Vaush / @VaushV / VaushVidya / IrishLaddie / Ian Anthony Kochinski - Horse Cock Enthusiast, Larpy Violent Revolutionary, Sex Pest, in his 100th pedo scandal

[HonestJohn2376]

His butting heads with the Alt Hype is especially funny to me, because for all his faults, Faulk spent the time between browning his meat actually learning this stuff. Whatever sort of autism has possessed him is powerful, and it shows through the fact when he puts this stuff out he actually understands it. Vaush is the sort of person who prepares a little bit - sometimes - and online that pays dividends because you get spergy freaks who have taken their opinions straight from /pol/, or from Sargon or Ben Shapiro and as a result it's not difficult to just mention one of the 5 studies you base your world view on to undermine their position. So when confronted with a topic he barely grasps and someone he doesn't like clearly getting the best of him he just disengages and obfuscates to save face.

If he just said he was wrong, and he needs to take another look at the subject before never mentioning again that would look better than snidely trying to just act like you're able to undermine his entire case - even though you never addressed his criticisms and you pretend to have a vague recollection of them. Bullshit. I get the sneaking suspicion he read some stuff he didn't like so he now just avoids that topic if at all possible, probably bruised his ego a bit too.

Faulk does have a leftist counterpoint of sorts in Shaun. Never thought a talking skull could be so boring, but nevertheless Shaun devoted a lot of research in discussing the Bell Curve. Faulk, as far as I know, posted response videos against Shaun but later deleted them. I would be happy to see Shaun and Faulk debate, but it seems unlikely.

The Bell Curve

I would like to never hear about The Bell Curve ever again. Contact: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids https://www.patreon.com/shaunfromyoutube Section time cod...

www.youtube.com

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

Faulk does have a leftist counterpoint of sorts in Shaun. Never thought a talking skull could be so boring, but nevertheless Shaun devoted a lot of research in discussing the Bell Curve. Faulk, as far as I know, posted response videos against Shaun but later deleted them. I would be happy to see Shaun and Faulk debate, but it seems unlikely.

The Bell Curve

I would like to never hear about The Bell Curve ever again. Contact: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids https://www.patreon.com/shaunfromyoutube Section time cod...

www.youtube.com

Faulks videos are still up.

Shaun's video is shit, if you notice at the end he says "I know some people will say I misrepresented the book, but the problem is the book says things then goes on to ignore the points as if it had never made them". This is because most of the points made in Shaun's rip off of Ned Blocks criticism (which makes the same mistake I am about to explain) are actually made in the Belle Curve itself, and he focuses on parts of the book that are asides - such as the overview of African data, which was not central to any points and barely took up 2 pages. So in essence, large parts of this video are in effect straw-manning the book intentionally, and then to try and head this criticism off at the pass he claims that the book ignores the caveats the book itself raises. However, he does not evidence this whatsoever, and it does call into question your own credibility to fairly represent the book if at the end you tacitly accept you've quote mined it to fool your audience - but trust me guys, I misled you on what the book said, but it totally does disagree with it's own points.

I will also highlight again that it's easy to think someone is well researched if you yourself are not aware of what the person is talking about. Shaun dismisses the results of Twin Studies without actually referring to them. He makes a vague reference to the fact these twin studies also show that the IQ of the adoptive parents influences the adopted children, which is true, but what he fails to mention is that within Western nations the adopted children have an IQ far closer to their biological parents, or if taken at an average much closer to what you would expect for their demographic. Since IQ heritability increases with age, they are closer to the IQ of adoptive parents when they are young but this reverts closer to the average as they mature. Yet he doesn't mention this.

In short, its your usual BreadTube/ YouTube "intellectual" hit piece, where the person making it came to their conclusion before they even read the thing. Which is that Murray is evil, and that it's all just racism.

But also, so what? It was a pop-science book written in 1994. Even if it was wrong, that does not undermine the wider case. It's not even Murray's most recent work on the subject.

To be fair, I do not think a lot of the Alt-Hypes criticisms were the best. However, in my opinion this was primarily due to him defending the book rather than the wider concept.

 

[HonestJohn2376]

Faulks videos are still up.

Shaun's video is shit, if you notice at the end he says "I know some people will say I misrepresented the book, but the problem is the book says things then goes on to ignore the points as if it had never made them". This is because most of the points made in Shaun's rip off of Ned Blocks criticism (which makes the same mistake I am about to explain) are actually made in the Belle Curve itself, and he focuses on parts of the book that are asides - such as the overview of African data, which was not central to any points and barely took up 2 pages. So in essence, large parts of this video are in effect straw-manning the book intentionally, and then to try and head this criticism off at the pass he claims that the book ignores the caveats the book itself raises. However, he does not evidence this whatsoever, and it does call into question your own credibility to fairly represent the book if at the end you tacitly accept you've quote mined it to fool your audience - but trust me guys, I misled you on what the book said, but it totally does disagree with it's own points.

I will also highlight again that it's easy to think someone is well researched if you yourself are not aware of what the person is talking about. Shaun dismisses the results of Twin Studies without actually referring to them. He makes a vague reference to the fact these twin studies also show that the IQ of the adoptive parents influences the adopted children, which is true, but what he fails to mention is that within Western nations the adopted children have an IQ far closer to their biological parents, or if taken at an average much closer to what you would expect for their demographic. Since IQ heritability increases with age, they are closer to the IQ of adoptive parents when they are young but this reverts closer to the average as they mature. Yet he doesn't mention this.

In short, its your usual BreadTube/ YouTube "intellectual" hit piece, where the person making it came to their conclusion before they even read the thing. Which is that Murray is evil, and that it's all just racism.

But also, so what? It was a pop-science book written in 1994. Even if it was wrong, that does not undermine the wider case. It's not even Murray's most recent work on the subject.

To be fair, I do not think a lot of the Alt-Hypes criticisms were the best. However, in my opinion this was primarily due to him defending the book rather than the wider concept.

What is your personal take regarding science, race, IQ, and the scientists doing the research yet coming to very different conclusions? (Not out to call you a racist or anything stupid like that. Just want to know where you stand.)

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

What is your personal take regarding science, race, IQ, and the scientists doing the research yet coming to very different conclusions? (Not out to call you a racist or anything stupid like that. Just want to know where you stand.)

I'll leave this here so as not to derail the thread - put short, I think there is a difference and in Western nations where the environmental variation between individuals is pretty low in relevant things like nutrition and healthcare the majority of this difference is going to be due to genetics. I have no idea what the % of the variation is caused by genetics (although I would say probably 50 minimum, but who knows), but I don't really care either. So while I think in a place like Sweden the heritability of IQ is going to be really high, it will likely be somewhat lower in the US and much much lower in Africa. There are a bunch of directly observable reasons to think IQ is heritable due to genetics, from Twin Studies, to GWAS and subtest heritability.

I don't think most scientists find a lot different in terms of IQ heritability - even the Wikipedia article has it at 80% - it's more just when you bring race or whatever you want to call it into this it becomes a very hot button issue. Some are just downright ideological about it, and if you look at the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study it is the perfect example where the people who conducted the study said that the results were contrary to a hereditarian viewpoint, yet if you were to look at the results they actually line perfectly up with what hereditarians would expect. As an aside, if you look at surveys of relevant Chinese scientists they almost all believe race is a thing, now a lot of them try and prove that Europeans and Africans are more closely related and therefore Han Chinese are some exceptional race of people which is clearly politically motivated, but it demonstrates the point that scientists can be influenced by social pressure.

As to why there is variation in races, or human population - well the basic logic of Darwinian evolution is descent with modification. Therefore if you separate two groups of people future generations will diverge, and the degree of divergence will depend on selection pressures, time and the amount of gene flow between the populations. So for there to be no difference in intelligence at all, we would have to assume that by chance all the selection pressures that would effect genes that effect intelligence, for all human populations would have to be almost entirely the same - which is, I would say, essentially impossible. One example, take Cambodia - Pol Pot he killed large swathes of the intelligentsia, sure that's just one or two generations of people but it would still have an impact on intelligence as you are actively killing people who are more likely to be intelligent and therefore lowering their chance to pass on their genes.

To summarise, there is direct evidence and even if there wasn't, following the logic of Darwinian evolution should lead you to suspect this was the case - anyway back to Vaush and his disgusting hamplanet gf.

 

[Rekkington]

What is your personal take regarding science, race, IQ, and the scientists doing the research yet coming to very different conclusions? (Not out to call you a racist or anything stupid like that. Just want to know where you stand.)

Not OP but I would want to know what you mean by "very different conclusions." Murray claims between 40%-80% is heritable depending on circumstances, and I've heard people essentially agree but argue that 40% is negligible. This is the issue I see: people who actually read it agree with the premise but just disagree that it matters. They also fail to prove socioeconomic factors are the main culprit and as far as I've seen they just flip correlation and causation around whenever its convenient.
That's what's so interesting about the book: rather than saying people are dumb because they're poor he's saying you can also be poor because you're dumb, and IQ/G manifests itself in a dozen or so behaviors that inform socioeconomic status.
Oddly most people ignore the real interesting element of the book which is how society has shifted to creating a cognitive elite that takes the brightest people from all backgrounds and essentially separates them into a higher strata of society where they become further distanced from the average person and yet exact disproportionate power and influence. Never once have I seen that brought up in a debate and its like the whole first section of the book.

Ultimately it's the Destiny tactic, when someone makes a claim you dislike you just pretend it's far too complex and it's all unknowable.
The reason is they believe proponents of this thinking want to do another holocaust so they just believe that being a righteous bullshitter is preferable to admitting harsh realities.

 

[Shaka Brah]

Not OP but I would want to know what you mean by "very different conclusions." Murray claims between 40%-80% is heritable depending on circumstances, and I've heard people essentially agree but argue that 40% is negligible. This is the issue I see: people who actually read it agree with the premise but just disagree that it matters. They also fail to prove socioeconomic factors are the main culprit and as far as I've seen they just flip correlation and causation around whenever its convenient.
That's what's so interesting about the book: rather than saying people are dumb because they're poor he's saying you can also be poor because you're dumb, and IQ/G manifests itself in a dozen or so behaviors that inform socioeconomic status.
Oddly most people ignore the real interesting element of the book which is how society has shifted to creating a cognitive elite that takes the brightest people from all backgrounds and essentially separates them into a higher strata of society where they become further distanced from the average person and yet exact disproportionate power and influence. Never once have I seen that brought up in a debate and its like the whole first section of the book.

Ultimately it's the Destiny tactic, when someone makes a claim you dislike you just pretend it's far too complex and it's all unknowable.
The reason is they believe proponents of this thinking want to do another holocaust so they just believe that being a righteous bullshitter is preferable to admitting harsh realities.

The consensus among geneticists is on the high end. Around 80% heritable. The problem is ideologues will just pretend genetics don't exist on these issues.

 

[Namekian George Floyd]

His butting heads with the Alt Hype is especially funny to me, because for all his faults, Faulk spent the time between browning his meat actually learning this stuff. Whatever sort of autism has possessed him is powerful, and it shows through the fact when he puts this stuff out he actually understands it.

I mean, it's sad because I disagree with most of Ryan's conclusions and think his autism really shows when he goes off script but he seems to be literally the only person who knows what he's talking about when it comes to these subjects so he's able to completely control the narrative around it. Why would lefties not think this is important enough to learn about so "nazi's" aren't controlling the flow of information and making this area of science their domain? Nah, just focus on "gender science" instead, read those papers about how every personality is actually a new gender, we totally won't be looking back on this and laughing 10 years from now when all the gender shit has totally gone out of style so nobody claims to be "nonbinary" or any of that weird shit anymore.

Like you're only going to be able to sweep this under the rug for so long and if a time ever comes where we're faced to confront this as a society and the far-right has all the answers while the lefties don't because they just constantly denied any kind of science related to it, well guess where the overton window is going to shift? Our future isn't looking very bright.

 

[Rekkington]

I mean, it's sad because I disagree with most of Ryan's conclusions and think his autism really shows when he goes off script but he seems to be literally the only person who knows what he's talking about when it comes to these subjects so he's able to completely control the narrative around it. Why would lefties not think this is important enough to learn about so "nazi's" aren't controlling the flow of information and making this area of science their domain? Nah, just focus on "gender science" instead, read those papers about how every personality is actually a new gender, we totally won't be looking back on this and laughing 10 years from now when all the gender shit has totally gone out of style so nobody claims to be "nonbinary" or any of that weird shit anymore.

Like you're only going to be able to sweep this under the rug for so long and if a time ever comes where we're faced to confront this as a society and the far-right has all the answers while the lefties don't because they just constantly denied any kind of science related to it, well guess where the overton window is going to shift? Our future isn't looking very bright.

Have you considered that Ryan's conclusions are not incorrect that that's why nobody wants to debate them? I've looked at someone of the "debunking" in the past and it's all really bad. It's one of the topics Ryan has covered the most, I think I've seen 5 or so videos where he responds to specific points.

 

[Namekian George Floyd]

Have you considered that Ryan's conclusions are not incorrect that that's why nobody wants to debate them? I've looked at someone of the "debunking" in the past and it's all really bad. It's one of the topics Ryan has covered the most, I think I've seen 5 or so videos where he responds to specific points.

When I say his conclusions, I mean what he thinks we should do if the information he presented is true. I probably should have clarified but I meant like, if someone said, "Blacks have lower IQ's so we should kick all blacks out of the US", I can agree that it's true that blacks have lower IQ's but I'd disagree with their conclusion that therefore we should kick them out. It's like an Is-Ought kind of thing.

I think Ryan says a lot of silly things, he made a video a while ago where he basically said we needed to ban Pokemon Cards and Gacha Games. His debates are really funny to watch too, when he was debating CV, he brought up an episode of Family Guy in an attempt to make a serious argument and started talking about thunder before going, "Fuck, I forget how thunder works", I still think he won but he self-admittedly isn't very good at debates and he really just isn't good at getting his points across in that format. As far as debunk videos go, yeah, when people try telling him he got his information wrong, they get raped badly.

 

[Boobie Bomb]

An interesting video he was trying to make. Hmm?

 

[Juan's Sombrero]

Vaush had a mask slip moment during the vid. I know it'd be easy to say its just a joke or an exaggeration, but after his fight against Rem where he said truth is basically subjective and everything comes down to power I don't think he's being totally insincere here.

As long as the ends justify the means its permissible for him so he comes across as a very slimy person.
View attachment 1297053

When I say his conclusions, I mean what he thinks we should do if the information he presented is true. I probably should have clarified but I meant like, if someone said, "Blacks have lower IQ's so we should kick all blacks out of the US", I can agree that it's true that blacks have lower IQ's but I'd disagree with their conclusion that therefore we should kick them out. It's like an Is-Ought kind of thing. I think Ryan says a lot of silly things, he made a video a while ago where he basically said we needed to ban Pokemon Cards and Gacha Games.

"we needed to ban Pokemon Cards and Gacha Games."

I've been burned by so many saint quartz rolls that I'm practically living in a box now.

An interesting video he was trying to make. Hmm?

We get it, Vaush. You can't wear a beanie because of that tumor atop your head.

 

[Flamenco]

Styx might have hit the nail on the head. It's all about the dosh.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

Styx might have hit the nail on the head. It's all about the dosh.

View attachment 1300603

Should Vaush really be getting his Mexican gf to sweep this up for him, surely that's propagating racist stereotypes?
How similar is this to what Ralph had you doing @Flamenco ?


Also, lmao what a self-important faggot. You're a sperg online who plays video games all day, and you "can't be bothered" to talk to people. Fuck me.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

An interesting video he was trying to make. Hmm?

Is this not libel? He is talking about Tim Pool "LAUGHING" at Arbery, but he does not actually discuss what Tim Pool says and just goes into the comments. Vaush now thinks responding to a video does not require you to actually watch the video. Amazing. Even then half of his responses are just acting incredulous, looking at the camera and smuggly chuckling.

There is so much about this "response" to Tim Pool that was fucking terrible. Even for Vaush this was fucking awful, how do you need to lie about Tim Pool a fucking balding weirdo whose entire career is reading news articles and saying absolutely nothing of interest. Well I guess he at least reads what he's covering rather than just watching 20 seconds of footage and imagining that Tim Pool is okay with the killing when if you actually listened to him on this he states pretty clearly that Arbery should not have died and that people should not take the law into their own hands like this.

He goes on about the trespass being irrelevant, but the question in court - or at least my understanding of it is - whether or not the Citizens Arrest was legal, since Georgia have those laws where if someone dies while you are committing a felony you're a murderer. So if they were unjustified in attempting to carry out a citizens arrest then that could be felonious and therefore it does not matter that you acted in self-defence, legally it is murder. So the basis for the alleged Citizens Arrest is entirely relevant, it's like he doesn't even take a minute to understand the case.

 

[Juan's Sombrero]

Is this not libel? He is talking about Tim Pool "LAUGHING" at Arbery, but he does not actually discuss what Tim Pool says and just goes into the comments. Vaush now thinks responding to a video does not require you to actually watch the video. Amazing. Even then half of his responses are just acting incredulous, looking at the camera and smuggly chuckling.

There is so much about this "response" to Tim Pool that was fucking terrible. Even for Vaush this was fucking awful, how do you need to lie about Tim Pool a fucking balding weirdo whose entire career is reading news articles and saying absolutely nothing of interest. Well I guess he at least reads what he's covering rather than just watching 20 seconds of footage and imagining that Tim Pool is okay with the killing when if you actually listened to him on this he states pretty clearly that Arbery should not have died and that people should not take the law into their own hands like this.

He goes on about the trespass being irrelevant, but the question in court - or at least my understanding of it is - whether or not the Citizens Arrest was legal, since Georgia have those laws where if someone dies while you are committing a felony you're a murderer. So if they were unjustified in attempting to carry out a citizens arrest then that could be felonious and therefore it does not matter that you acted in self-defence, legally it is murder.

So, what's he and his little cult going to do? Troll Tim's videos? Convince people that Tim mocked someone's death on a video that anyone can freely watch?

Is the man bun munchkin going to ask for a debate?

 

[4str4staleatherbelt]

Vaush and breadtube are making fun of Styx for being a "coward" for not debating whoever but Vaush himself is too scared to debate Eric Striker.

 

[Namekian George Floyd]

So, what's he and his little cult going to do? Troll Tim's videos? Convince people that Tim mocked someone's death on a video that anyone can freely watch?

Is the man bun munchkin going to ask for a debate?

I would love to see a debate between Vaush and Tim Pool.
Tim Pool has no personality whatsoever and is extremely low energy so I'd like to see his reaction to Vaush just being Vaush in a live format. How would Tim even respond to being insulted, cut off and yelled at? I literally cannot picture a live exchange between these two people in my head.

 

[Juan's Sombrero]

I would love to see a debate between Vaush and Tim Pool.
Tim Pool has no personality whatsoever and is extremely low energy so I'd like to see his reaction to Vaush just being Vaush in a live format. How would Tim even respond to being insulted, cut off and yelled at? I literally cannot picture a live exchange between these two people in my head.

Tim already got enough of that from David "drug addled" Pakman and Sam "pedophilia jokes" Seder.

 

[Goku 1000000 O]

Styx might have hit the nail on the head. It's all about the dosh.

View attachment 1300603

How is this any better than Trigger the Chuds, Own the Chuds?

If all Vaush wants to do is argue against easy targets for clicks than thats just as bad as anti-SJWs only arguing against bedroom feminists and tumblrites.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

So, what's he and his little cult going to do? Troll Tim's videos? Convince people that Tim mocked someone's death on a video that anyone can freely watch?

Is the man bun munchkin going to ask for a debate?

He's preaching to the choir, and he mainly preaches that anyone he disagrees with hates some group or other. His paypiggies and harem of captain caveman cosplayers are too lazy to check.

Tim is an oddball, but he's a more respectable type of Grifter. You don't get multiple Rogan appearances by smugly chuckling - as Soygon discovered.