#vaush | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anarchicarachnid · 11 months

Note

"20% are either just using any mention of Vaush to just shit-talk him as a default without any stated reasons" - Vaush has engaged in forms of Holocaust denial, using common nazi dogwhistles and believes the numbers are inflated as propaganda. Vaush said: “If you are not paying for child pornography there is no argument in favour of morally condeming people who view it. Vaush admits to being an informant when he lived in Santa Monica, California. He admits to revealing activist identities to the FBI. Vaush called the LGBT community ‘cancerous as fuck.’ because there’s a “ton of mental illness” and said they should be “excised from the left.” He also called them “less than human” and “fucking disgusting”. Vaush called trans people ‘bitches’ for taking offence when misgendered." - Vaush deserves to be shit-talked, he's less-than-human scum.

For anyone interested, this is a fantastic example of how many people who view themselves as The Most Progressive will join in on internet hate mobs using the shallow guise of criticizing leftist advocates "from the left", while in actuality they're just hate-mongering based on shit they heard second- or third-hand, and which they don't understand, and which is provably false.

It's just too bad it actually takes way more effort to do the research necessary to disprove a list of lies than it does to parrot a bunch of shit you read and immediately believed, or sometimes just lying on purpose. SO: I went to the trouble of doing the research necessary to settle this stupid shit conclusively.

First of all, I respect that you're the one and only person who didn't respond positively to my message on that post but actually provided even a single argument for why you disagree. Unfortunately your intellectual dishonesty immediately ruins that respect.

So with this person's vague allusions to Holocaust revisionism and nazi dog whistles, my first guess would be the debate against Maupin, which was an extremely frustrating experience involving a dishonest cult leader tankie who actively engaged in his own very obvious genocide denial, and after about 40 minutes of taking him to task for actually being reactionary despite posturing as a leftist, Vaush calls out his attempts to deny the Uyghur genocide by listing common ways in which Nazis will similarly attempt to undermine the narrative of the Holocaust. He did this explicitly and obviously as a way to point out how his debate opponent was engaging in denialism, and to draw parallels. If you had actually seen this play out and still believe Vaush was just unironically listing Holocaust revisionist talking points that he agreed with, actually it's impossible, you're JUST a liar. So I don't believe you actually saw this yourself, you heard somebody else tell you what happened.

Another possible but less likely example of nazi talking points being referenced might be when, during the NonCompete debate, Vaush tried to point out that NC had no actual ethical system, and was instead just repeatedly referencing common leftie terminology such as dialectics and sophistry. And he did so by asking several successive rhetorical questions, which utterly reinforced that NC had no ethical system, once he repeatedly confirmed that he believes it to be impossible to objectively determine whether an action is right or wrong, instead deferring to shifting material conditions. Vaush's point, explicitly, was that whether the justifications the Nazis used for their evil actions, such as Jewish people being over-represented in the banking industry at the time, were true or false, the actions of the Nazis were STILL EVIL AND WRONG. But NC literally couldn't say "the Nazis were wrong in their genocidal actions even if their justifications were factual"

As for the idea that he ever said that CP was okay if it wasn't paid for. First of all: ???? Are you fucking stupid? Second of all, he was clear and re-explained later for the uncharitable or stupid people who misinterpreted his point: he was using CP specifically as a point of ethical comparison to point out how we societally tend to ignore other forms of cruelty and exploitation against children, such as child slavery involved in our economy on a massive scale, though it tends to be in the form of global industries that export products to the US and other places that consider themselves above child slavery. There is a really obvious benefit to using highly contentious examples when debating someone, and it's that some people are willing to bite the bullet on something that is unethical, but if you bring up a contentious example of something directly analogous they will hesitate, even though often the latter example is nearly identical in terms of severity.

Now, when it comes to the claim that he admitted to being an informant, I will admit that while he was joking, it wasn't very obvious. It was easy to misinterpret. But after viewing it again, it's really super clear that his point was specifically about how extremist and other types of radical political groups are what they are, and aren't non-radical simply because they tend to contain dishonest actors such as informants, followed by a his joke that absolutely isn't sincere admission of something that obvious never happened. Cause like.. what group could pre-fame Vaush ever have informed on? He was just a 20 year old in college before blowing up on youtube, he wasn't a major actor in any groups whatsoever.

As to where you get the specific claim that he "revealed activist identities to the FBI" the only thing I could find was a 20 second clip in a tweet specifically claiming that he did so as a way to get out of CP possession charges, the claim for which has zero evidence or further context whatsoever, and is a condensed clip of exactly the same video I already viewed again just to see if there was any possible way you could be misinterpreting this unintentionally. Again, you clearly read this shit out of context, were told what to believe, and immediately believed it because it confirmed what you already wanted to believe. Also that tweet is suuuuuuuuuper obviously dishonest hack shit. You should be embarrassed for this one.

He "called trans people bitches" as an extremely obvious joke in a tweet that he immediately added more context to with subsequent tweets, which specifically was about TYPOS, not actual misgendering. Typos get corrected immediately, misgendering is intentional. An explicitly pro-trans advocate who literally lives with two trans people and whose audience is full of at least tens of thousands of trans people who think he advocates for trans rights as well as anyone in his position is capable of, going on to make obvious trans-centric jokes sometimes, is uhhhh not transphobic probably??

Also in the other part of this, which you lumped together as one event, he called out certain parts of the online lgbt community as being toxic wokescolds who were actually really abusive, but hid behind identity politics to make themselves immune to criticism. And this is just objectively true, and further evidenced by the lgbt people who attempt to abuse him endlessly and dishonestly non-stop every single day and over every new incident of him being a progressive advocate but sometimes disagreeing with a fellow lgbt person, which I really shouldn't need to remind you.. He is. He is in the community. People love to erase that.

Furthermore in this instance he was defending Contrapoints, a trans woman, against abusive wokescolds, correctly. And of course later Contra refused to extend the same charitability to him when he was getting sexually harassed and character assassinated by a fellow trans woman content creator who similarly played up the IdPol angle to avoid criticism, and who also leaked DMs and physically mocked him, which is pretty disgusting behavior for a progressive public figure against another progressive public figure she just personally didn't like. And Contra admitted to not even having looked into the context before picking sides against him.

Furthermore, and I know he says it jokingly a lot because he's edgy and I really don't care about that, but your unironic vitriolic way of referring to him as sub-human scum who essentially deserves to have abusive hate mobs forever, because you saw some people on Twitter or whatever saying that he was an imperfect advocate for progressive values, well it's really telling of the way your extremely vitriolic feelings drive your every thought, utterly incapacitating your critical thinking. No doubt the reason why you straight up parrot such obviously dishonest sources of such obvious disprovable lies. And don't get me wrong, if my research into your claims had yielded any proof contrary to my prior knowledge, I'd have looked further into it. It's a good thing he just straight up isn't the caricature you're envisioning. ☺

This is of course all just to say that if someone is a confident and loud advocate for progressive values but reactionary elements of the supposed online left are *constantly* participating in an abusive hate mob against them, there is a good chance that those people are playing a neverending game of internet telephone in order to create confusion around the actual truth regarding various accusations, to the point that it's difficult to even know if someone saw something firsthand when they confidently throw out condemnations.

115 notes · View notes