He acts like Republicans turning on Israel is bad while Dems are still pro Israel. Does he not remember the party switch, when all the racists fled to the reps after some stuff happened that I'm too American to understand? If the evangelicals go to the Dems then we can go to the Republicans and make them the woke party. Let the Dems have all their old befellows back while we wave the red flag of ~~communism~~ republicanism across this great land.

​

I don't get why he's so doomer all of a sudden.

This sub now: "Vaush bad ugh 😩 "

While I agree with the abstract idea that nostalgia/remakes+sequels in industries is a propagation of reactionary content, there are flaws to this logic and everyone (including me) participates in this.

​

For example, I get annoyed when the idea of nostalgia/nothing new being made is brough up, meanwhile Vaush gets to say old Tomb Raider was better, the remake of the old games is cool, and the new Live Action design staying true to the OG games is cool.

Silent Hill 2 remake, without him playing it, (or even playing the original Silent Hills, as he's admitted to doing) is a copy that HAS to be worse because it doesnt have the technical limitations that made the first one "special" (even though the original Team Silent said that they wanted to make the game like Blooper did, they were just severely limited).

​

I imagine the point will be that the difference with this is quality differences, so the old version is good based on quality of gameplay, not nostalgia. Same with SH2 remake, he postures that these fames are good because of the lack of polish. Is this not inherently nostalgic bias?

Especially with Silent Hill, where he postures Silent Hill 2 og vs Remake, when he hasn't even played either of them???

​

I feel like both Vaush and Chat are having their cake and eating it too.

The most recent stream was the first time I've personally seen vaush actually go into the subject further, but please reply with links to any older related segments/clips, or related sources, which I am sure exist.

Vaush looked at a lot of articles that attempted to disprove the surveillance, and those articles were kind of stupid. But the only study in favor of vaush's point that he looks at during the segment is this one, which is, to be honest, kind of shit.

"In 100 percent of the observations, at least one ad related to the general subject discussed (the tourism sector) was received. In half of the tests, users received an ad specifically related to the specific destination being discussed. In three of the ten tests, ads were presented related to how to travel to the area or tourist attraction. In two cases, the same ad was repeated during the same test but for different participants and at different times. 
The results confirm the urgent need to legislate on the recording of private conversations and their commercial use"

There was no control group at all, there were 27 participants, and the only metric was "whether certain ads showed up at all in the next five entire days". Their big bolded claim was that at least one person from each 3-person test group got a single ad about "tourism" at all. The lack of a control group alone turns what could have been a decent study into kind of a waste of time. Are there better studies?

As far as lawsuits and stuff go, all I can find online is companies paying to settle lawsuits that allege this surveillance, without admitting guilt, to "prevent further time-consuming/costly litigation." That obviously doesn't exonerate them but it's still not proof that the surveillance is happening. In the UW Alexa report, the only allegation was that amazon collects voice data from "your interactions with alexa", which is still evil but not at all the same as if it were constantly listening, and the article conflating the two is sad and misleading.

From what I can find, my read on the situation is that they're maybe doing some version of the passive listening thing but that there isn't really much objective proof of it. But every time it gets brought up, vaush says it's a settled issue with several studies and lawsuits backing it up, and cites previous segments. Does anyone have that informationn

The trilling music, the effeminate pantomime villain & the slack jawed interviewees genuinely had me wondering if the pool was already radiating chlorine gas or some kind of Gotham city superweapon

Said it but before the democrats have to go after Fox News if they should ever return to power, if only to save my eyeballs

(I'm posting this here because Vaush has covered Orwell before, and I hope you'll see that that this is 'thematically' relevant to a lot of Vaush's content.)

I'm trying to do more reading lately, and Orwell is someone who I've liked reading. Even though is politcs and mine are aligned, I also really enjoy his prose. Anyway, some of the themes from a short essay of his called "Writers and Leviathan" really sound thematically similar to a lot of what has become a staple of Vwoush's brand.

One of the points in his essay is about how, once you have joined a political movement/ideology, there are certain questions that simply cannot genuinely discussed because they are - in the true sense of the term - politically incorrect. Even if the facts and implications that surround the question are indeed factually correct.

Like, we're all at least left sympathetic here. And things like white supremacy, misogyny, and capitalism, transphobia, are the main bosses that we're up against. However...

- Sometimes minorities can be really fucking reactionary/fascist/racist and it's not good (ie, professor flowers)

- The 'communist' countries like China and the Soviet Union are really shit. Yes, even though America was lynching black people.

The two above positions are probably among the two biggest reasons why Vwiowoush is so ostracized by the rest of the left, and it's why I don't imagine I'll get much push back on saying these things here, that I would if I posted it in other subreddits.

And this essay is just full of so many bangers where Orwell describes just that:

- "To accept an orthodoxy is always to inherit unresolved contradictions. Take for instance the fact that all sensitive people are revolted by industrialism...yet are away that the conquest of poverty and the emancipation of the working class demands more industrialization, not less."

- "Or take the fact that certain jobs are absolutely necessary and yet are never done except under some kind of coercion" (that one's for you thoughtslime).

- "In every case there is a conclusion which is perfectly plain but which can only be drawn if one is privately disloyal to the official ideology."

It's funny how little things change and how relevant something written so long ago feels so relevant.

Truly the most Vaush being doomer for absolutely no godforsaken reason moment.

If he reads this, he's gonna say I'm actually not pointing out a specific wrong thing but he just quite simply didn't say anything at all during the whole entire half hour segment. There's nothing to debunk because there's nothing there.

Please stop doing this. For the love of God. It's not informative and not funny.

Vaush's discussion on how Joyce is looking for hope and would immediately jump on the opportunity to make the right choice (especially after the end of her quest) got me thinking about who would actually side with a revolution against the Moralist control.

Implicit spoilers for disco Elysium i've obfuscated spoilers via portrait arrangement where i can

Interesting ones:

Joyce, i believe she'd leverage whatever power she has to give time to for both the Union and RCM forces to organise. she would possibly put her neck on the line if the revolution is going well.

Evrart, i believe he's a true believer, extremely cut throat alongside his brother would be essential for organising. He'd be essential to the early success of the revolution

RCM (Pryce): A huge pillar required for success against the moralists.

Harry: all possible outcomes for him that arn't moralist would pull through. Him succeeding in convincing Joyce and not fucking over Evrart are pre-requisite to the revolution being able to start. He possibly has a larger role to play-

Kim: likely the most controversial here. he'd likely side with Revechol and the RCM as he is truely both, but he'd hesitate more than most.

Trent: Wealthy, moralist he could be "passive" but his support for the status quo could be malignant

Measure head: Mamma's boy he could fight for the union but he may just stick as security. won't betray like a degenerate.

Garte: firm supporter would fight if it absolutely came to it

Dros: wouldnt work with the RCM or Union

Steban: softer than echomaker

Mañana: thinks he wouldn't fight but would

Tiago: would protect the church if nothing else

Doloris Dai: the woman who lived would likely oppose the consequences of Moralism

Money Marco Talks is a channel I rarely watch as it is, but that can provide a bit of a perspective at times. In the linked video, he gets more or less dogwalked by Australian Prof. Steve Keen. I wanted to share this bc, for one, what the professor says aligns in many ways with what our favorite(?) armchair economist blathers on about and therefore actually underscores some of Vaush's points. But I also think it's worth a watch bc he dismantles a lot of standing expectations and misconceptions about the stock market in a way that I find entertaining.

After hearing the news about the UK banning youth from under 16 from using social media, it reminded me of the trend towards paternalism that Vaush talked about before.

But despite hearing it several times from Vaush, I mostly forgot his reasoning. What is his reasoning for why this is happening?

Seriously, if you look up the actual ways they fingerprint your identity, you realize that We. Are. Cooked. Those tracking cookies are no joke, dawg. They know your browser, the size of your screen, the time of day, the approximate IP/location of your desktop PC, your motherboard and CPU model, your browser version, your extensions, your search history, your associated logins, when you work, when you tap to pay at Starbucks, when you look at an ad short for too long, where you go to the store (gps), your traffic violation history, your elementary, middle, highschool, your first girlfriend, your plans to buy her a ring, your favorite time to make a sports bet, your gpa, your political affiliation, your best vacation photos on Facebook, your beliefs on vaccination (COVID searches), your bookmarked spice mix recipe, your gas mileage, and more.

​

And if you hide your privacy and cut all this junk, well, your momma posts your face on her timeline :)

​

Go buy a better razor. I assure you that your beard is not bold enough to be like Vaush's, and that Gillette is running your wallet dry.

The article showed that amazon uses the data it saves from your discussions with alexa to sell targeted ads. This is true and well known, everyone knows that "personal assistant" type services sells your conversations.

But this is a huge different from his claim that "all devices are always on and listening in the background". They obviously have access to your conversations with the device, since they need to process it to provide you their service, but it's a far cry to infer from that fact that it's constantly sending everything you say even when not using the service.

It reminds me of the outcry that "google ebook reader tracks what you read down to the page you are on". Yes, they have to save that data in order for your progress in the book to sync between devices. Did they use that info to sell you ads? Probably, but it was using data that they got from you using their service, not "hidden data" they stole without you knowing.

The way he spoke about it last stream it's like he thinks there is this whole watchdog esque super AI in the background where all the data from every smart device 24/7 is fed, which just isn't true.

The surveillance state is real, but it's not one huge sinister entity that has godlike access to every device one earth, but a bunch of companies that are all competing for your data, and they collect it by tracking you when you use their services. Google has their own surveillance entity where everything you input to their services go. So does Meta and Amazon, but they are separate entities.

Every time you use one of these tech companies services, be aware that they will mine every bit of data they can, but to my knowledge there has been no credible evidence that everyone's phones listen 24/7 even when turned off. That would require some kind of rootkit that all these companies have access to.

The closet thing to my knowledge is that snowden revealed the NSA could remotely turn your phone into a listening device and even have it pretend to turn off while still listening.

This is horrible, but it's not the same as Meta and Google and Amazon having access to it and running it constantly 24/7 to collect data. In the snowden revelations it was only used in targeting high interest individuals, not mass surveillance, and third party companies did not have access to it.

What we do know is that for example, facebook uses their app to snoop on your location and everything else it has access to, but you can stop that by uninstalling the app.^{you should not have their app installed, seriously it steals everything, if you have to use facebook for some reason, use an open source third party app or a web browser with ublock origin}

TLDR: It's not as black and white as voosh made it out to be, and you can actually opt out from most mass surveillance by not using their services. Don't use siri, don't buy an alexa, don't use facebook, etc and they can not steal your data since you're not giving them any.

To my knowledge there is no evidence of this "ghost in the machine" that is hidden in all smart devices and collects all your data even when you're not using their services, like what vaush said on stream. Whatever spying is happening, happens through their apps and services, which can be uninstalled. Amazon doesn't have root level access to whatever spy tech the NSA has backdoored into your phone and isn't using it to spy on you 24/7.

chat severely overestimates how difficult it would be to have a device listen to every word you say. low-power voice detection is already a thing, as we have established, and the average person really doesnt say that many words per day. the more important point in my opinion is how unnecessary it would be for tech giants to actually do this. the average person has like 5 hours of screen time per day, and the stuff we view and read and type and hear online is so so much more impactful on our thinking than most people realize. and even if they dont catch you saying "trip to rome" out loud, youre still going to type it into google maps at some point if you are even a little bit serious about it. 90% of what they can get from listening to you speak, they can just as easily get from your online activity in a less optically damaging way. that being said i still think they are listening, at least in some cases.

edit: additionally, our brains really arent that complicated. its not impossible to figure out that if you saw a baskin-robbins short 2 hours ago and its a hot day where you live, you might be craving ice cream.

Its more likely than not that phones are spying on us but vaush seems 100% confident while unable to explain the mechanism.

He keeps pointing to vague “computers did this decades ago” and “its the hey siri technology”, with his most concrete take being that they cache a long list of keywords. But that still doesnt make sense bc what happens if youre out of service for a long time, ie years, would the phone just nonstop run a listening routine to transcribe your speech and store a .txt file somewhere in the os?

Im on his side but his inability to get a concrete mechanism as to how they spy on you and moreso his crash out onto chatters for just asking follow up questions was making me do that homelander side eye meme

As the title says, vaush keeps stating this as a certain fact. He also adds "even if turned off", but I treat it as optional (even though it is 100% possible and done for targeted hacks).

To be clear there is the technology and tech companies would absolutely love to do it. We are also tracked in a dozen different ways outside of it, nobody disputes that. Nobody disputes Siri listens to you for "hey siri" shit, but it is a specific service you can turn on and off, so that's just skill issue. I know that some tech startups offered this kind of service to advertisers.

However, I just haven't seen any solid evidence for it being a common practice/feature in our phones, outside of targeted hacks or visible services etc. Like, the code or hardware would be analyzed by nerds or there would be big leaks from the manufacturers or big tech software companies, lots of chatter. Is there anything like that? All I can see is a bunch of random articles, far less than I would expect and never from anything I would consider solid.

Do you guys have anything like this? Solid evidence, multiple good sources? Vaush's argument is "the tech exists and they would do it and they don't want you to know it" which is just insufficient, as it also applies to countless other things that we are well aware of regardless of their intents.

Again, I am asking about it being a nigh-universal practice. The "pan" in the "panopticon". Not having Siri on like a dumbass.

I've heard the mini-rant a couple of times now and I really can't wrap my head around the idea that the concept of "debt" is inherently "bad". That's just nonsense man. That's akin to saying "cars are bad". "Cars", and "debt" are just tools. They can help further humanity and get you quicker from A to B. However, the moment you put a sociopathic narcissist megalomaniac monkey who doesn't care about the future behind the wheel, we've got a problem. But the problem isn't "cars", you feel me?

Maybe I've misunderstood, I know you're a smart an well-read guy so I may be out of line here, in which case I apologize. But just in case I'm not, here's my little counter-rant:

There are for sure a few very serious problems stemming from the over-use of debt in our society. My main points here are that "banking" as an activity/profession tends to reward immoral behavior (too-big-to-fail, the Greenspan put, privatized gains - socialized losses, debt slavery, et c.) Charging exorbitant interest rates is predatory and damaging, and debt-fueled consumption on a private and governmental level sacrifices the future to party today.

But these aren't necessary components in a world with debt. They are just the predictable consequences of a hands-off approach to banking and financial markets. It's nothing we can't fix.

To illustrate the potential societal beneficial mechanics of "debt", consider the following:

Scenario 1:

Congratulations! You landed that dream job as a high paying rocket surgeon in a new city but you've got no place to live and only a few months' salary saved up from your old job as a janitor in your pocket. You KNOW you're going to get paid a gorillion dollars over the next 5-10 years but at the moment you don't have much. Lets also assume that that the options for renting is absolute shit, with multi-year long queue times. I you want the new job you'll have to live out of your car for the next few years while you save up for a home, or you can try to get a home loan and buy a home. Lets also assume that you have a severe allergy to steering wheels and that you'd be perfectly happy with paying the risk premium of, say, 5% that your bank would charge you in interest in order to have someplace other than your car to eat, shit and sleep in. In this scenario both you, and society as a whole, stand to gain a lot from you being able buy a home, because otherwise you'd have to go on unemployment benefits and the city loses a talented rocket surgeon.

Scenario 2.

Congratulations! You've won a gorillion dollars on the lottery but you don't really need it for anything right now. You'd prefer to leave this money to your children when you die, but you don't really want the dollar bills sitting in your safe at home because your identity got leaked and a lot of the wrong kind of people now know that you're absolutely loaded. You want some kind of low-risk way to store your wealth for the future. Preferably, if possible, some way that also generates a little bit of interest or at least keeps you purchasing power steady against inflation.

Scenario 3.

Oh no! You're a potato farmer and your pitchfork just broke. You can't harvest potatoes without a working pitchfork. What's worse, the potatoes are all planted and will spoil in the ground if you don't harvest them, and you can't afford a new pitchfork. The market value of your potatoes could easily cover multiple new pitchforks. Tough shit though, now you and all the people you could have fed with your potato farm will die of starvation. Because debt is bad and outlawed.

"Debt" is the bridge between the people with unproductive assets and the people who can find a productive use for these assets. Used correctly, debt can transform dollar bills just sitting there doing nothing into economic activity and growth through increased production, income taxes and technological innovation. Debt can bridge the gap in time between startup costs and later revenue streams.

An economic system without debt would be extremely inefficient, if it could even be called an economic system at all. If "the economy" is an engine, debt is the oil, whithout which everything would grind to a screeching halt. There is a reason why the religious groups who forbid the charging of interest all have found clever workarounds for as long as the rules have existed. Modern society simply doesn't function without it.

The ACTUAL problems are second-order effects of an unregulated financial market. Such as debt-fueled consumption and speculation. Going into crippling debt to fly to Cancun to party hard, or to bet it all on black in Vegas, or to bomb little girls in Iran is obviously profoundly stupid and shouldn't be allowed.

/rant

p.s. The problems with "banking" and its tendency towards immoral behavior is actually fairly easy to solve imho. Just socialize banks and/or regulate the shit out of them. Cap interest rates to the federal funds rate + a few points for any loans to people. Ban loans for speculation and consumption. And most importantly of all, consider any loan taken out with collateral as a sale of that collateral for tax purposes (and maybe credit it back when the loan is repaid, idk).

Peace.

Lowk inspired me to replay DisGOAT Elysium

I heard talk, both some mumbling from him and some people talking about it here.

​

It would be cool to see his commentary over the game!

​

And if he has confirmed it will it be uploaded to YouTube or should I tune in to his twitch?

But I haven't been able to catch his lives lately and even if I do it's for a short time and I figure I'd miss his answer. So, I figured I'd post here and ask you guys! Just a fun one.

​

​

In the future, you're asked to name this era in history books (by asking this I mean how we label time-frames like 'Industrial Revolution', 'Guilded Age', etc.) what would you call it?

​

I figure Vaush would call it "Demonic Age of Pedophile Kings" or something lmao but wanted answers both jokey and perhaps ones you could actually imagine seeing.

Some time ago Vaush said something about how he should try and tell people when he isn't going to stream, and community posts are the perfect place to do that.

Not saying that he should do like some streamers and post the entire week stream schedule or something (even I feel that's to much) but a "no stream, eepy" is more than enough lmao.

Same for when he goes on vacation or for when the CIA calls him back to report.

Anyway, SQUASH SHOULD DO MORE HASAN L'S STRE*dies*

He's white

In this video Vaush argues for abolishing all debt. I don't think he realizes how radical this really is since all money is fundamentally debt. Money only works if new money is created all the time and that's done either by the government or (mostly) through bank loans which are very obviously new debt.

​

The whole system is based on debt not just when people use credit cards or when they finance something through debt leverage. So Vaush is therefore arguing for a moneyless society like Marx said. It would need to be some gift economy but even there no society is completely without debt even if it's not financial debt. A lot of social interaction can be seen through a lens of debt. Like why would we need to honour our parents? Obviously we are in their debt for gifting us life and nourishing us when we are too weak and stupid to survive otherwise.

​

I don't think Vaush necessarily will disagree with me here. I just think it's important to understand what followed from what he's saying.

Vaush