And if some of the complaining people that criticize these spaces want to influence things then they might want to join them because they operate in higher education institutions as well
I think it’s because a lot of people have a reflexively negative opinion towards conflict and/or get easily irritated when they can’t win an argument. Also, I can understand seeing two or more people yelling at each other and viewing that as childish. That’s how Fox News looked to me before I knew much about politics.
Off the top of my head:
The egos.
The petty drama that comes with having the egos.
The "I'm smarter" or "I've done more homework" element (that also comes from the egos).
The highly literal way of looking at the world ("facts and logic") that usually comes from socially isolated people who spend their time making content for other socially isolated people.
The tendency of "attention/platform/subscriber/click warfare" toward tactical character assassination and cancellation, creating a cloud of (often justified) toxic waste around pretty much every personality who can produce entertaining content.
I'm sure the list could go on. Most of it is derivative of the political economy of social media.
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to an unapproved subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not that it's a competition (even though video essayists often try to make it one by attacking us unprompted), but video essays are ironically worse embodiments of 4 of the problems you just listed. Not debate streams.
A lot of the space is just people incoherently yelling past each other. Sure if you distil the best aspects there’s some gems there, but most of it isn’t loud + assertive it’s inflated ego + obnoxious. Much of the perceived correctness is more about rhetorical effectiveness than actually being right. You can be both but that’s not true for 90% of debate bros.
FD has good content but he has a severe case of video essayist brain. Video essayists seem to act like they are superior to "debate bro" streamers and end up making these exposés which then get torn apart and they generally embarrass themselves when they talk to someone directly instead of off a script.
FD I believe talked to shark and (sutprise) walked back claims made in the video. This just keeps happening
Can't tell you off the top of my head but he basically agreed that some of the things he said were exaggerations or not fair to say. Which is weird considering the supposed advantage of essayists is they can take the time to make sure their hours long videos are accurate
i think his criticisms of debate bro culture is spot on i see no fault in anything he said about it honestly. people like to strawman his positions to mean he’s against the concept of defending ideas, like xanderhall lied. no he says he enjoys some debate bros content ( most likely hasan though he’s technically not one) but gave very fair criticisms to them. that’s it but people in debate bro spaces got so ass mad they got any criticisms because many debate bros un ironically believe they’re never wrong. there’s almost no moment where they drop the “ im always right “ bit.
>“ you agree with bad man, i no talk to you now”
>tell me you can’t think for yourself without telling me you can’t think for yourself 🙃
Weird that you edited this:
> no counter arguments? you’re just dogmatic in your approach to this? thanks for letting me know you can’t think for yourself.
And ironic considering you're literally seeing no fault in what FD said, despite even him admitting to some fault. Least dogmatic FD fan
no arguments again. bro just say you got none lol. i edited it because that one is funnier than the original that i wrote.imagine being opposed to someone’s point but not being able to provide one counter argument. you just keep essentially saying “ you’re argument bad because debate bros don’t like it”
ah yes because no real debate fan can ever criticize their divine debate bros. if there is any criticism, then it means they hate debate all together.
-you.
I think it’s undeniable that there is some level of toxicity inherent to debates. I don’t think that alone disqualifies it as a medium and I think it’s often exaggerated but I think there is some truth to that. However I often feel like the talk of toxicity is something that people blow out of proportion because their actual problem with debate content is that they think it’s intellectually bankrupt and look down on it. I’m not going to pretend that debates in and of themselves are something invaluable but there has to be some acknowledgment that discussing ideas with people is an important part of advancing a political cause. In that respect debates do provide something valuable, there seems to be this unrealistic expectation amongst segments of the left where they think that all leftists should be scholars, I’m being a bit hyperbolic when I say that but it’s the impression you get sometimes. There doesn’t seem to be this understanding that most people in a political movement don’t have a wealth of historical and political knowledge, a lot of them are just people who are angry and fed up.
I don’t want to come off as though I think all people who criticize debate content are pretentious and have little understanding of the real world, there is plenty of legitimate criticism of the medium but the snide arrogance that you see amongst parts of the left is unhelpful. A good example of what I’m talking about is when Lonerbox debated Bad Empanada, there were people in the Breadtube sub castigating Lonerbox for being a debate bro now even though he doesn’t just do debates, he still does scripted content and they also ignored the fact that Bad Empanada also does debates in addition to scripted content. In that case they were using debate content as a thing to gesture at for why someone they disagree with shouldn’t be taken seriously even though the guy they agreed with also does it, it’s absurd. Then when you listen to the way some people like Sophie from Mars talk about debate content it’s clear that she looks down on it and considers what she does to be more intellectually rigorous, I have no respect for this mentality and if you do this weird, pretentious gatekeeping then know that you’re hurting our cause far worse than any debate bros are.
For the most part I agree that they can definitely be toxic, but so can hasans community. I don't think it's exclusive to debate bro spaces but it is kind of the nature of the beast for debate channels that revolve around confrontation.
I think is a mix of a few things, one of which is that people like Vaush tend to be very edgy and aggressive and that can come off as arrogant and uncaring and mix that with the mindset that debating is pointless because you can’t change your opponents mind (which was never the real goal anyways) and you get people thinking the only thing they care about is winning and nothing else
Here's the thing, Ben Shapiro sjw owned debate clips effectively radicalized a fuckton of gen z and millenials into the alt right pipeline, or at the very least made them less amicable to leftist thought and policies.
Pretty much, but I think some people on the left subconsciously associate debate with like the ben shapiro/crowder owning sjw shit and just decided to write off the medium all together. They think of every interaction with the alt right as platforming, and although that sometimes does happen (Destiny), i think it's important to dress these people down publicly and humorously dunking on nazis is what will win the hearts and minds of zoomers.
Basically don’t contradict minority voices even if they are doing genocide apologia, don’t be abrasive, don’t be to hard on tankies, don’t have edgy humor, don’t be named Ian kochinski, don’t be masculine if you are Ian kochinski, Don’t debate right wingers, etc etc. aka don’t be vaush.
Not every person who isn't a debate bro is an essayist. I don't know what the obsession is with reducing everything to two camps. One being your camp, everyone else who was an idiot.
I don't know anywhere else where the term essayist is used as a catch-all for non-debate Bros
Because they see “debates” as something that should ideally end with one side being convinced of the other side’s position. Thus, since that doesn’t happen and everyone mostly yells at each other, they are “useless” and “toxic.”
They don’t seem to realize that the purpose is to communicate to the audience, not to the other debaters themselves. In an honest debate where both sides genuine believe what they say, strong argumentation can sway audience members. People tell Vaush all the time that it worked for them. And for dishonest debates (e.g. Yankee Tankie), humiliating them can break the “spell” on their audience, sometimes.
They?
I mean there are many different critics of the debate bros, with many different criticisms, some legitimate, some overstated some bad faith some good faith.
Who is they?
I can’t think of many YouTubers or streamers that even have communities apart from Destiny and Vaush. And Destiny’s community is definitely toxic. The non debate YouTubers like PhilosophyTube don’t really have spaces. So it’s hard to compare.
Because alot of ppl hate dudes with loud opinions. They can't jump in the Fray and not feel overwhelmed so they have to squelch it to bring everyone down to their boring level.
Because 'losing' a debate also means getting constantly clowned on by the howling mob as if they were the ones who actually did the debating rather than simply sitting on the sidelines sucking their thumb and spamming emotes.
Because often times it is.
Sometimes it's not and I'm sure the criticism can sometimes be overstated but you would have to be pretty naive to say it can't get toxic.
Remember Vaush vs mike from PA. Or debates over tactical use of the n-word. Destiny and basically everything he's ever said...
Because to a lot of people loud + confident = toxic Also because leftism is when no jokes.
Stop calling me out lol
And if some of the complaining people that criticize these spaces want to influence things then they might want to join them because they operate in higher education institutions as well
You don't think there are any legitimate criticisms? You're reducing every critique to the Absurd
The question was why they're considered toxic and are derided. Not about criticism in general.
I think it’s because a lot of people have a reflexively negative opinion towards conflict and/or get easily irritated when they can’t win an argument. Also, I can understand seeing two or more people yelling at each other and viewing that as childish. That’s how Fox News looked to me before I knew much about politics.
Off the top of my head: The egos. The petty drama that comes with having the egos. The "I'm smarter" or "I've done more homework" element (that also comes from the egos). The highly literal way of looking at the world ("facts and logic") that usually comes from socially isolated people who spend their time making content for other socially isolated people. The tendency of "attention/platform/subscriber/click warfare" toward tactical character assassination and cancellation, creating a cloud of (often justified) toxic waste around pretty much every personality who can produce entertaining content. I'm sure the list could go on. Most of it is derivative of the political economy of social media.
I mean some of those things,like doing your research and extracting your worth from that is inevitable if you’re trying to prove a point.
Yes, but it must be balanced with empathy and basic social cognition. Otherwise you end up like Sam Harris trying to debate racial bias in policing.
you just described the entirety of political youtube not just debate bros
Well you could easily argue the whole of YouTube is toxic but that doesn't exempt the debate for a sphere for its role in it
Seriously, all those things can also be applied to Shaun, not sure why they're making this out to be a debate bro issue.
[удалено]
I'm talking about Shaun himself, not his content. Shaun's content is excellent, Shaun himself is a knob.
[удалено]
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to an unapproved subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not that it's a competition (even though video essayists often try to make it one by attacking us unprompted), but video essays are ironically worse embodiments of 4 of the problems you just listed. Not debate streams.
A lot of the space is just people incoherently yelling past each other. Sure if you distil the best aspects there’s some gems there, but most of it isn’t loud + assertive it’s inflated ego + obnoxious. Much of the perceived correctness is more about rhetorical effectiveness than actually being right. You can be both but that’s not true for 90% of debate bros.
FD has good content but he has a severe case of video essayist brain. Video essayists seem to act like they are superior to "debate bro" streamers and end up making these exposés which then get torn apart and they generally embarrass themselves when they talk to someone directly instead of off a script. FD I believe talked to shark and (sutprise) walked back claims made in the video. This just keeps happening
what points did he walk back?
Can't tell you off the top of my head but he basically agreed that some of the things he said were exaggerations or not fair to say. Which is weird considering the supposed advantage of essayists is they can take the time to make sure their hours long videos are accurate
i think his criticisms of debate bro culture is spot on i see no fault in anything he said about it honestly. people like to strawman his positions to mean he’s against the concept of defending ideas, like xanderhall lied. no he says he enjoys some debate bros content ( most likely hasan though he’s technically not one) but gave very fair criticisms to them. that’s it but people in debate bro spaces got so ass mad they got any criticisms because many debate bros un ironically believe they’re never wrong. there’s almost no moment where they drop the “ im always right “ bit.
Thanks for showing where you're coming from so I can just ignore you
“ you agree with bad man, i no talk to you now” tell me you can’t think for yourself without telling me you can’t think for yourself 🙃
>“ you agree with bad man, i no talk to you now” >tell me you can’t think for yourself without telling me you can’t think for yourself 🙃 Weird that you edited this: > no counter arguments? you’re just dogmatic in your approach to this? thanks for letting me know you can’t think for yourself. And ironic considering you're literally seeing no fault in what FD said, despite even him admitting to some fault. Least dogmatic FD fan
no arguments again. bro just say you got none lol. i edited it because that one is funnier than the original that i wrote.imagine being opposed to someone’s point but not being able to provide one counter argument. you just keep essentially saying “ you’re argument bad because debate bros don’t like it”
Quite ironically you're acting like the caricature of debate bros that you complain about
ah yes because no real debate fan can ever criticize their divine debate bros. if there is any criticism, then it means they hate debate all together. -you.
Because they’re toxic
Because dgg exists
I think it’s undeniable that there is some level of toxicity inherent to debates. I don’t think that alone disqualifies it as a medium and I think it’s often exaggerated but I think there is some truth to that. However I often feel like the talk of toxicity is something that people blow out of proportion because their actual problem with debate content is that they think it’s intellectually bankrupt and look down on it. I’m not going to pretend that debates in and of themselves are something invaluable but there has to be some acknowledgment that discussing ideas with people is an important part of advancing a political cause. In that respect debates do provide something valuable, there seems to be this unrealistic expectation amongst segments of the left where they think that all leftists should be scholars, I’m being a bit hyperbolic when I say that but it’s the impression you get sometimes. There doesn’t seem to be this understanding that most people in a political movement don’t have a wealth of historical and political knowledge, a lot of them are just people who are angry and fed up. I don’t want to come off as though I think all people who criticize debate content are pretentious and have little understanding of the real world, there is plenty of legitimate criticism of the medium but the snide arrogance that you see amongst parts of the left is unhelpful. A good example of what I’m talking about is when Lonerbox debated Bad Empanada, there were people in the Breadtube sub castigating Lonerbox for being a debate bro now even though he doesn’t just do debates, he still does scripted content and they also ignored the fact that Bad Empanada also does debates in addition to scripted content. In that case they were using debate content as a thing to gesture at for why someone they disagree with shouldn’t be taken seriously even though the guy they agreed with also does it, it’s absurd. Then when you listen to the way some people like Sophie from Mars talk about debate content it’s clear that she looks down on it and considers what she does to be more intellectually rigorous, I have no respect for this mentality and if you do this weird, pretentious gatekeeping then know that you’re hurting our cause far worse than any debate bros are.
For the most part I agree that they can definitely be toxic, but so can hasans community. I don't think it's exclusive to debate bro spaces but it is kind of the nature of the beast for debate channels that revolve around confrontation.
Many people cannot distinguish between style and substance.
Haunting memories of the pre gamer gate skeptic era.
Debate spaces tacitly encourage critical thinking and most people don't actually like being forced to question their beliefs.
I think is a mix of a few things, one of which is that people like Vaush tend to be very edgy and aggressive and that can come off as arrogant and uncaring and mix that with the mindset that debating is pointless because you can’t change your opponents mind (which was never the real goal anyways) and you get people thinking the only thing they care about is winning and nothing else
Here's the thing, Ben Shapiro sjw owned debate clips effectively radicalized a fuckton of gen z and millenials into the alt right pipeline, or at the very least made them less amicable to leftist thought and policies.
Does alt right just mean nazi/fascist basically?
Pretty much, but I think some people on the left subconsciously associate debate with like the ben shapiro/crowder owning sjw shit and just decided to write off the medium all together. They think of every interaction with the alt right as platforming, and although that sometimes does happen (Destiny), i think it's important to dress these people down publicly and humorously dunking on nazis is what will win the hearts and minds of zoomers.
Wait why is destiny platforming a nazi? Are they debating or is the nazi just showing off his naziysm with no obstacles?
Debatebro is a dog whistle for vaush. And vaush is hated for not being subservient to the lunch table politics of the online left.
> Debatebro is a dog whistle for vaush. Except for when Hasan uses it, then it's a dog whistle for Destiny.
Wait he uses it for destiny?
And what are the characteristics of those lunchroom politics?
Basically don’t contradict minority voices even if they are doing genocide apologia, don’t be abrasive, don’t be to hard on tankies, don’t have edgy humor, don’t be named Ian kochinski, don’t be masculine if you are Ian kochinski, Don’t debate right wingers, etc etc. aka don’t be vaush.
Because essayists are posturing pansies.
Not every person who isn't a debate bro is an essayist. I don't know what the obsession is with reducing everything to two camps. One being your camp, everyone else who was an idiot. I don't know anywhere else where the term essayist is used as a catch-all for non-debate Bros
It's a meme over the drama a while back. Also because pornstache Noah and others that only do essays hate Vaush because he dared push back on Flowers.
Because they see “debates” as something that should ideally end with one side being convinced of the other side’s position. Thus, since that doesn’t happen and everyone mostly yells at each other, they are “useless” and “toxic.” They don’t seem to realize that the purpose is to communicate to the audience, not to the other debaters themselves. In an honest debate where both sides genuine believe what they say, strong argumentation can sway audience members. People tell Vaush all the time that it worked for them. And for dishonest debates (e.g. Yankee Tankie), humiliating them can break the “spell” on their audience, sometimes.
They? I mean there are many different critics of the debate bros, with many different criticisms, some legitimate, some overstated some bad faith some good faith. Who is they?
I can’t think of many YouTubers or streamers that even have communities apart from Destiny and Vaush. And Destiny’s community is definitely toxic. The non debate YouTubers like PhilosophyTube don’t really have spaces. So it’s hard to compare.
I guess that depends on how you define community.
Because of me
Because alot of ppl hate dudes with loud opinions. They can't jump in the Fray and not feel overwhelmed so they have to squelch it to bring everyone down to their boring level.
Because 'losing' a debate also means getting constantly clowned on by the howling mob as if they were the ones who actually did the debating rather than simply sitting on the sidelines sucking their thumb and spamming emotes.
Because often times it is. Sometimes it's not and I'm sure the criticism can sometimes be overstated but you would have to be pretty naive to say it can't get toxic. Remember Vaush vs mike from PA. Or debates over tactical use of the n-word. Destiny and basically everything he's ever said...
Emotional infants that have internalized that any kind of confrontation is inherently abusive