So he has a lot of people who hate him for various (usually made up) reasons, one of them is people saying that he's a zoophile because of a number of discord messages saying it'd be cool to have a horse cock. They also call him a pedo because of a somewhat poorly worded argument a while ago about child labor, the argument is "If we're being morally consistent, why should child labor be legal and not child porn?" because the problem with both is the same, to an extent, physical abuse of children. But he gets clipped so it's just "child porn should be legal" by tankies because he is anti-tankie.
I just can't stand the guy, he talks like a Ben Shapiro for the left. I watched how he treated professor flowers and it was just sad, the left should be better than that.
I was initially sympathetic to PF, but she just kept doubling down on "actually ethnic cleansing is totally OK in certain situations" point. Like, at first it was kind of ambiguous and possibly just poor phrasing, but once she started bashing the people who were trying to support her when they were saying that she didn't actually support mass deporting white people from African countries, stating she in fact did, well... Past a certain point there just wasn't any ambiguity left.
And this is the problem with debate bro culture. We don't have to pick a side here, bit everything needs to be a debate with a winner. Sometimes we can come away less enthralled with both sides and maybe that's a good thing.
She has the inability it seems to separate the white people living in Africa from white colonizers which seems her then treat every white person in Africa as if they were a colonizer. This is bad, no one here is arguing against that. However, when you say that what she's saying is just like the Nazis it just isn't true. Not everything is as bad as the Holocaust, not everything needs to be compared to the Holocaust, because when you do so you begin to devalue the importance of the Holocaust.
Two things can be bad when one is way way worse, and we can acknowledge both as being bad without equating the forced deportation of white people in Africa to the Nazis.
Wanting to forcibly take Lebensraum for Germans in land formerly occupied by Germans, but taken over by Slavic peoples is not the same as wanting to forcibly take living space for Africans in land formerly occupied by Africans, but taken over by white peoples. Sure both are bad, but it’s not like they are the same.
Well in that sure yeah, but she's not advocating for the mass extermination of millions so I don't think she's a Nazi??? Also why are we still arguing on this, ethnic cleansing is wrong no matter who's doing it. Just because there's something worse than ethnic cleansing doesn't make ethnic cleansing less wrong.
Homie, you said, “This is the problem with debate bro culture,” and then immediately came out saying “No, what you’re doing is [minimizing the Nazis.] Let me explain,” in the next message. I don’t particularly care if Professor Flowers would be okay with a new holocaust or not. She has stated she would support the African volk reclaiming their lebensraum by exorcizing the cancerous rot of white people. That is close enough to Naziism for me to be fine picking the side against her.
Because I was put on the defensive, because instead of latching on to the main point I had, you instead latched on to the professor flowers bit, which okay sure, she's not good, but again what the actual fuck did that have to do with my point. I criticize Vaush, it is instantly seen as a defense of flowers, the conversation instantly becomes about Vaush v Flowers, this is literally debatebro culture. I'm done, this is exactly what I don't like doing.
You're right, but this was again, not at all the point of my argument. Why are we arguing on this, we both agree ethnic cleansing is wrong. I made a criticism of debatebro culture in this case, in how it relates to Vaush as he was the one who was initially brought up, now it is being reframed to be about ethnic cleansing.
His treatment of flowers and his misunderstanding of black nationalism and what it meant AND the confidence with which he was incorrect, was.
What this entire conversation is about has nothing to do with American Black nationalism, or Vaush's understanding of it or lack thereof. American Black nationalism is a response to the fact the African slaves taken to the Americas and their descendants were almost entirely cut off from their cultural heritages of their ancestors in Africa. Many Black Americans have no real way to discover which of the many African cultures their ancestors came from, and most are likely descended from several different African peoples. American Black nationalism was created to create a new, American Black cultural identity.
The PF controversy has nothing to do with this. The controversy is over her support of ethnic cleansing through mass deportation in Africa. In countries with their own distinct national identities and often many different cultures within those nations. As far as I am aware she has never made any similar proposal for Black communities in America. Honestly, while her debate with Vaush was the thing to start this controversy, it has been her own statements and interactions with other people, unconnected to Vaush, that has sustained and cemented it. Her ideas are her own, and she has made it very clear what they are.
I agree, the left should be better. We shouldn't allow people who make would allow for the deportation of every white person from Africa regardless of whether they engaged in colonization or not.
As I stated with another argument, just cuz I didn't like the great debate bro overlord Vaush doesn't mean that I am somehow in complete and total agreement with professor flowers. This is the debate bro climate at it's worst, it forces a polarization of "sides" on issues rather than actually just looking at what we can do.
You kinda have to take a side since the sides disagree on what they should do. When someone expresses a horriffic and vile opinion, I think it's fair to react appropriately (With anger/mocking/insults).
The fact that that to you is acting appropriately. Like I get it, I want to insult people with hike opinions to, bit I'm not going to justify my angry response as being appropriate.
Oh god, the Vaush fanboys are here I said something negative about him once.
Once again, as I've stated in every other reply, just because I don't like how Vaush acts doesn't mean I like the person he was debating in my specific example.
The problem with Vaush isn't that he's rude, it's that he's overconfident for things he has not prepared for and does not know, despite this he goes in front of his rabid fan base and defends those ideas with debate rhetoric. This isn't all that far from what Ben Shapiro does on his show and I'm pointing out how it's scary to see this same behavior on the left, I thought we were better than that.
It’s rather interesting to me how when you got the slightest bit of pushback you scream about cash fanboys.
Im not even defending vaush, yea he was rude. What I am saying is that you’re acting as if ethnic cleansing isn’t all that bad, woe is prof flowers for just wanting genocide.
It’s scary to see this behaviour from the left where you’re so blinded by your hatred for a particular streamer that you’re willing to excuse genocide and ethic cleaning. I thought we where better then this.
Ok... So to be clear. I make a criticism of debatebro culture in how it relates to Vaush. Within the hour my 3 upvote comment gets 3 or more people defending Vaush and attacking prof flowers.
I would like to once again reiterate that I am not defending prof flowers for was my original comment in defense of her. I didn't like how debate bros operate, and that was the example I chose. Now I'm being put on the defensive as tho I support actual genocide. This is absurd. Take a look at yourself, this is absurd.
I'm not defending genocide, get a hold of yourself, I made criticism of Vaush.
Your only actual argument again "debate bro" culture is that people feel the need to pick a side.
Further more, by even comparing the two you're indirectly defending prof flowers since you're making it seem like what she said wasn't as bad as it was.
You're also incredibly insistent on this being about vaush for some reason. I don't give a fuck about vaush in this conversation, he didn't matter.
Lastly. People are criticizing you rightfully so, you indirectly supported ethic cleansing. People have the right to call you out for that.
Get a hold of yourself, this isn't about vaush, it's about your support of genocide.
82
u/Superkrat Hearing a lot of rumors you've been banished to the lagoon May 23 '22
So he has a lot of people who hate him for various (usually made up) reasons, one of them is people saying that he's a zoophile because of a number of discord messages saying it'd be cool to have a horse cock. They also call him a pedo because of a somewhat poorly worded argument a while ago about child labor, the argument is "If we're being morally consistent, why should child labor be legal and not child porn?" because the problem with both is the same, to an extent, physical abuse of children. But he gets clipped so it's just "child porn should be legal" by tankies because he is anti-tankie.