Talk:Liberal Socialism

Welcome to Liberal Socialism's talk page!

This is the talk page for Liberal Socialism. Everyone must follow these rules to keep those pages in order.

• Read the Wiki Guidelines and Wikia's Terms of Service before you interact with the wiki and the talk pages.
• Stay on topic. This page is about Liberal Socialism. Never go off-topic.
• Talk pages are for discussion, not for joking and shitposting.
• In your topic, provide your Wikia signature and the full date before your message. This can be done by typing ~~~~.
• Do not reply to topics that have ended or haven't had a response in a while, also known as gravedigging.

Topics that break any of those rules will be removed and repeated offenses will result in punishment.

Fake Liberal

YouTuber variants

Here is the list of variants we'd have to remove if we removed YouTuber/social media variants from pages

• Raichikism
• Shapiroism
• Owensism
• Lindsayism
• Hasanism
• Patriotic Socialism, since it's based off the thoughts of the YouTubers Jackson Hinkle and Haz.
• Destinyism

And others. The point I'm making is that if you wanted to remove YouTubers, you would have to remove any variant based opon the ideology of social media commentators, and that would remove too much content from pages for unnecessary reasons. Don't try to make fun of me for saying this, but YouTubers shouldn't be treated differently than activists and even other political theorists. - User:FanOfWolves

• User:FanOfWolves - We would also have to wipe the Satirism page if we did that.
• User:AbsoluteInfinity - Are you actually crazy!? NO!
• Kamilazer- I agree with wolves
• I sympathise and agree with this to a point, however half the creators you mention aren't even really fitting. Including Shapiroism, Owenism, Raichikism, Lindsayism is a massive stretch since much of their popularity and career are entirely elsewhere outside of youtube, with libsoftiktok and Linsay not even having youtube accounts from what I understand, and Jackson Hinkle (the founder of Patsoc/MagaCommunism) having mostly been on Bumble for most of their work. I completely agree, mods are inconsistent regarding youtubers, and by the same logic, we could probably also add social media influencers that are very similar to youtubers in all but name. this is an issue that should be brought up with the mods, because it's pretty clear that is their issue for wiping pages on a whim because they don't like youtubers and then not enforcing those very rules which they made. Since they were the ones who removed the youtuber ideology pages, as well as subideologies being Contrapoints, Shoeonhead, BadEmpanada, Whatifalthist, and many, many more. I only removed the most notable youtubers not because I agree with but for two main reasons, firstly because they were the most popular I knew about and felt it was kinda unfair to a lot of users who weren't popular enough on here to get re-added, and secondly because for some youtubers they are just too controversial that any objective ideology is going to be difficult at the very best of times often incredibly debatable and which causes far too many edit-wars to be worth keeping since it's clear people only focus on adding on people they particularly are biased towards by really loving/hating them and editing the article based almost entirely on that basis.

Quite honestly, the only general argument I am hearing from you guys against me for removing the few youtuber ideologies is because "I don't like it" when in truth, it's pretty clear that it's mostly a vocal minority of people (fans or anti-fans) who only really seem to care about preserving the same status-quo of inconsistent additions, where only a few particular individuals they really like/hate are made an exceptions even if it goes against the moderation and don't really care about enforcing this stance otherwise when many other youtubers and pages had already been removed many times before, rather than actually having any actual valid point to make, for instance, nobody really cared about the youtuber ban here until I removed vaush based on previous rules set by moderation. When I remember having to edit-war mods and then have the page locked because I actively fought to preserve pages of youtuber ideologies. And at the end of the day, that is a problem not between me and you guys but us and the moderation, who in the very least are vague on rules and seem to make it up when it's convinient and don't attempt to enforce such nor have any actual criteria for what should and shouldn't be included to this general ban that they themselves have created. I merely just want to be consistent. -AnAnonBoi

• Update: Good job on the vote, and my personal questions aside on the process of that I count this as a win nontheless since I assume mods are cool with youtubers now. I undid some of the removed youtubers since they no longer will be an issue... This probably opens a huge pandoras box since youtubers almost never were uncontroversial but at least for now I still am happy that you guys were able to make mods keep youtubers up, especially because they often are very much relevent and immensely influencial to our online community -AnAnonBoi

I am in favor of deleting every youtuber ideologies

• Hey man, I was just following orders!

Constructive Criticism: Many subideologies of Vaushism might be a bit of a stretch or just objectively untrue

Despite not attending in the vote, I absolutely am glad to hear Vaushism (and other youtbers) are allowed on again, with that being said, (especially factoring in how much of a battle-field youtuber ideologies were before) I still believe that my previous point that regarding youtuber ideologies in question is still very much a valid one, as such seem to reflect the biases of the editors who want to add their favorite (or least favorite) creators and ignore various factors such as context, optics and authenticity (or lackthereof). For instance, many of the ideologies listed can be seen as debatable at best or regarded as a stretch even when taking his words at face value. anarcho-syndicalism, menslib, indigenism, veganism, are all great examples of this as advocates of those ideologies tend to frequently have serious beef with him or at least regard him as not representing their interests, and making it seem like he truly is an authentic ansynd or an indegenism advocate without any possibility for considering the optics, nuance, or debatability of his proclaimed positions often gives off the impression that an acurate, relatively un-biased representation of his beliefs isn't the point of polcompball when it absolutely is. -AnAnonBoi

• Most of those examples you listed have citations sourcing them. If you want them removed, you should provide adequate citations which contradict them. - Rigourdigga
  • The thing about that is using that same logic I have brought nuance to ideologies like anarchism since he has actively starting to refrain from identifying himself as such and was actively disregarded from a lot of the internet anarchist movement for his percived heavily watered down beliefs of the ideology. However that too was removed because from what I remember as a couple users who were fans and anarchists added it back anyway... The same also can apply to indigenism as I remember discussing this before that he was pretty clearly not for landback and especially not indigenism, with even the current citation corraborating that to some extent (he doesn't actually believe in landback as is well understood by activists, just "respecting treaties" something which isn't actually what landback even is, with his stance already being the generic milquetoast opinion that most people already believe in). However whenever that's included, people (typically more radical fans) have tended to change the ideologies of vaushism to make him look a certain way, usually more radical or progressive than he actually is and remove ones that don't make him look like such, while this position of Vaush is so well known in this community that it's specifically why the "indigenous nazism" page on polcomp anarchy includes him as one of their rivals saying "YOU MADE ME" because it was a joke made by the people from that space who well understood Vaush's positions, and that Vaush has regarded indigenous and left-wing minority nationalism, especially but not exclusively based on "taking back" nations like america to be akin with fascism or fascist-adjacent politics, despite that also being the essense of the ideology of what indigenism is.

TLDR: I remember I have before, and that didn't stop it from my edits being undone by fans who didn't like it even when the facts were clearly against them

• Update Regarding Indigenism Ctation: Since I kinda just don't want to act like I have no proof, here's just ONE example after 10 seconds of googling just so we can't pretend that he actually is pro-indigenism. He obviously isn't, at best the citation listed only really makes him pro "respecting treaties" and pro-"seeking economic empowerment to historically disadvantaged groups" which is pretty already mainstream and certainly isn't radical enough to be akin to akin to indigenism. while the evidence I give to disprove such a claim is already pretty damning evidence that he's explictly not-alligned with or even outright hostile against indigenism or even landback at least as it's defined generally and within polcompball (that being anti-imperialist nationalism and taking back america) https://x.com/lisaquestions/status/1296227083383795712 - I don't want to agree or disagree with anything the twitter user says since I don't really want to weigh in on petty twitter callouts but the citation is damning enough regardless to basically debunk the previous citation undoubtedly all from just 10 seconds of googling, though I am certainly willing to collect much more citations if it's not already clear enough already what his genuine positions are.