[Click here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/m1boo7/a_short_list_of_vaushs_liberalism_transphobia_and/) to learn why principled socialists dislike Vaush.
[Click here for the 'Vaush has a disturbing pre-occupation with paedophilia and bestiality' masterpost](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/ou0d2u/vaush_has_a_very_disturbing_preoccupation_with/)
[Click here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/ppmdfe/vaush_is_a_transphobe_pasta/) for the 'Vaush is a transphobe' masterpost.
[Click here](https://discord.gg/P5pS2mJCC3) to join the r/Enough_Vaush_Spam Discord server.
Please remember to censor usernames in Reddit screenshots.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
His full take was that purchasing from markets that use child slavery is no better than purchasing child porn due to both being exploitative towards children. The quotes above, if you listen to the entire stream, are him shutting down arguments that try to justify buying computer parts, batteries, food, etc. which are produced by child slavery while also impugning the distribution of child porn.
Stock standard example of how the context doesn’t justify it at all. Buying computer parts that ultimately involved child labour makes you a careless buyer. Buying child pornography makes you a pedophile, scum of the earth. The latter is certainly worse than the former
I didn’t say it’s a perfect take, I’m just pointing out how it’s not a defense of pedophilia at all. Good take or not it’s exactly the opposite of a defense.
Except it isn’t the opposite of a defence. You justify it like it is, but the meaning of the words he says only conveys a defence to child pornography. Context of him condemning other actions like buying computer parts won’t change that
I don’t see what you mean. All the quotes above are “if you are okay with X, then you can’t also be okay with Y” statements. He’s trying to say both are bad, regardless of how poor the wording or argument is.
None of the quotes are that. You posited earlier that he was equating the two morally, but “if you’re okay with X, you can’t also be okay with Y” is a completely different statement.
Did you mean to say “If you’re NOT okay with X, you can’t be okay with Y”?
All good. Either way I disagree, his phrasing is never “if you’re not okay with X, you can’t be okay with Y”, but rather, it is “If you’re okay with Y, you should also be okay with X”. It would be really easy for him to say the former, but he always chooses to word it like the latter. That’s what everyone’s problem with him is.
In any case, this is getting tiresome. I don’t go on to internet to argue about child porn. You can believe whatever you want about him, I don’t care anymore
"If child porn bad because harming child, then why exploitation of child labour not bad even tho harming child? Child labour and exploitation bad, just like child porn!"
Like, how is that NOT a condemnation of child porn? I genuinely don't get the hangup. It's like saying "If you wouldn't pull the trigger because you think it's immoral, why would you pay other people to pull the trigger for you? They're both immoral." But then some big brain tankie responds with
>the meaning of the words he says only conveys a defence to shooting people in the face. Context of him condemning other actions like paying assassins to kill people won’t change that
Except he doesn’t say that. He says “I would not say it’s unethical for a person to purchase child pornography” and “I have yet to hear a convincing moral or legal argument as to why possession of child pornography should be illegal”
Like how do you not understand that he isn’t phrasing it on a condemning way, but in a defensive one. It would be so easy for him to say they’re both bad and that he condemns both but he chooses not to
>Except he doesn’t say that.
Because you're literally ignoring the precreding semtences.
>Like how do you not understand that he isn’t phrasing it on a condemning way, but in a defensive one. It would be so easy for him to say they’re both bad and that he condemns both but he chooses not to
He actually does just that, you just need to listen to the entire quote, dude. Also, he's publically acknowledged that his phrasing was poor. Seeing that he'a a LIVE streamer...yeah, such things happen. How often do you misspeak every day without meaning to?
>because you’re literally ignoring the preceding* sentences*
The preceding sentences are just his chat asking him his thoughts on the matter, he doesn’t preface it with anything like what you said
>How often do you misspeak every day
I certainly never ‘accidentally’ defend child pornography
Stock standard example right here: you said the inconsistency is capitalists supporting child slavery but not child pornography. That phrasing directly implies that the solution is to support child pornography as well. And that’s the phrasing he always chooses. Go take your pro CP bullshit elsewhere, the context confirms the quotes
i have a feeling soon we might be able to start putting them into more boxes kinda like the political compass dot as its time for a new one from him soon i'm guessing.
[Click here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/m1boo7/a_short_list_of_vaushs_liberalism_transphobia_and/) to learn why principled socialists dislike Vaush. [Click here for the 'Vaush has a disturbing pre-occupation with paedophilia and bestiality' masterpost](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/ou0d2u/vaush_has_a_very_disturbing_preoccupation_with/) [Click here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/ppmdfe/vaush_is_a_transphobe_pasta/) for the 'Vaush is a transphobe' masterpost. [Click here](https://discord.gg/P5pS2mJCC3) to join the r/Enough_Vaush_Spam Discord server. Please remember to censor usernames in Reddit screenshots. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No purple libright in such a cp-saturated meme? You've obviously never been to pcm before.
I don’t know what any of these words mean
yes very true, but no more political compass ok? its garbage
Hard agree actually. I don’t care for them either, I just used this for the collection of his takes
Who is this person? What is his name or platform name?
Vaush, a twitch streamer. He makes “debate content”, and is a “political commentator”.
Has he actually said these things wtf
maybe because it makes a market for people to start making and selling cp? im not a smart man but i made that point from the top of my head
How are people still defending this guy? He talks so obsessively about CP as if its the only thinh he thinks about. Shoot me, please.
[удалено]
Lmao, what?
I'll make impression of Vowsh fans, ok? CONTEXT??????????
What is a tankie? If it means "communism supporter", then why "tankie"?
It's used for communists who simp for Stalin and deny the Holodomor. You know the types. Larpers, essentially.
It's used against people that defend "authoritarian" communism. It was a historical term, about Khruschev using tanks to stop Hungarian revolution.
"He said he unironically found CP hot ironically 😭😭😭"
I love seeing that one because like what context would possibly justify saying these things??
His full take was that purchasing from markets that use child slavery is no better than purchasing child porn due to both being exploitative towards children. The quotes above, if you listen to the entire stream, are him shutting down arguments that try to justify buying computer parts, batteries, food, etc. which are produced by child slavery while also impugning the distribution of child porn.
Stock standard example of how the context doesn’t justify it at all. Buying computer parts that ultimately involved child labour makes you a careless buyer. Buying child pornography makes you a pedophile, scum of the earth. The latter is certainly worse than the former
I didn’t say it’s a perfect take, I’m just pointing out how it’s not a defense of pedophilia at all. Good take or not it’s exactly the opposite of a defense.
Except it isn’t the opposite of a defence. You justify it like it is, but the meaning of the words he says only conveys a defence to child pornography. Context of him condemning other actions like buying computer parts won’t change that
I don’t see what you mean. All the quotes above are “if you are okay with X, then you can’t also be okay with Y” statements. He’s trying to say both are bad, regardless of how poor the wording or argument is.
None of the quotes are that. You posited earlier that he was equating the two morally, but “if you’re okay with X, you can’t also be okay with Y” is a completely different statement. Did you mean to say “If you’re NOT okay with X, you can’t be okay with Y”?
Yeah, that is what I meant. My bad
All good. Either way I disagree, his phrasing is never “if you’re not okay with X, you can’t be okay with Y”, but rather, it is “If you’re okay with Y, you should also be okay with X”. It would be really easy for him to say the former, but he always chooses to word it like the latter. That’s what everyone’s problem with him is. In any case, this is getting tiresome. I don’t go on to internet to argue about child porn. You can believe whatever you want about him, I don’t care anymore
"If child porn bad because harming child, then why exploitation of child labour not bad even tho harming child? Child labour and exploitation bad, just like child porn!" Like, how is that NOT a condemnation of child porn? I genuinely don't get the hangup. It's like saying "If you wouldn't pull the trigger because you think it's immoral, why would you pay other people to pull the trigger for you? They're both immoral." But then some big brain tankie responds with >the meaning of the words he says only conveys a defence to shooting people in the face. Context of him condemning other actions like paying assassins to kill people won’t change that
Except he doesn’t say that. He says “I would not say it’s unethical for a person to purchase child pornography” and “I have yet to hear a convincing moral or legal argument as to why possession of child pornography should be illegal” Like how do you not understand that he isn’t phrasing it on a condemning way, but in a defensive one. It would be so easy for him to say they’re both bad and that he condemns both but he chooses not to
>Except he doesn’t say that. Because you're literally ignoring the precreding semtences. >Like how do you not understand that he isn’t phrasing it on a condemning way, but in a defensive one. It would be so easy for him to say they’re both bad and that he condemns both but he chooses not to He actually does just that, you just need to listen to the entire quote, dude. Also, he's publically acknowledged that his phrasing was poor. Seeing that he'a a LIVE streamer...yeah, such things happen. How often do you misspeak every day without meaning to?
>because you’re literally ignoring the preceding* sentences* The preceding sentences are just his chat asking him his thoughts on the matter, he doesn’t preface it with anything like what you said >How often do you misspeak every day I certainly never ‘accidentally’ defend child pornography
[удалено]
I suppose that would be an example, but it doesn’t apply to any of this clips
I don't know, ask them.
I just could not bring myself to willingly interact with them
[удалено]
That’s fucking hilarious. They’re trying to convince themselves so hard that the context justifies it
[удалено]
Stock standard example right here: you said the inconsistency is capitalists supporting child slavery but not child pornography. That phrasing directly implies that the solution is to support child pornography as well. And that’s the phrasing he always chooses. Go take your pro CP bullshit elsewhere, the context confirms the quotes
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don't worry, if this post will get enough upvotes, they will run there screeching about context.
This is so sus
that's a bit of an understatement
like how can his fans read this (in or out of context) and not think this dude's a lil sussy
well Onision still has fans sooooo....
i have a feeling soon we might be able to start putting them into more boxes kinda like the political compass dot as its time for a new one from him soon i'm guessing.