- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
- watchtheright@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
- watchtheright@lemmy.world
Check out c/breadtube for more left video content and discussion.
You must log in or register to comment.
Yeah, if we could not promote second thought that would be great.
Why not
Would you kindly elaborate?
Second thought is the pot calling the kettle black in this instance. They aren’t wrong. They’re just hypocritical. A tainted source. Not to be promoted.
There is no pure paragon in a messenger. Ideas resonate differently with different people and when expressed in different forms. Passing a purity test is not a requirement to promote left ideas. Growing movements and creating paradigm shifts means welcoming people and ideas, even if they don’t happen check all of an individual’s particular boxes.
It’s definitely hypocritical coming from them. I certainly won’t be watching this or any other of their future videos. That video they had on authoritarianism was the final load of bullshit that broke the camel’s back. I found a lot of stuff questionable in other past videos but that just really sealed the deal.
Hardly surprising unfortunately coming from leninists. They were never good at introspection or acknowledging the massive flaws of their ideology. And it really makes it hard to take anything they present seriously even if it’s correct. Which they struggle with.
It’s definitely hypocritical coming from them.
What is hypocritical?
That video they had on authoritarianism was the final load of bullshit that broke the camel’s back. I found a lot of stuff questionable in other past videos but that just really sealed the deal.
Care to link?
Hardly surprising unfortunately coming from leninists. They were never good at introspection or acknowledging the massive flaws of their ideology. And it really makes it hard to take anything they present seriously even if it’s correct. Which they struggle with.
Kindly refrain from generalizing, outgrouping, and demeaning other leftists. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. See rule 2. Focus on ideas, not people if you would like to discuss and debate. You are welcome to tear apart Nazis and fascists of course.
Care to link?
It’s on their channel. From the last month or two. Was a long whitewash job. Dancing around the subject and misrepresenting it when it came to their particular ideology.
Kindly refrain from generalizing, outgrouping, and demeaning other leftists. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. See rule 2. Focus on ideas, not people if you would like to discuss and debate. You are welcome to tear apart Nazis and fascists of course.
It was a best attempt at being respectful and substantive. Not resorting to the T or other slurs. Calling out a very real instance of misinformation and issues of bias. However, authoritarian ideologies are authoritarian first, right or left as an afterthought. Not to mention, personally I find being associated with them more detrimental than any sort of solidarity will offset. Often finding those on the right calling me a T slur and Leninists calling me a fascist. Spending more time having to distance myself from them and their ideas rather than actually discussing what most leftists are actually interested in.
When it comes to criticism we shouldn’t hinder it when it’s substantive. That would simply be repeating the mistakes of countries that adopted Lenin’s system, and making us hypocritical in calling others out. I have no major qualms with anarchists, social libertarians and Marxists of the non Lenin variety. As well as others actually solidly on the left. Even when we disagree. Wet tend to largely agree and value social freedom.
There is no pure paragon in a messenger.
This is true. But don’t we have better? Less obviously flawed, more honest? No one is without bias. But honesty and sincerity are important. If you’re biased, dishonest and insincere, then what’s left. There are lots of others that have made videos and essays about Prager U, that I don’t have to preface telling others before sharing. That I realize the messenger is biased and dishonest, but I swear they’re accurate on this thing at least. It doesn’t do your arguments any good.
It was a best attempt at being respectful and substantive. Not resorting to the T or other slurs. Calling out a very real instance of misinformation and issues of bias. However, authoritarian ideologies are authoritarian first, right or left as an afterthought. Not to mention, personally I find being associated with them more detrimental than any sort of solidarity will offset. Often finding those on the right calling me a T slur and Leninists calling me a fascist. Spending more time having to distance myself from them and their ideas rather than actually discussing what most leftists are actually interested in. When it comes to criticism we shouldn’t hinder it when it’s substantive. That would simply be repeating the mistakes of countries that adopted Lenin’s system, and making us hypocritical in calling others out. I have no major qualms with anarchists, social libertarians and Marxists of the non Lenin variety. As well as others actually solidly on the left. Even when we disagree. Wet tend to largely agree and value social freedom.
Here you make criticisms of certain leanings and ideologies in saying “authoritarian ideologies are authoritarian first, right or left as an afterthought,” which is fine. Your original comment stating that it is “[h]ardly surprising unfortunately coming from leninists. They were never good at introspection or acknowledging the massive flaws of their ideology. And it really makes it hard to take anything they present seriously even if it’s correct. Which they struggle with,” might be phrased similarly to focus on the ideas. Something like “Leninism is authoritarian and a flawed ideology,” and then elaborate on your ideas. I agree that criticism shouldn’t be hindered when substantive, so avoiding ad hominems to make substantive arguments would be a frutiful approach. Be mindful that in this instance, you will be associated with various leftist ideas, including ML, so if you find that you are “having to distance [yourself] from them and their ideas” then this may be an instance you find yourself avoiding. If you choose to engage, however, you have to follow the rules.
This is true. But don’t we have better? Less obviously flawed, more honest? No one is without bias. But honesty and sincerity are important. If you’re biased, dishonest and insincere, then what’s left. There are lots of others that have made videos and essays about Prager U, that I don’t have to preface telling others before sharing. That I realize the messenger is biased and dishonest, but I swear they’re accurate on this thing at least. It doesn’t do your arguments any good.
Please feel free to post content and share ideas. Disagreement on the character judgement and analysis of motivations of one creator does not prevent members here from sharing their own ideas.
How would someone critique the messenger without critiquing the messenger? And to be clear this is not ad hominem. I’m not attacking the message. I’m attacking the messenger because of the messenger. I stated elsewhere that I likely agree with the message. But as I and others have pointed out. This is one of the worst possible messengers. There’s a reason you don’t normally see the copy ”Worst person you know might accidentally have an point".
A critique of Prager U, coming from a group at best nominally left, and ostensibly, spiritually the Prager U of "the left” in many ways. Carries no weight. And that people who actually claim to be leftist would choose such a group to represent them intellectually, is especially baffling. 24 hours a day. 8 days a week. I would recommend coverage of the same topic by someone like SMN. Before I would even give second thought a second thought. Sure, I would still have to explain to people who don’t know. That the coverage is very absurd and highly satirical. While at the same time being heavily factual generally. But it’s much easier than having to try to flow diagram out when second thought can be considered and honest and reliable narrator. Simply because of ideological inconsistency and purposeful blindness.
However, I’m getting the feeling this isn’t a community for the left. Or those like myself. Maybe at 50 years old. I’m just becoming one of those crotchety old elder persons. Shouting at the kids to stop shitting on the people’s lawn. But when you choose a messenger who seriously hand waived away mass murder and oppression. Seriously claiming ”we re-educated and emperor once”, but pay no attention to the millions disappeared. They went on an all expenses decades long state funded vacation. And just haven’t written back to their relatives yet. Rhetorically collapsing back on Engles “on authority”. An argument that can be reasonably boiled down to ”they’d do it to us”. Therefore any atrocities we deem necessary are justified. I cringed so hard. It gave me whiplash, swept me off my feet and body checked me through a wall.
It’s not the ideological infighting of the left that makes us weak. That’s our strength. It’s the perceived necessity to rely on heavily discredited ideologies and their acolytes as our representatives that hurts us.
Anyhow, I’m out. Good luck with whatever it is you’re trying to do here.
I appreciate your openness and response. Some More News is more than welcome here, as are you, if you can stomach that there will be plenty of content you don’t necessarily agree with. Debate and criticism are welcome. I encourage you to create a discussion post to discuss your ideas with others here. Post content that you think is more suitable and reliable. Spread ideas that add to the development of the community.
What we are trying to do here is to cast a wide net, i.e. lay down a collection of content and build a community accessible for people on myriad paths in their political journeys. The aim is to guide people in the general direction of social progress, solidarity, class consciousness, and awareness.
