imported>AnAnonBoi123 No edit summary |
imported>AnAnonBoi123 No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Also a "middle-ground" while sometimes useful, we should seek depicting what a person honestly believes and Vaush has shown time and time again his viewpoints that are very consistent to his actions (platforming NATO when it suits him while "deplatforming" those who oppose him). | Also a "middle-ground" while sometimes useful, we should seek depicting what a person honestly believes and Vaush has shown time and time again his viewpoints that are very consistent to his actions (platforming NATO when it suits him while "deplatforming" those who oppose him). | ||
*>I am not removing references to his points that could be bad for optics, i'm literally adding to stuff in a way that more accurately represents his beliefs which you would know if you actuall engaged with any of his content, his "anti-indigenism" is entirely alleged as according to him he has agreed with pro indigenous activists and while he did debate professor flowers, <b>Lmao, nice cherrypicking when it suits you but ignoring it when it makes him look bad, racist, or insensitive. He legit had numerous debates beforehand with others about it too and he kept calling them "native nazi's" and the same is true with his attacks against black-nationalists</b> his main point of contention was her view that the colonised people's have the right to just unilateraly kick any white person out of that land, <b>Yes. they do have a right to kick out colonialists, so South Africans or the Irish are the real nazis now according to you? Most natives don't want to unironically kick out ALL white people (even though including the few who do, I think they are FAR more justified in wanting that considering they were and still are victims of one of the most horrible of genocides in human history and which most Americans don't and never did give a sh*t about it despite them living on a land that was | *>I am not removing references to his points that could be bad for optics, i'm literally adding to stuff in a way that more accurately represents his beliefs which you would know if you actuall engaged with any of his content, his "anti-indigenism" is entirely alleged as according to him he has agreed with pro indigenous activists and while he did debate professor flowers, <b>Lmao, nice cherrypicking when it suits you but ignoring it when it makes him look bad, racist, or insensitive. He legit had numerous debates beforehand with others about it too and he kept calling them "native nazi's" and the same is true with his attacks against black-nationalists</b> his main point of contention was her view that the colonised people's have the right to just unilateraly kick any white person out of that land, <b>Yes. they do have a right to kick out colonialists, so South Africans or the Irish are the real nazis now according to you? Most natives don't want to unironically kick out ALL white people (even though including the few who do, I think they are FAR more justified in wanting that considering they were and still are victims of one of the most horrible of genocides in human history and which most Americans don't and never did give a sh*t about it despite them living on a land that was never really "theirs" anyways. all the while, the few natives left are still under threat of having their entire people, culture, language, history, and way of life completely destroyed and who continue to live in abject poverty thanks to the colonial government), it's just a white-american fear that if we give natives independence they will somehow want to do the exact same thing we did to them. Which is the American Colonial Mindset in a nutshell.</b> and being against that shouldn't really make him anti-indigenist <b>Yes it does. He wants to keep land his nation unjustly stole through genocide.</b> considereing his other positions <b>Like platforming NATO?</b>, same with the interventionism <b>You mean NATO neo-imperialism?</b>, although he talked with a NATO guy, if you actually watched the interview you will see that most of his agreements where on non-interventionist policies <b>Honestly I could just dissect this whole point but even the fact he interviews an open war-criminal and platforms them while not doing it to his opponents from that very justification is just beyond a meme. It's beyond hypocritical</b>, and although he has been pro-interventionist on the sense of the kurds for example <b>An actually GOOD take for once</b>, he has been against constantly against the american interventionism around the globe<b>Like he legit talks about the Bolivian Coup once and now he is this BASED WHOLESOME WOKE ANTI-COLONIAL ALLY when he unironically tries to deplatform opponents who critique him on his western-centric worldview. And is increasingly trying to force his fans to control the narrative surrounding him and to slide opposing viewpoints under the rug... So much for being a "libertarian", let alone an anarchist.</b>, so yes while you should list the pro-interventionism there, listing it as just his position and not alleged, as well as marking it as neoconservatism is kinda that just dishonest, <b> I mean maybe but when he goes out of his way to interview NATO war-criminals it kinda makes a bit more sense.</b> also refering to his streams he has constantly railed against socdems,<b>Yet for some reason follows the exact same ideology of old socdems in that we should achieve a true socialism/communism through liberal democracy? Thats how old (and even some modern socdems) view themselves. Especially when vaush considers any opponents to his idea of "vote Biden or FALSE LEFTIST/ANARCHIST" as something his supporters should take to heart </b> because he disagrees with them on whether or not there should be a revolution and whether or not should socialism be implemented <b>Old Socdems wanted a revolution to communism/socialism too, just that it had to go though transition of liberal democracy and electoralism to do it.</b>, considering that and all the other takes that can be observerd through his streams <b>Right, like "claiming" to be a "libertarian" yet actively promotes harassment and silencing of dissent to push the narrative in his favour</b> its way fairer to just label him as a liberatarian socialist as he claims he is. <b>Oh, okay so let's just label Juche as a democratic ideology too, it's nation is literally named the '''Democratic''' People's Republic of Korea, and while we're at it, we should also categorize National Socialism as a genuinely socialist ideology. It's in the name after all... What do you mean someone can identify as something when it suits them without automatically making them actually a genuine member of that group?</b> | ||
{{Comment|{{UserBeryAb}}|This is an oxymoron.}} | {{Comment|{{UserBeryAb}}|This is an oxymoron.}} | ||
Revision as of 01:25, 23 April 2022
>Assigning Vaush positions that he stands against, has criticized in the past and never defended is just wrong, i get that a lot of people assume things of him but it would be fairer and more accurate considering the data of him online to atleast keep the indigenism, american patriotism and interventionism as alleged, and of course change him from social democracy to libertarian socialism as that is the positions he defends
- Dude, you clearly seem to have a huge conflict of interest in this article. And quite honestly I am not really happy having my profile made into a giant battle ground because some people were upset I removed something I thought was extremely biased towards one viewpoint and which more often than not either misrepresented a movement/ideology/person for the interests of the writer. I may HAVE my own biases too but I think it is pretty clear considering Vaush's videos and his critics he is VERY consistent in his support and love to America and their liberal worldview over other nations ideas, just that he doesn't like it's current economic system in its place. Also, Vaush has a lot of views VERY comparable to Soclib, more than he wants to admit. Basically a lot of his views often are justifications to his held views why trying to deny the baggage that comes with his leanings (pro-American anti black-liberation "black-nazi", pro-nato, pro-leftwing reformism, pro-electoralism, pro-deplatforming (harassment) opponents or critics, pro "controlling the narrative" like in the fortress arc etc.)
- Then we should at least agree on the compromise then, both you and yugoslavpartisan have shown to have your own biases against Vaush, and although i'm not biased as you say i am, i do like the guy, so we should atleast solve this by settling on the middle ground i proposed
- >I am not biased like you say I am, I just want to remove all the references to his points which I find bad for optics.
Also a "middle-ground" while sometimes useful, we should seek depicting what a person honestly believes and Vaush has shown time and time again his viewpoints that are very consistent to his actions (platforming NATO when it suits him while "deplatforming" those who oppose him).
- >I am not removing references to his points that could be bad for optics, i'm literally adding to stuff in a way that more accurately represents his beliefs which you would know if you actuall engaged with any of his content, his "anti-indigenism" is entirely alleged as according to him he has agreed with pro indigenous activists and while he did debate professor flowers, Lmao, nice cherrypicking when it suits you but ignoring it when it makes him look bad, racist, or insensitive. He legit had numerous debates beforehand with others about it too and he kept calling them "native nazi's" and the same is true with his attacks against black-nationalists his main point of contention was her view that the colonised people's have the right to just unilateraly kick any white person out of that land, Yes. they do have a right to kick out colonialists, so South Africans or the Irish are the real nazis now according to you? Most natives don't want to unironically kick out ALL white people (even though including the few who do, I think they are FAR more justified in wanting that considering they were and still are victims of one of the most horrible of genocides in human history and which most Americans don't and never did give a sh*t about it despite them living on a land that was never really "theirs" anyways. all the while, the few natives left are still under threat of having their entire people, culture, language, history, and way of life completely destroyed and who continue to live in abject poverty thanks to the colonial government), it's just a white-american fear that if we give natives independence they will somehow want to do the exact same thing we did to them. Which is the American Colonial Mindset in a nutshell. and being against that shouldn't really make him anti-indigenist Yes it does. He wants to keep land his nation unjustly stole through genocide. considereing his other positions Like platforming NATO?, same with the interventionism You mean NATO neo-imperialism?, although he talked with a NATO guy, if you actually watched the interview you will see that most of his agreements where on non-interventionist policies Honestly I could just dissect this whole point but even the fact he interviews an open war-criminal and platforms them while not doing it to his opponents from that very justification is just beyond a meme. It's beyond hypocritical, and although he has been pro-interventionist on the sense of the kurds for example An actually GOOD take for once, he has been against constantly against the american interventionism around the globeLike he legit talks about the Bolivian Coup once and now he is this BASED WHOLESOME WOKE ANTI-COLONIAL ALLY when he unironically tries to deplatform opponents who critique him on his western-centric worldview. And is increasingly trying to force his fans to control the narrative surrounding him and to slide opposing viewpoints under the rug... So much for being a "libertarian", let alone an anarchist., so yes while you should list the pro-interventionism there, listing it as just his position and not alleged, as well as marking it as neoconservatism is kinda that just dishonest, I mean maybe but when he goes out of his way to interview NATO war-criminals it kinda makes a bit more sense. also refering to his streams he has constantly railed against socdems,Yet for some reason follows the exact same ideology of old socdems in that we should achieve a true socialism/communism through liberal democracy? Thats how old (and even some modern socdems) view themselves. Especially when vaush considers any opponents to his idea of "vote Biden or FALSE LEFTIST/ANARCHIST" as something his supporters should take to heart because he disagrees with them on whether or not there should be a revolution and whether or not should socialism be implemented Old Socdems wanted a revolution to communism/socialism too, just that it had to go though transition of liberal democracy and electoralism to do it., considering that and all the other takes that can be observerd through his streams Right, like "claiming" to be a "libertarian" yet actively promotes harassment and silencing of dissent to push the narrative in his favour its way fairer to just label him as a liberatarian socialist as he claims he is. Oh, okay so let's just label Juche as a democratic ideology too, it's nation is literally named the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and while we're at it, we should also categorize National Socialism as a genuinely socialist ideology. It's in the name after all... What do you mean someone can identify as something when it suits them without automatically making them actually a genuine member of that group?
What's the actual difference between this and Socdem anyways? - Neoconfemboy
From what I interpret from the majority of people listed on this page, it's basically pragmatic demsoc.
Template:UserNARAN - GORBACHEV WAS NEVER BAD ONLY HAS AVOIDED A YUGOSLAVIA IN THE URSS|GORBACHOV NUNCA FUE MALO SOLO EVITO UNA YUGOSLAVIA EN LA URSS
Fuck Tankies, Gorby was based, fuck Y*ltsin
Ideology is kinda good, but too reformist but Gorby was genuinely a person who wanted a freer socialism and communist which got completely fucked over by capitalist traitors, the US, and tankies. That aside ideology is blursed leaning towards blessed.
Oh, and Vaushism is one huge joke. To say it's socialism is just a really funny meme. Vaush is a god damn tumor on the left and whose appeal is to pink radlibs who prefer twitter radlib idpol bullshit over genuine anarchism, anti-statism, or even genuine socialism even in reformist means. Oh and he's an imperialistic racist and uncritical NATO platformer.
Was the undoing of the "vandalism" on Vaushism really vandalism?
Considering Vaush's history of being seen as increasingly anti-revolutionary and reformist to the point where he interviews members of NATO and platforms them and their ideas, alongside attacking many other leftists that don't agree with him and his fandom as apparently "nazis" needing to be "deplatformed" including many former lib-left followers he used to have for social media liberal idpol and liberal-left movements alongside being seen as essentially a fraud and fake by most other leftists online I really think the alleged "vandalism" while a bit biased wasn't necessarily wrong albeit comedically exaggerated.
TLDR: It's not vandalism if its true.
Not bad
Probably one of the more tolerable form of liberalism, I admire some of the thinkers like Mandela but despise others like Gorbachev, and I also dislike the BreadTube community. = 
IvarsBalodis
BASED
Very based expect vaushities - Template:UserTony567
^Yes^ - 
Yoda8soup