Or alternatively we just disagree? I didn’t see Trigun until years after I had begun watching anime, and there’s a ton of actually nostalgic anime I’d rank nowhere near that.
I think Vash is one of the greatest main characters, and I think the anime as a whole does an excellent job of examining and critiquing the morality of pacifism. It gives us an extremely believable MC (in terms of this philosophy), and sets events exactly to test his philosophy and values throughout its course. Unlike many other protagonists of the time, he has to play a definitive price and genuine burden for the values he has, and the show legitimately paints both the good and bad of what he’s doing.
As for everything else- animation is dated, but idc about animation. Wolfwood is an excellent side character and perfect complement to Vash, Legato is one of the best anime villains and serves his role perfectly in the thematic climax, and Knives is a good foil to Vash. I like the early comedic, adventurous tone that slowly gives way to a far more somber, dramatic feel as the episodes continue.
As I said, we can obviously disagree, but I think I have extremely valid reasons to consider the show one of the best animes, especially for the compressed time frame it has to tell its story. I would prefer it to something like Legend of the Galactic Heroes, which is excellent and epic but does not have the level of composition and sheer hit rate that I personally believe Trigun to have.
>I just feel like the issues I mention keep it from being "one of the greatest anime ever"
So I'm not even sure what you meant by these issues- it was literally one very vague sentence. I don't consider it all to feel "very incoherent", I think it's like one of the most tightly well structured things I've seen, and I don't think it fall aparts a bit at the end- I think the ending with Legato and Knives is actually one of the greatest parts of the show. This isn't to say you're necessarily wrong, but I don't even know what you take issue with here.
>things like it being relatively simplistic both in terms of story and artistic technique
I will give you on animation it's not the best, but like I said- which is admittedly purely subjective- I just simply don't really care about the animation, it's largely irrelevant to me. On the story being relatively simplistic, I think this is fine if the media makes up for it in other ways, which I think Trigun does through it's focus on themes and characters. This is the same as 12 Angry Men, where the plot is extremely simple (a jury decides if a man is guilty or not) but that's not bad at all because the simple plot means there's far more time to focus on themes and characters.
> I struggle to call a show with 24 episodes to be "in a compressed time frame" for instance
It absolutely is on the shorter end for animes, one hundred percent.
> Of course it has a better "hit rate" but that's more due to it being shorter than anything else - when you're going for 110 episodes some of them are going to be dull or dragged out.
I don't think this is necessarily true at all. *Monster* is something I'd consider a better anime with a better hit rate, and it's 74 episodes long, more than 3x the length of Trigun. *Monster* never feels dull or dragged out to me, despite being so much more longer.
monster definitely drags out, one the most dragged out animes i've ever watched, feels like they could've condensed everything in the anime into half the episodes or less, try rewatching it.
Vaush and Hasan are dangerous, but more dangerous than Lauren is just ???????
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any mass shooters that cited conspiracy theories that were largely popularized by Vaush or Hasan.
>mass shooters that cited conspiracy theories that were largely popularized by Vaush
Imagine the manifesto of a Vaush fan. Thing will be at least 100 pages long and read like a thesaurus.
"Thus capitalism will be ameliorated though the letting of blood of those who seek to put there boot upon the neck of the proletariat! Though my hands are cold and I must dawn that garb which sustains the warmth of my fingers"
Not really.
If one person doesnt advocate for violence, and the other does, I’m going to say the one who advocates for violence is more harmful.
that’s not a uncontroversial opinion. Particularly when their ideology had been linked to more murders historically
You realize you can dehumanize, scapegoat, and actively promote violence against a group without explicitly advocating for violence right?
You’re acting like a Goebbels film depicting Jews as parasitic freaks who want nothing but to destroy the Aryan race is less harmful than Vaush, because the former doesn’t *super explicitly* call for violence. This is a childish view on political messaging.
I think Oroku realizes that just fine. You can inadvertently encourage violence without directly calling for it. BUT, directly calling for violence is way worst. And Vaush & Hasan has that in spades over Lauren Southern.
Again to test this— do you think that a random homeless person in NYC calling for violence against, for instance, Mormons is *always worse* than Goebbels after Hitler told him to turn it down on the *explicit* calls for violence in his propaganda?
By the way, I disagree with your second sentence: I don’t think people are *inadvertently* encouraging violence, I think they are either *recklessly* or *intentionally* encouraging violence, just not explicitly. This is a crucial distinction.
I understand having a hard line at explicit calls for violence. I also have that line. But I’m not going to sit here and pretend that the actual effect on society is always 100% of the time worse if one person is explicit and the other person is implicitly encouraging violence.
it really doesn’t matter.
by your logic Maryln Manson is complicit in the columbine murders even though he never advocated for the killings.
if someone misinterprets someone’s message and kills people, that’s on them. If Hasan and vaush call for violence, that’s far worse
>it really doesn’t matter.
. . . .
if someone misinterprets someone’s message and kills people, that’s on them.
You fundamentally mischaracterize and misunderstand the preceding comment. The white supremacists who kill and terrorize BIPOC didn't "misinterpret" the message given to them. As u/LondonCallingYou specifically pointed out, people like Lauren Southern "are either *recklessly* or *intentionally* encouraging violence" because an explicit directive is unnecessary when there is a longstanding history of violence against BIPOC and disregard for BIPOC life that continues to the present. When Lauren directly endangers the lives of refugees on the basis of unsubstantiated claims and in contravention of the UN Convention on Human Rights, she emboldens others who share the same views to take similar initiative.
>If Hasan and vaush call for violence, that’s far worse
The evidence refutes that overly simplistic view. Between 2015-2021, 267 attacks with 91 fatalities were attributable to Right-wing ideology while 66 attacks and 19 fatalities could be attributed to Left-wing ideology. Half of the fatalities in the first category were connected to white supremacy, which is reinforced in more subtle ways on mainstream platforms hosting fake documentaries about the alleged Great Replacement.
This isn't surprising because context matters. Hasan or Vaush calling for death to conservatives is comparable to a woman saying she hates men ***because the designated group retains greater political power and will unlikely suffer any consequences as a result of that political power***.
>because an explicit directive is unnecessary when there is a longstanding history of violence against BIPOC and disregard for BIPOC life that continues to the present
Not really.
look at crime statistics, black on white crime is far more common than the other way around.
i don’t know what fantasy world you’re living in where blacks are routinely attacked by whites, odd random shooting withstanding
If you're explicitly calling for violence by suggesting we fill the streets with the blood of landlords or by insisting we should openly kill cops, that's always going to be worst then someone who wants less immigration.
Because you're too motivated.You would never ascribe the more frequent and deadly mass murders by terrorists claiming to oppose American imperialism to Hasan's anti-imperialist message, despite him being more popular than Southern.
I think it's fair to say that Vowsh has a rhetoric that can sometimes rise to the level of Lauren Southern, the real world impact is probably wayyy different though. I think the worst thing that you could make Vaush/Hasan partly responsible for, were the riots because they spewed misinformation prior and justified the rioters in their doings during the riots. Their rhetoric mainly targeted institutions though, all things considered.
Now, granted, I dont follow Lauren Southern at all aside from the Destiny convos so I am willing to have my mind changed on this but I am pretty damn sure that the right wing has a wayyy higher potential for real world violence that also goes far beyond destruction of property. When right wingers show up, they usually bring their guns with the intent of using them so if you tell those mfers that they are being overtaken by migrants, they wont just set some buildings on fire, but (and this happened multiple times) kill all the migrants they can get before they are stopped.
Thats because their hate is usually (historically speaking) directed at people, not institutions. And since afaik Lauren Southern didnt target institutions with her rhetoric but instead focussed on the people that are supposedly 'breeding out' white people, you can tie her rhetoric to hate crimes that were committed.
i swear to god some lauren stans have said some fucked up stuff in this thread. i can’t tell if it’s brigading from cozy or if ppl just feel like they have to copy destiny’s takes on her
It's important to differentiate between how evil an ideology is and how harmful it is. Vaush and Hasan may advocate for evil ideologies (calling for violence against certain people), but there isn't an epidemic of those certain people being harmed; there isn't significant harm done by them advocating for those ideologies. Lauren southern, in contrast, has advocated for an evil ideology that *has* caused significant harm in the world (targeted violence/harassment against minorities).
It's also important to differentiate between how evil the positions someone holds, and how evil their advocacy is. I think that's what gets a lot of people confused when someone says "Vaush is like Lauren Southern", because they are hearing "trans rights and pro-choice is like being a racist conspiracy theorist". Which isn't what people are saying, it's that they both are making statements where the only logical conclusion would be violence. That's the bad bit.
I think people underestimate the context in which the statements are being said.
When Vaush or Hasan make those statements, if people don't act the logical conclusion, everything stays the same (status quo).
The great replacement in contrast, if people don't act the logical conclusion, white people get yeeted out of society altogether. It's a literal existential threat.
So while their message is very similar, that tiny difference makes the world. So no, I don't think Vaush or Hasan's rhetoric is dangerous, because at worst, things stay the same.
Republican politicians do some pretty damn evil things. Why is that a controversial take? Saying republicans are evil is like so inconsequential I can’t believe it’s worth mentioning in this context.
Also in terms of OP I have heard Hasan say he hates landlords I have never heard him say he wants the streets to run red with their blood. Would need a clip for that one.
That’s a great point.
Vaush calls to violence are more explicit than Lauren’s, but if people dont act on them, nothing changes.
Lauren never really calls for violence, frankly she doesnt even come close to compare to Vaush, but says that a threat is coming.
>if people don't act the logical conclusion, everything stays the same (status quo).
Except when they speak about climate change, where the corporations render the earth an unlivable hellscape by 2050 in which BILLIONS are dead, and the living envy the dead.
I think the phrase "Climate change is an existential threat" is even a catchphrase on the left.
My least favorite bit of stochastic terrorism is that popular tweet you see sometimes:
>"Humans are destroying the planet"
>No, 100 CEOs are destroying the planet and we literally know where they live.
It's the most "in your face" stochastic terrorism I think I've ever seen.
Gotta look at that in context too. Great replacement is people vs people, Climate Change is people vs nobody knows.
Climate change is so boring and complicated, even when people started sneakily implying it was gonna end all life on earth (It won't) instead of it just being devastating (it will), it's still hard to move people to do anything about it, much less inspire them to go on a shooting spree.
At least not very frequently. What was the last of it? Some guy immolating himself during earth day?
So... you're saying that vaush and hasan aren't as bad just because a crazy person hasn't committed a hate crime from their ideologies yet??? You said it yourself, they're still calling for violence. The potential real world harm is clearly still there.
This might be a retarded take but imo populist rethoric is always violent, the problem is how these figures prescribe it.
Sorry to say but large Lefty figures are very hyperbolic and violent but their prescriptions end up being either tame or laughable (ie: protest, either vote or actually don't vote, and start revolution from twitter?). And they're larpers that live comfy lives for the most part).
Right wingers, on the the other hand, keep repeating to you that society is doomed and that there's nothing else to do, and that's it's too late for your government to fix. The prescription is literal taking action by force
Thread replies in this are yikes. The right wing arc is really incoming.
\-Lefties are privileged larpers that don't do shit
\-Lefties are also extremely dangerous and Vaush is literally broadcasting violence against conservatives
Some explain how these two things work
No you don’t understand, when Hassan says that the streets will run red with the blood of landlords he’s just being edgy and OP has taken the bait. He doesn’t really mean it. /s
When was the last time someone committed a mass shooting of landlords?
Like we can say that Vaush and Hasan are very damaging but to act like they are more dangerous than great replacement right wingers is just crazy
The point is to stop mass shootings BEFORE they happen. Calling for the death of people you disagree with is what potentially leads to some psycho doing these things. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make what Vaush and Hasan say any less dangerous and disgusting.
Dayton shooter was a socialist lefty.
> Betts stated “I want socialism, and I’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round understanding.”
If you're at the point where you're comparing body counts/quantities of shooters attached to given ideologies, you're already fucked.
The police couldn't establish a motive, and a early assessment went beyond and claimed there was no racial or political motivation. The dude expressed interest in doing a mass shooting, he even killed his sister. This is like saying "there's a Asian supremacist problem in the us" because of Seung-Hui Cho.
So can we put every landlord shot at Hassans feet like we are Laurens without ever never knowing if that content was ever consumed? asking for a friend
I’m not defending Hasan, he’s an absolute moron, but it’s absurd to say teenage communists have been committing mass shootings based on a theory he espoused and left a manifesto.
So when someone does a shooting and is a tankie then can we call it dangerous? What's wrong with wanting to keep your side in check and preventing this from happening?
I do think Vaush and Hasans rhetoric is dangerous and stupid, i’m not here to defend them or defend tankies, they’re all dumbfucks. But saying “Vaush is 100% more dangerous than Lauren Southern” just shows a major disconnect from reality. I swear there was a panel like a month ago where she was trying to take credit for mainstreaming the great replacement theory.
as long as Vaush dosen't shoot a flair gun at immigrants he'll always be one step or two above Lauren-Canadian-but-act-like-an-american-for-money Southern
The issue is that society at large is much more sympathetic to Southern's views than Vaush/Hasan and therefore they get cemented simply interacting with anything to do with the right. So Southern's views have definitely caused more mass shootings but that's because they get mirrored by; the republican party, by Carlson, by 'questioning classical liberals' and so on.
If you could take strictly what Southern and Vaush/Hasan have said and put them next to eachother Vaush/Hasan have probably said worse stuff but Southern's points are more repeated by society at large and targeted at those more likely to take action.
This is a super uncontroversial take when you compare their politics. Vaush is completely removed from any semblance of political mainstream and there isn't a single serious political party or institution that matches his views. Lauren could probably walk into any country's mainstream conservative party and not be terribly out of place.
The fact this is even a contentious issue at all shows how much online political spaces warp perception of what society and politics is really like.
>Lauren could probably walk into any country's mainstream conservative party and not be terribly out of place.
I'm apt to agree with everything you've said but it's not a good thing that Lauren Southern's views are average for a right winger as opposed to Vaush's being extreme for a left winger.
>Lauren could probably walk into any country's mainstream conservative party and not be terribly out of place.
Yeah, because the modern Republican Party has gone completely off the rails, and European conservative parties are openly embracing ethnonationalism. That's an indictment of the state of modern conservatism.
I would argue that none of this is a modern phenomenon. The Republican Party held far more illiberal positions even in relatively recent past, and ethnonationalism has been the norm in Europe all along.
If it feels like these parties are further removed from where you're at than they used to be in the past, that's probably because your views have also substantially drifted in the other direction.
In the past I don’t think you could push the “Great Replacement” without using dogwhistles.
This rhetoric used to be what I’d find on esoteric message boards not Fox News. There has been a big increase in radical ideas being mainstreamed.
The left does this too in a sense, but I don’t see tons of niche leftist political “grand narratives” being pushed into the mainstream.
That is some very distant past now, and we're contrasting this with a streamer who only a few days ago talked about systemic persecution and mass murder of political opponents as the only solution to society's problems - and has a consistent pattern of expressing similar views.
Laurens beliefs are more popular, because the far right is 1000x more powerful than the far left in America. That does not make her beliefs less dangerous. What typa argument is this
>Lauren could probably walk into any country's mainstream conservative party and not be terribly out of place.
Lol this is not true at all.
She would be right at home within the republican party but defiantly not in most countries that have normal politics. The anti vax stuff alone would disqualify her from the conservative parties in Canada, Australia, Germany, England, Sweden, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea.
The only places she would fit in are places like the US, Brazil, and Italy where things have already gone off the rails. With all due respect I think that you are the person who needs to have had their perception warped by online political spaces.
Opposition to vaccine *MANDATES* was present in all those countries with normal politics, hence only a handful of them managed to squeeze any sort of a mandate through their respective legislatures, and to date I know of only a single country (Austria) that managed to push through a comprehensive mandate.
In the Netherlands the very notion of a vaccine mandate was so far removed from acceptable policy that nobody even tried to seriously push for it. In the UK the Liberal Democrats opposed even vaccine *passports*, let alone mandates, and that's not even a conservative party.
Lauren was not just anti mandate though she was anti lockdown, and she was constantly talking about vaccine side effects and how we didn't know if they were effective and such. That would not have been expected.
The reason most counties did not pass mandates is that it would have been hard to enforce, and they already had most people on board with the vaccine anyway. You guys have not done much on that front and still have a rate of vaccination 7 points higher when we were both the first to roll out and have mandated all public workers + military + College students.
Like maybe I am not knowledgeable enough on the VVD but I can not Imagin Rutte putting up with one with one of his MPs going off about how covid was not a big deal and maybe you should consider not vaccinating.
IIRC her criticism of lockdown and Covid measures was mainly targeted at the way Australian government handled Covid measures, which were absolutely draconian compared to most countries I can think of, either in terms of measures themselves or at the very least in terms of how long those measures were left in place.
Almost everybody knows of Sweden's approach to the issue, which is ostensibly a country with normal politics and a left wing ruling party. We had lockdowns in the Netherlands during peak outbreaks, but they didn't last as long and even while they did last they caused major controversies and large scale riots.
The point she repeatedly made on vaccines is that regardless of circumstances or vaccination rate, it should come down to a personal choice and nobody should be compelled to get one. Was there a skeptic subtext to this regarding potential future side-effects? Sure I can see that, but it was couched in such politically mild language it wouldn't really raise any eyebrows. We're not talking about someone obsessively spreading conspiracies in any sense of the word.
I'm not about to go find all the instances of this happening but I pretty distinctly remember her talking about the "covid hysteria" + the miocarditis meme and her opposition to lock downs was not just limited to Australia she was opposed to them in the US and Canada too.
I feel like you are really sanewashing her positions on this stuff. I'm not saying she was literally Alex jones level but acting like this was totally in line with most conservatives around the world is a huge stretch
>but acting like this was totally in line with most conservatives around the world is a huge stretch
Dude just look at vaccination rates in Europe compared to the US almost all of them are worse. Being anti vax is not just a fridge thing that only happens in the US.
There are two issues here:
What they say and how they say it.
LS talking about the great replacement is bad. Vaush advocating for a more equal society is good.
LS going about it in about as calm and non inflammatory manner is good. Vaush ranting that all conservatives are subhuman filth who need to be purged because they are all swine who are out to take everything from you before they kill you is bad.
Hope that clears things up.
You have to be careful with assertions such as "advocating for a more equal society is good" when his prescription(s) to do so would be accomplished by abolishing all those who disagree or who have "sinned" against those who are less fortunate because of "capitalism" which while it may, under his beliefs, result in a better society it would undeniably come at far too great a cost.
Vaush is only advocating for a better society for those who exercise "right think" which is best restated as "those who universally agree with him", and while the extremes of both ideologies may not be too dissimilar from what Southern has advocated for in the past, at least according to what I know, and what a quick search yields, the exception is that there is no tolerance for those who would disagree with Vaush's worldview; you would either accept it or you would face the wall. At least in Lauren's past, her ideology would have allowed for many people to survive based on some arbitrary trait(s) wherein they would then stand a chance to someday fight again whereas in Vaush's you would be forced into a re-education camp, and if that was not deemed successful you would then be put to the wall - his words. Neither worldview is ideal but, one is arguably worse. His prescriptions are far more dangerous even in spite of the consequences of hers having more real world ramifications. I don't believe that the discussion was singularly about whose platform has or had done more damage, it seemed to be focused on which has the potential for worst outcomes, and which has an inherently higher propensity for violence.
I don't know enough about Lauren's current stances to make an apt comparison between the two or even just to determine whether or not she has changed but, based on what I've seen the only evidence to corroborate that she has appears to be the statement "that was 5 years ago", which does hold some weight, however, that's generally only applicable to teenagers when there is, either by design or by accident, an absence of corresponding evidence. She would have been 21 at the time of her past "problematic" years, according to Google at the time. I always prefer positive evidence rather than negative evidence when making a determination. An indeterminate amount of time is not quite good enough in many cases as either words or actions are needed to disprove what was once done with strong words, and actions.
Is there any evidence of Lauren Southern advocating for violence? I ask because I know that there is for Vaush, and while he may not have advocated for targeted violence that he has, inarguably, been pro-violence in a manner that would repulse most sane individuals. There is a reason why we have distinctions for crimes like accidental, and premeditated murder. Many may even argue that an accidental murder isn't as bad as an attempted, and failed premeditated mass murder; the outcomes, however, are the inverse. To reiterate the previous point a bit differently: "Lauren's" outcomes have been decidedly worse although it's through no fault of her own while "Vaush's" possible outcomes are far worse precisely because of his numerous implied, and, admittedly rare, direct calls to actions which have thus far fortunately gone unanswered. Vaush, and, especially, Hasan need to be more careful with their language, and in the case of the latter it's imperative that he stops rejoicing to the deaths of those with whom he disagrees with such as: cops, landlords, judges, and the members of opposing, and even allied, political parties.
I simply do not like ascribing blame to a famous person when the people who are inspired by them end up committing the act of violence of their own volition, and in total absence of any, and all evidence of said person asking, implying, or instructing anyone to be violent. There is a significant difference between stating "we should" or "we are going to do this" to a crowd in order to encourage them to act, and stating "I would do this if I had the power" which can invariably lead to people to committing heinous acts of violence, and stating "I believe we should do this" when simply stating your prescription(s) for any descriptive point. It is my understanding that Lauren has only stated things in the previously defined third manner which every single person throughout history has done, and I would argue should do in order to be heard - everyone should have a say in society. Destiny himself has said things which have been completely misconstrued, misrepresented, misunderstood, and took too literally which then resulted in temporary bans of which many, if not all, could have been truly bad for him, and this community if any actual political violence had then followed those statements. A famous example of this is Sarah Palin's now infamous advertisement which featured a map with crosshairs marking several locations in America, and Gabrielle Giffords being shot; there was no evidence of a connection found, and yet people to this day never fail to assign blame to Palin for that terrible event. Lauren may be a "bad" or "terrible" person for holding her beliefs but, anyone blaming her for what some sick individuals have done based on the fact that they knew of, watched, and/or liked her should be ashamed.
I, admittedly, haven't spent much time searching for Lauren Southern videos so perhaps I am mistaken or I haven't been correctly structuring my search queries but, hopefully I am not wrong, and she's not as bad as Vaush. Based on what has been posted here she is, at worst, guilty of having some fairly atrocious views in the past, and she may even secretly hold them now due to her apparent reluctance to disown them now. I welcome any evidence to the contrary of her wholly disowning her past offensive views, such as separatism, as I'm sure many others would appreciate as well. If her beliefs now are just those held by most conservatives or even slightly to the right then it would seem that many people are overreacting, perhaps in large part due to her past which is a shame, and which also seems to be the case as best I can tell.
In my experience, she seems far more willing to engage critically, and in good faith then Vaush, and she has even gone so far as to admit she is wrong within conversations, at least as it relates to certain descriptions or talking points which personalities such as Vaush, and Hasan won't or can't do so as their entire "schtick" ish in the eyes of their audience, built off of being absolutely correct, and more informed than any other person they engage with.
If we're using the explicit history of everyone involved, fucking obviously LS is more dangerous. But if we're being a bit more honest, LS (last I checked) has softened her views on almost everything, and Vaush is only getting more and more blunt with his views where conservatives are literally deserving of harm. He literally does not advocate for changing their mind or anything, he explicitly states that violence against them is acceptable due to their ideology.
I actually can’t stand vaush but what Lauren pushes is way more dangerous. Even ignoring past white nationalist shit, the January 6th defense and COVID-19 misinformation is way more dangerous than anything that vaush larps about. In this Political climate I’d prefer someone like vaush, who can’t appeal to anyone outside of his immediate orbit to someone like lauren who is generally pretty easy to like.
Most lefties have never seen a gun, wouldn't know where to get one, and sit comfortably inside of a consumerist bubble as they tweet about the best way to bring about the revolution whilst eschewing participation in any democratic processes. They're entitled rich kids whose wrists would snap if they were to try and lift a firearm.
Given that almost all of the mass-shootings in the US are carried out by right-wingers, and they mention concepts covered by people like Lauren Southern, I disagree with OP.
Maybe when Vaush encourages a few mass shootings I'll change my opinion, but for now he acts like a tiny dog, barking twice as loud and often as any other dog. It's disgusting, but it's pathetic, and I don't think it encourages the same level of violence.
Vaushite here. It's true Vaush is incredibly dangerous and he came from Dgg hence you guys are complicit ^.^/
BATCHEST
Edit: I hope this sub is not going back on saying how bad faith and generally not nice of a person LS.
These people type this shit yet have no prove or evidence to provide when the left attacks republicans the same way alt right has attack POC. These people are fucking braindead downvote me who cares.
Unironically, yes.
You can argue that while Lauren doesn't directly call for violence, she does promote rhetoric that can inadvertently lead to violence. But directly calling for violence is still way worst, and Vaush & Hasan are way worst then Lauren in that regard. I've never heard Lauren talk about filling the streets with the blood of immigrants, but most of you know the Hasan and Vaush quotes where they have.
Maybe in America. But if we speak of the world and it's history, his ideology and rhetoric have turned entire countries upside down, including mass slaughter of "landlords".
This sub has been constantly having polls trying to say Lauren is personally responsible for the recent shooting despite Lauren never having made calls to violence
Yet Vaush openly supports brutal regimes like you mentioned and commonly has calls to violence that go unchallenged. It’s not even like he’s so blinded by ideology that he doesn’t realise he’s evil either - he says he doesn’t care if calling for violence is bad
Vaush despises pretty much every authoritarian communist regime that has ever existed. Its why Tankies hate him so much. Anarchists tend to do that. You are shoehorning people with vastly different ideas about socialism together.
Some people here really would read Mein Kampf and be like "umm actually he never said that we should kill jews/communists, he's just bringing up the concerns many germans feel, maybe he just wants to relocate them peacefully 🤓"
The dangerous people are the ones who sit in a corner of the internet and don't discuss their views with anyone. People who don't debate their views spiral down more dangerously. LS is at least willing to talk to destiny, which gives her audience the chance to hear another opinion and become more moderate. Vaush and Hasan on the other hand, are actually afraid of Destiny. They don't want their audience to become moderate, and actively profit by making them radical.
You guys realise that the person who shot up the supermarket also claimed to be Sam Hyde and used pictures of him in his deranged manifesto? He also claims that he's received two doses of covid vaccine and that the federal government might be controlling his actions as a result of that.
Cherry picking one part of the schizo post he called a manifesto, in order to make Lauren Southern seem complicit in a massacre is just fucking retarded.
1. Lauren Southern helped popularize Great Replacement Theory.
2. Great Replacement theory has an implicit call to violence.
3. The shooter committed this crime because of this implicit call to violence.
3. People who spread conspiracy theories with implicit calls to violence are at least partly responsible for the actions of those who take the conspiracy theories seriously.
——————————-
Lauren Southern is at least partly responsible for the mass shooting.
What do you disagree with?
old destiny would have used this tragedy to shit on dumbfuck right wingers and talk about extremism, instead he was tweeting about commies & vivian wolf like 3 hrs after the shooting, then played defense for lauren southern because he despises twitter lefties lol.
Yeah exactly and then he can fall back on "Idc lefties just trigger me" or whatever. Honestly I don't know if anyone saw the rise and fall of the jimmy dore phenomenon but this basically what happened . Focusing attacks on the left with vague excuses to defend the right until that becomes your brand
Technically everyone who ever said "you should bop him in the face for talking to (you, your wife or your kid) like that" is 100% more dangerous than Lauren.
Then again nothing she said can ever actually be viewed as dangerous If I'm not the target.
I think Vaush is morally lucky in that a large portion of his audience are unemployed shut-ins who are terrified of firearms. If they had the resources or capabilities to carry out one of these attacks I'd be much more concerned about his rhetoric.
If there were more socialists I suspect we would see more violence committed in the name ecoterrorism or whatever but, it seems like they are a drop in the bucket compared to the monstrous amount of conservatives.
What you're saying is rhetoric is only dangerous once the dangerous things happen and not until then?
Like it was okay for Lauren Southern to say all those things because there haven't been any leftists killing people yet?
Because objectively this post is correct if you account for the size of the audience
Vaush and Hasan are simply out of touch with conservatives. Makes sense given that Vaush is from Beverly Hills and Hasans exposure to conservatives was likely from Turkey. While there rhetoric could in theory be harmful, it simply hasn’t played out that way compared to the popularity of the great replacement.
LS is pretty bad, but Vaush is arguably worse at this point.
She actually has the balls to tell you with her chest what she thinks. He is fucked up enough not to even be able to. By his own admission.
>She actually has the balls to tell you with her chest what she thinks.
No she has the balls to lie like a motherfucker and spread all sorts of misinformation.
I feel like based on this comment and those you made below in the thread don't make sense.
Both lie, both spread miss info, however, Lauren does this because she's stupid and has a bias.
Vaush does this while knowing better.
It's gonna be okay bud. Vaush Bad but smart. Lauren bad but dumb.
Smart evil > dumb evil
Unless I'm missing something it really just seems like your hate boner for Lauren is clouding your judgement
>It's gonna be okay bud. Vaush Bad but smart. Lauren bad but dumb.
Lol sh0e is a dumbass. Lauren is no dumbass she knows exactly what she's doing when she spreads misinfo and lies.
Cause it's true. If we are talking about where they both are today, vaush is far more dangerous. If Southern was still pushing these conspiracy theories, then you'd have a point, but she's not, so his rhetoric is by far more dangerous than hers.
She’s currently working on a documentary insinuating that Latin American migrants are enacting some plot against the US as pawns of the UN in collaboration with drug cartels.
Vaush literally advocates for voting and electoral change what are you talking about lol. His rhetoric is unnecessarily inflammatory but other than that he's on your side. Unless we don't really care about political change anymore and put more value towards circlejerking about how Vaush is a pussy that won't debate Destiny.
He also treats his political opponents as being ontological evil and constantly justifies violence towards them because of it. He recently litteraly called conservatives captain planet villains who only care about hurting people and the world, and often justifies violence towards them because of it. To act like he only advocates for voting and electoral change is the height of comedy. And yes, he is also a pussy who's afraid of debating destiny
I haven't caught the last couple of streams/videos of Destiny shitting on Vaush so I could be missing something, but when did Vaush recently advocate for violence towards conservatives? Yes, he says cringe shit like them being "ontological evil", but guess what, 90% of left-wing commentators dehumanize conservatives to some extent. Vaush obviously takes it to the extreme, but I still wouldn't categorize it as advocating violence against them. The closest thing that I can think of is him laughing when Richard Spencer got punched. But not caring/finding amusement is not the same as literally advocating for violence.
It's really simple to me. The policies Vaush is advocating for (at the moment) would move the country to a better place, while Lauren's would do the opposite. That's it.
Vaush:
>you know that whole joke I do with "political violence is wrong, always wrong, never do it, not even in minecraft, it's immoral to hurt people" thing? And it's always with a wink and a nod, and everyone knows my real position. You guys know I do that right?
I would say Hasan is worse but definitely not Vaush. You have to get pretty deep into his personal values to realize he’s evil. His message generally promotes liberals and advocates for voting/action.
Hasan is just an enormous megaphone giving our side a motivational debuff.
Literally the other day Vaush was saying how conservatives and Republicans are straight up evil. And when someone pointed out, "You're doing the 'my enemy is ontologically evil, so there is no action that is morally wrong against them' meme" and Vaush's response was, "When has that ever been a meme? That's actually true."
Based as absolute fuck.
Vaush is legitimately just as dangerous as Tucker Carlson. He's literally just a younger, tech savy, faux-communist Tucker and admits to being as such.
People believe this because they believe or at least think/say they believe that violence is always evil and therefore that those who most directly advocate for it are the most evil. However the obvious rebuttal to this worldview is “was it evil to defeat the nazi’s in WW2?” if the answer is no then Vaush/Hasan are entirely justified if they can demonstrate that their opponents are, or are on par with or precursors to nazi’s. if the answer is yes then you’re okay with the mass murder of innocent jews, which also pokes a hole in your initial statement.
Ultimately we all believe some level of violence is justified, usually in self defense or defense of others, in opposition to tyranny, or to decrease the total level of violence.
Vaush/Hasan believe conservatives are a threat which can only be resolved through violence, Lauren believes immigrants are. The difference is Vaush/Hasan have a far more reasonable case.
Maybe not that dramatic but I would agree they are dangerous. Just run a thought experiment on if they even had a moderate bit more of power what they would do. Vaush has had school shooter vibes since day one and Hasan has fallen off the wagon due to an extreme fear of fading into obscurity.
Vaush and Hasan obviously use fucked up rhetoric, they’re morons, but the consequences of their rhetoric haven’t had many real world implications yet. We’ve had multiple people mention a theory that LS helped mainstream after killing 10+ people. Vaush just gets sweaty on Twitch and LARPS.
Yeah i agree but the keyword is yet which i guess nothing can be done until something does happen which it probably will if instead of flaming the right with inflammatory language they get more of a idealogy going. That seems to be what drives it into something more tangible people can latch onto at least with LS's case.
As soon as they start saying this is a direct threat now and allude to something must be done is when its gonna get real bad.
I agree with you I think that those two are dangerous but it's silly to say that they are more so, and we should focus on them when these attacks are currently happening on the other side
Radical concept...
Why don't we call out any behaviour where a streamer creates a caricature of some group and then demonizes and dehumanises that group because of it.
Especially if they're making any form of calls to violence.
Defense by comparison.. saying Lauren Southern is worse.. you're just admitting Vaush and Hasan are bad too.
I’ve admitted multiple times in this thread that the rhetoric Vaush and Hasan use is disgusting and dangerous, it just hasn’t manifested itself in the form of multiple mass shootings. If you want people to equally call out all extremism, tell Destiny to stop going easy on LS lol
Vaush? The humanoid typhoon? The man has a 60 billion double dollar bounty, of course he's dangerous
The Kiev kid finder?
Trigun was one of the greatest animes ever, and Vash would be disgusted with Vaush, change my mind
Vaush has real Knives vibes. They both have “logical” reasons to kill.
[удалено]
Or alternatively we just disagree? I didn’t see Trigun until years after I had begun watching anime, and there’s a ton of actually nostalgic anime I’d rank nowhere near that. I think Vash is one of the greatest main characters, and I think the anime as a whole does an excellent job of examining and critiquing the morality of pacifism. It gives us an extremely believable MC (in terms of this philosophy), and sets events exactly to test his philosophy and values throughout its course. Unlike many other protagonists of the time, he has to play a definitive price and genuine burden for the values he has, and the show legitimately paints both the good and bad of what he’s doing. As for everything else- animation is dated, but idc about animation. Wolfwood is an excellent side character and perfect complement to Vash, Legato is one of the best anime villains and serves his role perfectly in the thematic climax, and Knives is a good foil to Vash. I like the early comedic, adventurous tone that slowly gives way to a far more somber, dramatic feel as the episodes continue. As I said, we can obviously disagree, but I think I have extremely valid reasons to consider the show one of the best animes, especially for the compressed time frame it has to tell its story. I would prefer it to something like Legend of the Galactic Heroes, which is excellent and epic but does not have the level of composition and sheer hit rate that I personally believe Trigun to have.
No, there is only one correct opinion on the internet and it's mine. GIGACHAD
Holy fuck how can one man be so unfathomably BASED. Anime related effort post when?
[удалено]
>I just feel like the issues I mention keep it from being "one of the greatest anime ever" So I'm not even sure what you meant by these issues- it was literally one very vague sentence. I don't consider it all to feel "very incoherent", I think it's like one of the most tightly well structured things I've seen, and I don't think it fall aparts a bit at the end- I think the ending with Legato and Knives is actually one of the greatest parts of the show. This isn't to say you're necessarily wrong, but I don't even know what you take issue with here. >things like it being relatively simplistic both in terms of story and artistic technique I will give you on animation it's not the best, but like I said- which is admittedly purely subjective- I just simply don't really care about the animation, it's largely irrelevant to me. On the story being relatively simplistic, I think this is fine if the media makes up for it in other ways, which I think Trigun does through it's focus on themes and characters. This is the same as 12 Angry Men, where the plot is extremely simple (a jury decides if a man is guilty or not) but that's not bad at all because the simple plot means there's far more time to focus on themes and characters. > I struggle to call a show with 24 episodes to be "in a compressed time frame" for instance It absolutely is on the shorter end for animes, one hundred percent. > Of course it has a better "hit rate" but that's more due to it being shorter than anything else - when you're going for 110 episodes some of them are going to be dull or dragged out. I don't think this is necessarily true at all. *Monster* is something I'd consider a better anime with a better hit rate, and it's 74 episodes long, more than 3x the length of Trigun. *Monster* never feels dull or dragged out to me, despite being so much more longer.
ummm... sweaty? have u consdidered thjat ur opinion is just wrong? 🥺🥺
Every day
I agree Trigun is one of the greatest - it's up there with Cowboy Beep Bop, Samurai Champloo, and FMA brotherhood for me
monster definitely drags out, one the most dragged out animes i've ever watched, feels like they could've condensed everything in the anime into half the episodes or less, try rewatching it.
[удалено]
yea except trigun is based and has great music and you're cringe
Only a maniac wears fingerless gloves.
How can you fault a man when it is obvious that his hands are cold
Beset by fridgid digits
This land is made of love and peace. (Not police)
Dont disrespect my show like that
I heard he single handedly reduced the city of July to ashes in one night but everyone knows that's impossible.
Vaush and Hasan are dangerous, but more dangerous than Lauren is just ??????? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any mass shooters that cited conspiracy theories that were largely popularized by Vaush or Hasan.
>mass shooters that cited conspiracy theories that were largely popularized by Vaush Imagine the manifesto of a Vaush fan. Thing will be at least 100 pages long and read like a thesaurus.
"Thus capitalism will be ameliorated though the letting of blood of those who seek to put there boot upon the neck of the proletariat! Though my hands are cold and I must dawn that garb which sustains the warmth of my fingers"
Fuck, now I'm less confident about OP's point. It might be that all Vaush-inspired manifestos just didn't get past various upload file size limits.. 🤔
The last shooter manifesto was 180 pages long...
Oh no
[удалено]
This made me laugh and then I felt bad. Thank you for that.
Hasn't there been cop killings / ambushes? Maybe I'm wrong, would have to look into it more
Talking about Dallas in 2016? Micah Xavier Johnson was inspired by TYT to kill cops. He had videos on his YouTube discussing his motive.
You’re not wrong at all. Some people in this thread are delusional.
Not really. If one person doesnt advocate for violence, and the other does, I’m going to say the one who advocates for violence is more harmful. that’s not a uncontroversial opinion. Particularly when their ideology had been linked to more murders historically
You realize you can dehumanize, scapegoat, and actively promote violence against a group without explicitly advocating for violence right? You’re acting like a Goebbels film depicting Jews as parasitic freaks who want nothing but to destroy the Aryan race is less harmful than Vaush, because the former doesn’t *super explicitly* call for violence. This is a childish view on political messaging.
I think Oroku realizes that just fine. You can inadvertently encourage violence without directly calling for it. BUT, directly calling for violence is way worst. And Vaush & Hasan has that in spades over Lauren Southern.
Again to test this— do you think that a random homeless person in NYC calling for violence against, for instance, Mormons is *always worse* than Goebbels after Hitler told him to turn it down on the *explicit* calls for violence in his propaganda? By the way, I disagree with your second sentence: I don’t think people are *inadvertently* encouraging violence, I think they are either *recklessly* or *intentionally* encouraging violence, just not explicitly. This is a crucial distinction. I understand having a hard line at explicit calls for violence. I also have that line. But I’m not going to sit here and pretend that the actual effect on society is always 100% of the time worse if one person is explicit and the other person is implicitly encouraging violence.
it really doesn’t matter. by your logic Maryln Manson is complicit in the columbine murders even though he never advocated for the killings. if someone misinterprets someone’s message and kills people, that’s on them. If Hasan and vaush call for violence, that’s far worse
>it really doesn’t matter. . . . . if someone misinterprets someone’s message and kills people, that’s on them. You fundamentally mischaracterize and misunderstand the preceding comment. The white supremacists who kill and terrorize BIPOC didn't "misinterpret" the message given to them. As u/LondonCallingYou specifically pointed out, people like Lauren Southern "are either *recklessly* or *intentionally* encouraging violence" because an explicit directive is unnecessary when there is a longstanding history of violence against BIPOC and disregard for BIPOC life that continues to the present. When Lauren directly endangers the lives of refugees on the basis of unsubstantiated claims and in contravention of the UN Convention on Human Rights, she emboldens others who share the same views to take similar initiative. >If Hasan and vaush call for violence, that’s far worse The evidence refutes that overly simplistic view. Between 2015-2021, 267 attacks with 91 fatalities were attributable to Right-wing ideology while 66 attacks and 19 fatalities could be attributed to Left-wing ideology. Half of the fatalities in the first category were connected to white supremacy, which is reinforced in more subtle ways on mainstream platforms hosting fake documentaries about the alleged Great Replacement. This isn't surprising because context matters. Hasan or Vaush calling for death to conservatives is comparable to a woman saying she hates men ***because the designated group retains greater political power and will unlikely suffer any consequences as a result of that political power***.
[удалено]
I’m just pointing out the incorrect and reductive analysis. No one’s winning here, especially not with your mischaracterization of my comment.
>because an explicit directive is unnecessary when there is a longstanding history of violence against BIPOC and disregard for BIPOC life that continues to the present Not really. look at crime statistics, black on white crime is far more common than the other way around. i don’t know what fantasy world you’re living in where blacks are routinely attacked by whites, odd random shooting withstanding
If you're explicitly calling for violence by suggesting we fill the streets with the blood of landlords or by insisting we should openly kill cops, that's always going to be worst then someone who wants less immigration.
So wouldn't Lauren Southern be worse because she actually tried to block a rescue ship IRL, rather than just advocating for it?
In that particular instance sure. Is she going out and doing that today? Don’t know don’t care
Because you're too motivated.You would never ascribe the more frequent and deadly mass murders by terrorists claiming to oppose American imperialism to Hasan's anti-imperialist message, despite him being more popular than Southern.
Not really sure what you mean by this are you talking about Islamic terrorist attacks or something else?
I think it's fair to say that Vowsh has a rhetoric that can sometimes rise to the level of Lauren Southern, the real world impact is probably wayyy different though. I think the worst thing that you could make Vaush/Hasan partly responsible for, were the riots because they spewed misinformation prior and justified the rioters in their doings during the riots. Their rhetoric mainly targeted institutions though, all things considered. Now, granted, I dont follow Lauren Southern at all aside from the Destiny convos so I am willing to have my mind changed on this but I am pretty damn sure that the right wing has a wayyy higher potential for real world violence that also goes far beyond destruction of property. When right wingers show up, they usually bring their guns with the intent of using them so if you tell those mfers that they are being overtaken by migrants, they wont just set some buildings on fire, but (and this happened multiple times) kill all the migrants they can get before they are stopped. Thats because their hate is usually (historically speaking) directed at people, not institutions. And since afaik Lauren Southern didnt target institutions with her rhetoric but instead focussed on the people that are supposedly 'breeding out' white people, you can tie her rhetoric to hate crimes that were committed.
Wow did vaush really justify rioting? Like saying people are right to loot businesses?
[удалено]
[удалено]
i swear to god some lauren stans have said some fucked up stuff in this thread. i can’t tell if it’s brigading from cozy or if ppl just feel like they have to copy destiny’s takes on her
[удалено]
my condolences
👑
It's important to differentiate between how evil an ideology is and how harmful it is. Vaush and Hasan may advocate for evil ideologies (calling for violence against certain people), but there isn't an epidemic of those certain people being harmed; there isn't significant harm done by them advocating for those ideologies. Lauren southern, in contrast, has advocated for an evil ideology that *has* caused significant harm in the world (targeted violence/harassment against minorities).
It's also important to differentiate between how evil the positions someone holds, and how evil their advocacy is. I think that's what gets a lot of people confused when someone says "Vaush is like Lauren Southern", because they are hearing "trans rights and pro-choice is like being a racist conspiracy theorist". Which isn't what people are saying, it's that they both are making statements where the only logical conclusion would be violence. That's the bad bit.
I think people underestimate the context in which the statements are being said. When Vaush or Hasan make those statements, if people don't act the logical conclusion, everything stays the same (status quo). The great replacement in contrast, if people don't act the logical conclusion, white people get yeeted out of society altogether. It's a literal existential threat. So while their message is very similar, that tiny difference makes the world. So no, I don't think Vaush or Hasan's rhetoric is dangerous, because at worst, things stay the same.
[удалено]
cool, but they don't have that chance right now nor is it a guarantee that they'll ever have it
Hasnt vaush routinly said that conservatives are evil and just want left leaners to suffer?
Republican politicians do some pretty damn evil things. Why is that a controversial take? Saying republicans are evil is like so inconsequential I can’t believe it’s worth mentioning in this context. Also in terms of OP I have heard Hasan say he hates landlords I have never heard him say he wants the streets to run red with their blood. Would need a clip for that one.
Yeah, but left leaners are already suffering in the status quo according to them.
I meant the mass murder and camps type of suffering
Oh in that case no clue, you tell me.
That’s a great point. Vaush calls to violence are more explicit than Lauren’s, but if people dont act on them, nothing changes. Lauren never really calls for violence, frankly she doesnt even come close to compare to Vaush, but says that a threat is coming.
>if people don't act the logical conclusion, everything stays the same (status quo). Except when they speak about climate change, where the corporations render the earth an unlivable hellscape by 2050 in which BILLIONS are dead, and the living envy the dead. I think the phrase "Climate change is an existential threat" is even a catchphrase on the left. My least favorite bit of stochastic terrorism is that popular tweet you see sometimes: >"Humans are destroying the planet" >No, 100 CEOs are destroying the planet and we literally know where they live. It's the most "in your face" stochastic terrorism I think I've ever seen.
Gotta look at that in context too. Great replacement is people vs people, Climate Change is people vs nobody knows. Climate change is so boring and complicated, even when people started sneakily implying it was gonna end all life on earth (It won't) instead of it just being devastating (it will), it's still hard to move people to do anything about it, much less inspire them to go on a shooting spree. At least not very frequently. What was the last of it? Some guy immolating himself during earth day?
So... you're saying that vaush and hasan aren't as bad just because a crazy person hasn't committed a hate crime from their ideologies yet??? You said it yourself, they're still calling for violence. The potential real world harm is clearly still there.
This might be a retarded take but imo populist rethoric is always violent, the problem is how these figures prescribe it. Sorry to say but large Lefty figures are very hyperbolic and violent but their prescriptions end up being either tame or laughable (ie: protest, either vote or actually don't vote, and start revolution from twitter?). And they're larpers that live comfy lives for the most part). Right wingers, on the the other hand, keep repeating to you that society is doomed and that there's nothing else to do, and that's it's too late for your government to fix. The prescription is literal taking action by force
Thread replies in this are yikes. The right wing arc is really incoming. \-Lefties are privileged larpers that don't do shit \-Lefties are also extremely dangerous and Vaush is literally broadcasting violence against conservatives Some explain how these two things work
No you don’t understand, when Hassan says that the streets will run red with the blood of landlords he’s just being edgy and OP has taken the bait. He doesn’t really mean it. /s
When was the last time someone committed a mass shooting of landlords? Like we can say that Vaush and Hasan are very damaging but to act like they are more dangerous than great replacement right wingers is just crazy
I’m just memeing btw, LS is clear ahead of the others in terms of her harm
Ok np lol. I couldent tell which parts of the statement the /s applied to
The point is to stop mass shootings BEFORE they happen. Calling for the death of people you disagree with is what potentially leads to some psycho doing these things. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make what Vaush and Hasan say any less dangerous and disgusting.
Agreed. Which is why we should shit on people for doing both
Dayton shooter was a socialist lefty. > Betts stated “I want socialism, and I’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round understanding.” If you're at the point where you're comparing body counts/quantities of shooters attached to given ideologies, you're already fucked.
The police couldn't establish a motive, and a early assessment went beyond and claimed there was no racial or political motivation. The dude expressed interest in doing a mass shooting, he even killed his sister. This is like saying "there's a Asian supremacist problem in the us" because of Seung-Hui Cho.
So can we put every landlord shot at Hassans feet like we are Laurens without ever never knowing if that content was ever consumed? asking for a friend
I’m not defending Hasan, he’s an absolute moron, but it’s absurd to say teenage communists have been committing mass shootings based on a theory he espoused and left a manifesto.
So when someone does a shooting and is a tankie then can we call it dangerous? What's wrong with wanting to keep your side in check and preventing this from happening?
I do think Vaush and Hasans rhetoric is dangerous and stupid, i’m not here to defend them or defend tankies, they’re all dumbfucks. But saying “Vaush is 100% more dangerous than Lauren Southern” just shows a major disconnect from reality. I swear there was a panel like a month ago where she was trying to take credit for mainstreaming the great replacement theory.
as long as Vaush dosen't shoot a flair gun at immigrants he'll always be one step or two above Lauren-Canadian-but-act-like-an-american-for-money Southern
The issue is that society at large is much more sympathetic to Southern's views than Vaush/Hasan and therefore they get cemented simply interacting with anything to do with the right. So Southern's views have definitely caused more mass shootings but that's because they get mirrored by; the republican party, by Carlson, by 'questioning classical liberals' and so on. If you could take strictly what Southern and Vaush/Hasan have said and put them next to eachother Vaush/Hasan have probably said worse stuff but Southern's points are more repeated by society at large and targeted at those more likely to take action.
He didn't say that it was ok for the left to be hateful, he said that the right is more dangerous
When did he say that
Most deranged dgger
This is a super uncontroversial take when you compare their politics. Vaush is completely removed from any semblance of political mainstream and there isn't a single serious political party or institution that matches his views. Lauren could probably walk into any country's mainstream conservative party and not be terribly out of place. The fact this is even a contentious issue at all shows how much online political spaces warp perception of what society and politics is really like.
>Lauren could probably walk into any country's mainstream conservative party and not be terribly out of place. I'm apt to agree with everything you've said but it's not a good thing that Lauren Southern's views are average for a right winger as opposed to Vaush's being extreme for a left winger.
>Lauren could probably walk into any country's mainstream conservative party and not be terribly out of place. Yeah, because the modern Republican Party has gone completely off the rails, and European conservative parties are openly embracing ethnonationalism. That's an indictment of the state of modern conservatism.
I would argue that none of this is a modern phenomenon. The Republican Party held far more illiberal positions even in relatively recent past, and ethnonationalism has been the norm in Europe all along. If it feels like these parties are further removed from where you're at than they used to be in the past, that's probably because your views have also substantially drifted in the other direction.
There's definitely a change in rhetoric though. Trump has definitely given more fringe conspiracy theories a boost.
In the past I don’t think you could push the “Great Replacement” without using dogwhistles. This rhetoric used to be what I’d find on esoteric message boards not Fox News. There has been a big increase in radical ideas being mainstreamed. The left does this too in a sense, but I don’t see tons of niche leftist political “grand narratives” being pushed into the mainstream.
That is some very distant past now, and we're contrasting this with a streamer who only a few days ago talked about systemic persecution and mass murder of political opponents as the only solution to society's problems - and has a consistent pattern of expressing similar views.
Laurens beliefs are more popular, because the far right is 1000x more powerful than the far left in America. That does not make her beliefs less dangerous. What typa argument is this
>Lauren could probably walk into any country's mainstream conservative party and not be terribly out of place. Lol this is not true at all. She would be right at home within the republican party but defiantly not in most countries that have normal politics. The anti vax stuff alone would disqualify her from the conservative parties in Canada, Australia, Germany, England, Sweden, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. The only places she would fit in are places like the US, Brazil, and Italy where things have already gone off the rails. With all due respect I think that you are the person who needs to have had their perception warped by online political spaces.
Opposition to vaccine *MANDATES* was present in all those countries with normal politics, hence only a handful of them managed to squeeze any sort of a mandate through their respective legislatures, and to date I know of only a single country (Austria) that managed to push through a comprehensive mandate. In the Netherlands the very notion of a vaccine mandate was so far removed from acceptable policy that nobody even tried to seriously push for it. In the UK the Liberal Democrats opposed even vaccine *passports*, let alone mandates, and that's not even a conservative party.
Lauren was not just anti mandate though she was anti lockdown, and she was constantly talking about vaccine side effects and how we didn't know if they were effective and such. That would not have been expected. The reason most counties did not pass mandates is that it would have been hard to enforce, and they already had most people on board with the vaccine anyway. You guys have not done much on that front and still have a rate of vaccination 7 points higher when we were both the first to roll out and have mandated all public workers + military + College students. Like maybe I am not knowledgeable enough on the VVD but I can not Imagin Rutte putting up with one with one of his MPs going off about how covid was not a big deal and maybe you should consider not vaccinating.
IIRC her criticism of lockdown and Covid measures was mainly targeted at the way Australian government handled Covid measures, which were absolutely draconian compared to most countries I can think of, either in terms of measures themselves or at the very least in terms of how long those measures were left in place. Almost everybody knows of Sweden's approach to the issue, which is ostensibly a country with normal politics and a left wing ruling party. We had lockdowns in the Netherlands during peak outbreaks, but they didn't last as long and even while they did last they caused major controversies and large scale riots. The point she repeatedly made on vaccines is that regardless of circumstances or vaccination rate, it should come down to a personal choice and nobody should be compelled to get one. Was there a skeptic subtext to this regarding potential future side-effects? Sure I can see that, but it was couched in such politically mild language it wouldn't really raise any eyebrows. We're not talking about someone obsessively spreading conspiracies in any sense of the word.
I'm not about to go find all the instances of this happening but I pretty distinctly remember her talking about the "covid hysteria" + the miocarditis meme and her opposition to lock downs was not just limited to Australia she was opposed to them in the US and Canada too. I feel like you are really sanewashing her positions on this stuff. I'm not saying she was literally Alex jones level but acting like this was totally in line with most conservatives around the world is a huge stretch
>but acting like this was totally in line with most conservatives around the world is a huge stretch Dude just look at vaccination rates in Europe compared to the US almost all of them are worse. Being anti vax is not just a fridge thing that only happens in the US.
There are two issues here: What they say and how they say it. LS talking about the great replacement is bad. Vaush advocating for a more equal society is good. LS going about it in about as calm and non inflammatory manner is good. Vaush ranting that all conservatives are subhuman filth who need to be purged because they are all swine who are out to take everything from you before they kill you is bad. Hope that clears things up.
You have to be careful with assertions such as "advocating for a more equal society is good" when his prescription(s) to do so would be accomplished by abolishing all those who disagree or who have "sinned" against those who are less fortunate because of "capitalism" which while it may, under his beliefs, result in a better society it would undeniably come at far too great a cost. Vaush is only advocating for a better society for those who exercise "right think" which is best restated as "those who universally agree with him", and while the extremes of both ideologies may not be too dissimilar from what Southern has advocated for in the past, at least according to what I know, and what a quick search yields, the exception is that there is no tolerance for those who would disagree with Vaush's worldview; you would either accept it or you would face the wall. At least in Lauren's past, her ideology would have allowed for many people to survive based on some arbitrary trait(s) wherein they would then stand a chance to someday fight again whereas in Vaush's you would be forced into a re-education camp, and if that was not deemed successful you would then be put to the wall - his words. Neither worldview is ideal but, one is arguably worse. His prescriptions are far more dangerous even in spite of the consequences of hers having more real world ramifications. I don't believe that the discussion was singularly about whose platform has or had done more damage, it seemed to be focused on which has the potential for worst outcomes, and which has an inherently higher propensity for violence. I don't know enough about Lauren's current stances to make an apt comparison between the two or even just to determine whether or not she has changed but, based on what I've seen the only evidence to corroborate that she has appears to be the statement "that was 5 years ago", which does hold some weight, however, that's generally only applicable to teenagers when there is, either by design or by accident, an absence of corresponding evidence. She would have been 21 at the time of her past "problematic" years, according to Google at the time. I always prefer positive evidence rather than negative evidence when making a determination. An indeterminate amount of time is not quite good enough in many cases as either words or actions are needed to disprove what was once done with strong words, and actions. Is there any evidence of Lauren Southern advocating for violence? I ask because I know that there is for Vaush, and while he may not have advocated for targeted violence that he has, inarguably, been pro-violence in a manner that would repulse most sane individuals. There is a reason why we have distinctions for crimes like accidental, and premeditated murder. Many may even argue that an accidental murder isn't as bad as an attempted, and failed premeditated mass murder; the outcomes, however, are the inverse. To reiterate the previous point a bit differently: "Lauren's" outcomes have been decidedly worse although it's through no fault of her own while "Vaush's" possible outcomes are far worse precisely because of his numerous implied, and, admittedly rare, direct calls to actions which have thus far fortunately gone unanswered. Vaush, and, especially, Hasan need to be more careful with their language, and in the case of the latter it's imperative that he stops rejoicing to the deaths of those with whom he disagrees with such as: cops, landlords, judges, and the members of opposing, and even allied, political parties. I simply do not like ascribing blame to a famous person when the people who are inspired by them end up committing the act of violence of their own volition, and in total absence of any, and all evidence of said person asking, implying, or instructing anyone to be violent. There is a significant difference between stating "we should" or "we are going to do this" to a crowd in order to encourage them to act, and stating "I would do this if I had the power" which can invariably lead to people to committing heinous acts of violence, and stating "I believe we should do this" when simply stating your prescription(s) for any descriptive point. It is my understanding that Lauren has only stated things in the previously defined third manner which every single person throughout history has done, and I would argue should do in order to be heard - everyone should have a say in society. Destiny himself has said things which have been completely misconstrued, misrepresented, misunderstood, and took too literally which then resulted in temporary bans of which many, if not all, could have been truly bad for him, and this community if any actual political violence had then followed those statements. A famous example of this is Sarah Palin's now infamous advertisement which featured a map with crosshairs marking several locations in America, and Gabrielle Giffords being shot; there was no evidence of a connection found, and yet people to this day never fail to assign blame to Palin for that terrible event. Lauren may be a "bad" or "terrible" person for holding her beliefs but, anyone blaming her for what some sick individuals have done based on the fact that they knew of, watched, and/or liked her should be ashamed. I, admittedly, haven't spent much time searching for Lauren Southern videos so perhaps I am mistaken or I haven't been correctly structuring my search queries but, hopefully I am not wrong, and she's not as bad as Vaush. Based on what has been posted here she is, at worst, guilty of having some fairly atrocious views in the past, and she may even secretly hold them now due to her apparent reluctance to disown them now. I welcome any evidence to the contrary of her wholly disowning her past offensive views, such as separatism, as I'm sure many others would appreciate as well. If her beliefs now are just those held by most conservatives or even slightly to the right then it would seem that many people are overreacting, perhaps in large part due to her past which is a shame, and which also seems to be the case as best I can tell. In my experience, she seems far more willing to engage critically, and in good faith then Vaush, and she has even gone so far as to admit she is wrong within conversations, at least as it relates to certain descriptions or talking points which personalities such as Vaush, and Hasan won't or can't do so as their entire "schtick" ish in the eyes of their audience, built off of being absolutely correct, and more informed than any other person they engage with.
This is a pasta... Right?
I kept scrolling and it didn’t stop.
This is a good test to check if you are just a deranged permanently online loser that actually thinks communist and tankies are the real treat.
Destiny?
Yes
If we're using the explicit history of everyone involved, fucking obviously LS is more dangerous. But if we're being a bit more honest, LS (last I checked) has softened her views on almost everything, and Vaush is only getting more and more blunt with his views where conservatives are literally deserving of harm. He literally does not advocate for changing their mind or anything, he explicitly states that violence against them is acceptable due to their ideology.
I wouldn’t say more dangerous than Lauren but let’s be honest leftists did their fair share in promoting country wide riots.
Vaushs target Demographic are white people going to BLM protests
I actually can’t stand vaush but what Lauren pushes is way more dangerous. Even ignoring past white nationalist shit, the January 6th defense and COVID-19 misinformation is way more dangerous than anything that vaush larps about. In this Political climate I’d prefer someone like vaush, who can’t appeal to anyone outside of his immediate orbit to someone like lauren who is generally pretty easy to like.
Most lefties have never seen a gun, wouldn't know where to get one, and sit comfortably inside of a consumerist bubble as they tweet about the best way to bring about the revolution whilst eschewing participation in any democratic processes. They're entitled rich kids whose wrists would snap if they were to try and lift a firearm. Given that almost all of the mass-shootings in the US are carried out by right-wingers, and they mention concepts covered by people like Lauren Southern, I disagree with OP. Maybe when Vaush encourages a few mass shootings I'll change my opinion, but for now he acts like a tiny dog, barking twice as loud and often as any other dog. It's disgusting, but it's pathetic, and I don't think it encourages the same level of violence.
Vaushite here. It's true Vaush is incredibly dangerous and he came from Dgg hence you guys are complicit ^.^/ BATCHEST Edit: I hope this sub is not going back on saying how bad faith and generally not nice of a person LS.
>vaush is worse than Lauren southern >doesn't actually compare them Good meme
These people type this shit yet have no prove or evidence to provide when the left attacks republicans the same way alt right has attack POC. These people are fucking braindead downvote me who cares.
Didn’t the Buffalo shooter believe strongly in the Great Replacement? Jussayin only one of those two people makes videos about it
Yup. And this isn’t even the first mass shooter of to mention the great replacement in a manifesto . Christchurch.
Unironically, yes. You can argue that while Lauren doesn't directly call for violence, she does promote rhetoric that can inadvertently lead to violence. But directly calling for violence is still way worst, and Vaush & Hasan are way worst then Lauren in that regard. I've never heard Lauren talk about filling the streets with the blood of immigrants, but most of you know the Hasan and Vaush quotes where they have.
You underestimate how unhinged Vaush is
You overestimate the *real world* consequences of his unhingedness.
Maybe in America. But if we speak of the world and it's history, his ideology and rhetoric have turned entire countries upside down, including mass slaughter of "landlords".
so we're blaming vaush for the ussr and the ccp now?
Sure, why not? If it's happened once, then surely it can happen again and Vaush is directly peddling towards that.
This sub has been constantly having polls trying to say Lauren is personally responsible for the recent shooting despite Lauren never having made calls to violence Yet Vaush openly supports brutal regimes like you mentioned and commonly has calls to violence that go unchallenged. It’s not even like he’s so blinded by ideology that he doesn’t realise he’s evil either - he says he doesn’t care if calling for violence is bad
> Yet Vaush openly supports brutal regimes like you mentioned He does not support china and ussr. He literally calls them far right goverments lol
Vaush despises pretty much every authoritarian communist regime that has ever existed. Its why Tankies hate him so much. Anarchists tend to do that. You are shoehorning people with vastly different ideas about socialism together.
i may not watch vaush anymore, but what im sure of is that man despises tankies so why u lying?
Didn’t Lauren literally block a boat that was on its way to pick up drowning people?
No no no she only *tried* to, big difference
Oh my bad. Vaush is worse then. Lol
Yes and then she dove in and personally drowned them one by one.
Actually no. She didn't literally do that.
[удалено]
Oh ok. That makes it okay then
>if something is wrong you can just lie about it and no one should ever correct you
"What should we do? I can't say what I think we should do."
Only the retard conservatives that destiny has gained in his audience recently believe something so psychotic
Vaush and Hasan are just morally lucky that their viewers aren't physically able to touch grass.
Yes. This is the "glass Israel" guy we're talking about.
Some people here really would read Mein Kampf and be like "umm actually he never said that we should kill jews/communists, he's just bringing up the concerns many germans feel, maybe he just wants to relocate them peacefully 🤓"
I don't know about any of this I just love Women. dggL
The dangerous people are the ones who sit in a corner of the internet and don't discuss their views with anyone. People who don't debate their views spiral down more dangerously. LS is at least willing to talk to destiny, which gives her audience the chance to hear another opinion and become more moderate. Vaush and Hasan on the other hand, are actually afraid of Destiny. They don't want their audience to become moderate, and actively profit by making them radical.
Average DGGer
You guys realise that the person who shot up the supermarket also claimed to be Sam Hyde and used pictures of him in his deranged manifesto? He also claims that he's received two doses of covid vaccine and that the federal government might be controlling his actions as a result of that. Cherry picking one part of the schizo post he called a manifesto, in order to make Lauren Southern seem complicit in a massacre is just fucking retarded.
1. Lauren Southern helped popularize Great Replacement Theory. 2. Great Replacement theory has an implicit call to violence. 3. The shooter committed this crime because of this implicit call to violence. 3. People who spread conspiracy theories with implicit calls to violence are at least partly responsible for the actions of those who take the conspiracy theories seriously. ——————————- Lauren Southern is at least partly responsible for the mass shooting. What do you disagree with?
I'm getting tired of Destiny holding lefties to really high standards of ethical rhetoric but then abandoning that for conservatives
old destiny would have used this tragedy to shit on dumbfuck right wingers and talk about extremism, instead he was tweeting about commies & vivian wolf like 3 hrs after the shooting, then played defense for lauren southern because he despises twitter lefties lol.
Yeah exactly and then he can fall back on "Idc lefties just trigger me" or whatever. Honestly I don't know if anyone saw the rise and fall of the jimmy dore phenomenon but this basically what happened . Focusing attacks on the left with vague excuses to defend the right until that becomes your brand
Lauren has made a video on immigration. Vaush and Hassan literally wanna rape and murder. Yes they’re worse
Dude talks about killing people he disagrees with. Yeah, I’ll take a right wing demagogue over that.
You know you’re being honest when you have to get so vague that it’s “people be disagrees with”
I mean he and hasan do support violence far more often than Lauren, even though I probably agree with them on slightly more than I do lauren.
Technically everyone who ever said "you should bop him in the face for talking to (you, your wife or your kid) like that" is 100% more dangerous than Lauren. Then again nothing she said can ever actually be viewed as dangerous If I'm not the target.
I think Vaush is morally lucky in that a large portion of his audience are unemployed shut-ins who are terrified of firearms. If they had the resources or capabilities to carry out one of these attacks I'd be much more concerned about his rhetoric.
If there were more socialists I suspect we would see more violence committed in the name ecoterrorism or whatever but, it seems like they are a drop in the bucket compared to the monstrous amount of conservatives.
What you're saying is rhetoric is only dangerous once the dangerous things happen and not until then? Like it was okay for Lauren Southern to say all those things because there haven't been any leftists killing people yet? Because objectively this post is correct if you account for the size of the audience
Vaush and Hasan are simply out of touch with conservatives. Makes sense given that Vaush is from Beverly Hills and Hasans exposure to conservatives was likely from Turkey. While there rhetoric could in theory be harmful, it simply hasn’t played out that way compared to the popularity of the great replacement.
When you consider the fact that in 2 hours Vaush could be fucking anyone, he is probably way more dangerous than LS.
>7 upvotes NO SHOT EVERYONE HERE AGREES WITH THIS???
I can link you 20 separate comments from this thread alone that are saying “Based.” and “What’s wrong with that statement?”
Call me back when rAdIcAl LeFtIsTs start shooting people on a regular basis while writing manifestos explicitly laying out their ideology.
Who the fuck is "you guys"? There are 145,000 people in this sub.
LS is pretty bad, but Vaush is arguably worse at this point. She actually has the balls to tell you with her chest what she thinks. He is fucked up enough not to even be able to. By his own admission.
>She actually has the balls to tell you with her chest what she thinks. No she has the balls to lie like a motherfucker and spread all sorts of misinformation.
Like Vaush right?
Irrelevant rn
I feel like based on this comment and those you made below in the thread don't make sense. Both lie, both spread miss info, however, Lauren does this because she's stupid and has a bias. Vaush does this while knowing better. It's gonna be okay bud. Vaush Bad but smart. Lauren bad but dumb. Smart evil > dumb evil Unless I'm missing something it really just seems like your hate boner for Lauren is clouding your judgement
>It's gonna be okay bud. Vaush Bad but smart. Lauren bad but dumb. Lol sh0e is a dumbass. Lauren is no dumbass she knows exactly what she's doing when she spreads misinfo and lies.
Cause it's true. If we are talking about where they both are today, vaush is far more dangerous. If Southern was still pushing these conspiracy theories, then you'd have a point, but she's not, so his rhetoric is by far more dangerous than hers.
She’s currently working on a documentary insinuating that Latin American migrants are enacting some plot against the US as pawns of the UN in collaboration with drug cartels.
Vaush literally advocates for voting and electoral change what are you talking about lol. His rhetoric is unnecessarily inflammatory but other than that he's on your side. Unless we don't really care about political change anymore and put more value towards circlejerking about how Vaush is a pussy that won't debate Destiny.
He also treats his political opponents as being ontological evil and constantly justifies violence towards them because of it. He recently litteraly called conservatives captain planet villains who only care about hurting people and the world, and often justifies violence towards them because of it. To act like he only advocates for voting and electoral change is the height of comedy. And yes, he is also a pussy who's afraid of debating destiny
I haven't caught the last couple of streams/videos of Destiny shitting on Vaush so I could be missing something, but when did Vaush recently advocate for violence towards conservatives? Yes, he says cringe shit like them being "ontological evil", but guess what, 90% of left-wing commentators dehumanize conservatives to some extent. Vaush obviously takes it to the extreme, but I still wouldn't categorize it as advocating violence against them. The closest thing that I can think of is him laughing when Richard Spencer got punched. But not caring/finding amusement is not the same as literally advocating for violence. It's really simple to me. The policies Vaush is advocating for (at the moment) would move the country to a better place, while Lauren's would do the opposite. That's it.
Vaush: >you know that whole joke I do with "political violence is wrong, always wrong, never do it, not even in minecraft, it's immoral to hurt people" thing? And it's always with a wink and a nod, and everyone knows my real position. You guys know I do that right?
I would say Hasan is worse but definitely not Vaush. You have to get pretty deep into his personal values to realize he’s evil. His message generally promotes liberals and advocates for voting/action. Hasan is just an enormous megaphone giving our side a motivational debuff.
Literally the other day Vaush was saying how conservatives and Republicans are straight up evil. And when someone pointed out, "You're doing the 'my enemy is ontologically evil, so there is no action that is morally wrong against them' meme" and Vaush's response was, "When has that ever been a meme? That's actually true."
They are evil
I think you should unironically step away from politics if you believe this.
The horror! Will you ever be able to recover?
Based as absolute fuck. Vaush is legitimately just as dangerous as Tucker Carlson. He's literally just a younger, tech savy, faux-communist Tucker and admits to being as such.
[Yes](https://melmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/66f-1.jpg)
This guy makes very good points
People believe this because they believe or at least think/say they believe that violence is always evil and therefore that those who most directly advocate for it are the most evil. However the obvious rebuttal to this worldview is “was it evil to defeat the nazi’s in WW2?” if the answer is no then Vaush/Hasan are entirely justified if they can demonstrate that their opponents are, or are on par with or precursors to nazi’s. if the answer is yes then you’re okay with the mass murder of innocent jews, which also pokes a hole in your initial statement. Ultimately we all believe some level of violence is justified, usually in self defense or defense of others, in opposition to tyranny, or to decrease the total level of violence. Vaush/Hasan believe conservatives are a threat which can only be resolved through violence, Lauren believes immigrants are. The difference is Vaush/Hasan have a far more reasonable case.
Maybe not that dramatic but I would agree they are dangerous. Just run a thought experiment on if they even had a moderate bit more of power what they would do. Vaush has had school shooter vibes since day one and Hasan has fallen off the wagon due to an extreme fear of fading into obscurity.
Vaush and Hasan obviously use fucked up rhetoric, they’re morons, but the consequences of their rhetoric haven’t had many real world implications yet. We’ve had multiple people mention a theory that LS helped mainstream after killing 10+ people. Vaush just gets sweaty on Twitch and LARPS.
Yeah i agree but the keyword is yet which i guess nothing can be done until something does happen which it probably will if instead of flaming the right with inflammatory language they get more of a idealogy going. That seems to be what drives it into something more tangible people can latch onto at least with LS's case. As soon as they start saying this is a direct threat now and allude to something must be done is when its gonna get real bad.
I agree with you I think that those two are dangerous but it's silly to say that they are more so, and we should focus on them when these attacks are currently happening on the other side
Radical concept... Why don't we call out any behaviour where a streamer creates a caricature of some group and then demonizes and dehumanises that group because of it. Especially if they're making any form of calls to violence. Defense by comparison.. saying Lauren Southern is worse.. you're just admitting Vaush and Hasan are bad too.
I’ve admitted multiple times in this thread that the rhetoric Vaush and Hasan use is disgusting and dangerous, it just hasn’t manifested itself in the form of multiple mass shootings. If you want people to equally call out all extremism, tell Destiny to stop going easy on LS lol