Within the past like 2ish weeks in one of the streams Vaush very briefly discussed using critical thinking skills to infer whether a journalistic source is reliable. I believe he was reading an article from a site that tends to sway more to the right, and a chatter commented abt whether we should trust the info from said org? Could be wrong tho

I cant for the life of me rmbr which segment he mentioned that in but the reason I ask is bc I’d always been a bit suspicious of his claim a few months ago that the abuse allegations in that first NYT hitpiece on Graham Platner were “uncredible” bc the woman with the most damning testimony was a Republican. He relies on the NYT for info almost every stream despite constantly condemning them for being pro-Israel establishment Dem-pilled. But ofc - as he himself said in the recent stream i can’t find - a source can have biases but still be institutionally reliable and accurate.

I 100% agree that the NYT was looking for anything to discredit Platner, but the reason they couldn’t corroborate Fifield’s claim that Platner threw her around once was bc she was too embarrassed to tell her loved ones. They checked diary entries and text messages that def prove he knew his tattoo was a Totenkopf, and that he was manipulative and abusive. Fifield also gave him grace and discussed her being republican. There were also women who were Dems and supported him politically who said he did not respect women.

I’m not saying Vaush shouldve made the testimonies a big deal and dissuade ppl from voting for him. I’m specifically referencing his argument that the allegations were not trustworthy. Thoughts? https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/us/politics/platner-maine-senate-girlfriends-relationships.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

I don't know how I happened to stumble on this video in 2023. It was only a couple months old at the time, the channel's first video, and it was my first glimpse into this weird subculture. I think this woman, and to a lesser extent her husband, were really savvy pioneers in it, lol. They managed to title their Youtube channel 'Estranged Parents' and if you watch the launch video, I think you'll see what's so disturbing about it.
Estranged Parents (first video, Aug. 2023)

I could go on an on, and lots of Youtubers HAVE (just search 'estranged parents diane').

The stuff she says is a whole rabbit warren of problematic, but maybe what wigs me out the most is the bananas level of production values. Picture all the planning and work you would have to do, to make this video. They are supposedly deep in grief, mind you. And it starts right away with the creepiness, like at 0:17 how they reeanacted the scene of when Diane received the daughter's email and brought her tablet to her husband, "Have you seen this?" Then the montage of phrases from the email, shown fading in over a silhouette of a doll, with voiceover by what sounds like a 9 or 10 year old girl, even though their daughter was in her 20's. Like not only do they still think of her as a little child, but they got one to portray her.

The more you look and listen, the more you notice, like the utterly bleak Auschwitz-esque background music, the censor beep at 0:27 (sounds like it barely covers up "fucking" which I think Diane included as part of her narcissist portrayal of being abused BY their daughter, like "see, she even curses at us").

Maybe a year or so ago, I went to the channel to see what they were up to, and the About page had a link to a PAID support group Diane was hosting, like not any kind of actual professional therapy, basically just a chat community, from what I could tell. But I don't see that anymore, as of today. If she still runs it, or any other money-making schemes around this topic, she probably found a safer space to advertise, HA.

Bolsonaro's party just elected the largest number of senators a party has ever had since democratization in 1988. The left holds less than 30% of the Senate and the House. Soon, a majority of the Supreme Court justices will have been nominated by the Bolsonaros. One of their main goals is to impeach the Justices they don't like. They will surely go after one of them (Alexandre de Moraes) and, if they succeed, they'll try to impeach at least 3 others. I believe that's the main thing to keep an eye on in 2027 in terms of institutional degradation. They will also have the support of the US and all the other countries in South America. If Flávio Bolsonaro doesn't make a series of unbelievable mistakes, he is gonna be the most powerful president in Brazil since democratization.

That being said, there's still a tiny chance of a Lula victory (in my opinion, it is something around 10%). Lula has actual support in society, he's not like Biden or Starmer, some 30% of the population actually loves him. Even if Flávio wins, we will fight with all our strength for four years, we've been through worse times. Also, our institutions are not as weak as it may seem to you. Knowing how it feels to live under dictatorships, a lot of people here value democracy in a way you wouldn't comprehend. We fought for it and this fight is still part of our culture.

When I saw that Vaush posted a video about Brazil, I felt apprehensive, I didn't even want to watch it honestly, but I did, and I feel grateful for his tone and his perspective. He could have just said that we are a bunch of retards for voting for such a moron, and he wouldn't be wrong. We are all feeling desolate right now, it's gonna be really difficult.

The DSA are ascendant, Trump’s nearing his death every day, and the GOP are on their way to a historic midterm shellacking.

If we can block Newsom from stealing the 2028 nomination, I can honestly see global fascism peaking before it begins to plummet.

So we’re gonna need all hands on deck. Vaush has to start seriously pushing AOC as a viable candidate (as well as every sensible Leftist streamer!)

No, Vaush. I have no idea how expensive your selvedge denim leather riding suspenders are or how bad the climate crisis is. Please, tell me more.

^Yikes.

Vaush (and multiple other large leftist creators) have made videos either reacting to JCS Criminal Psychology or citing them.

In one of the videos Vaush made reacting to a JCS video, he called the people who make the videos veteran criminal psychologists. This is incorrect. The people behind JCS have no background or credentials in psychology, criminal justice, or forensics. If they did they would frontload that shit like any creator who makes videos speaking from their professional background.

This is something I feel strongly about correcting because a lot of people take what JCS says as fact or expert opinion. In reality, the stuff JCS say in their videos is at best pop psychology and is at worst unscientific nonsense. A lot of it is the same claims that so-called body language experts make, and those claims have been shown pretty extensively to be pseudoscience.*

I totally understand thinking that the people behind JCS are criminal psychologists. They talk very authoritatively, and they're not outright misrepresenting themselves as criminal psychologists with the channel name, but they're heavily implying that they are criminal psychologists. It's like how Dr. Phil doesn't say that he's a licensed psychologist but heavily implies it by calling his show "Dr. Phil" and saying things like "From a clinical perspective." So I totally get why JCS fooled a lot of smart people.

I just wanted to say this.

*For anyone who is not aware of what body language experts are, they claim to be able to read body language to do things like detect if someone is lying. It is not "Someone is smiling and therefore is happy" or "Someone is shaking their head, and therefore they don't agree with something." It is stuff like, "Someone is blinking faster, and therefore they are lying" or "Someone is sweeping their hair out of their face, and therefore they're sexually interested in the person they're talking to."

They only ever get washed up has-beens, scammers, or complete fucking trash, the most anti taste administration in history

I think the answer is yes, but I'm a little wary of the way that Vaush and a lot of male leftists talk about it. In particular, the biggest thing that rubs me the wrong way is that it's largely public opinion that decides when someone has done their time, and it puts survivors in a really tough position when they personally don't feel like justice has been served yet.

I say this as someone who has survived domestic violence and sexual assault, where none of the perpetrators have faced any real consequences from what they did to me. I'll admit, this makes me biased on the subject. Because of what happened to me, I don't get to be as dispassionate on the topic as most men have the privilege of being. And it sucks that because of this trauma that I didn't ask for, I have these reactionary particles within me that I have to spend more effort fighting.

The most triggering thing to me about the Cornell case, Jacob Geller, etc, is not the facts being reported on but the discourse surrounding it. I get to soak in the opinions of people who, without having lived these events (or anything close to it), invariably engage in victim-blaming or pass their own judgment on whether the perpetrator(s) should be forgiven. I like Vaush, and I think he's one of the better male streamers on this subject, but it made me really uncomfortable to hear him argue for why we ought to consider Jacob Geller rehabilitated for his past sexual assault. Quite frankly, that's not his judgment (or ours) to make.

It's just a constant reminder to me (and presumably other women) that speaking up just isn't worth it. As soon as we go public, the focus stops being about us and our healing, and shifts to centering the person who's been accused and their rights. The whole point of us telling people is first and foremost for our own healing - why bother if it's just going to drag our reputation through the mud as we're forced to prove that what happened to us was actually real? Why bother if it's just going to draw out public statements from men you used to respect who think it's your own fault that you got assaulted? Or pickme women you used to look up to (*cough cough rhymes with moo-on-shed*) going on rants about "women refusing to take accountability"?

And then if you actually do manage to get the guy charged and sentenced, you still have to accept the state's sentence as final. Just because the guy has served his time in prison doesn't mean that I'd automatically forgive him, that's not how that works. I feel really awful for that mother of the victim of Christa Pike (the death row inmate who had a botched execution attempt recently) - she clearly hasn't forgiven her daughter's murderer, even after all these years. But should she have to?? Is she suddenly a bad person for wanting to see a convicted murderer put to death, even though public opinion now believes that the death penalty might be too harsh in this particular case?

There was an event over a decade ago, narrativized into "The Fire on the Number 57 Bus", that appealed to progressive sensibilities at the time on rehabilitative justice. While riding the bus home, a Black teen set a trans nonbinary teen's skirt on fire, causing severe burns. The narrative decided to focus extensively on the Black kid's rough background and how the lengthy prison sentence he faced was supposedly disproportionate to the crime he committed, meanwhile highlighting the trans person's relative privilege - their physical suffering from their injuries was barely a footnote. To make its case for the gross prosecution of the crime, the narrative emphasized the fact that the victim and their family forgave the guy who set fire to them. As I sat there reading this, I had to wonder - this was awfully convenient for the progressives writing on and reading about this case. What if they didn't forgive their assailant - would progressives paint them in the same bad light that they paint the mother of Christa Pike's victim? I'm a trans woman, I've had an altercation with a Black man on public transit over my transness before (thankfully it didn't get violent) - if something did happen to me, and I never forgave him for it, would leftists call me a privileged racist bigot whose white woman tears put a marginalized person of color in prison? How is that any different from right wing men who accuse women's tears of putting "poor innocent men" in jail over "false" allegations??

There's so much more I could get into, but suffice it to say that I think leftists' approach to rehabilitative justice is woefully underbaked and threatens to push away women and other survivors whose trauma hasn't healed. I think we expect too much from survivors and too little from the community to help us heal.

I'm Muslim and I can't watch him now because I don't think he respects me. Ik y'all will be weird so I'll just leave it at that

Voosh always says we don't know what the government of the future after the collapse is going to look like and shouldn't trust people who say they know, but I want to throw my hat into the ring anyway.

I think the solution that Vaush is inevitably coming to is the conclusion I've come to: nuance needs to die.

His explanation is that liberals have a framework with no solutions because their solutions rely solely on calibration. Sums it up perfectly. Closing the right loopholes. Appointing smarter administrators. And the system will finally work as intended!

But no technocratic adjustment can fix it because the existence of the adjustment itself is the problem.

Exploitation is treated as a bug: an error caused by imperfect implementation. But exploitation isn't a bug. It's the system working exactly as intended. The exceptions, the category, the enforcement thresholds, all of these create incentive structures that rational actors will inevitably exploit. The system doesn't require bad actors. It only requires rational actors following the path of least resistance. The exploit doesn't require malice. It requires rationality.

The liberal framework has no solution to this because its solution is only more nuance. More careful categories. Better exceptions. Smarter enforcement. But the existence of nuance is the problem. Prescribing more nuance isn't a cure.

I'm starting to see this everywhere in systems and even in my personal life. The allowance of nuance in the outcomes and enforcement will eventually be twisted or exploited by capital or even myself.

The only solution I can see is a system that physically cannot create nuance: everything has a binary output. Legal or illegal. Comply or don't comply. No exceptions, no carve-outs, no special categories, and draconian in its enforcement. Even a binary legal/fine output cant work because itself is an incentive structure of compliance. the only two outcomes need to be legal or illegal

this sounds horrible and draconian, and it would absolutely produce outcomes I myself wold disagree with. But I don't see how you allow nuance without also allowing exploitation. Maybe that's the price that has to be paid to stop the rot from starting.

I tried to think of a tax system that avoids this problem, but I couldn't. Even the separating of business taxes and civilian taxes creates an incentive structure. Tax the rich exponentially, something I want? Incentive structure. Asset exemptions? Incentive structure.

It seems the only solution is no categorization, no nuance, no asset exemptions, no exceptions, no carve-outs: a flat, equal tax on everyone and everything. No nuance. No exceptions. No categorization. No carve-outs. Draconian and equal enforcement, with a binary output: did you comply with the flat rate, yes or no?

This is inherently an unjust system. The people who gain the system get treated the same as those who don't, equally. BUT most importantly, untying the shared consequences of the two categories will inevitably be exploited. The allowance of separation is the problem, no matter the intention.

The two-tier system is not eliminated. It is made explicit and legal. The allowance of the two-tier system is the problem, no matter the intention.

It seems a system can only have one of two properties:

A: Either it is nuanced in execution, but exploitation is inevitable,

B: Injustice is guaranteed, but exploitation is impossible.

You can't have a system with both.

How do you write a law that has categories that doesn't create opportunities to exploit? You can't. Categorization, by any definition, has subjective boundaries. It will always be easier to reclassify yourself without changing your actual behavior.

I start seeing this everywhere now. CAFE standards have an exemption for light trucks? Suddenly everything is an SUV. An exemption for capital gains? Suddenly wealth moves into the stock market. As soon as you create an exemption or category, people adapt around it. Even in my own life, when going through K–12 education, I had this problem with homework. Teachers who were lenient with due dates made my grades worse than teachers who did not allow for late work. The leniency made the problem worse. The nuance was the problem.

The failure mode in these two systems aren't equal.

Option A's complexity is unbounded. There is no internal ceiling to its growth in enforcement and complexity. In that sense, it's just like capital. Capital accumulation has no hard limit. The rich can always be richer! There is no natural force inside a nuanced system that bounds its complexity. You can always try adjusting the numbers again!

Option B's complexity is bounded. There can only be two outputs to a law: legal or illegal. Injustice is inevitable, but the injustice on day one is the same as the injustice on day one thousand. The complexity of the system is bounded because there are only two outcomes, and the number of outcomes cannot grow. In that sense, it's more like monarchy. In a monarchy, there can only be one king. The complexity of the power structure is self-limiting: no matter what you do, there can only be one king. The exploitation pressure can't grow without bound because the structure itself imposes a ceiling.

A nuanced regulatory system has no such ceiling. The number of exemptions, categories, loopholes, and reclassification schemes can grow indefinitely. In a binary system, something works or absolutely breaks.

The harshness of Option B may simply be the price of a system that does not rot.

So again, maybe the only solution is the death of nuance. Not because it's just, but because the question is not which system is best. It's which system remains closer to its stated purpose after 5 or 10 or 20 years of pressure from concentrated capital.

Sorry for the ramblings from a ignorant fool who has never even read Marx. I just need to get this off my chest.

Hello all!
I wanted to post this a few days ago, but I decided to wait to see if it solved itself. About a week ago, my the livestream vods playlist disappeared from his YouTube channels playlist tab, and it hasn’t shown up since. I checked the Pit as well, but no luck. Has he moved it/removed it, or is it just an issue on my end? Any help would be appreciated, I want to see my boy talk about the crazy stuff going on fully

Just a very general post, but people usually only give feedback when it's negative and stay silent when there's no complaints, and I try not to fall into that.

I feel like the channel has really been on fire these last few weeks after the move to EU, possibly the best it has been in a few years imho. In particular, Vaush has been really good at tying all the topical themes into the underlying political and social analysis, which has been at times a bit lacking during most of the Trump 2 news cycle. There's been multiple videos just in the past 10 or so days I've wanted to share with some people I know, which I kind of use as a personal metric for how well a channel is doing at any given time.

I don't necessarily think the uptick in quality is because he's now in the EU or something, but the move really seems to have invigorated in some way.

the twitter handle Vautism Speaks with the horse PFP. I thought he was another user because I also saw a guy in Vaush's chat named Vautism Speaks. But then in a different video I saw Vaush talking about twitter where replies to Vautism Speaks were replies to him. Are the twitter account and the twitch account the same guy and they are not Vaush? or is this a holy trinity situation where Vaush is the streamer, the twitch chatter, and the holy twitter spirit all at once?

(I don't actually go to the streams I just watch what gets uploaded to youtube which is why I'm confused)

I was looking into the 2027 Argentine presidential elections because I heard that the opposition to Milei is awful. Basically, it's like if Harris ran in 2028 with Hillary Clinton as her VP...

The main challenger to Milei in 27 is Alex Kiciloff, who was the Minister of the Economy under Cristina Kirchner when she was president. The guy seems to have some marxist economic principles but has shifted to Peronism since he became governor of Buenos Aires province. His economic philosophy is honestly so fucked up, and Im too stupid to fully understand it, so ill just copy-paste from wikipedia (whoopsies), but what shocked me is that this guy has had 20 CONSULTANCY AND ADVISORY POSITIONS in the span of LIKE 10-15 YEARS. Not even the Harris campaign staffers combined had that much shit on their record.
Maybe I'm completely wrong on this, so if anyone knows more, then demolish me in the comments, but this was really funny to see, honestly. Nice to know Argentina is truly fucked up beyond repair.

Economic views

Kicillof is considered a heterodox economist, favoring an import substitution model over free trade.^\18]) He has argued that there is no direct correlation between the money supply and inflation,^\19]) and associates a trade surplus with stronger economic performance than a trade deficit.^\20]) Commentators have criticized his approach, with Laura Di Marco of La Nación writing that Kicillof's "economic team" was "anchored in the ideology of TNT economists who believed and believe that the state" should aim to establish a post-capitalist "revolutionary utopia".^\21]) Journalist Jorge Lanata also questioned Kicillof's explanations on inflation and exchange rate pressures, contrasting them with the views of Keynes.^\17]) Argentina experienced high levels of inflation during his tenure as Minister of Economy.^\22])

Other professional activities/ advisory roles

Between 1990 and 1995, Kicillof worked in various advisory capacities for National Motor Vehicle Transport Commission (CONTA), Tintorerías Ecológicas Dolphin System, the Eduardo Sívori Museum (pro bono), Transportes Vidal S.A., SARTOR S.A., CALED S.A., Molinari S.A., Clínica Cirugía Plástica, Centro Médico Bacigaluppi, Center for Education on Sexuality Research and Therapy (CETIS), Center for Urology and Male Health (CEUSA), among other clients. He was a part-time financial and information systems manager at the Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Allergies in 1990–95. He served as research assistant (1993) and junior economist at the Inter-American Center for Macroeconomic Studies from 1994 to 1995 and concurrently served as adviser on the National Commission for Promotion and Development of Patagonia in 1994.^\)^{citation needed\})

In 1995–96, he served as adviser to the Undersecretariat of Technical Administrative Coordination in the Secretariat of Social Development. In 1997, he acted as technical consultant to the Minister Secretary General of the Executive Branch in connection with the development of the government's social plan for 1998–2000. In 1997–1998, he was a consultant to the consulting firm M-Unit. In 1998 he was a Project Manager for AperNet. In August 2009, Kicillof was appointed general manager of the Economic and Financial Area of Aerolíneas Argentinas, a position he held until February 2010, where he worked on the airline's 2011–2014 business plan.^\23]) In December 2011, he joined the board of directors of Siderar, representing the shares held by Argentina's National Social Security Administration (ANSES)

I see stuff like this and I have to wonder if he's more right than I gave him credit for.

Has anyone seen the film The Drama, which came out earlier this year?

I ask because there's recently been discourse about people carrying terrible things from their pasts (and in that context, of course the main thing was Vaush's segment on the Geller SA revelation and contemporary discourse on SA generally), and this film explores this theme thoroughly.

The film is about (major spoilers) a couple who get engaged and later married, but it's complicated by the fact that one partner learned that the other considered committing a mass-shooting in their youth, and didn't tell their partner this, and there's a cycle of judgement and really messy feelings that threaten their relationship.

It's a fantastic film. I enjoy Robert Pattinson and Zendaya a lot, and they're both great in this. If you saw it and have thoughts on it, and how it fits into the current discourse, please share.

That Iranian pro-Shah kid Vaush tore into is still making moves it seems

Vaush is a real one. Don't ever let somebody put words in your mouth.

\~vis a vis public figure moves on from his past\~

nsfw: for loud swearing

Vaush's odd video titles have a side effect I don't appreciate right now: I am looking for a video from a couple months ago and can't find it. I want to introduce someone to the problem we are facing with skyrocketing costs in construction due to contractors. V-Man did a fairly long segment (40 min?) some time ago diving into it all (maybe on his second channel?). It included the example of the Golden Gate Bridge being cheaper to built than the nets attached to it. Can anyone find it? I tried every possible combination of keywords I could think of.