintains those positions as “based and high IQ.” Although most of his detractors are hardly better.

If you have a timestamped link that adds context, please let me know and I will add it.

“He who is reluctant to recognize me opposes me.”

:fanon::anarchy-trans:

Part 1: Politics

Part 2: Politics (continued)

Part 3: Sex

Part 4: Gender and Sexuality

Part 5: Gender and Sexuality (continued)

Part 6: Race and Miscellaneous

  • hexagon_bear [any]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
    1·
    3 years ago

    Politics

    • Quote mined Marx, Engels, and Lenin to make it seem as if they would vote for Biden.[1.1],[1.2],[1.3],[1.4] In response to criticism:
      • ‘It’s obvious that Bush was worse for Iraq than Obama.’[1.5] Oh wait, Chomsky said the opposite? “I would be interested in hearing that take. That’s totally possible, but I’d have to hear the nuance of that.”[1.6]
      • “Many of these quotes are taken from larger bodies of work. I read those larger bodies of work. None of the quotes that I am presenting to you right now are taken out of context.”[1.7] This contrasts with: “I read the article. Do I have to read the whole book every time?”[1.8]
      • “Are you fucking stupid? Have you not seen how Democrats are treating the failures in this country? Are you a fucking moron? No shit they’re blaming Trump instead of capitalism. Have you seen the discourse? Ah, but this guy doesn’t live in America, so he doesn’t give a fuck about any of these issues and doesn’t know anything about internal fucking American political affairs. He’s just rambling about it from a foreign perspective.”[1.9]
      • Mocked Hakim (who is Iraqi and had his house destroyed by U.S. bombs) over Vaush’s own inability to understand that Biden is a war hawk who fervently advocated for the Iraq War, pushed Democrats into accepting it, covered up inconvenient counterevidence, murdered over a million Iraqis under false pretexts, and now lies about the role he played in it.[1.10],[1.11]
        • “‘Material conditions’ doesn’t just mean servants of capital. Material conditions can mean [sic] Stonewater. It can mean the Black Panther Party, who, by the way, also fought for racial equality, not just socialism. Material conditions can mean fucking lesbians marching outside the Washington Monument. Material conditions doesn’t just mean ‘who capital favors,’ okay? You are disgustingly ignorant of American history, and you are lucky that I personally got Biden into office because otherwise - is he from Iraq? Well, hey listen, okay? We’re going to get Biden to get those troops out of Iraq. Wait, did he already do that? We’re going to keep Biden from fucking bombing any more of your airports, okay? That’s what we’re gonna do. You’re welcome, Hakim! I know it sucks because frankly, Democrats and Republicans both have a pretty fucking bad record when it comes to foreign policy, but listen, you, okay. I got Biden elected and I’m going to wield that infinite power, alright? And I’m going to make sure we quit fucking around in the Middle East, okay? We’re going to pull troops out of Afghanistan, we’re going to pay reparations to the countries we bombed, we’re going to stop that Yemen shit, we’re going to start arguing with Saudi Arabia, we’re going to reinstitute the fucking nuclear arms deal with Iran - the nuclear treatise, we’re going to establish a fucking one state council solution with Israel and Palestine because I think that’s the most we’re going to get. We’re going to do it.”[1.12]
    • A criticism of Vaush’s video, “This is How I Want to Build Socialism”:[1.13] Vaush responded to this criticism by not remembering his own arguments and accidentally arguing against himself:
      • Misread the criticism as saying that Vaush views electoralism as the only valid way of advocating for socialism. In actuality, the criticism argued that syndicalism is against electoralism, which is unrelated.[1.14]
      • Despite the criticism quoting directly from Vaush’s video,[1.15] Vaush did not recognize his own arguments and said “Wait, what is this? I don’t even know what half these things are here. I don’t even know.”[1.16]
      • On the political strategy of electoralism:
        • Originally: “We start implementing these policies incrementally up to a point where the general population is getting more and more sold on harder ideas. Not just Medicare for All, but full decommodification of certain industries.”[1.17] “We work on the ground to make people like our ideas, and we put people in office who will disseminate policies that will make them like our ideas.”[1.18]
        • In response to criticism: “This is only half-true, by the way. It would be more like: progressives try to implement these reforms in Congress, but they fail, and that failure blackpills liberals.”[1.19]
    • “I do often say that I’ve read no theory. In reality, I’ve read some, and as of last night, I’ve read quite a bit more.”[1.20] If the amount of theory you’ve read can increase substantially over a short time, you haven’t read much.
    • “The peasants were the proletariat. There is no such meaningful distinction between peasant and proletariat that I think they have a fundamentally different class relation.”[1.21]
    • “Marxism is supposed to be an extension of liberalism, not a rejection of it. […] That’s what leftism is about. It’s about bringing the messaging of the liberal movement forward to make it better, to make it stronger, to make it true to its principles.”[1.22]
    • As a self-described anarcho-syndicalist and liberterian socialist, Vaush supports abolishing the state, but not the government.[1.23],[1.24]
    • Views far-left political activism as a singular project where any activism outside of his narrow definition is worthless. In practice, his political project is almost identical with that of social democrats: “Even if socdems don’t want to build that building, […] at least they’re helping me move those fucking bricks around. […] Even if they’re going to be a hinderance at the last second, I would rather have helpers today and potential antagonists tomorrow than I would, like, somebody who’s not even going to get me any of the way there.”[1.25]
    • “What if a vanguard party is a democratically elected group of politicians beholden to the interests of the populist left? And then, when revolutionary activity takes place, we could sort of work with them to integrate the revolutionary guard into the means of production, into the broader state apparatus?”[1.26]
    • “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with an individual maximizing their outcomes within an unethical system like capitalism, especially if they’re a socialist, because it increases the likelihood that they’ll be able to achieve political and economic power. I would love it if we had socialists who were go-getter business majors so when the day comes or something we have people in legitimate positions of power as opposed to a bunch of college students. […] I don’t criticize Bezos […] I try to criticize the systems that allow people like Bezos to exist. […] I think socialists should work to be educated and successful.”[1.27],[1.28]
      • This defines success as being powerful and legitimated by our current society.
    • “There is one solution: we prop up their governments. Not us. We don’t do it. We don’t keep troops in there, but we provide the government of Iraq, the state, the resources necessary to prop themselves up.”[1.29]
    • “The dialectic is the idea that you can improve a concept, an idea, by resolving it in a dialectical way. That is to say, a person provides a thesis (an idea), and you have a counter-thesis (the counterargument). And then by smashing these two together, idea and counter, the antagonisms are resolved (or at least addressed) and you arrive at a synthesis. Basically, you have a concept and its challenge, and that challenge begets improvement to the original idea.”[1.30]
    • Debated “the JQ” (a Nazi dogwhistle for “the Jewish Question”) while playing Bloodborne. When criticized for making light of antisemitism while legitimating and profiting off of it, he misread this criticism as accusing him of being “in favor of the Jewish Question.”[1.31],[1.32]
    • “Again America has its problems, but we do not teach people from grade kindergarten to grade 12 about George Washingtonian thought and the glory of the founding of our country. Most Americans just fucking smoke weed through school and then, you know, roll on out. And most of them have no idea who or what capitalism is or cares about. Now, mind you, Donald Trump tried to do to American education what many other countries do to their education. […] Just because America has indoctrination does not mean it is equivalent to what other countries do all the time. Ho-ly shit!”[1.33]
    • ‘The list above is of “all of my based, high-IQ takes.”’[1.34]