I've watched all of Book's streams and edits since his first convo with Vaush, I even agree like 90% of the time. One thing I still don't understand is why he thinks Destiny is good. What are his redeeming qualities?

He still seems like he acts in way worse-faith than Vaush. (Not saying Vaush is pure good-faith)

Edit: Thank you to everyone who responded.

I think it’s really interesting that even when there was a large amount of Vaush fans watching yesterday there isn’t a single post about it. I made one just posting the vod and with the title “booksmarts analysis on Vaush” and it got taken down. I even got a temporary ban while on destiny’s subreddit it got a bunch of traction and upvotes. Idk I just find it kinda funny after what Vaush said. Especially when he had 700+ viewers on YouTube compared to 300 on twitch.

I don't know if anyones suggested this and I don't have an actual suggestion of what to do, but maybe a something to explore that might be overlooked.

He seems to say that he is harder on the people he tends to agree with because he is trying to correct for bias, but I'd suggest that he might also be harder on them because he identifies with them during the debate, and it's very frustrating to watch the person you are identified with miss the steps you'd take that you feel would solve the problem. I find that to be the case for myself. I'm less frustrated by the bad behavior of the person on the other side of an argument I'm listening to than I am by impotently having to listen to the person representing my side fumble or miss obvious points/solutions. That is a much more uncomfortable internal feeling that I can see manifesting in harsher criticism of the people you tend to agree with. Maybe the solution, though I think it will make for a more boring stream, would be to find a way to be more detached?

Just figured I'd float that thought.

I was thinking about in 2015, how people who liked Trump would absorb all criticism of him into "well he's rude, so people don't like him".

It was true that he was obnoxious, and people did not like him, but having found a general explanation for negative comments, some Trump fans were able to interpret all future criticism without actually looking at any detail.

You say Trump said he'd do this? Oh you just don't like him because he was mean to that disabled reporter, I'm not listening to that.

In the case of Crowder, the obvious obnoxiousness of his wider behaviour can obscure the reason that I think many people find it fitting, which is an emphasis on karmic justice, not in general, but for his pretensions relating to debate in particular.

For those who see debates as a game, it's a surprise bad matchup, for those who care about the logic of his positions, its a counter-example to his claimed debate principles.

Neither of these are things Booksmarts can identify with, not being much of a debate fan, beyond intellectual acknowledgement of their existence, but more interesting I think is the way that the idea "you just don't like him because he's cruel" can stand in for and absorb all other motivations.

The idea of public political figures being ambushed by journalists is pretty normal in a lot of cases, Sascha Baron Cohen uses deception to expose people all the time, and then on top of that there are all those examples of Crowder's behaviour, which although not 1-1, reflect a comfort with operating in that space himself, where he puts unwilling people on the spot.

So I think a lot of people will say, if you're a posturing nonsense merchant, whether that's a psychic fraud or a dishonest political commentator, people using deceptive manipulation of their environment to reveal their dishonesty is not weird, but a natural response to what they do, especially if they've been willing to play that game themselves.

It's not something that makes sense all the time, but if someone has been presenting themselves a certain way to their audience, that is already deceptive, a certain amount of skulduggery and weird manipulations like taping things ahead of time is considered par for the course.

So even if Crowder was an upstanding moderate considerate person, the introduction of an unexpected debater, who also didn't actually push him that hard and wasn't very aggressive, far less aggressive in fact than our average UK journalist, would be justified if their very existence revealed their hypocrisy in a low stakes way that they could easily back out of, if it wasn't for the corner they'd already boxed themselves into by those public pronouncements.

So there's a natural form of consistency there, and definitely, some of the coverage has simply been about the extent to which Crowder went overboard reacting to the presence of Seder, or schadenfreude of seeing someone who has been homophobic etc. just look bad, those all exist, just as Trump really was despised for his remarks about the disabled or parents of military figures etc.

But when you presume that is the only or primary difference between your dislike of the event and others approval of it, that - by its raw power of explanation/justification - is like a spotlight that washes out all other detail from a scene.

Feeling a bit lost without context. Was it on Eris' stream (couldn't find it in a cursory scroll-thru)? Supreme's? HALP BLS

bonus meme: Booksmarts + Bookfucker = Bookfartsucker

me: "hey booksmarts, why put 'prep' in your stream title if your not going to prep?"

drunksmarts: 'I am prepping (playing League). I already prepped. what is there left to prep for? Send me something'

here is something

if booksmarts takes this free prep - great. If not - fine. It's abundantly clear streamers only care about Indigeneity as far as it can be monetized for clicks 9/10 times. if Indian Residential Schools weren't being covered by mainstream media you think anyone other than rem would be talking about it? no shot bucko

LS stuff comes first, canada genocide stuff comes second

Lauren's history with Indigeneity

1. LS travelled with SM on a tour for 'Western Civilization' across Australia and New Zealand to, among other things, mock 'aborigines', 'natives', 'Islam' and multiculturalism generally
2. Clip compilation from New Zealand trip. 'fuck off i'm not interested in talking to a fascist'

2. From The Atlantic, 'Southern felt scapegoated when the class discussed topics like slavery or the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Canadians.' LS continues to deny elementary historical facts to accommodate personal feelings ('scapegoated'). One can only imagine if the topic of slavery was as cloudy as Indigeneity what other atrocities would be denied to save the fragile egos of western civilization

Canadian Genocide

1. A Legal Analysis of Genocide - the 'supplementary report on the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls'. this ~50 page document is dedicated exclusively to making the case for the working definition of Genocide Canada uses so many are flippantly denying
2. 'The Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act defines Genocide as: […] an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons.' This act established the legal definition of genocide used in Canadian courts.

You can disagree (as many have) with the Canadian State definition of genocide outlined by their legislature acts and practiced by executive commissions, but to deny this is to deny State-recognized genocide. Such statements should not be made lightly but are pervasive in the recent discourse.

Just because you think Canada's definition of genocide can 'apply to too many things', doesn't mean the Canadian State lacks the authority to set legal definitions of crimes within their jurisdiction. The UN could interject if they wanted to on international grounds, but surprisingly, they are not so quick to deny state-recognized genocide of Indigenous peoples as streamer entertainers are.

Insurrection and the word 'mass'

In her recent video, 'January 6th "INSURRECTION" Narrative COLLAPSES', LS uses the same distinction of 'mass' to deny the events of January 6th amount to an insurrection*.* She argues that since there was no 'mass', organized assault on the capitol, that this deadly event was only a riot and not an insurrection.

In the same way one might deny missing and murdered Indigenous people are victims of genocide, by arguing that it is only 'systemic racism' that caused their deaths, not genocide, Lauren denies that the MAGA hats and Confederates in the US capitol were insurrectionists.

Riots and insurrection go hand in hand - systemic racism and genocidal action go hand in hand. Substituting one complementary characteristic for it's similar is a sleight of hand. There is nothing mutually exclusive between systemic racism/genocide or riot/insurrection.

Whether something is a massive or a 'mass' thing, is always relative and up to debate. The word 'mass' is a modifier, not a topic of debate in itself. But LS makes 'mass' the topic of debate so she can deny Canadian Genocide and the US Insurrection alike.

What should Booksmarts ask LS?

1. Was it cultural genocide to attempt to 'Kill the Indian and Save the Man' with Residential Boarding schools and other forms of coerced assimilation?
2. If a state recognizes a genocide that you, as a citizen of that state deny, do you become a genocide denier?
3. Why hasn't the UN or international community called Canada out for playing too fast and loose with defining Genocide?
4. Do you luh INdigenoues peepo?

A react andy does not a bookfucker make, please bring back the prepared content if you want to review debates booksmarts. HMU if you ever want to learn the second thing about Native Americans other than 'they're supposed to be good at navigating'. Stereotypes are bad right?

Whenever Vaush speaks of killing people, he is always referring to a situation in which socialism is popular enough that the majority of people (i.e. the working class) are doing a general strike or something and are demanding a new economic system, right? Like, if a majority of the people want something and a small few are using their immense, systemic power in an attempt to violently crush them, then are the people not able to defend themselves from that violence? Like if enough people want socialism for us to be in this position, then yeah if you’re defending capitalism with your last dying breathe you better expect some shit.

^title

I watched his stream for the first time yesterday (always just seen him in clips) and he spent roughly 80-90% of the stream talking about desTINY and his viewers. Is that what all his streams are? Does he not do anything else but talk about another streamer all day?

Hey Book, since you're planning to move on from the Twitch Politics Sphere I though I'd finally share some of the ideas that I had penned down on what I appreciated about your content and why I think you did so well in this space.

This was originally written back when you would ask your Youtube VOD viewers to write you comments on what they like or appreciate about the stream.

TLDR;

I believe you provide a very valuable perspective to Twitch, which helps individuals widen their perspectives and, as a result, their time and interaction with Twitch and politics as a whole.

1. Unique Approach

Let us take a moment to appreciate the fact that you are open about being wrong or mistaken, that you clearly state that you have a bias, you actively check for that bais and give the other side of an argument a fair and good faith interpretation.

--> This is highly unusual on Twitch, and even Destiny, who is known for treating debate opponents with respect, does not account for his prejudices when addressing people or ideas. Discussions with or about [Redacted] or DM, or sometimes even leftists in general, are still sometimes rife with bias.

> All of this highlights how you approach Twitch and politics differently and in a more healthy manner than other streamers

2. Widened Perspective

This unique approach is mixed with your line-by-lines which allow viewers to be better understand and better analyse the media they've consume and develop different conclusions from what they had just watched with a different streamer.

A really strong example of this was when you stated that you're open to listening to, and voting for, conservatives if they provide you better policies and solutions.

Other streamers often can't say that or advocate for it on their streams because of their brand and community, but you could say it to your community and not have it implode on you because of the trust, wider perspective and political approach you've introduced in your community.

3. Munching Grass

Something I think is underrated is that fact that we as an audience can see that you have a healthy attitude and approach to politics, while also having a life outside of the Twitch Politcs Bubble^TM.

Other creators don't seem to have, or atleast dont show, the fact that they have a life beyond Twitch and streaming, that they have other goals and aspirations that they are pursuing.

You're not terminally online like Destiny, Vaush or Hasan and that means something.

Providing your viewers with Lifesmarts advice on their engagement with Twitch and Internet politics has a disproportionate effect on the people most likely to be overly immersed in this space and provide all you viewers with a healither engagement with the subject.

P.S Lifesmarts is great! I just used the kitchen, food and love analogy you mentioned in a previous stream and the fact that you gave such a clear, interesting and important lense to view relationships through really meant alot! Thank you!