- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
Well it’s not over yet. But how long has breadtube been a thing. It feels like it’s been very short compared to the Skeptic group or even the right wing and IBS people.
BreadTube - The Unofficial ContraPoints Dickriders Club and the culture / drama surrounding the community.
- Thread starter RichardMongler
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2018
Only a few years. Prob at the end of 2016 is when it mainly started. But it's been really small until this year. It burns hot for a little bit but the fire will die down quickly.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2018
I'd say it started to pick up steam around the time IBS started to become big. The rise of IBS is what casused the skeptic community to colpase in on it's self and i think that caused a skism in the community and some left to find more political youtubers and fell into breadtube because they where always liberals at heart but kind of just followed the most popular/cool opinion.I think also that is when Youtube started fucking with the algorithm because the Sargon/Richard Spensor debate was a top trending stream and that wasn't good for the because that was at the time of all those hit pecie articals about how Nazis where everywhere on Youtube.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2018
If Breadtube is around for the results of the 2020 election and one of their candidates ends up winning, we might get a brief era of smugness from them like how the Skeptics reacted to Trump's election towards SJWs.
So I'd say 2017-18 is when it was starting to gain momentum.
I remember the "Reasonable questions for Anti-SJWs" vid that came out in like Sept-Oct 2016 and featured people like Steve Shives, Thom Avella and even Hbomber. At the time this was a much smaller community known mostly as just "Anti-Anti-SJWs" and were mostly ignored or ridiculed. Most of the people in the vid don't seem to have any presence in the current Breadtube community AFAIK. Once Contrapoints started gaining views and the fear of Right-Wing radicalization became more widespread thanks to Christchurch the community really took off.
So I'd say 2017-18 is when it was starting to gain momentum.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
Breadtube isnt a trend like the anti sjws were. None of these people are very popular. It is a lot harder to become a leftist than a retard reactionary. Peoples brains tend to default to being reactionary.
Flamenco you are cringe for acting like Vaush lost the debate on the killstream. Why white knight Carl? Lmao. You would think with the ongoing theme of Sargon hate of the stream that you all woudlnt have went full gay just to spite Vaush.
Flamenco you are cringe for acting like Vaush lost the debate on the killstream. Why white knight Carl? Lmao. You would think with the ongoing theme of Sargon hate of the stream that you all woudlnt have went full gay just to spite Vaush.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2019
because she triggered non-binaries and people with fake genders.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
Carl didn't sperg out for 20 minutes defending a definition that was entirely wrong, nor did he passive-aggressively snipe at the moderator for telling him to stop interrupting. I think I even said that really the only highlights from the 'debate' were these, otherwise it was just two Dunning-Krugers talking past each other for 3 hours. Only Sargon managed to do that with composure, which I don't think anyone can disagree with.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
I disagree with that pretty fucking hard. Carl started to sperg at the end with, “STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP”.
Also composure aside, Vaush overall had more cogent arguments despite my critiques of some of his dumber moments. Carl is still too much of a buffoon to honestly look like he came out on top.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
Carl's composure was low IQ. Getting mad in a debate means nothing if you have actual arguments. Carl had none and didn't even know what proliteriat meant. And Carl was the one that cried about the definition of far right. Vaush did not start that argument, it was Sargon. Carl is too afraid to call himself far right and decided to cry about it.
cecograph
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2018
Vaush's comment on his youtube debate is uncharacteristically spineless:
"Probably my worst performance, but that’s a learning opportunity! Tomorrow I’ll be going over this debate and how I could have improved my performance. Enjoy the incoherent shouting and poor optics."
Dude, most of your performances are you being a belligerent and pretentious arsehole who thinks your sociology degree is a science qualification. Oh, and you copied your cadence and debate style from that energiser gremlin Destiny.
This was par for the course for you. Embrace it.
"Probably my worst performance, but that’s a learning opportunity! Tomorrow I’ll be going over this debate and how I could have improved my performance. Enjoy the incoherent shouting and poor optics."
Dude, most of your performances are you being a belligerent and pretentious arsehole who thinks your sociology degree is a science qualification. Oh, and you copied your cadence and debate style from that energiser gremlin Destiny.
This was par for the course for you. Embrace it.
Where Do You Find Them?
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2019
It is but then so is any assertion of truth. Expecting everyone to live up to the standards that philosophy of science expects all the time is pretty demanding, especially considering most working scientists don't even know what those expectations are let alone follow them. They tend to just come up with their theories and if there's a problem the experts will let them know and help them to get it fixed. For instance string theory arguably doesn't meet the criteria.
That's the type of thing that shows why arguments to authority are so necessary. Human knowledge is so deep that even if you are an expert it's going to be in a very narrow area and as soon as you're outside that area you'll have to defer to someone else.
This was the only part of the debate that I saw but Vaush handed him an easy win on a plate. Farage saying "Too far right for me" doesn't mean objectively "far right" and Vaush tried to argue UKIP was outside the overton window when they got 12% of the vote a few years back. Easy points and all underline his main point that Vaush and co just want to call everyone far right and consequently write them off.
What actually happened was he came across as just kinda whinging while Vaush had it on "good authority" that they were far right. Coupled with the fact that his microphone was turned down very low and Vaush kept cutting him off without the moderator doing anything he gave an appearance of weakness. While Vaush came across as about to steal his lunch money. I turned it off after about 2 minutes though so I don't know how it ended.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
Neither party had any real concrete arguments outside of "Immigration changes the cultural makeup of a country and disenfranchises workers if it's done at mass over a prolonged period of time" vs "The benefits trickle down to the working classes and any cultural clashes don't matter." Also I'm not entirely sure Sargon's assessment of the modern middle class being not being proletariat was wrong, I think Ian just has a problem with any definition that would classify him as a bourgeoisie, upper-class twat.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2018
Contras got a sub count of almost 800K. Secular talk has over 700K. hbombs about to hit 500K. Shauns got almost 300K. That's pretty popular. Compare contra to the most popular skeptic (shoeonhead) whos got like 1.1 million and he's not that far off. Plus breadtube has been around for a lot less time compared to the skeptics. Also you have the smaller channels no one cares about like with the skeptics as well. I think it is just alot like the skeptic community.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
Secular Talk is not Breadtube. He’s not far left enough.
Appeals to authority are from a formal logic sense, invalid. But they’re hardly inappropriate to bring up in conversation or argument.
Ideally we’d all be experts or at least give a thorough account of why a cited stat or fact is correct and its various nuances. But thats just not realistic and its not something you can be pedantic about.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2018
Idk that much about him. I've seen people within the breadtube sphere share his around stuff. Might be uncommon though.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
Doesn't matter, both parties informally agreed to the formal logic standard when they got into the weeds on the definition of the fallacy.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
“Formal logic standard”
Thats not how that works. A formal fallacy is just in regards to how something doesn’t follow from a claim.
Here’s Vaush’s argument (in a fallacious form)
Farage is an authority on UKIP
Farage says UKIP is Far Right
Therefore, UKIP is Far Right
The authority may be credible but it doesn’t justify logically the conclusion. It doesn’t matter if two people agree to formal logic standards because its not a fucking standard. Its just basic logic.
Which again makes that exchange embarrassing on Vaush’s end.
However to be fair to Vaush, he didn’t present that point as a syllogism like I did in my example. It was Carl that decided to be an autist about it first.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
Kraut had a better debate with Vaush over immigration. I would say Kraut won that debate because Vaush was incapable of admitting that Islam itself can make you behave in a certain way, Vaush argued it was all socio economic causes, which is silly. Kraut argued that Islam makes people can act a certain way, citing the rise in anti-semitic attacks. And how cultural enclaves are dangerous because they normalize bad behavior like beating your wife in segregated Eastern Euro populations in Germany. Sargon couldn't even articulate simple arguments like that, all he said is "it changes the culture, they commit more crime, lower wages". If you're going to debate, you need to lay out flat things of how it changes the culture negatively. Sargon had the problem of not being able to state his argument sufficiently.
And Sargon was wrong about the middle class not being the proletariat (unless they own their own business or are otherwise self employed) The most comparative description of what Marx referred to as the middle class in modern day would be a freelance worker or small business owner. These people aren't wagies. The majority of the modern day middle class are wagies, which would make them proles. Vaush would be what Marx would have called the middle class of his time. Vaush isn't a prole because he isn't a wagie. Prole doesn't mean poor, it means exploited by a capitalist, as in someone is skimming wages off of your labor who is directly employing you.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
Well this is going down.
Breadtube, is without a shadow of a doubt another shallow youtube trend like skeptics. My 14+ years of experience with the platform makes me really want to press x to doubt. Identical interchangeable videos and channels like breadtube hardly ever pop up organically. Contra points got a lot of shout outs from the msm and people noticed got jealous and hoped on the trend train. Just having a dumb name like breadtube is indicative of a trend like storytime animators or ani-tubers etc.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Especially when I bet not a single one of the assclowns on it have ever so much as baked a single loaf of actual bread in their lives and would have no clue how to.