Talk:Vaush/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 28 February 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page: , (back)

Notability[edit]

Does he have a significant enough following for us to care about him? I want you to check this page to see why I'm asking this. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 15:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't he qualify for being a published page already, instead of just a draft? DemSocks (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

He currently gets over a million views every month. He's also debating Sargon of Akkad on 30.11.2019. I think it's significant enough that he should qualify for a proper published page. ^{— Unsigned, by: DemSocks / talk / contribs}

Why is he gaining subscribers so fast?[edit]

I've been following this guys content for a few months and his subscriber count has nearly tripled since I first found him. Any idea why that is? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nebuchadnezzar7658 He's good at marketing. Also, he's crossing several YouTube/Twitch subgroups together, including but not limited to, streaming games, debates, response videos, political commentary, and a daily show format. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Well I'm glad he's growing. He appears to be really well informed. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ever since his endorsement of Biden, he just act, if not worst to the stereotypical description of a tactical voting centrist (or a Democratic Party loyalist) and gross hypocrite[edit]

As ever since he been endorsing Biden in April or May, he went a series of attacks on other leftists who don't think that tactical voting is not too beneficial but also equally harming their side, as losers or something like that. And just like any person, who rejects this belief, as just but brutally shame, for the wrong reasons. Judging some tweets and a couple of videos in the past four months. 2606:A000:1011:4594:B44E:CC10:4F4:74E0 (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

How is he being a hypocrite? The man is a consequentialist, and has openly stated his flexibility on these sorts of topics. You could argue he's being a stuck up asshole, but then that's not really anything new. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

bullsh*t[edit]

If a screenshot™ (that I took) of Vaush™'s face can be deleted for not being copyright™ friendly™ then there should not be an image of his Avatar™^{— Unsigned, by: Family Man / talk / contribs}

Our use of Vaush's avatar would go under fair use if I am not mistaken. His face in the other hand doesn't go under fair use, since it doesn't add much of anything to our article. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 23:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That said, the dispute is with @Hastur, not with me, I'm just the one reverting your dumb zealotry in the name of trying to make a point. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 23:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Twitch incident?[edit]

He was banned from twitch - https://twitter.com/vaushv/status/1195132871758864384?lang=en What's the full picture? Clips of instigating incident anywhere? 81.105.226.107 (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

settling that question on transphobic behavior.[edit]

This edit war is growing pathetic. Instead of people editing across each other, warring in and out the same edits, I want this settled by community consensus to resolve this once and for all. I have no stake in this discussion, but here goes.

The segment at discussion is:

“”This is unlikely since Vaush is one of the most pro-trans Youtubers in the site.

It has been warred several times over, including more in the page history. Let's get a consensus up. I have no stake in whichever we end up going with, but this is getting dumb. Let's resolve it. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep segment[edit]

Remove segment[edit]

Watch the actual videos cited as evidence of his transphobia. Literally the only thing he says is that people who aggressively attacked ContraPoints--who is a trans person--on Twitter are mentally ill basement-dwellers. How anybody could possibly interpret his defense of ContraPoints, *a trans person*, and his criticism of ContraPoints' attackers, as transphobia is utterly beyond me. It's a garbage citation that falls apart after you spend 30 seconds listening to the linked video. Bullshit citations look worse on RationalWiki than they do anywhere else. Chopin 7 March 2021

Why does Vaush make so many gaffes?[edit]

It is a serious question actually because unlike Biden he does not have any disability, so what he says should always be genuine.

Yesterday, the Alt-Right on Twitter was mocking him for some disparaging comments concerning children he made both on Twitter and Discord. If you did not know Vaush has a bad reputation around that, I think as far back as 2016 people thought he was a Pedophile. Here's an example tweet: https://twitter.com/amperetwt/status/1359847358801010688/photo/1

I know it is Twitter and Twitter is the haven of angry people, so nobody should take them seriously, right? I wish that was completely true, however, there are journalists and the everyday people on the website, so lies can go very far on there. Should that be noted on the article? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Vaush fits a very specific type of internet personality. The loud and abrasive type that shares a lot of overlap with 4chan in basic characteristics (willing to argue anything to win, doesn't care what other people think of him, not above just straight up trolling others), but still has the fundamental ability to drop the act when serious and legitimately caring about other people. Should this be noted... eh? We cover all his gaffes already, but the why isn't the most interesting thing out there tbh, given he's not unique in that. (And please do some extra research before pasting what I just said in the article, this is poorly worded and I encourage you to do some research on your own in this kinda personality if you want to cite it). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I won’t be editing the article to reflect this (living people etc), but personally I think the most convincing explanation is that he’s legitimately hiding something, just not very well (or it could be a “hiding in plain sight” thing). He’s admitted to sexual harassment of adults, which the article already covers.

It’s definitely worth mentioning all the other times he’s talked about pedophilia, not just the most famous one. Christopher (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

There are other examples of him defending paedophilia[edit]

A very recent one: https://twitter.com/cyberdog100/status/1402030747129630729 Christopher (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, he said: 'It is possible for an adult and a child to have a sexual relationship and for it to have positive outcomes on the child as well. That is possible.': https://twitter.com/GodEmpanada/status/1476182506856759300 (http://web.archive.org/web/20220103195830/https://twitter.com/GodEmpanada/status/1476182506856759300)

Moreover: 'We've all jerked off to loli at some point or another.': https://twitter.com/GodEmpanada/status/1476733086217949186

Vaush apologists[edit]

It's funny how this site worships Vaush even though he said the N word (HARD R), sexually assaults womens, has made other racist comments and GOT DESTROYED BY DESTINY in a debate. --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:F8A8:6C2E:78E4:FE2A (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A couple of things: Categories do not substitute content. They are used for indexing, not for telling us what a page is about. At the moment, the two categories you warred into the article (as well as our other random favorite Vaush... antifans?) are Racists/Sexists. With racist, there's only the n-word claim which he seems to have walked back since. It's bad, but there's no pattern here, which is usually what we rely on for those categories (or high-profile incidents, basically there's a barrier here). Sexism is that one time creeping in DMs; again bad but seems like an isolated incident. As for the "got destroyed by destiny"... why do I have to care about him getting roasted by some other youtuber whose most notable claim to fame for me was showing that Jontron is a dumbass? Look, I don't watch Vaush, although I doubt that will stop you from calling me a Vaush fanboy. If you want these categories in the article; find recent examples he has not apologized for or still stands by, write a paragraph about it and edit it in. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

He said the N-word with a "hard r" and that is not the only racist thing he said. He also said, "all black women sound the same" (he claimed he meant to say all black conservative women), and then made fun of a black woman's hair. He said we should bomb Israel proving his anti-semitism. So what? if he apologized, doesn't make it okay, the Amazing Atheist also apologized for telling a rape victim he deserved it but that doesn't make it ok. So according to "rational wiki" we should release every murder and rapists from jail if they apologize. You clearly are a Vaush fanboy if you are doing these mental gymnastics to face the facts. Next, you also called Destiny "irrelevant" however he has a Wikipedia page while Vaush does not. He's also more relevant than you or this site will ever be so this is just a meaningless projection. --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:95B8:A363:4811:6795 (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC):

...did I hit a nerve? Anyway those are some hefty claims. Thing is, unless the article references that content (with references to relevant claims), there is no reason to add those categories to him. Categories don't substitute content. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"Tactical N-Word" Revision[edit]

The section where it says he stands by his use of the N-word in that context should be revised as he has since stated that it was bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVGwuTv9bIw

Requesting thread archival (why?) -- Techpriest (talk)

Since when are tweets deemed valid sources?[edit]

There are a number of sources in this topic that use tweets as a source. I know for a fact tweets are not accepted, even from the article's subject, for many other individuals. @USERNAME ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.114.69.53 / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:

on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

Any specific tweet citations you object to? We don’t have a blanket policy on any source, we’re not Wikipedia. Christopher (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a YouTube article, we should delete them on sigh. GeeJayK (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, why is everyone so upset about YouTube articles existing? I get removing unimportant shit, but I still think we need to keep them because they are very influential on my generation and kickstarted Gamergate.

Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 18:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a feeling it's about people not liking a new form of media while traditional ones like Tv cable and radio are shrinking. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

For me, it's because Youtube articles tend to be either puff pieces or mostly about internet drama. That being said, I'm mostly fine with this one.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Duce there. This is RationalWiki, not InternetDramaWiki. When working on or reading RW articles, I don't want to have to put any effort into pretending to care about the latest Twitter controversy (along with a few non-controversies that toxic site's cancel-culture hivemind invented), unless it's actually justified like the cases of Notch and JK Rowling- in which case yes, I do care about it, as a fan of their respective brainchildren Minecraft and Harry Potter, where a large number of (but not all) of the community members still insist that everyone worship those people. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularR asoning^{See my experiments} 20:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Cited sources are incorrectly attributed to the text[edit]

After this drama occurred, Vaush and his admins/mods White Nervosa and Rodriguez commented that he was trying to dissociate from his old moniker IrishLaddie in favor of VaushVidya, which he had already been using for some time, in order to deflect some backlash. Since the event, Vaush has released all the logs from the event, apologised extensively for his behaviour, and has promised to do better in future.[39]

Source 39 does not attest to the fact "Vaush has released all the logs from the event, apologised extensively for his behaviour, and has promised to do better in future." The above sentences should be corrected to

After this drama occurred, Vaush and his admins/mods White Nervosa and Rodriguez commented that he was trying to dissociate from his old moniker IrishLaddie in favor of VaushVidya, which he had already been using for some time, in order to deflect some backlash.[39] Since the event, Vaush has released all the logs from the event, apologised extensively for his behaviour, and has promised to do better in future.[citation needed] ^{— Unsigned, by: 136.49.101.168 / talk / contribs}

Aye, edit done. Thank you for the suggestion. The page is protected because we kept getting driveby Vaush haters and Vaush stans and having the page locked at least limits it a bit. Techpriest (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Libertarian Socialism" Error[edit]

This article seems to imply that libertarian socialism is a kind of "pro-free market" socialism. It is not. The "libertarian" in "libertarian socialism" has nothing to do with the peculiarly US-only definition of "libertarian" which is called "liberalism" in Europe and elsewhere. Libertarian socialism is anarchic socialism - a socialism organized around free associations of workers owning the means of production rather than a central state organization. It is essentially the same a anarcho-sindicalism. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.112.181.59 / talk}