I forget which video this was (I mostly watch Vaush for his media/gaming takes/old debates), but I think it was in a recent video where Vaush was talking about criminality (might be the Jacob Geller video).

Anyway, in the video the point that Vaush makes is this:

Point 1: Crime is usually a result of social problems/inequities. That when you have things like poverty and income inequality, or social attitudes that encourage rape (rape culture), etc, then crime will tend to follow those conditions. Which is, you know, the standard leftist/progressive take.

BUT ALSO

Point 2: He makes a point about how many criminals are genuinely terrible or shitty people. He made a point about how "Guys don't kid yourself. You can just get murdered on the subway. These people will rob and kill you and think nothing of it because they don't really think of you as a person."

Which I thought that progressives weren't allowed to say. It was SO god-damn refreshing to hear this take, where leftists will wring their hands and act like every single robber, or murder is actually a really decent person at heart, and if only it weren't for systemic racism or capitalism than they would NEVER have done something so vile. So you know what, if you're mad at this person for killing your brother you should *really* be mad at capitalism for racism for making them do this thing. Pfft.

I don't see any contradiction between point 1 and point 2. The fact that these larger scale tendencies says nothing about the individual morality or character of the people committing crimes. And frankly I think most people would understand this clearly if they applied this same logic to sex crimes.

Yes we live in a rape culture that encourages sexual predation of non-male people, where hell many boys will be raised without even knowing what rape is. But still, every feminist (me included) will agree implicitly that rapists deserve scorn and hatred. If Geller's past crime had of been that he robbed someone, and viciously beat them while doing so, I honestly don't believe that the response would be the same. They'd pull out the "Oh poverty and capitalism is at fault, not Geller. We need to allow for rehabilitation" card.

While I endorse the leftist idea of "people tend to act according to societal frameworks and messaging," I hate what is often an unspoken conclusion of "therefore, people don't really make moral choices that they are responsible for."

This actually touches on something I've always found difficult about politics, since way before I even know what left/right was. And that was that you kinda have to adopt a weird 'double consciousnesses.' That when you consider things at a policy level, you have to think and advocate for things that seem to contradict what you would personally do in an individual, one on one sense. And what I think I like about Vaush is how he walks this line, and has done so for a long time.

You can see it in how he's pro-social security and pro workers rights, but he's also very fine with telling people that they should and do need to work hard. Other progressives will call him a "bootstrapper" for this, but that's disingenuous. It is both correct that

1: We need institutions and norms that ensure everyone can live a life of freedom and dignity

and 2: People should work hard and be rewarded for that work.

This is probably why reactionary politics are so powerful. It's even in the name. Reactionary politics are when your politics are based only on the individual, vibes based reaction to one on one circumstances, and when you ignore the broader empirical reality that you can only access through things like careful analysis.

I found Vaush's channel primarily through his videos on autism, neurodivergency, the pandemic frying everyone's brains, and trying to convince his chatters to be less anti-social. I think the most recent example would be the video on the discourse around bringing an iced latte to a job interview. Admittedly sometimes I kinda feel called out because I don't really have a social life, wish I did, and I kinda just end up hanging out in livestreamer chats a lot. Ultimately I do agree with Vaush's takes on the importance of a social contract and not using neurodivergency as a crutch.

The past year I've been trying to push myself to not be holed up in my room on the weekends and go out and do things. I no longer feel any anxiety talking or chatting with complete strangers and I've gained a lot of confidence and self esteem in that regard, but I'm still struggling with the "making friends" part, and I wish I had more of a support network or at least some close friends. Some examples of things I tried:

-I do like going to cons a lot, and I've tried going to "speed friending" panels and mixers but a lot of the time the other people there are still just glued to their phones.

-Tried pushing myself to voice chat in discord and online games more but end up with a lot of people that are really non-talkative or just stay muted

-Tried organizing DnD games with strangers but everybody kept perpetually cancelling and didn't really seem interested in trying to be friends outside of playing DnD itself.

So, I've been able to learn how to mingle and socialize with strangers better and I have much less social anxiety in that regard however...to put it bluntly, I feel like the more I try to make friends I just keep attracting or running into the type of "learned helplessness" asocial chatters that Vaush tries to help, and I'm not sure what to try differently to improve my social life.

The new movie is a bleak and quite straightforward snapshot of our current moment and a seemingly likely and realistic prediction of our future. The absurd and destructive behavior of our elites, our hastening of climate change, and our powerlessness to prevent what's coming are all themes which couldn't help but remind me of the average Vaush stream. I mean that in the kindest way. Even if he doesn't like it, he will certainly feel validated after watching it.

Like a lot of us, I’ve been thinking about what can be rebuilt long before V-man put the Democratic paradox into an official segment. On the flip-side, setting the poll-test as an explicit barrier to suffrage runs the risk of Jim-Crow somehow returning. As a basic proposal, I’d like to introduce the first draft of what I call the Adhocratic Method:

1) Apply Mandatory voting for any position that needs to be filled to every member of said jurisdiction, especially within any organizations internal structure (Village, town, guild, city, worker soviet, military unit, civil department, etc.)

2) If there is not standardized exam for merit available (Citizenship Tests, ASVAB, SAT, LSAT, MKAT, GaoKao, Social Credit Score, Voir Dire for jury selection, etc.) Have each member of the sample population write a question to crowdsource an exam.

3) Weigh every individual’s vote based on the test score, and select candidates for the single-winner ballot based on the top scorers. Upper-single-digit number of candidates is ideal (6 to 9 or 10). Must be a Condorcet method such as Copeland/Llull or Ranked Pairs.

4) In the case parliamentary systems, can even generate effective political parties. Unicameral Cubed-Root legislature is ideal. Bring top scorers (anywhere between 1% of population and cubed root) into general isolation, allow various policies to be rough-drafted by free association, and have each individual sign their respective party/policy charter.

5) Clip each and every signature from up-to-the-top-10 (by number of signatories) respective charters, and group each set to respective charters to determine party candidates for PM by Sortition. Repeat all steps 1-5 as needed, especially Condorcet Components. For more information on these methods, especially pairing Pairwise voting with sortition, refer to /r/EndFPTP.

6) With the policy charters first and foremost as the “candidates” being voted on, a multi-winner form of Ranked-Pairs should be easy enough to derive, aka Ranked-Shares.

7) Streamlining the nomination and election process to steps 1-6 is the ideal way to separate money from politics, and therefore subject the market to the civil state.

8) Ideal superstructure for application and development is a Triarchy of government branches: Executive (defense and enforcement,) Legislative (comprehensive,) and Judicial (epistemological basis, including both empirical, primitive and theological.)

9) Application of this method to the executive branch is inspired by various elections of officers among historical examples such as Xenophon in the Anabasis, Bernadotte in the French Revolution, Nestor Makhnov in the Russian Civil War, and various Pirate captains in the respective golden age.

10) The most crucial dependent variable, or adjustable parameter, is for a balance between internal and external participants, depending on the institution in question (constituency, jurisdiction, patients, clients, customers, etc.)

11) The secondary goal is to prevent Model Collapse from a lack of sufficient data or outward awareness.

In a sense, the Adhocratic Method determines leadership by who is the best teacher.

Obviously this is a work in progress, and as such I really hope it inspires discourse on how things can be reconstructed from scratch.

Recently, Vaush has argued for the necessity of literacy tests as a way to "save democracy". In theory, it would push the "stupid" (read: Trumpist) voters out of the voter rolls, while allowing the good old educated Democrats to Win..

Obviously, there's issues with this. Literacy tests would disproportionately impact less educated black communities, even "non-biased" tests. To add onto this, it could also restrict the voting of poorer left-wing voters, who we want to be able to hear the voices of (unlike the right wing voters).

Not to mention, this will never be implemented in the way Vaush wants, and is only a "bandaid" measure (what if some regular neolib convinces middle class and upper middle class people?) to...

... Well, to the real problem at the heart of the whole thing:

WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE WE OPPOSE TO BE IN POWER

So, why not go further? Why not, instead of advocating for a literacy test, instead advocate for banning certain ideologies from even running? After all, thats what the literacy test is a proxy for!

Why hold this pretense of democratic principles when we clearly want more than to simply "defend democracy" (don't tell me most of us also wouldn't support preventing neolibs from winning, even if this neolib doesn't really threaten democracy)?

For about 8 months, Vaush has been putting more and more arguments which indeed get him closer to supporting a vanguard party, or at least a "tutelage". I feel like insisting on measures with a democratic pretense just obscures where we all know things will be going towards ideologically for Vaush.

And the simple electoral pluralistic democratic road paved with compromise seems less and less likelyvto succeed for the "socialist movement" now that Mamdani has... Let's say, "ignored" the movement that pushed him to power (he said he won't fire Tisch for crying out loud! The bare minimum!). It seems clearer and clearer to me that a united political party made up of the most advanced part of the socialist movement, united behind an invariant program, is the most likely to succeed in our aims. Of course, im not the first to advocate for this. Marx did also:

"Although the German workers cannot come to power and achieve the realization of their class interests without passing through a protracted revolutionary development [...] But they themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organized party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution." -Karl Marx

"Insofar as millions of families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention." -Marx on the peasantry. Without a party, there is no "true class".

If we want the working class to win, we need an INDEPENDENT party.

I only watch Vaush through YouTube videos, both on main channel and vaush pit. I remember watching this video where he talked about the need to be uncomfortable sometimes. A specific example I remember was about room temperature, accepting a bit of hot/cold instead of trying to adjust it constantly.

I went through my history and recent videos on the channel and I can't seem to find it, does anyone remember the title or something? (It MIGHT be an older one, since YouTube sometimes suggests me old clips)

The video is a bit old, but I think it proves the same point. I don't know what goes on in their mind when Trump mentions China, and they don't even know what China is or where it is.

Im tired of american progressive streamers glazing this asshole.

The reason for the french left is so weak is because of him, his toxic and narcisistic personality. He has spent so much energy going after young people in his own movement that he see as competition and instead promoted the most stupid and toxic individuals.

There is nothing democratic about how he runs his party, hes an authoritarian with en enormous ego.

He is no Mamdami, please stop the rubbish. I get it he is the most anti israel, but c mon.

Does anyone know the video or stream where Vaush said libertarianism was co-opted by racists to undermine good race relations using economics?

I feel like vaush has gotton so appocalyptic in his predictions and so down on the world lately that he is difficult to watch. I tune in and every stream its just the world is dying its all over everything is going down hill and all thats good abput the world is ending

Then I go back to my regular life and everything is much brighter, people are happy and friendly and my job is nice and my work helping to build windfarms is going well and I feel i'm plating my small part in a positive change for the world, or atleast slowing a negitive one.

But them I watch vaush and get called a servile little cuck to the oligarchs because I guess im not buying enough Afgan tiles and I use the internet sometimes. I just feel like its nit worth watching someone who is just going to insult his audience with such ferocity every stream and make out like theres nothing meaningful left. He doesn't even give us anything we could do to help the world anymore he just comes in and dispairs for 3 hours then plays a videogame

In a recent stream, Vaush talked about the failings of liberal democracy. This was one of many streams where Vaush has ranted about these issues, often including a declaration that he doesn't "believe in democracy" or support it.

As I understand it, his criticism is that under liberal democracy, the capitalist class is able to exert a great deal of control over the population and that control leads to outcomes that benefit the bourgeoisie at the expense of everyone else. The capitalist class does this via their control of numerous important institutions from the media to education, shaping the electorate to their own ends. These observations are true.

While Vaush is right in identifying the issue, his prescriptions to solve it are preposterous. The solution he most often proposes is to implement some sort of idealized version of poll testing and create a second-class citizenry by revoking voting rights from people who fail to pass it. I have deep ideological issues with this, but even from a practical point of view, I believe that this solution fails to achieve the desired outcomes.

What is the issue? As Vaush notes, under liberal democracy the capitalist class shapes outcomes in its interest, and so would it shape such a radical reordering of democratic rights. It wouldn't happen isolated from their influence, it would be structured in a way that's acceptable to them as a class. Just like the vast majority of efforts to limit voting rights in the United States now and in the past, it would be done to entrench the capitalist class further, not the disempower it. Any future where there are serious efforts to implement poll tests in the United States is a grim one. This is a road that leads from bourgeois democracy to bourgeois autocracy.

What's the solution? The capitalist class needs to be disempowered, 4Head. This is obviously easier said than done. When talking about the failure of liberal democracy, Vaush sometimes also mentions this, but he mostly likes talking about poll tests. The disempowerment of the capitalist class is necessary for democracy to have a real chance. Efforts to improve outcomes by limiting democracy before this step will have the opposite effect and therefore should be resisted. What about after? The conditions of a hypothetical world where the capitalist class has been disempowered will be very different than the one we're living in, so suggesting they should limit voting rights seems unjustified. At that point, the socioeconomic paradigm and balance of power have shifted so radically that there could be a dozen other measures to preserve a healthy democracy.

Some might argue that this solution is out of our reach. True! It's not going to happen in our lifetime, but neither is the Vaush approved idealized version of poll testing. That's not happening, and right now, I don't think people should have any notion in their heads that an effort to limit democracy could lead to something better, because it won't. In the meantime, the best course of action is to raise awareness of how the capitalist class shapes liberal democracy to be undemocratic, and to fight their efforts to further erode what's left of its democratic elements.

Finally, if we're dealing with far-fetched solutions under the current system, why is a frictionless spherical poll test the one Vaush jumps to? There are a dozen or more other unlikely measures that, if they were to be implemented, would improve outcomes under liberal democracy. Abolishing the senate, abolishing the electoral college, expanding the House of Representatives, banning corporate campaign contributions, publicly funded elections, and so on. All of these measures would expand democracy and likely improve outcomes, and none of them require going back to the 19th century for ideas.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

And seem to be friends, even after the controversy

Or vaush fighting with his Wife and ignoring his edge lord pass

Kyle seem pretty chill and don't take thing personally. Kyle like his one big public ally on the left

At this point it's depressing. Of course the victim could still come out and denounce him, but from what we know there's little reason to criticise him so harshly. Leftists really see SA as a metaphysical sin you can't atone for, it's very religious thinking and shows they don't believe in rehabilitation where it matters most. I hate it here.

Was it a livestream or not on Youtube?

I don`t watch Secular Talk,so i don`t know how their stuff works or if they have other channels.

Okay before you guys kill this post, hear me out. Vaush is very anti-AI which I am too, I do secretely wish to be in a world where I didnt need to see it, but I am scared of it, and really sad about its capabilities, which vaush just seems to brush off. I am studying maths and was following OAI on their big maths paper release, and alot of it is actually groundbreaking stuff, like I am starting to question my whole education path at this point. So vaush just saying "simple autocorrect machine" feels like its copium, atleast to me.

Maybe the ramble doesnt make too much sense but I just feel hes sweeping it all under the rug, which I would like to do but these advancements feel real and it's making me sad for it doing the things I dream to do.

I have a relative born in China that immigrated to America. I've had repeated arguments with them over their Republican views and worship of Trump.

In one argument, I got this relative to admit that they don't really care if climate changes raises the sea levels, displaces Floridan Republicans, destroys their homes with floods, and ruins their lives. To them, Floridan Republicans are this abstract group that live in a far-off place that doesn't matter to their immediate self-interest.

I was left gobsmacked, that I, a leftist that absolutely hates what Republicans are doing the world, ended up caring more about the self-interest of Floridan Republicans, than another Republican, who should be their political ally.

Over the course of several arguments, I've managed to whittle down what I think is their core beliefs:

1. Trump is God and is the only competent leader able to fix everything wrong with their quality of life.

2. Anyone that I can't see and doesn't directly affect my life in the short-term does not matter. They can just die for my comfort.

Still, calling these a set of principles is debatable. When arguing with them, they never engage with my ideas, my arguments at all. They just immediately get mad and start repeating an irrelevant talking point like how bicycling lanes are ruining everything.

It's not ignorance. That doesn't fully capture what's going on. It's as Vaush says, it's anti-empiricism. Their brain fundamentally doesn't engage with principles, logic, or morality.

This relative was raised in China, during the famine of Mao's rule. If I had to take a guess, living in that hardship where people had to literally eat grass may have broken this relative's brain, leading them to act in this utterly selfish and self-serving way. Although they claim they like democracy, their view of what the purpose of democracy is, is for all selfish people to fight each other to grab what they can for their self-interest. My relative does not vote to better society, but to see what benefits they can get this election. This is an anti-civil mindset that corrodes democracy.

White ruralness isn't an essential part of MAGA diehard beliefs, although that environment is one way to breed this mindset. Here is an immigrant from Maoist China, who basically acts exactly as if they were a white rural American in a ruby red state saturated with Fox News.

What underlies the MAGA mindset appears to be a belief that the world is unfair and we can't do anything to fix it, so the only thing you can do is to loot what you can and be the predator that eats the losers. It's anti-civil, anti-empiricist, anti-humanity.

Early in the segment he does a parody of Rorschach’s monologue. “And when the tankies and wokescolds shout save us, I will whisper no”

Progressive Victory Announcement on the Deportation of Martin Soto

Last week at New Jersey’s DemCon, we were introduced to Gabriela Soto, who was in attendance seeking the aid of anyone who could help end her husband's unjust imprisonment and stop his impending deportation. Progressive Victory members, including our Political Director Katie Bansil and members of our New Jersey Team, contacted Senator Cory Booker and solicited his help reaching out to New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill. Martin had been held in brutal conditions at the private Delaney Hall ICE detention center and is a key witness to ICE’s abuses there, and we are proud to share that our efforts convinced Governor Sherill to instruct her attorney general to sign Soto’s u-visa.

I am honored and proud that our growing community organization has reached the point where we can accomplish things like this. Our mission is to build a better Democratic Party by empowering young online voices to bring new perspectives to the party. During the primaries we do so by pushing aggressively and loudly for new leadership. At all other times, we seek to work collaboratively, recognizing that even those our side of the left traditionally casts as political adversaries are doing what they view to be their best to improve our country. It is that mission that drove Katie Bansil’s actions.

Martin’s wife, Gabriela Soto, made contact with a PV member at DemCon through a mutual acquaintance, and he and Katie used every tool at their disposal to get them the aid they needed. Our thanks goes to Senator Cory Booker for immediately taking this seriously, and to Governor Sherill who we hope will continue to be a friend to immigrants and take action against the remaining injustices at Delaney Hall. While Progressive Victory and the many other organizations involved in advancing cases like Martin’s can help individuals, only our leaders can truly put a stop to these heinous conditions.

Our greatest thanks goes to Martin and Gabriela Soto. Martin endured viciously inhumane conditions at Delaney Hall, including months of solitary confinement, and did not waver. Gabriela worked tirelessly to reestablish contact with her husband and to secure his release. Their story is the story of immigrants everywhere who come into contact with ICE’s Republican barbarism, and our victory is their victory. We stand with the protestors and the families and call with them for Delaney Hall’s closure, *now.*

Benjamin Gilbert-Lif, Executive Director-designate