I don’t know what it’s about or who those people are really. Aren’t they Zionists?

I thought you said you only watched clips of him? I assumed you meant by other creators.

No, I have seen videos he himself put out to see the full context.

Trump supporters don’t actually care about context though. They say that shit for propaganda purposes. Vaush supporters bring up context because he literally gets clipped out of context for oppositional propaganda purposes.

Also, there isn’t always an “out”. Some of the things Vaush has said/done are bad even with context.

Trump has also had controversies where he’s crossed a line, like the “Access Holywood” leak that ones one of the very few times Trump actually issued an apology. He still survived it, just like Vaush still has a following despite some instances that were either genuine mistakes or miscalculations. If you live right up by the line, occasionally you are going to cross it.

If I point out Trump’s failure to denounce the KKK, for example, his supporters will point out that he claimed there was a technical issue and later did denounce them. Likewise, if I point out some shitty thing Vaush said, they’ll pull out some similar excuse or context. There’s no reason to assume good faith in one case and bad faith in the other. Perhaps some Trump voters wouldn’t care if he didn’t have an excuse (though some might), and perhaps some Vaushites wouldn’t care if he didn’t have an excuse (though some might). It’s the same tactic, the same formula, the same kind of calculations and the same psychology. Just as Trump supporters will make fun of critics for “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (which is caused by his controversy bait), so too do Vaushites have “Vaush Derangement Syndrome” (caused by his controversy bait).

Vaush is someone who is significantly egotistical, narcissistic, impulsive, and short sighted. But he is not a controversy-monger, on that front he is just a dumbass.

In any case, he is 100% not worth watching and is best completely ignored. He contributes nothing but controversy and brainworms, whether unintentionally as you claim, or intentionally as is actually correct.

Your post here is a literal example of this, you actively avoid him and there are many people who feel the same way as you.

And yet, I’ve given him clicks. And I’m talking about him. That’s what he wants, that’s why he does what he does. Were it not for the controversies, I wouldn’t watch him either because I wouldn’t have heard of him, and also because I’m not his target audience.

Hopefully my criticism calls out the pattern directly enough that people take away that they should just ignore him, as opposed to playing into his specific controversies that are calculated to make use of criticism and outrage.

Hes not forced to say edgy shit, he just doesn’t put much effort into not saying edgy shit and he naturally wants to.

All I can see is that I see a pretty clear method to the madness. There’s always an out, it’s always “you don’t understand the context.” It’s the same tactic Trump uses, and the same tactic used in countless ad campaigns. I can’t really prove it because it’s just a matter of pattern recognition, but suffice to say, I don’t fuck with what he does. Even if your interpretation were correct, associating with someone so careless about messaging and so prone to controversies is more of a liability to the left than an asset. But also, your interpretation is not correct.

The first time I see someone holding a bloody knife over a dead body, I might be willing to listen to their explanation and their side of the story. The 17th time I see the same person in the same situation, something’s going on. How many times am I expected to give him the benefit of the doubt? Because whatever that number is, he’s exceeded it, because he’s doing this constantly, and you can pretend that it isn’t a clear pattern of behavior all you want, but I’m not going to.

He wouldn’t be a leftwing creator in that case, he’d be a rightwing grifter instead. A lot more money in that.

No, there’s lot’s of little niches that one can carve out, regardless of being left or right. There’s plenty of opportunists with supposedly left-leaning brands. The right-wing grifts and personality cults are more profitable, but it’s also a fairly saturated market with a lot of competition. There’s plenty of room for people like Destiny, Jimmy Dore, and Vaush to carve out their respective “left-leaning” niches.

Also, btw, I have never heard about any actual insight that watching Vaush gives. His content isn’t educational or edifying, the way someone like Shaun’s is. It’s all about aesthetics and personality. The best thing anyone can really claim about Vaush is that criticism towards him is invalid, or that he makes people they don’t like mad, nobody actually seems to learn anything from watching him.

No way it’s just carelessness, nobody forces him to say edgy shit. It’s the classic “no such thing as bad publicity,” or, “but you have heard of me” thing. I’d have never heard of him without the controversies (of which there are many), and despite making a conscious effort to avoid him, even I’ve seen clips of him. When you get people talking about something, people will get curious and want to see it straight from the horses mouth, then some percentage of the people who show up “to get the full story” will like what they see and stick around, and even if they don’t, a hate click is still “engagement,” it doesn’t matter why you click, if you click, it boosts him in the algorithm.

Going into examples will naturally only play into this effect, but I recall him once talking about performing eugenics to eradicate trans people from existence, under the idea of detecting gender dysphoria in the womb and aborting the fetus. This is an example of walking right up to the line and getting people mad on purpose, that’s not something someone just “organically” says out of “carelessness,” it’s specifically formulated to generate outrage, while, as always, leaving him an out that he can fall back on.

No, I didn’t.

I already explained to you how China’s economy works based on actual facts. You completely ignored it and doubled down on vibes based nonsense that you didn’t even bother to defend or explain in any way. Telling you you’re wrong is not “less intellectual” than being blatantly wrong.

Doesn’t Hasan have a larger audience without doing that sort of thing?

Vaush’s whole thing is controversy bait. He purposely crosses lines to get people mad at him while maintaining some form of “plausible deniability” to where his fans can always find a way to defend and excuse his actions by talking about “you don’t understand the context” or whatever, it’s a very common and tiresome tactic. Like, if you’re trying to promote a shitty video game that can’t stand on it’s own merits, just do something to antagonize either the left or the right (doesn’t matter which) and then go to the other group and be like, “Look, the guys you hate hate us, you should check us out.” Controversy generates clicks. A big reason for Trump’s success is that he cracked the code on how to apply this formula to a political campaign. If you know how to recognize it, it’s very obvious that Vaush does this.

This sort of opportunism is very detrimental to actually understanding the world or promoting ideas or building a movement. It’s essentially brain-poisoning and a cognitohazard. You’re much better off reading actual books than just following whoever’s best at attracting attention on the internet. If you are going to shun books for videos, you should at least go with someone more educational, like Shaun.

I’m sure that your branding of the Chinese economy is based on a very high degree of intellectual rigor and definitely not just pulling words out of your ass based on vibes.

I didn’t say they weren’t doing fine or that they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing.

So your position is that their system is “Fascist Corporatism,” but also… that’s fine, actually?

I just said that they’re not communists. This is not a bad thing! But lying about it is of course somewhat distasteful, especially for those people who think themselves as being communists.

Whether they’re “lying” is a matter of interpretation and ideological differences. Like, if I’m a hardcore, traditionalist Roman Catholic, maybe from my perspective, all Protestants are “lying” about being Christian because “true Christianity” means my interpretation of it. Likewise, if you’re a hardcore Maoist, then maybe you’d argue that China is governed by revisionists who are “lying” about being communists.

If we want to look at it from a relatively objective point of view, the largest number of self-identified communists in the world are Marxist-Leninists, who don’t view China as “lying about being communist” but rather agree with or at least critically support their approach. So, idk, if you want to join some fringe Christian sect that claims every other sect as being heretical and themselves as the sole defender of the faith, or if you want to join some fringe communist group that denounces every other communist group as revisionist and themselves as the only “real” communists, then idk, you do you ig. But not everyone who believes different things from you is “lying.”

What do they do in China, exactly? It looks like single-party fascist corporatism.

The funny thing about discussions about China’s economy is that you can use pretty much any term to describe it as long as it’s bad. If “socialist” or “communist” is understood to be a bad thing to those in the conversation, you can use those terms without objection, but you can also say stuff like “Feudalism” or “Fascist Corporatism” or “Colonialism” or “Capitalist” or “State Capitalist” or whatever tf else, it’s all just vibes-based and the only requirement is that the vibes be bad.

China has a mixed economy with a combination of state ownership and private investment, with the state maintaining a controlling share in certain key industries, and preventing (at least so far) economic elites from infiltrating the government for the purpose of widespread regulatory capture and deregulation. Billionaires exist but sometimes face real consequences for illegal activity, and the balance between public and private ownership tips more heavily towards public when compared to other countries such as those in Europe.

The partial liberalization of the economy is meant to encourage economic development post-industrialization, and prevent the challenges the USSR faced with economic stagnation post-industrialization. Central planning works great if you’re just trying to meet people’s basic needs like food or shelter, but the demand for consumer goods is more fluid. This policy is also adapted to the global situation, China has benefitted greatly from industry moving there and by becoming a major trade partner of the US and other countries (while also holding the bulk of manufacturing output), that makes it difficult for outside forces to go to war or level sanctions/tariffs on them.

It is not a “communist” country in the sense of having achieved communism (in this sense, a “communist country” is an inherent contradiction). It could be called a communist/socialist country in the sense that it is governed by (self-identified) communists. Socialism, or I should specify Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, aren’t a set of specific policies but rather a materialist and class-based mode of analysis to be applied and adapted differently depending on material conditions.

Some hardcore Maoists would argue that China’s current system is a deviation from the correct socialist ideas, as espoused by Mao. However, there’s also this odd branch of Westerners that don’t like China’s liberalized system because “it has billionaires,” but also don’t like what they had before under Mao when they didn’t have billionaires, but also claim to dislike full-on capitalism - so as far as I can tell, they just dislike China regardless of what they do or don’t do. I’ve yet to find any such person who’s actually willing and capable to engage in a discussion of “what should they do/have done economically” as opposed to just bashing them. And in fact, when asked what kind of economic system they support, they’ll often describe a mixed system similar to what China has, but then be like, “but not like that.”

Kinda seems unfair that somebody’s aunt should have to purchase insulin she needs to survive, like she shouldn’t have to work harder to have the same lifestyle as someone without a disability. Maybe we should just give her the insulin she needs to survive, and compensate the people who make it out of some sort of common pool of resources everyone is required to contribute to, in order to distribute the costs more fairly.

Yeah, or like they do in China.

Unfortunately for many parts of the world, it doesn’t matter if you’re trying to go full socialist or not, if you get in the way of multinational exploitation and neocolonialism, you’re gonna get couped. There’s no shortage of left-leaning non-socialists who have also been targeted by the CIA. Like Guatemala, where they just wanted to do basic land reform so farmers could work their own land, but Chiquita didn’t like that so it became the origin of the term “Banana Republic.”

would not the fact that blue shifted galaxies being rare, mean that in general all galaxies are red shifted from the perspective of all galaxies, thus they are expanding away from a point on a similar vector, and thus have a central point?

No, it means the opposite. They are expanding away from all points, because space itself is expanding. In fact, stars are able to move away from each other faster than the speed of light, which is only possible because space is expanding. Again, like the surface of a balloon, we can imagine that the further away two points are from each other, the faster they’ll move away from each other as the balloon expands, so even if there’s a certain maximum speed that you can move along the surface of the balloon, if two points are far enough away from each other the rate that distance is created between them can exceed that speed.

If there was a single, specific point in space where all the stuff came from, then we wouldn’t observe the same thing in every direction. Sure, we might see stuff ahead of us redshifted because it’s moving faster and stuff behind us redshifted because we’re moving faster, but we should also expect to see stuff to the sides moving alongside us at similar speeds that would not be redshifted. The fact that there’s consistent red shifting in every direction, getting more pronounced the greater the distance, leads us to the conclusion that space is expanding.

And a balloon does have a vector of direction: the mouth piece

It’s an analogy, don’t take it too literally.

Imagine the universe as the surface of a balloon. The Big Bang Theory stipulates that at one point, the balloon was extremely small, like a single point. But now that the balloon is bigger, you can’t find a particular spot on the balloon where that point was, because everywhere was that point. No matter where you are in the universe, if you turned back time and shrunk the balloon back down, you would be at the point of the Big Bang. Nowhere is closer or farther away from it.

There’s a term for people who want to support the working class against the ruling class and it’s “the left.”