As a leftist, I can relate. Thought Slime annoys me sometimes.
Thought slime has some mixed-quality takes, but is, above all else a wokescold crybully, making them incredibly toxic and counter-productive.
What the hell does “wokescold crybully” even mean?
It’s how you call someone an “SJW” if you’re self aware enough to know that the optics of calling people SJWs is bad.
Thanks for this recommendation, will be checking out Thought slime
I never bothered with the collabs (because they are loooooong) snd not seen in a couple of years anyway, but their mainstay videos I thought really intelligently debunked/called out rightwing grift and the like
Enjoy.
I only watch their youtube videos and don’t really get that vibe from them. Am I missing some drama context or could you elaborate what makes them so bad?
I haven’t watched their content in a couple of years now, but there was a series of bad takes on Twitter, a hell of a lot of cringe, toxicity, self-centeredness, and performative self-victimisation, The main drama I saw was with Xanderhall and Vaush. On the other side of it, they’ve done a string of collaborations with varying levels of success.
Their videos were generally OK, if a little basic with some flawed analysis. They chose some interesting subjects, but their content took a meaningful dip not long after they came out as NB (I hope I don’t have that wrong?). Hopefully the dip was just a short-term product of some of the stress and distraction, but their content wasn’t strong enough to get me through it and I checked out.
If you like the content, you like it, and there’s nothing wrong with that - it’s not horrible, I just thought it stopped being worth watching (though hope that’s changed).
I guess I’m a bit lenient on them (yes, they’re NB) since I like their jokes and theirpop-culture content and I admit: Their videos got me to consciously discover anarchism, which has become a cornerstone of my ideology. So I guess their flawed analysis was a good starting point before I got into the more meaty stuff.
I’m glad to hear that!
Imagine having a Youtube platform with over 10k+ subscribers and using it to manufacture micro-celebrity drama.
It’s a pretty reliable money spinner…
I mean, you have two flavors of leftist youtubers: ineffectual wokescolds and edgelord dudebros. Edgelords are one leaked DM from them to an underage fan away from pivoting into straight authoritarian nationalism, and wokescolds are basically trying to fill out a pokedex of other online leftists they made enemies with because they didn’t pass a particular ideological purity test.
I’m disagree with this take, but it’s also not baseless.
I don’t think the likes of Vaush or Keffals are about to flip authoritarian nationalist, nor do I think creaters like Hbomb or Philosophy tube fit either bucket to give a couple of examples.
Translation: He criticized my favorite cryptofash youtuber and my butthole’s still aching from it.
And before anyone says otherwise, they literally orbit around a pedo who dropped the jewish question. They’re cryptofash.
deleted by creator
Centrism is just political talk for “i dont interact enough with society to see anything wrong with it”.
I agree with the principles of what you’re saying, groupthink is certainly bad, but usually people align with other people with underlying foundational values and beliefs. Ie, people tend to support gay rights if they also support trans rights, because they stem from similar areas of prejudice. Intersectionality and all that.
Usually, the truly unique perspectives are for often contradictory views, like being an Anarchist Capitalist, though even then there are still groups of people who think similarly.
I agree with the principles of what you’re saying, groupthink is certainly bad, but usually people align with other people with underlying foundational values and beliefs. Ie, people tend to support gay rights if they also support trans rights, because they stem from similar areas of prejudice.
But the foundational values vary from culture to culture. My country has a lot of people who are socially conservative, but not that many who support free-market economics. In your own example, we have a long tradition of transgender people, and they have laws protecting them from discrimination. On the other hand, homosexuality was a legal grey area until a few years ago, and their marriages are still not recognised by the law. Iran is an even more extreme example here, with gender reassignment surgery being state-subsidised, but homosexuality still illegal.
So I wonder to what extent political positions are universal, and to what extent they are an accident of history.
Culture plays a huge part in what is normative, yes, but actual positions tend to support other positions by proxy, like a web.
Essentially, it’s understandable that a Socialist would also support FOSS development, as FOSS also rejects private ownership and the profit motive. However, it’s less understandable that a huge supporter of the profit motive would love FOSS as much. They can reason that people should have the choice, but it breaks down just a bit.
The current government in my country is definitely right of centre, and are pushing for Linux adoption, largely on a ‘we should not be dependent on foreign companies for the software we use’ plank. Although, to be fair, Linux was able to get a foothold in the first place because a communist state government tried using it in the 2000s. They succeeded, leading other states and the union government to follow suit.
Yep, you can advocate for leftist principles or leftist originated things as a right-winger, it just takes a large amount of justification in order to do so.
Being an anarchist capitalist really just stems from having a different definition of anarchism than most anarchist denominations (I’m not one btw, I’ve just spent a lot of time speaking to different types of anarchists in the past). I know it’s just a sidenote and not your main point, just wanted to point it out.
Yes, but the anti-capitalist definition was the original definition. AnCaps adopted leftist aesthetics to hold a position that cannot logically exist.
They did? Every ancap I know is a raging libertarian who knows the age of consent in every state.
Yes, in practice. They call themselves Anarchists because Anarchism is “cooler” and as a way to differentiate themselves from Libertarians, even though functionally they are almost identical.
I mean, you’re kind of giving the game away right?
Raging libertarian
Not an anarchist.
Ironically libertarian was originally a synonym for anarchist, and was also stolen by the right.
One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…
– Murray Rothbard
Many still use the term “Libertarian Socialist” to specify they mean libertarian in the original sense.
True, but the concept of an Anarchist government is also an oxymoron. Somebody has to make or carry out decisions in any group larger than 30 people. Even if the association is voluntary (like a club or sports team), there are leaders.
AnCaps just take the mental gymnastics to the next level.
Not sure I entirely agree with that. FOSS is an excellent example of what Anarchism could look like; experts and those doing the work are the ones who make decisions, but anyone can fork it and there’s no actual power being held by devs over users. That’s not really a government.
Decentralized, horizontal structures are still structures, but can be fully Anarchist. Anarchism isn’t just the absence of structure, it’s a complex web of flat structures.
Voluntary association isn’t anarchism by itself. That’s just a club or volunteer organization. Anarchism specifically advocates for the replacement of the state with voluntary free association. No, your book club isn’t necessarily “Anarchist”.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including nation-states,[1] and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations.
Yes, you’re partially correct, but speaking through me rather than to me. There are countless forms of Anarchism, Mutual Aid for example is a structure proposed by Anarcho-Communists. People can freely associate and work together to create FOSS style software. I didn’t say FOSS was Anarchist, but that FOSS is an example of how Anarchism might look.
Anarchist government isn’t really an oxymoron if the governing is done via direct participatory democracy. There would probably be people in charge of carrying out specific policies (and indeed that is what we see in IRL examples like the Makhnovshina or the Neozapatista GALs), but doing something is not the same as deciding what to do. I have seen comrades talk about organizing councils in large regions through delegates that work on this principle. They aren’t supposed to make decisions for the smaller regions they represent like congressmen. Instead, the regions internally discuss what they would like and then send a guy or gal to advocate for the policies they agreed on. Anarchists see “the state” as a top-down structure where some people have power over others and preserve that power through a monopoly on violence. A form of government where no one has the power to make decisions for other people wouldn’t really be a state by this definition.
Ancaps do be insane.
Thank you for tolerating my wall of text. It may seem like a waste of time, but ambiguity wastes more time later on. Cheers.
Idk, I feel like a lot of these political terms have multiple definitions depending on time and context. The word “liberal”, for example, has very different meaning depending on which political group you ask, not to mention its evolution over the course of history, and its meaning in different countries and political systems. There are many valid and important criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, but purposefully misunderstanding what people mean by the word isn’t a very strong one imo.
I’m not purposefully misunderstanding it. Anarchism was founded on the ideas of rejecting Capitalism, the state via a monopoly on violence, and advocacy for structures like Mutual Aid. Capitalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism, and requires a monopoly on violence in order to maintain property rights.
The point here is that the Anarcho-Capitalist position is just a Libertarian Capitalist position where the holders wish to be cooler, basically. They redefine anarchism, the state, and hierarchy in order to uphold their views, it’s just a leftwashed Libertarian Capitalist position.
Them redefining anarchism is precisely the point I was making. It’s not impossible for there to exist different definitions of the same term; you don’t have to agree with them to acknowledge their existence. And from that point of view it’s not necessarily a self-contradictory philosophy, it’s basically just fantasy capitalism. As I understand it, they are basically defining anarchism as opposition specifically to the state (as defined by its monopoly on violence). Rights to “life, liberty and property” are to be upheld by “decentralized” (and I use that term extremely loosely here) private enforcement agencies. Imo this is both unrealistic and undesirable, but it isn’t inconsistent on a philosophical level, which tends to be the level most an ancaps argue from, since their ideology is incredibly impractical and idealistic.
On a more meta level I agree that it’s just an alternative “cooler” version of libertarian capitalism for the edgier crowd, but that’s not the point I was trying to make.
I understand your point, I just think that it’s just cannibalization of terms and mutilating them for aesthetics. Terms change, of course, but actual anarchists never stopped using the terms they created correctly. It hasn’t necessarily adapted over time so much as been cannibalized by LARPing Capitalists.
Its similar to the Nazis adopting Socialist aesthetics, despite being far-right fascists. The Nazis weren’t Socialist in any actual way, and murdered Socialists, but wanted to cannibalize a popular term to gain support.
Everyone should be screeching about the things I’m currently screeching about. Oh, you’re screeching about A? Clearly that means you don’t care about the literal GENOCIDE happening at B.
/am leftist
That. That, the scorched earth policy toward anyone not on board, and the nazification of everyone in any degree of opposition.
The horseshoe feels like a circle sometimes.
Did you just say you like chocolate ice cream??? Well that obviously means you hate strawberry ice cream by default you fascist pig!
“Yeah, that’s a good idea, but is it completely unassailable logic that is beyond all criticism? Because that’s definitely the best standard to use against the rough draft of an idea.”
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Less infighting among the green left would be very helpful.
The decades long fight against nuclear that just made sure coal is used for longer… Pain…
The perfect is the enemy of the good
I can’t speak for everywhere, but this line is frequently levied at the Greens party here in Australia, but it just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
In all of the noteworthy cases where they’ve voted against the “good”, they have negotiated and later ended up voting in favour of the “better”. In no case did they hold up hoping for “perfect”.
But they’re still blamed for voting down climate policy way back in 2009, despite the fact that independent Treasury modelling said the 2009 bill’s climate policy wouldn’t have had any reduction in emissions until 2035. That wasn’t even “good”. So they voted it down and negotiated with the Prime Minister who replaced the megalomaniac that refused to negotiate the first time, and passed world-leading policy in 2010, seeing immediate reduction in emissions.
Don’t believe that. It’s just an excuse to avoid saying the real reasons, the ones they know are not cool.
At a Christmas gathering, my sister-in-law decided that I’m a misogynist … for no reason other than that I said I don’t care for Taylor Swift’s music. I genuinely thought she was joking, but nope she was dead serious. This meme hits home.
Yup I’m a leftie, and there are some positions on the left that annoy me. But that’s fine, it wouldn’t be good to be one gelatonous mass.
There are some positions I completely reject but they are extremely fringe left.
I don’t like them and they creep me out but Thought Slime was right about this one
Hell, Thought Slime is a perfect example of this! They annoy the SHIT out of me and I still refuse to join the right wing.
Who/what the fuck is “slime”?
“Thought slime” is the handle of the OP in the screenshot
Fuck the right wing fuckers, and fuck you!
💕
Yes! SEPARATELY.
The narcissism of small differences is extremely real.
Crabs in a bucket, the tweet
ThoughtSlime would know, they’re annoying as fuck ♥
Liberalism is a spectrum, conservativism is a monolith.
Liberalism isn’t leftism, though. This is more poking at MLs fighting with DemSocs fighting with Anarchists fighting with Syndicalists fighting with Market Socialists, etc.
Liberalism is a form of conservatism.
Damn leftists, they ruined the left.
The fact that’s on twitter is the cherry on the top.
https://youtu.be/bsFzc0wAtFs?t=211
Completely accurate representation of Progressive politics.
It’s the comma splices that get me.
