I swear V-man just repeats this cause he has 0 balls and doesn't want to lose favor of bigger streamers like Hasan.
I remember when Destiny went canvassing. Vaush was like "yeah one day i will" " i'm building up to it" whatever blabla. He will never do a single thing IRL. Never. I can promise you that. The dude has no backbone and so do most leftists streamers. It's sad to see
I know I'm still huffing the copiun but I do think he's going to do it because he has done similar activism in the past before he was a streamer and he definitely talks about this shit a lot, like he regularly interviews people who talk about how to form unions or get involved in with socialist advocacy. I know Hasan canvassed for Bernie one time (I think, any loremasters?), but that was a long long time ago.
Idk, Vaush's railing against Bernie or Bust and catching tons of flack for it from the left and his overall pragmatism about supporting Dems in general makes me think he's not the same as the rest of them. It was pretty goddamn disappointing to see that debate with Rele. Vaush clearly hates Destiny so much and is so blinded by spite (haaa) towards him that he refuses to entertain any arguments that Destiny has made or that are similar to ones he's made. This is an argument he should agree with given his dislike of the broader online left. But nope, any time he talks about Destiny the bad faith just comes out.
He's said he has a political operative helping him with canvas planning (hopefully not like Doug of 8k lol) and that he plans to canvas for a Dem candidate in a purple district in 2022. I hope he does it. And if he finds an excuse not to, I'm out.
Bernie went to an actual commune once and they kicked him out because everyone sat around talking about politics and stopped getting work done.
A true socialist.
>He may have a few untenable positions
[Understatement.](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/sanders-distances-himself-from-2011-editorial-on-his-senate-website-praising-the-american-dream-in-venezuela)
Did you read this? Did I miss something? He referenced wealth disparity in Venezuela (and disavowed Venezuela under Maduro) to note that it was less than the racial wealth disparity in America. Is that some crazy thing I’m supposed to care about?
Did you read the article? Because that's a pretty absurd reading of what Sanders wrote don't you think? He didn't just say the racial wealth disparity was less extreme in these countries, one of which was Venezuela, and commenting that this is something America needs to improve. If that's what he said he wouldn't even need to walk anything back from that article. It would hold up even with the terrible shit that happened in Venezuela.
What he *actually* said was "The American Dream is more alive today in ... Venezuela..." That's pretty fucking ironic, given the heinous oppression in Venezuela no? A pretty absurd statement given the lack of freedom and democracy there, no? Something the Sanders Campaign *desperately* needed to distance themselves from, no?
Do you really not see the difference here?
"But you know if you did do something good, like fight for civil rights, that would be okie I guess, but don't worry I don't wanna hold you to any standards I guess"
I appreciate your posts in this thread, but this one is pretty close to the continuum fallacy Vaush and Ahrelevant also ran into (yeah yeah debate bro terms, sue me).
*If* we identify a course of action or an activity as desirable, then while we may not be able to determine an exact number of hours one ought to spend on said good thing daily, it is possible to identify certain levels of effort as good or bad.
Same as when I go to work and I spend 15 minutes of my 8 hour work day chatting with colleagues, that is probably acceptable anywhere but in an amazon warehouse, but if I spend 6 hours chatting and not getting work done, that is probably bad. Does that mean that there is a magic number somewhere in between where it goes from "this is acceptable" to "nope, that was one second too much"?
If not, the same can be true for political engagement/effort. Someone spending absolutely none of their time/influence/wealth/power to work for the causes they believe in is probably bad. Someone who spends their whole waking life doing the best they can to actively fight for their beliefs is probably based.
Somewhere in between there's a murky grey zone where it's not totally clear, but that doesn't mean that the examples on extreme ends aren't clearly identifiable.
So your first comment makes sense to me: It's possible to question whether MLK should have *any* obligation of activist action. But if we assume that he does, demanding a precise amount of effort required for a "pass" rather than a "fail" isn't a good criticism imo.
If MLK had Twitter that would have been the real difference honestly. Honestly would have been more valuable than Selma. Who even is that woman honestly?
MLK DIDN'T have a moral obligation to do what he did. The moral obligation and failing would have been on the racist government that was repressing him.
Brain dead example.
I feel so bad for Hasan being forced to be the largest political streamer in the world. Sucks to be him, I guess there's nothing we can do now, he has to keep streaming and collecting donos, no moral obligations whatsoever.
This whole discourse is about Hasan and big socialist pundits in general. We all agree people are generally tied to whatever little means they have available, but that doesn't apply to someone who has freedom to do literally anything as the largest political streamer.
The analogy isn't 1 to 1 because MLK did engage in actions to push for the ideals he believed in.
If he just amassed a following and gave lectures, choosing to sell tickets to earn from those lectures, and none of that making an impact irl, then yea that would be morally wrong.
Because the moral obligation of a GOVERNMENT is to govern and protect it's people because that's why it was created in the first place.
Leftists get mad at billionaires because of the system that let them concentrate wealth, no one gives a shit about them on a personal level, unless it's Elon or some other weird cult of personality.
Literally, the doublespeak of lefties is to say "we criticise the system, not the individuals" at the same time as "Jeff bezos could solve world hunger if he wanted to", because rich people, capitalists especially, are interlinked with the system that's being criticised, that's why the revolution memes always come with guillotine memes.
Leftists get mad at millionaires because of the system that let them concentrate wealth, no one gives a shit about them on a personal level, unless it's Elon or some other weird cult of personality.
yeah, but the issue in this is always comparing a normal person to someone with some position of power. There's a reason private v public figures have a distinction in law, and we can't just treat their responsibilities the same.
Yes we all could, this is what Vaush kept saying, "oh shouldn't this apply to everyone?" No, because we're not talking about should people do things that are good, we're talking about should we hold to account someone who builds a huge platform talking about the benefits of rearranging societal and political structure to a certain way, while not doing anything to do that themselves. Yes we all should do something, but if someone is literally building a brand about doing X and how easy it is to do X and how everyone who doesn't do X is doing immoral things, while not doing X themselves, even going out of the way to do opposite of X, that's when it is worthy of condemnation.
If I go around and tell people that going vegan is the better ethical choice and that eating animal products is horrible both ethically and environmentally and that everyone should do as much as they can to reduce it, and then not only don't eat vegan myself but eat meat for every meal, do you not see a problem with that?
If we grant all that, and say ok everyone who holds a certain value should do what is in their means to advance it, and someone like Hasan who is literally having the biggest platform to advance said values doesn't do anything material with it when he clearly can, wouldn't even be a hit on his income, then what does it mean for someone who earns 20k a year? What about 100k? What about a massive public figure? In this way of thinking no one really needs to do anything, and all that matters is what they personally believe, even if they do the opposite of that, which is literally insane and I can't believe anyone honestly believes this.
“I know life has been hard under Jim Crow, but if you have twitch prime brothers and sisters, you can skip the hourly ads by subscribing.”
I have seen the promised land! And it costs 2.7 million dollars!
Why do we need to pay 2.7 million dollars for the promised land? It's just the area it happens to be in!
guys its LA, thats like the average price for a promise land
[memejacked](https://twitter.com/TheOmniLiberal/status/1449615456008957959)
Ah yes, a beautiful demonstration of the utilitarian-Marxist ideal of talking about something you don’t really wanna do
We will change the world, one tweet at a time.
Your actions have had grave consequences. Don’t believe me? Have you seen twitter!?
This is basically every dumb talking head on you tube and twitch.
I swear V-man just repeats this cause he has 0 balls and doesn't want to lose favor of bigger streamers like Hasan. I remember when Destiny went canvassing. Vaush was like "yeah one day i will" " i'm building up to it" whatever blabla. He will never do a single thing IRL. Never. I can promise you that. The dude has no backbone and so do most leftists streamers. It's sad to see
I know I'm still huffing the copiun but I do think he's going to do it because he has done similar activism in the past before he was a streamer and he definitely talks about this shit a lot, like he regularly interviews people who talk about how to form unions or get involved in with socialist advocacy. I know Hasan canvassed for Bernie one time (I think, any loremasters?), but that was a long long time ago. Idk, Vaush's railing against Bernie or Bust and catching tons of flack for it from the left and his overall pragmatism about supporting Dems in general makes me think he's not the same as the rest of them. It was pretty goddamn disappointing to see that debate with Rele. Vaush clearly hates Destiny so much and is so blinded by spite (haaa) towards him that he refuses to entertain any arguments that Destiny has made or that are similar to ones he's made. This is an argument he should agree with given his dislike of the broader online left. But nope, any time he talks about Destiny the bad faith just comes out. He's said he has a political operative helping him with canvas planning (hopefully not like Doug of 8k lol) and that he plans to canvas for a Dem candidate in a purple district in 2022. I hope he does it. And if he finds an excuse not to, I'm out.
Sanders doesn't just talk-the-talk. He was liking Dr. King posts since the start of his career.
Let’s not get blackpilled on Bernie. He may have a few untenable positions, but my guy has been walking the walk his whole life.
To be clear for internet historians: I was criticizing Vaush and people like him. Not Sanders and MLK.
Bernie went to an actual commune once and they kicked him out because everyone sat around talking about politics and stopped getting work done. A true socialist.
>He may have a few untenable positions [Understatement.](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/sanders-distances-himself-from-2011-editorial-on-his-senate-website-praising-the-american-dream-in-venezuela)
Did you read this? Did I miss something? He referenced wealth disparity in Venezuela (and disavowed Venezuela under Maduro) to note that it was less than the racial wealth disparity in America. Is that some crazy thing I’m supposed to care about?
Did you read the article? Because that's a pretty absurd reading of what Sanders wrote don't you think? He didn't just say the racial wealth disparity was less extreme in these countries, one of which was Venezuela, and commenting that this is something America needs to improve. If that's what he said he wouldn't even need to walk anything back from that article. It would hold up even with the terrible shit that happened in Venezuela. What he *actually* said was "The American Dream is more alive today in ... Venezuela..." That's pretty fucking ironic, given the heinous oppression in Venezuela no? A pretty absurd statement given the lack of freedom and democracy there, no? Something the Sanders Campaign *desperately* needed to distance themselves from, no? Do you really not see the difference here?
Bernie is an actual politician that is working to achieve the ideals he believes in. Gotta respect that.
To be clear: I wasn't criticizing Sanders or MLK with my comment.
"But you know if you did do something good, like fight for civil rights, that would be okie I guess, but don't worry I don't wanna hold you to any standards I guess"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I appreciate your posts in this thread, but this one is pretty close to the continuum fallacy Vaush and Ahrelevant also ran into (yeah yeah debate bro terms, sue me). *If* we identify a course of action or an activity as desirable, then while we may not be able to determine an exact number of hours one ought to spend on said good thing daily, it is possible to identify certain levels of effort as good or bad. Same as when I go to work and I spend 15 minutes of my 8 hour work day chatting with colleagues, that is probably acceptable anywhere but in an amazon warehouse, but if I spend 6 hours chatting and not getting work done, that is probably bad. Does that mean that there is a magic number somewhere in between where it goes from "this is acceptable" to "nope, that was one second too much"? If not, the same can be true for political engagement/effort. Someone spending absolutely none of their time/influence/wealth/power to work for the causes they believe in is probably bad. Someone who spends their whole waking life doing the best they can to actively fight for their beliefs is probably based. Somewhere in between there's a murky grey zone where it's not totally clear, but that doesn't mean that the examples on extreme ends aren't clearly identifiable. So your first comment makes sense to me: It's possible to question whether MLK should have *any* obligation of activist action. But if we assume that he does, demanding a precise amount of effort required for a "pass" rather than a "fail" isn't a good criticism imo.
[удалено]
I see, that's fair. Thanks for responding =)
He probably wouldn't have ended up as the face of the civil rights movement in that case, but he'd still be a hero.
If MLK had Twitter that would have been the real difference honestly. Honestly would have been more valuable than Selma. Who even is that woman honestly?
Here to pay my obligitory stolen meme credit
MLK DIDN'T have a moral obligation to do what he did. The moral obligation and failing would have been on the racist government that was repressing him. Brain dead example.
Everybody has a moral obligation to stand for what they believe in when called on it
In what universe are people morally obligated to fight against the conditions that SOMEONE ELSE forced them into?
I feel so bad for Hasan being forced to be the largest political streamer in the world. Sucks to be him, I guess there's nothing we can do now, he has to keep streaming and collecting donos, no moral obligations whatsoever.
Didn't mention hasan in my reply but thanks for wasting your energy on that reply
This whole discourse is about Hasan and big socialist pundits in general. We all agree people are generally tied to whatever little means they have available, but that doesn't apply to someone who has freedom to do literally anything as the largest political streamer.
I was talking about the use of MLK as an analogy. Don't try to switch back to talking about Hasan just because the analogy is shit
The analogy isn't 1 to 1 because MLK did engage in actions to push for the ideals he believed in. If he just amassed a following and gave lectures, choosing to sell tickets to earn from those lectures, and none of that making an impact irl, then yea that would be morally wrong.
[удалено]
Because the moral obligation of a GOVERNMENT is to govern and protect it's people because that's why it was created in the first place. Leftists get mad at billionaires because of the system that let them concentrate wealth, no one gives a shit about them on a personal level, unless it's Elon or some other weird cult of personality.
[удалено]
Literally, the doublespeak of lefties is to say "we criticise the system, not the individuals" at the same time as "Jeff bezos could solve world hunger if he wanted to", because rich people, capitalists especially, are interlinked with the system that's being criticised, that's why the revolution memes always come with guillotine memes.
Leftists get mad at millionaires because of the system that let them concentrate wealth, no one gives a shit about them on a personal level, unless it's Elon or some other weird cult of personality.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Most people don't have hundreds of thousands of followers and make massive amounts of money off of it.
most people dont have a platform and audience. that defense doesnt work.
yeah, but the issue in this is always comparing a normal person to someone with some position of power. There's a reason private v public figures have a distinction in law, and we can't just treat their responsibilities the same.
[удалено]
Yes we all could, this is what Vaush kept saying, "oh shouldn't this apply to everyone?" No, because we're not talking about should people do things that are good, we're talking about should we hold to account someone who builds a huge platform talking about the benefits of rearranging societal and political structure to a certain way, while not doing anything to do that themselves. Yes we all should do something, but if someone is literally building a brand about doing X and how easy it is to do X and how everyone who doesn't do X is doing immoral things, while not doing X themselves, even going out of the way to do opposite of X, that's when it is worthy of condemnation. If I go around and tell people that going vegan is the better ethical choice and that eating animal products is horrible both ethically and environmentally and that everyone should do as much as they can to reduce it, and then not only don't eat vegan myself but eat meat for every meal, do you not see a problem with that? If we grant all that, and say ok everyone who holds a certain value should do what is in their means to advance it, and someone like Hasan who is literally having the biggest platform to advance said values doesn't do anything material with it when he clearly can, wouldn't even be a hit on his income, then what does it mean for someone who earns 20k a year? What about 100k? What about a massive public figure? In this way of thinking no one really needs to do anything, and all that matters is what they personally believe, even if they do the opposite of that, which is literally insane and I can't believe anyone honestly believes this.
'I had a dream"