After much procrastination THE MERCH STORE is finally here! mentiswave-merch.printify.me/products Also subscribestar is open with some extra content!: www.subscribestar.com/mentiswave
It's pretty common to hear in conservative circles that conservatives think liberals are wrong, but liberals think conservatives are evil. People like Vaush remind me of the part in Jonathan Haidt's book the righteous mind where he observes that conservatives are more likely to give an accurate summary of liberal beliefs but not the other way around. Which makes total sense when looking through the lens of wrong vs evil. If someone is wrong you can still persuade them or agree to disagree, can't do that if you genuinely believe that the other person is evil and irredeemable.
This is why have distanced myself from the left despite being left-center myself. I noticed it was all just bad faith from leftists while conservatives actually accurately described and understood leftist talking points for the most part. It made everyone on the left seem so disingenous.
@@Neko_Marionot exactly. He may be economically socialist, but socially (love english) liberal. But most of people who claim to be these aren't really social liberals.
@@polishscribe674 True but I didn't mention liberalism. Specifically modern western liberalism which is what most socialists today are socially. (Indeed English) Classical Liberalism on the otherhand or more of a form of social conservativism in the sense of natural law and order. To be fair though "conservative" seems to have near infinite different meanings anymore.
@Ethertask Sebastian(LGB+H) They also completely miss the point going after right-wing talking heads and fail to detect the society-wide backlash against woke-ism. Constant gaslighting us that the 'culture war' is fake and ginned up by the right-wing-osphere.
Actualy Vaushs coconut argument is even weaker, because he creates the coconut monopoly by a (implausible) coincidence, rather then the function of the market.
And Vaush also makes the assumption that, in such a situation, one survivor would even care at all to have a "monopoly". History shows us that in extreme situations, people generally throw trivial nonsense like that to the winds and band together for mutual survival, regardless of race, nationality, or even language barriers.
@@HelghastStalker But even if you would demand more from a more foreign person who's outside your moral circle, that's fine. It's completely understandable that you would sacrifice the most for people the furthest inside your moral circle like your children and spouse then do less as people are less related to you. Leftists have blown out moral circles because they merely conform to the regime no matter what unnatural damaging things it promotes
@@StrayChoomWait, so your argument is that Trump is a fascist, and Musk is a fascist, and because they’re totally fascists vaush is actually right? They’re not even close to fascist, and all you’ve proven is you agree with a sun because you’re equally stupid and/or evil.
@@StrayChoomproblem is that Ur-fascism isn’t an accurate way to describe a fascist because it would literally describe anyone who isn’t a leftist or most atheists Note: the works of classical fascists and neofascist like evola could come up with a better guide for telling who is a fascist who is not
Sowell started his college years as a MARXIST, but over time he had enough integrity and the ability to self-reflect and he saw Marxism and by extension Socialism in all forms for the petty, pseudo-intellectual grift it always was. He then dedicated his life to exposing it for the utter scam it always has been. If people had picked up some Sowell instead of the vapid tripe that is the Communist Manifesto, we'd have been MUCH better off. Besides, Marx was basically a Vaush prototype, the same cringy, hipster neck-beard.
@@luizclaudio527 Name a part of the USSR where pineapples can be grown. Just because the country is big doesn’t mean it can produce everything for itself. The USSR not having the same access to global trade is one thing on the myriad of reason why it was unsuccessful. I don’t intend on debating about this so let’s just stop here.
@@jonathanmaves3360 Does socialism need pineapples? (Im kidding, Im not gonna be this petty) Fair enough, I just think we have more than enough evidence to show that state control over the economy is waaaaay worse then any embargo could ever be for said economy. We can now cordialy end the discussion here.
@@YouAreStillNotablaze You mean besides the time where he thinks killing Millions of Jews would lead to a better world? Or the time he says denying the Holocaust isn't amoral, has defended Marx's antisemitic diatribes etc.
The fact that Squid Game was intended as a critique of capitalism is especially ironic when you consider that the living space the contestants share is basically a commune.
Unfortunately alot of people missed that squid games is NOT AMERICAN so the cultural hallmarks aren't all there. S. Korea is basically cyberpunk tier mega corporate hellhole with their large conglomerates holding significant amounts of political power and choking out home grown competition through both economies of scale along with the sledgehammer of government. Squid game is actually very topical to people, just NOT TO YOU, BECAUSE ITS NOT MADE FOR AMERICANS. NOT EVERYTHING IS FOR AMERICANS!
@@ayathados6629 Okay, but how does that refute my point? The conditions of the game are still closer to communism than the capitalism it's supposed to damn.
@@AngelicusEXperiment that's because it's not a critique of capitalism from your own point of view. It's a critique of the modern state of capitalism within KOREA, and how KOREANS feel within the system that is indeed a mega corporate cyberpunk "egalitarian" hellhole, where corporate monopolies literally control the government. Either look at it through the lense of a Korean now, or you lose the inherent meaning of the art and run into the issues you're seeing now. Sure, it can apply to stalinism or communism- but in this case, its explicitly occuring this way in this place. Or, in simpler terms. Squid game is an idiomatic metaphor, and you're an ESL. You just *don't get it* until you learn more about it
I have a background in accounting and passed the CPA. His take on gains in wealth being income is an outright lie. It is insanely dumb. He HAS to know that this is a lie.
I hope you contribute to your household and society more than you contribute to discussion if takes such as these are what you start your conversations with
"Cuba failed because the US embargo'd them, dude!" To steal a quote from Destiny, "If your country is consistently getting blown away by another country, I'd rather be a member of that other country". He was saying it in reference to anarchism and socialism in vietnam, basically that if your country is so weak that some dude can just roll in and flatten it, your country is worse than his. Not in the moral sense, but in the "A defenseless utopia is a worse place to live than a shitty dictatorship, because at least in the dictatorship, you're not being murdered" kinda way. Being able to withstand external pressures is an important part of any system. It's not that might makes right, but it can find who's wrong. Similarly, if your epic socialist economy can only survive on capitalist life support, then your system is worse than capitalism. If america permits you to trade, and america permits you to act, and america permits you to live, you're basically just a colony, pretending to be independent. And it's probably not a smart idea to dedicate your life to shit talking the guy who can unplug your life support.
What gets me enraged is that the left has gotten so much power that they can literally pick and choose which conservative voices to amplify so they can keep playing the victim forever.
But… conservatives do the exact same thing though…? Don’t they? I feel like literally all sides are extremely guilty of straw-manning their opposition, because we do it unconsciously without even realizing it.
@@TheCognitiveDissident Everyone can eventually do it. But let's be honest, the left uses it way more than conservatives, because conservatives tries to focus on more technical issues, while leftists on social issues, which are more subjective and prone to appeal to emotion manipulation. One example is that not much conservatives are going to stop buying from someone because this one is leftists, but leftists are going to campaign against someone if they know they are what they deem fascist.
Embargoes shouldnt matter. If you cant get oil farm by horsplow. If a soceity is an embaroged utopia people should be living healthy happy lives even if they dont have the most modern foreign phones.
@@BlueSky-tw6iq well Vaush has also made some very racist/sexist comments about black women in particular so that does indicate a certain level of prejudice. Although I think the Elon Musk example was wide of the mark seeing as how he is white and likely reason Vaush dislikes him is fact he is a billionaire
@@BlueSky-tw6iq you mean apart from videos of him justifying his use of the N word, saying all black women sound the same and getting banned from twitch for using the term cracker as a slur against white people? I mean its not like he was banned in Dec 2021 for racism right?
"He's [Elon] a demon, the humanity has left his body." Didn't Alex Jones go off on this rant with "Hillary Clinton is a goddamn demon?" The parallels are hilarious.
One if them gets pushed by the algorithm and the other gets censored into obscurity so their husky exterior and poorly trimmed chops are where the similarities end.
Comparing vaush to Alex Jones is extremely insulting to Alex. Alex may be a bit nuts, but he is at least right on many occasions. He just gets very... passionate. :) Vaush is physically incapable of forming a rational though, much less come to an intelligent conclusion...
@@schnek8927Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any stories about Jones being sus with children or animals. Something we definitely can't say about Vaush
Leftist Americans: Oh, socialism is so great, a perfect political and economic system. Every problem would be fixed if we adpoted communist ideas. Eastern Europeans: ...wut?
Fun fact: Castro actually admitted that the economic problems they were facing were from bad economic planning. There's a interview that where he admits that himself so that embargo argument is really funny because they're trying to cover up a problem that the guy that caused it pretty much said "yeah i fucked up the economic planning lmao"
That's also a copout answer, because you CANNOT plan economics effectively in any way whatsoever. That would require quantum computer levels of calculations just for a single second of data. it just cannot be kept up with. The free market is the worlds greatest economic calculator, able to determine pricings and market data just through economic activity. Socialism and authoritarian economics will never ever work because of this principle.
I watched Vaush's response to Freedomtoon's gender video. Holy shit was it bad. It was essentially a bunch of word salad non-arguments about how "Gender is actually bi-modal" that really don't disprove anything the video said. And also he tries to say that there is no way to define what a chair is, and the way he says "Wait, hold on." Genuinely made me want to punch him in the face.
His "rebuttal", if you could call it that, to both Razorfist's and Eric July's videos on how the Nazis were always Socialists, was equally cringe. Neither profess to be intellectuals, but both BTFO that pseudo-intellectual simp Vaush with ease.
He had a "debate" with a gender studies professor and didn't read any of his work beforehand. So he spent the full hour just stating and restating his answer to "what is a woman" in order avoid any clear position. The professor immediately realized what was happening and barely even tried to debate him.
I've been following Vaush for about two weeks, I think he's just a nercisist who is very good at reciting fancy words and change the subject to his favor while arguing
Dang I’m kinda sad you never covered his opinion on gender and sex. He literally just lied about science and biology 100 of times basically saying “men who have more testosterone are more of men (even though if I would say something like “I lift more than you so I’m more of a man he would call that toxic masculinity)” and he also said that women having facial hair as women being closer to a “man” so she’s on a different part of the spectrum. It’s crazy
If only he worded it better, it's not a spectrum but people can have varying levels of testosterone and estrogen in their bodies. Men typically have more testosterone than estrogen and vice versa for women. It, at the very least was, believed that epigenetics and exposure to more estrogen or testosterone in the womb for instance, for men and women respectively, could influence sexuality. Alongside environmental factors like if you grew up in an all girl or boy environment. Dudes are usually bigger and stronger because of the testosterone. Men who transition into women will usually start taking estrogen and this causes a variety of changes, namely the development of breasts and hair growth changing. Women taking testosterone will experience bottom growth, where the clit grows into a pseudo penis
Leftist debate can be pretty much summed up as; "describing left wing systems, calling them right wing, saying theyre bad, and concluding they need to be replaced with the bad system they just described".
I wish no one argued for equality of outcome. Ask any bread tuber how they know racism exists and they all start pointing to stats about outcomes like incarceration rates and income levels.
@@1three7 everywhere pretty much, in the internet too, what do you think people who say things like "kill all 🇳 🇮 🇬 🇬 🇪 🇷 🇸 " are? not racist? yes you could argue many people who say things like that are joking, but you'd be delusional if you think that it's ALWAYS a joke
If you are telling me that colorblindness is wrong because it tends to ignore (obfuscate problems along racial lines, in Vaush' words), then I will notice all the flaws and character shortcomings that every human being has. Flaws like 'Gypsies are dishonest', 'Asians are sneaky', etc. will tend to stick to my mind, as I am human and will tend to listen to that kind of characterization. Which is precisely what the idea of color blindness is intended to prevent
He is a former UN worker that was big in favor of mass migration, and got grifted into the mainstream by willing mainstream media outlets to gatekeep young men with basic bitch knowledge. He's a closeted communist, and drug addict loser and coward that hates anonymity. Debunk that.
The biggest tell that Vouche is full of shit is the fact that he accepts donations while he sits and bellyaches about the very same systems that are in place that allow him to accept donations.
@@Neko_Mario Probably. I'm not sure. I never really asked my Dad and Grandpa that question when they were alive. I think it's safe to assume that that was pretty much their synonym for it.
@@Rebel_Railroad_Productions Just by their names I would also have to assume so. Definitely sounded like fun people to be able to come up with that name.
I like how most common arguments against people arguing against the coconut island thing is just to say it’s an analogy don’t look to deep into it your to dumb to understand analogy’s like if your analogy is shit expect it to be responded to
Leftists hate being outed for lying in their premises. They COUNT on you not rejecting the premise of their arguments. Never blindly accept their premise or stats without checking first.
"...get rid of capital..." - Vaush How? A person's time is capital. A person's knowledge is capital. A person's skill is capital. Heck, even a person's ability to move something from A to B could be seen as capital. Getting rid of capital would require either denying that people don't intrinsically have capital or killing everyone. Given the track record of communist states, I'm not so sure that the latter is that farfetched.
@@antoinet.6895 You are actively defending a man using Greek philosophy style mental gymnastics, that isn't even right when it comes to Marxism or Communist states...
I understand this is an old video, but I would recommend looking into what Fascism and Nazism actually are as ideologies. The terms are so often misused not just in how they are applied but in what they refer to. The entire left right spectrum is pointless. Nazism and fascism are both forms of socialism just like how Marxism is. They are all left wing. Hitler was such a proponent of socialism that his entire reason for exterminating the Jews was because he believed that while the “Jewish deep state” existed a true socialist utopia could not be achieved for the Aryan race.
True, the free market to fascism pipeline makes no sense under logical interpretation. Capitalism taken to its "extreme" would result in complete private control of the means of production and the dissapearance of the public sector (the state), not in the complete control of the economy under a totalitarian state. Both fascism and national socialism come from socialist tradition and thought and follow socialist economic theories. The idea that these are "right wing" is just a grift my marxists to denounce very similar ideologies from competing on their ideological ground
Exactly. It is hilarious that people buy into this nonsense that nationalism and racism are some far right position. It's just propaganda. The Nazi system was pretty much 75% of the way to complete state ownership and unionization, oh but they were racist therefore they were right wing? Lmfao
It's not pointless, it's an exercise in obfuscation by redefinition. The modern American right is not the same thing as the original French right, the former trending towards classical liberalism and the latter being monarchists.
@@brandonbackup873 You do make a good point. Also, the whole "RIght-wing Fascists" fallacy was concocted by Communists to demonize political opponents as well as anyone who tried to expose what the Commies were REALLY up to. The whole thing was one big gaslight and supposed "intellectuals" fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Mentis Wave, thank you so much for allowing me to sleep to night, vaush makes me feel so uneasy that people actually believe what he says without a fight and you have convinced me that my possible future grandchildren will have the chance to live in a SANE COUNTRY, untold and unspeakable blessings to you!!!
I recently checked Wikipedia's article on breadtube because hey turns out there is one. I mean, its allright at explaining what they are but damn does it go off the rails mid way through. Kinda regretting writing a paper defending Wikipedia as a vaild soruse back in high school.
Wikipedias whole list of articles on breadtube, the alt-right and similar things is laughable. Everything in it cites biased media as proof of something and is wildly inconsistent with it's own definitions.
Wikipedia is helpful as an index for actual sources. Wikipedia should never be relied upon as an authority on anything. Scroll to the bottom, click the sources, and decide for yourself.
Wikipedia is a good source for stuff that doesn’t involve politics.the political articles ended up getting claimed by different groups and become biased
it shows how the accumulation of capital and tendency toward monopoly, features of capitalism and things that could have happened before you were born or in the analogy before you wake up, create coercive outcomes.
@@fatpenguin0089 Oh here you are in another comment. Read the works of Adam Smith, and you can see how stupid this sort of thinking is. Capitalism doesn't, and isn't meant, to be a functional way of managing resources between a few people in a limited space. Anybody capitalist who thinks this way hasn't read the works of economists. Capitalism really only becomes viable when a society becomes too large to be able to support gift-economies, because then you can't not have interactions between strangers over goods. The Coconut Island Analogy isn't just a simplification, but actively gives up many key features that make up capitalism. The lack of a sufficiently large population is one thing, also the presence of only one good, the limiting of that good to a single area how it is literally impossible, even if you hold a monopoly in the market, to hold a monopoly over a resource, and the ignorance of shifts within the market and innovation. These are all not features of capitalism, and since they are not included, it invalidates any usefulness which the Coconut Island Analogy provides. Socialism has a tendency towards authoritarianism, as that is the only way that the means of production can be given to the "people" (people being whoever is in charge), and the tendency is for that the authoritarianism to be maintained to keep this from changing. Even if you are correct, a tendency is not proof of an actuality. Individuals have a tendency towards monopoly (or authoritarianism and submission to the party), but not capitalism itself. The idea is that those tendencies of individuals balance each other out. You are right, coercive outcomes exist. Now the actual argument is just how coercive certain things are. A state is much more coercive than somebody else's private property.
@@isaac6077 History shows us that in extreme situations, people generally throw trivial nonsense like that to the winds and band together for mutual survival, regardless of race, nationality, or even language barriers. In a situation like this, with only two survivors of a plane crash, having a "monopoly on coconuts" wouldn't even be thought of. But let's go with it. Survivor 1 says I can perform fellatio on him or I don't get a coconut. Those aren't the only two options here. I can indeed choose to perform fellatio, but I can also choose to fish and trap smaller animals and forage for edible plants, therefore bypassing this supposed "monopoly" entirely and even becoming more resource-independent than Survivor 1. I can also use the threat of violence to intimidate Survivor 1 into giving me a coconut anyway. If I'm really willing to push things, I can even use the threat of violence to make Survivor 1 knock the coconut out of the tree *for* me, therefore ensuring I'll eat for free with little effort on my part and turning Survivor 1 into a coerced laborer (slave). Survivor 1 can choose to, in turn, rebuke me and call my threat out. This means I either have to back down, or make good on my threats of violence, which means I have to consider Survivor 1's physique and any knowledge of combat skills when compared to my own, and then consider if I have reasonable chances of winning the fight while not becoming too injured myself. Therefore, not only is his "coconut island" analogy failing to prove his point by being completely off the mark, it also ignores basic human behavior and bedrock-level fundamentals of human interaction on any scale.
@@HelghastStalker A common problem with analogies I find. They put you in a situation where you get only two options and nothing else as if there isn't a third option of ignoring the situation and doing what you want anyway. Not always a good choice but it's still a choice you can take, just mind the consequences. If you're trhing to train an AI, I get it but otherwise it just makes people look stupid.
this is wrong. if it would be true the us would highly encourage saving money. on your premise germany tries to save money out of their debt. doesn't work either. saving money is one step before burning it. saving kills the economy since the money saved is out of the loop. the loop gets "smaller". when it's smaller less transections happen what is just another way of saying: production is less profitable. why do you think the stock market exists? because it solves (or should I say solved) the very problem of saved money becoming dead money. your savings become the fund of another company so the money doesn't leave the economy, for the chance of getting more back (or less). this whole thing exists just for the sole reason to be an alternative for saving money. and by design of our system saving money is very unprofitable. you will always lose while saving. while you have a chance to hold your worth or make it more by investing. no rich person on this planet saves money or became rich by saving money. not possible. you can only get rich by spending/investing. by design.
Lowkey this is really a genius perspective. They don't hate poor people they just hate that people don't understand there's a way out of their lifestyle.
Vaush is like the political Kent Hovind. He doesnt actually understand the things he talks about or tries to refute, but he's so good at sounding like he has expertise that people without any critical thinking accept everything he says at face value. You can look at his chats. They're just a massive echo chamber.
The only thing that the island analogy really shows is that you probably don't want to crash on an island with vaush cause he's trying to wake up first and steal all the shit.
Vaush uses the same time old grift of "agree with us we are the good guys, they are the bad guys" classic division bullshit. Dude loves to hear himself talk.
The coconut situation is absurdly weak, because I'm just going to catch fish and watch you struggle after your only food source spoils in a couple days. When nature takes its course, I've got lots of bait for a crab trap. That's not even a proper monopoly, that's just an episode of Gillagains Island.
With Labor Voucher his idea is basically something that in Mexico was known as a Tienda de Raya, basically a shop located where you work, the money you earn is not real money but instead money that can only be used in your specific Tienda de Raya, and you would only earn enough money to buy your basics, and if you wanted (needed) something more you would be forced to say you were going to pay for it later, making it impossible for you to get a different job because no other job was going to give you the type of money you needed, so in essence you were a slave of the place you were working at.
The US used to do this too. "The company store" was an old trap used to keep people in all but indetured servitude to a business. It's pretty fucked up.
@@The24thWightyeah, my family from WV used to work in coal mines and I've heard stories about and even seen the items and currency from those company stores. It's horrible
This is not what he was saying. He was saying that instead of the money that people are paid for bad jobs being the incentive, labor vouchers given to the workers by the government would be able to be used to buy goods but not reinvest into capital. They would be usable at any store or place of business, not only at the company
You're spot on with The coconut island thing being about monopolies and not capitalism. I've countered it like this: What if you woke up and a co-operative has all the coconuts and says 'suck our _' and we will let you into the coop? - Same problem. What if you woke up and a small state has formed with all the 'workers' voting and they say 'we will make you a citizen if you suck our _' - Same problem. You can insert any analogy for whatever more socialist system they are arguing for and you get the same conclusion.
Sadly, at this point, I don't think it's mere clickbait, the more I see of Identity politics, the more I believe is pure misanthropy. Clickbait has limits, but when powered by an ideology that loves a threat narrative, it never really has an end. It's why ideologies like feminism doesn't have an end, it wasn't designed to help women, but harm men. One thing I will have to disagree with on you, as feminism has no good ideas and was never good in any way.
All socialist streamers grow up wealthy and don’t do actual work for a living so it’s easy to pick all the problems you see in the system you live in but that same system allows you to live a life 1000x better than a king would 200 years ago
I'd add a couple more things, such as how Equality of Opportunity as mentioned by economists such as Sowell really should be Freedom of Opportunity. George Reisman wrote on this and there is an excerpt on this subject from one of his books online. He also spoke with Tom Woods as well on the very subject. I'd also would recommend looking into the mutual-aid/fraternal societies that were replaced by the welfare state we have today. As they're largely ignored by the breadtube/left wing progressive types for some reason. Which makes for a better argumentation that to debate on the viability of UBI. Which Anthony Sammeroff's book (which is freely available) provides the arguments for and against. Luckily even if a socialist system was to be successfully imposed on all of us, there would be a ready and viable counter-economic market to undermine it. Which would be attacking the system from within while the central system shoots itself in the foot. It is funny how Vaush went out swinging against Thomas Sowell with no knowledge on his work. A good portion of which provides great counter narratives to actual racists and providing solutions that are historically relevant.
I've always hated the "muh rich people don't do taxes because muh stocks", then you point out the obvious that they're taxed when the stocks are sold. Holding a stock that appreciates in value is not an income. You can't point to a stock that is appreciating then turn to a bank/landlord and say "Look guys, this is my income!", they'll laugh in your face. As someone who works in finance, even dividends aren't considered stable income because they can change very significantly in a short span of time with no warning, and with little recourse. If Rio Tinto suddenly stop paying such big dividends because one of their mining operations is getting hard-stalled by local environmentalist groups, nothing you can do, really. You just get paid less. The usual response is that they think you should be taxed continuously on the current rate of the stock, but then that creates stupid situations where, for instance, you set up a small company, you can barely keep it afloat. After some time, your stock arbitrarily spikes in price. Be it random trend, global event, whatever. Now, you're not actually EARNING anything more, stocks can jump significantly with no increase in sales. Good news alone can turn stocks from irrelevant to gold mines. So then you get taxed now on the stocks you hold which are now arbitrarily valuable, so your tax bill is massive. But you don't have that kind of money just sitting around, because up until now you've been barely scraping by. You're now in a situation where you are FORCED to sell some number of stocks just to cover your tax bill. Essentially you're punished for making a successful company by being forced to sell it off against your will to other people. At best, this creates a world where companies intentionally tank their own stock price just before tax season in order to not have to pay arbitrary tax on things they don't even have yet, at worst, it just devolves into the state owning everything, because they always win the "who has enough money to afford this" competition. Because bad companies will die, and good companies will tax themselves out of business if they grow too fast and be forced to sell to the state. Which is one of those scenarios that some breadtube weirdos would absolutely love, because they're jealous of success, but you know full well if a white government did this and scooped successful black-owned businesses from under their owners, the breadtubers would scream bloody murder about how it should never be allowed ever.
Imagine acting like you understand economics better than anyone, but think stocks increasing should be taxed as income even though you didn't cash out ignoring the obvious fact that it implies stock going down would mean being paid money for the loss or a freeze on taxes since you paid for when it went up and it's not there anymore
Also Vaush calling Ben a neocon is aboslutely baseless. You can make the point that Ben frequently plays into the left's hands, he however, is not a neocon. (He is a cruz con)
"Equality of opportunity" is not freedom from discrimination. Furthermore, it doesn't exist. When candidates apply for a job, they expect discrimination according to relevant traits, such as job experience, education, interviewing ability, etc. They generally don't want to be subject to discrimination for irrelevant traits. There is no place free from discrimination, there are only forms of appropriate discrimination and of inappropriate discrimination. Furthermore, there is little need to regulate it; economically, a business that discriminates according to irrelevant factors is going to be at a competitive disadvantage against those that don't. Because there is no place free from discrimination, there is no such thing as equality. Today's outcomes determine tomorrow's opportunities, so the people who had better outcomes have better opportunities for themselves, their family, and their friends now. Thus, there is no difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Better opportunities are a tremendous part of the incentive to achieve better outcomes, and such incentives are key to encouraging pro-social behavior. If you are on the right and you defend equality in any sense, you are deluding yourself.
Jordan Peterson surely needs a lot of fair criticism but I hate when so many people just completely disregard him and believe he has no idea what he's talking about at any given time
Saying he doesn’t at any time is false. He certainly doesn’t most of the time though, which is annoying, because rather than admitting that he’s not very well read, he’ll just throw “fascism” at it, and then curse or something.
Vaush's "analysis" of the rich is on the same level as blood libel. Isn't he also one of those people who identifies Jewry with the rich as well? I don't remember if that was him or someone else.
To the coconut island thing, you can always gather crabs, fish, and other sources of food or you could just straight up attack the guy not only for hoarding everything but for even suggesting you suck him off because in a true survival situation the rules of society don’t apply and complex societal structures like government or economic systems don’t matter
I dont think he’s unintentionally contradicting himself with the Equality of outcome example. He’s probably downplaying what he actually thinks to pipeline moderate viewers into his ideology. He does that a lot. The purpose is to have people share that clip and go “See? He’s not THAT far gone, he makes some good points, come watch some other of his takes.”
The way I see the different concerns of those who advocate for capitalism and those who advocate for communism is that capitalism is ultimately based on building wealth, this means everyone becomes more wealthy but it does mean that the rich gain more wealth than the poor, while communism wants to destroy inequality. In an abstract sense it would be great to have both of those things, we want the wealth of everyone to increase and we don’t want there to be an obscene wealth disparity. The big thing that pushes me in the direction of capitalism is that it doesn’t needs a state to function, obviously there are issues that come about when there is no state such as slavery but a state that only concerns itself with preventing people from infringing on the rights of others solves these problems and allows capitalism to work freely. Communism on the other hand, at least in the sense of a system that wants to remove economic inequality, requires some kind of government that uses force to redistribute wealth, it cannot come about if the government only stops people from infringing on other peoples rights. Even in the theoretical time after the revolution where everything has been redistributed and then the state is destroyed, what is to stop inequalities from forming again? If it is actually true that they think there will be no state, then it is impossible to prevent inequality. If a mob of the people enforce equality, then that’s basically a state right there, it’s a pure democracy where the majority uses its force to rule. And I’d bet you what happens next is a demagogue will take control and then everything becomes a monarchy, and we’d be back where we started
Peterson's oddness is being inconsistent on whether the state should enforce right wing cultural values. I don't know if it is correct to label that as "fascism" necessarily though, but definitely not quite libertarian either
Funnily enough, the US Constitution provides a go-around, by allowing states to decide for themselves what their policies on drugs, abortion, etc cultural warfare topics via the 10th Amendment. At that point, it doesn't matter what the national government thinks, it's about what state and local governments (which are significantly more accessible and responsive than the federal one) think.
That was the most insane take I have ever heard. "Racism exists even if no racism in the system." With takes like that it makes me wonder if the horse fucker can even put on his own clothes in the morning...
Racism can persist outside of the system. The law may forbid to beat up everyone, but if the society is racist that one group will still have more problems with being beaten up.
i mean people can still be horrible even if the system doesn't support it. it's just that these same people also say that systemic support is a prerequisite for racism as an excuse to be brazenly racist without having to admit it
yeah but we should do it too, if some rich guy doesn't pay taxes then that's not bad but based, we should also not pay taxes, our taxes are getting wasted on thing's that we don't want to spend on, rich people need to teach us their ways
22:40 "Nobody talks about equality of outcome. Zero people do." In Germany we have a "Ministry for Equity" (Ministerium für Gleichstellung), created by the Left. The German word for Equity is a dead giveaway: Gleichstellung (f. noun) literally translates to "Same-Positioning" - It's goal is to put everybody onto the same level. It is not about opportunity, it is about outcome, it is about creating nice looking pretty statistics, regardless of the consequences for individual people or society at large.
Coconut island counter part 2: I forage for alternative resources in the forest. You know, kind of like how an actual free has multiple alternatives available for a given product. Even your fishing analogy works here.
@@garrettfish8471 Coconut island counter part 3: You also have the freedom to just refuse business from him, even if we grant that coconuts are the only source of food on this island. (This is a boycott.) By not trading "favors" for his coconuts, he doesn't get what he wants, and may be willing to compromise. "Okay, okay, maybe you don't have to suck my ____, my coconuts are just sitting around and I'm not getting what I want, so how about I tweak my offer? Just give me a hug and I'll give you a coconut."
on the color blindness thing, i feel like vaush is projecting hard there, he's literally the type of mf who plays word games and would play pretend like that.
"Nobody talks about equality of outcome." literally 30 seconds earlier "Are we doing everything in our power so everyone has an equal outcome in life."
Embargoes shouldnt matter. If you cant get oil farm by horsplow. If a soceity is an embaroged utopia people should be living healthy happy lives even if they dont have the most modern foreign phones.
22:17 he's surprised by the fact that people are following the thought to it's conclusion, that's like walking into a movie theater and being dumbfounded that the movie has an ending, if you follow the fact that a movie is a story and stories have endings to it's conclusion, that's not surprising, it's expected.
@@alyssarichardson2544 currently you can just type "vaush" into youtube and take your pick; plenty of people have described the images verbally and reacted to his stream. I won't recommend you google what was in his folder as people have tracked down all the images and they're quite explicit.
@@Nigel-nv3lr He did say that at one point but after he made his videos claiming to be a Centrist, Libertarian, Conservative, Progressive and Anti-Centrist without irony (and the arguments he gave for each one at the time) the honesty of his claim is rather dubious
So Voosh wants to give vouchers you can use to consoooooom high-value goods instead of just givign people money in an agreement for labor that the worker can use on whatever he wants? That's incredibly dumb. My brain can't handle that level of stupidity.
If one person hoards all the coconuts you find another resource to hoard and trade and thus the market is born and everyone is richer living in luxury.
Labor vouchers. Reminds me of those major mining and manufacturing industries in the 1800’s that paid their employees in currency that could only be used in their on-site general stores.
Hearing your fundamental misunderstanding of monopolies and how they very much exist and thrive in todays economy did it for me. 2 and a half minutes in and you’ve already debunked your own argument.
What’s also very incredibly stupid about the coconut island situation, is what’s stopping the other guy by using violence? I understand that perhaps this seems barbaric, but Vaush is so short sighted that ye can’t imagine anyone possible deciding to instead fight back.
That is in fact why the Coconut analogy fails. If we think about it, this extreme hypothetical situation is completely unrealistic. If S2 asks S1 for oral sex in exchange for a coconut over which he maintains a monopoly, this is clearly a violent act, and therefore what would happen in real life is a violent response from S1. To make the situation realistic where S1 accepts S2's proposal, a third component that is implicit in the analogy but not explicitly mentioned must be added. There must exist a third actor, which is a power that forces S1 to accept the proposition of S2 by force. It could be God, it could be a group of people with weapons, it could be an unmentioned S3 with a weapon, or it could even be S2 pointing a gun at S1's head. The point is that this "transaction" between S1 and S2 can only be carried out under the threat of violence and therefore can never be voluntary. It is a hegemonic link, not a contractual one. The coconut analogy ends up proving that Monopoly is indeed a coercive institution, and that this coercive nature can only be sustained with violence provided by an authority that monopolizes the use of force, so that S1's will has to be totally coerced, so that resorting to violence by S1 is not viable. It pretty much ends up proving the libertarian theory of Monopoly.
