Another poster has linked you to his video on this topic. Yes, he said some very stupid things to provoke discussions and reactions, and the whole thing was both immature and misguided. But shouldn’t you be able to say “I did some very stupid things and will do better in the future”?
If he did something similar more recently, I’d be with you - tar and feather him, and exclude him from the community. But he hasn’t (afaik). Mistakes shouldn’t brand you forever, as long as you’re honestly doing better and working against those mistakes.
Pretty recently, there was the incident of his porn folder being leaked on stream. H3H3 had a pretty good breakdown I thought, but the basic premise is: it’s true, a lot of his past rhetoric has a lot of plausible deniability. I.e. Him using extreme examples to make what is a good point, lots of the clips turn out to just be him being baited to talk about his old clips, making it seem like he talks about it a lot more than he does, many clips are actually making the opposite point of what the clip implies he’s making etc.
The thing is, he also has plenty of clips of him saying that consuming lolicon is sus and someone doing that should be scrutinized. And the thing is, the couple images that showed up (just a random sampling of recent porn he had downloaded) contained pretty unequivocal lolicon. And the worst thing was, in his two response videos he made to the H3H3 podcast, he didn’t mention this central criticism of the podcast even once except for some vague allusion to plausible deniability about how old the girls looked. He didn’t take responsibility, he didn’t promise to examine himself or change, he just tried to sweep it under the rug and go for the much more easily defended points about the horses and various out of context clips. (The H3H3 podcast actually did an incredible job putting it all into context and for the most part they ended up seeing Vaushes side in most of the bad-faith clips.)
But as the podcast says, what Vaush is relying on is that no one in his audience actually sees the images that were on his hard drive, (which to be fair, it doesn’t show up on a quick Google search, and it’s not very pleasant to go hunting for the photos)
Yeah H3H3 did two because vaush responded to the first one and they weren’t satisfied (cause as I said, he never directly addressed the core accusation)
Idk, I know it’s a lot to get someone to work through like 6 hours of content, especially when it’s pretty grody. I have a routine that allows me to put super long videos like these on in the background but that’s unique.
No, thank you for the recommendation! If I post comments defending him, I want to be informed of such things happening, because it will affect whether I keep doing it.
I’ll hopefully remember to reply once I got through it all.
You are aware that 18 years old is higher than the age of consent in most of the Developed World, were it’s generally set at 16: in this like in many other things it’s the US that’s the outlier religious nutter of the developed world.
Not to mention that your “logic” is claiming that somebody who wants to change the law is not law abidding, which is ridiculous: if that person did not care to abide by the law, why change it?!
No idea what’s the full idea of this guy and if it is or not a good suggestion, but the logic and format of you counter-point has a crazy “only criminals would want to change the law” subservient statist-bitch vibe to it.
This is a good example of an argument that fails by virtue of its foundational premises. Vaush’s foundational premise for age of consent is tied to socioeconomic or material factors around power. In other words, the argument is founded on the premise that a child has less power than an adult so children can’t consent to intimate relationships with adults. This ignores the much more intractable argument over psychological and emotional maturity and the significance of particular age-specific life milestones that help to shape a child into an adult - a fully self-accountable member of society. Socioeconomics have mitigating influence over those things, which implies that even under socialism or any kind of post-capitalist society, that a society would have good reason to maintain agent of consent laws. It also totalizes socioeconomic factors as the defining impetus for consent, but that is in and of itself a slippery slope because you could take it to a logical extreme and argue that people of color and white people shouldn’t be allowed to be in relationships, because a person of color has less socioeconomic power in America than a white person, or even that men and women shouldn’t be allowed to be in relationships at all because men have greater socioeconomic power than women, which would mean that everyone should only be allowed to date same-sex members of their own race.
That’s a bit troubling, though I would like to see Vaush expand on that. I could understand that the age of consent could be updated. For example, it’s illegal for a 18 y/o to be with a 17 y/o, which is ridiculous to me. What are two 17 y/o kids that are dating supposed to do when the first one to turn 18 happens? We know it’s not typically enforced in situations like that, but it shouldn’t even be a thing because if the parents are jerks, they could come after the recent 18 y/o who is probably mentally still a kid since transitioning to adulthood doesn’t happen from one day to the next. I would like to see a rolling age of consent for that age range. Maybe like a 1.5 year range between partners or something like that until the older one hits 19.5 y/o. From then on, it’s a hard line at 18 y/o.
While I’m at it, I would be ok with raising the age of consent to participate in professional porn to 21 y/o.
Edit: Apparently, there are already laws that allow what I have described about with the 17/18 divide. See comments below.
This is already handled by Romeo and Juliet laws in several states. People recognize that young people are going to turn 18 while dating.
Age of consent laws aren’t there to hamper people near the age of consent. They’re there to stop people well above the age of consent from being sick fucks.
As an example, a 40 year old dating a 19 year old is fucked up. It’d be just as fucked up if they were 21 instead of 19, and even 25 is questionable. Not illegal, because we have to draw the line somewhere, but still despicable imo
They’re there to stop people well above the age of consent from being sick fucks. As an example, a 40 year old dating a 19 year old is fucked up.
While I agree, I think that current laws wouldn’t protect the 19 y/o since any person over 18 y/o can date any other person over 18 y/o. That means that a 40 y/o can date a 19 y/o without any legal repercussions. Is this not the case?
Tbf, while it is state law and so varies, many US states have a provision something like “if over 18, can’t fuck under 18yo, UNLESS you’re within 4yr and have met in an organic way, like school or work.” So an 18yo and a 17yo from the same school would be fine, but a 21yo who met her online or at the mall would still get in trouble for the 17yo, if the parents press charges.
Wow a stupid not-thought out take on Discord from 6 years ago, he’s clearly Epstein himself in disguise
I wonder what point he was trying to make in those latter two clips? I wonder if he made a dumb choice to say something extremely inflammatory in an attempt to highlight problems with other forms of child exploitation that we as a society not only accept, but actively endorse?
https://streamable.com/fdy60u
https://twitter.com/beigegoat45/status/1325705005886746624
https://streamable.com/kd2967
I’ll amend my statement to “pedo-enabling”, happy? So where’s that “thorough” debunk?
Another poster has linked you to his video on this topic. Yes, he said some very stupid things to provoke discussions and reactions, and the whole thing was both immature and misguided. But shouldn’t you be able to say “I did some very stupid things and will do better in the future”?
If he did something similar more recently, I’d be with you - tar and feather him, and exclude him from the community. But he hasn’t (afaik). Mistakes shouldn’t brand you forever, as long as you’re honestly doing better and working against those mistakes.
Pretty recently, there was the incident of his porn folder being leaked on stream. H3H3 had a pretty good breakdown I thought, but the basic premise is: it’s true, a lot of his past rhetoric has a lot of plausible deniability. I.e. Him using extreme examples to make what is a good point, lots of the clips turn out to just be him being baited to talk about his old clips, making it seem like he talks about it a lot more than he does, many clips are actually making the opposite point of what the clip implies he’s making etc.
The thing is, he also has plenty of clips of him saying that consuming lolicon is sus and someone doing that should be scrutinized. And the thing is, the couple images that showed up (just a random sampling of recent porn he had downloaded) contained pretty unequivocal lolicon. And the worst thing was, in his two response videos he made to the H3H3 podcast, he didn’t mention this central criticism of the podcast even once except for some vague allusion to plausible deniability about how old the girls looked. He didn’t take responsibility, he didn’t promise to examine himself or change, he just tried to sweep it under the rug and go for the much more easily defended points about the horses and various out of context clips. (The H3H3 podcast actually did an incredible job putting it all into context and for the most part they ended up seeing Vaushes side in most of the bad-faith clips.)
But as the podcast says, what Vaush is relying on is that no one in his audience actually sees the images that were on his hard drive, (which to be fair, it doesn’t show up on a quick Google search, and it’s not very pleasant to go hunting for the photos)
I hadn’t heard about that. Are you referring to this episode? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H61pA1ZPTs8
I’ll try to watch it over the next few days. Thanks for the notice!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=H61pA1ZPTs8
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yeah H3H3 did two because vaush responded to the first one and they weren’t satisfied (cause as I said, he never directly addressed the core accusation) Idk, I know it’s a lot to get someone to work through like 6 hours of content, especially when it’s pretty grody. I have a routine that allows me to put super long videos like these on in the background but that’s unique.
No, thank you for the recommendation! If I post comments defending him, I want to be informed of such things happening, because it will affect whether I keep doing it.
I’ll hopefully remember to reply once I got through it all.
You are aware that 18 years old is higher than the age of consent in most of the Developed World, were it’s generally set at 16: in this like in many other things it’s the US that’s the outlier religious nutter of the developed world.
Not to mention that your “logic” is claiming that somebody who wants to change the law is not law abidding, which is ridiculous: if that person did not care to abide by the law, why change it?!
No idea what’s the full idea of this guy and if it is or not a good suggestion, but the logic and format of you counter-point has a crazy “only criminals would want to change the law” subservient statist-bitch vibe to it.
Removed by mod
This is a good example of an argument that fails by virtue of its foundational premises. Vaush’s foundational premise for age of consent is tied to socioeconomic or material factors around power. In other words, the argument is founded on the premise that a child has less power than an adult so children can’t consent to intimate relationships with adults. This ignores the much more intractable argument over psychological and emotional maturity and the significance of particular age-specific life milestones that help to shape a child into an adult - a fully self-accountable member of society. Socioeconomics have mitigating influence over those things, which implies that even under socialism or any kind of post-capitalist society, that a society would have good reason to maintain agent of consent laws. It also totalizes socioeconomic factors as the defining impetus for consent, but that is in and of itself a slippery slope because you could take it to a logical extreme and argue that people of color and white people shouldn’t be allowed to be in relationships, because a person of color has less socioeconomic power in America than a white person, or even that men and women shouldn’t be allowed to be in relationships at all because men have greater socioeconomic power than women, which would mean that everyone should only be allowed to date same-sex members of their own race.
That’s a bit troubling, though I would like to see Vaush expand on that. I could understand that the age of consent could be updated. For example, it’s illegal for a 18 y/o to be with a 17 y/o, which is ridiculous to me. What are two 17 y/o kids that are dating supposed to do when the first one to turn 18 happens? We know it’s not typically enforced in situations like that, but it shouldn’t even be a thing because if the parents are jerks, they could come after the recent 18 y/o who is probably mentally still a kid since transitioning to adulthood doesn’t happen from one day to the next. I would like to see a rolling age of consent for that age range. Maybe like a 1.5 year range between partners or something like that until the older one hits 19.5 y/o. From then on, it’s a hard line at 18 y/o.
While I’m at it, I would be ok with raising the age of consent to participate in professional porn to 21 y/o.
Edit: Apparently, there are already laws that allow what I have described about with the 17/18 divide. See comments below.
This is already handled by Romeo and Juliet laws in several states. People recognize that young people are going to turn 18 while dating.
Age of consent laws aren’t there to hamper people near the age of consent. They’re there to stop people well above the age of consent from being sick fucks.
As an example, a 40 year old dating a 19 year old is fucked up. It’d be just as fucked up if they were 21 instead of 19, and even 25 is questionable. Not illegal, because we have to draw the line somewhere, but still despicable imo
While I agree, I think that current laws wouldn’t protect the 19 y/o since any person over 18 y/o can date any other person over 18 y/o. That means that a 40 y/o can date a 19 y/o without any legal repercussions. Is this not the case?
You’re correct. We have to set a line somewhere unfortunately. I don’t think we could codify a “half your age plus 7”
Watch the video linked in another comment. He covers everything.
Tbf, while it is state law and so varies, many US states have a provision something like “if over 18, can’t fuck under 18yo, UNLESS you’re within 4yr and have met in an organic way, like school or work.” So an 18yo and a 17yo from the same school would be fine, but a 21yo who met her online or at the mall would still get in trouble for the 17yo, if the parents press charges.
oh, I did not know that. I’m happy that exists then.
Wow a stupid not-thought out take on Discord from 6 years ago, he’s clearly Epstein himself in disguise
I wonder what point he was trying to make in those latter two clips? I wonder if he made a dumb choice to say something extremely inflammatory in an attempt to highlight problems with other forms of child exploitation that we as a society not only accept, but actively endorse?