"Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. " Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man. - A.R. Moxon
Also fits Ben Shapiro's "I'm not an expert, but...". It's Schrodinger's expert. If people call them out on made-up facts and severe misunderstandings, they can just back up to a position where whatever they said was a mere insincere thought-experiment. But to anyone who doesn't do the research, it is presented as sincere and genuine science.
@@jackmonaghan8477 No because those people wholeheartedly believe they know everything about their platform and its opposing forces. They never distance themselves from their views they just start yelling when they get debunked.
@d R the teachers were often the only ones to reply to the kid, and their discourse often only proved the frailty of this kid. There is a point where the only thing that could bring kids like that back is literally years worth of talking and discourse, and often times even then they still have to do the research themselves on their own time and accept it for what it is. I’ve spoken with the kid myself a few times considering me and him went to the same school since primary school, and it was bad. One of the things he told me he “believed”, in senior year of high school mind you, was that the American continent was the garden of Eden and that the natives were originally its guardians. He also believed dinosaurs were demons. And believe me, I tried my best sometimes to convince him of things like evolution, politics, etc; on my own time during a free period every now and then, but there are people that exist who are not worth debating with. It’s wasted time and energy. Why else do you think an entire class would eventually learn to not bother with him?
@@squaddegenerate5000 Well, if it's an entire class it's usually: Kid's an Ahole Kid's being bullied (and or ostracised) Kid's just weird, eg "on the spectrum", and then it can be ignored by the whole class, while the kid does much better in other sciences. Like STEM or sports for instance. Before you fleshed out a bit, i also thought this was rather rude to the kid. I'm taking it were talking no more than high school here, right?
@@s.alpinus8395 no more then high school, yes. I couldn’t handle it after a while of talking and hearing his skewed worldviews, and I didn’t have any remorse for it because his ideals at times were straight up dangerous when looking between the lines. I ended up blocking him towards the end of senior year
@d R Starting with smth more broad - why not debate an issue? Because not every issue is debatable. If you think you're being smart by introducing topics like 2+2=5, you aren't smart. Why not argue a specific issue? Well, the simplest answer is that nobody has such an obligation, in addition to answer from the previous point. Giving platform to dumb positions is smth only griftgers can gain from. We won't be smarter if I accept the idea of arguing with creationist, but creationist might get some fame and maybe sell more of their merch. And why not debate issue of whether hate speech exists? You said it - the answer is obvious and if it's obvious to collective, then it hardly gets their attention. It's like a whodoneit in which we already know who's done it. It's not going to be a learning experience, it's not going to be productive. Why anyone would be thrilled by this offer by default?
@@computertable3746 I think the point is that the phrase stops a discussion from turning into a needless argument where you run in circles. It seems helpful when discussing issues with stubborn family members
*spends hours reading a conspiracy theory to see what and why people believe this* “why does it always come down to anti semitism? This one didn’t even try to take the long road. Atleast I didn’t waste too much time to learn that this is some hateful crap.”
@@juliankirby9880 there are always very reliable key words you can look for to figure out if looking further wastes time. Birth rates? You’re looking at replacement theory. Others are sneakier, you’ve gotta actually look at more than one Qanon post because they start with “children are being trafficked” before they say “by Hollywood liberals and The Democrats”
Yeah when I’m arguing with a conservative and they pull the “women don’t really deserve rights” or the “people’s lives don’t really matter” there’s nothing left to say. I can’t convince someone that people matter and I usually just leave. I would hate to think these people take that as them winning the argument and champion their disdain for humanity elsewhere
@@quantumperception So, you two just necroed this comment to assume he's dishonest? It's pretty common to have conversations with disillusioned right-wing people holding self-contradictory beliefs. Just yesterday I saw a comment on one of this channels videos which was dumb enough to say racism, sexism, or homophobia is not a threat to freedom but rather the censorship of those acts. They said this essentially in the promotion of liberty in their mind to say whatever they want. What they failed to realize was the basics of all of human history on this topic along with the tolerance paradox. This was only a memorably stupid comment I read but it's a common experience to see essentially Nazi level comments flavored with the pseudo-intellectual ramblings of a libertarian on videos like this. It's hard to say what that person actually even wanted other than to virtue signal themselves as a libertarian against the government even though their imagined issue is already largely protected under free speech.
Have you never been on the internet longer than an hour? This shit is common. Neck beards and incels are everywhere online dude. How have you missed them?
See also: Kettle logic. Holding multiple arguments that are contradictory. Named after Freud's story about a neighbour who had borrowed a kettle, and returned it damaged. Confronted about this, the neighbour claimed, simultaneously, that he had returned the kettle undamaged, that the kettle was already damaged when he borrowed it, and that he had never borrowed the kettle in the first place. If someone uses kettle logic when arguing against you, it is a clear sign that they don't actually hold a coherent narrative that they believe in, they just want to throw any argument that they can think of at you.
A common example that I have experienced is climate change denialists, who frequently simultaneously hold arguments like "the models don't match the temperature record" and "the temperature record is fradulent", yet for some unexplained reason the evil "warmists" didn't bother to fake the temperature record so that it matches the supposedly fake models. Or that climate change has stopped, and also it is cooling, and also the climate isn't changing in the first place, and again that the temperature record that supposedly shows that warming has stopped is fradulent (yet for some reason it wasn't faked to hide the supposed pause). Or that humans are too insignificant to cause climate change because CO2 is a trace gas that can't possibly change the climate (ie. CO2 is insignificant), yet somehow increased CO2 is having a massive effect in making plants grow faster (CO2 is extremely important).
Andrew Weber sounds like the narcissist’s prayer: That didn’t happen, and if it did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, that’s not a big deal, And if it is, that’s not my fault, And if it was, I didn’t mean it, And if I did, you deserved it.
@@chronicles2613 The difference is that in 1984, the populace was able to hold contradictory arguments at the same time, simply because they refused to notice they were contradictory. Like in the story, "Big Brother is perfect and wonderful because he raises our rations" and "The rations were higher yesterday than they were today" are contradictory, but the populace simply refuse to notice. Since their belief in Big Brother can't change, the only way to resolve this dilemma is to say, "I guess I was wrong about what the ration was yesterday." That's what George Orwell found so horrifying. Not that people could hold contradictory beliefs (since that's impossible long-term without cognitive dissonance), but that they were more willing to distrust their own memory than the obvious lies of the Great Leader.
What you generally describe here in this video is what I have dubbed "Fat-free Fascism." A fat-free food is often marketed as having all the pleasure of a fatty food without any of the guilt of actually eating a fatty food. It's all the pleasure of fascism, fascist rhetoric and ideas, but without any of the guilt of actually having to admit to being a fascist to themselves or others.
The funny thing about fat-free foods is that they’re loaded with sugar, which converts into fat, and ends up being worse for you because there’s so much more sugar in it than whatever fat there would’ve been. I’m not sure how that fits into the metaphor, but that’s a thing also, lol.
@@cammy1349 "invisible" fascism that does comparably more damage that nobody can agree on the fundamental flaws of without careful observation of the actual consequences and behavioral patterns. . . Yep, fat-free fascism
"He believes he believes it" is a really interesting statement. I know 2 very conservative people that will come to the middle or even the left sometimes when you follow them down the rabbit hole of some conservative stance they take. But as soon as they go back to normal and especially when they get around their conservative groups, the last conversation is erased from memory and they are back to their far right stance again. It's almost like it's the comfort of their old pattern that controls their stances. If you can lead them out of it, they are reasonable. But once they return to their resting state, it's back to the old ways.
This sounds just like what gambling addicts do when their friends or family try to bring them to reason, and I don't doubt the biochemistry is basically the same.
people don't like leaving patterns of behavior; even if those patterns are demonstrably both immoral and not in their best interest, they're used to it so they'll keep going back it's why changing oneself is so hard and why so many people don't do it
Holy shit, yes! I had a discussion with my newly right-wing radicalized sister about them making Ariel black in the new Little Mermaid remake. She spouted all the typical right-wing rhetoric like "What if they decided to make Pocahontas white? That wouldn't be okay, but this is?!" I calmly rebutted that Pocahontas's skin colour literally ties into the themes and it wouldn't make sense if she were white, Ariel's skin colour means nothing to the plot and therefore can be changed without losing anything, like Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty - she agreed. She then said "What about white kids wanting a white Princess?" I vaguely gestured at the many white Disney Princesses they have to choose from, she had to agree on that too. Essentially she showed her true thoughts when she said "I can't relate to her (Ariel) now." because she's black....ooof. Despite all the points she ended up agreeing with me on, a few weeks later our mother came to visit and she regressed right back to her original arguments! I reminded her of the rebuttals and it was like she was hearing them for the first time. Like wtf?
@@PeninsulaPaintingsooof is right. It is wild when they... "pretend"? "Have forgotten"? Idk. When they go on like the previous discussion never happened. My mom literally comes to the family group chat talking to us (her 3 kids) about anti-abortion and anti-trans stuff and I literally can't tell if she just somehow forgets we're all pretty far left or if she just thinks we are on her side for some reason. But its been years. She knows. It makes no sense. Its baffling.
@@mike0rr It's also scary how sheltered they are in their bubbles. My sister knew nothing about Project 2025 when I brought it up a few weeks ago, something I've known about since February - called it fake news, of course. When the subject of Kyle Gass's Trump joke was brought up she was like "You shouldn't joke about violence like that." (never mind how much the Right loves joking about violence against women and LGBTQ+ people) but when I brought up that Trump joked about Paul Pelosi's attempted murder by one of his (Trump's) fans, she outright denied it saying that the media lies, and that Trump would never do that because he's a Christian (LOL), as if being a Christian...if Trump even is one...makes you a good person at all. Right-Wing media only feeds their audience what they want to hear on constant repeat, they lie to them; not only directly, but by omission. Conservative talking heads are so repetitive with their rhetoric that it becomes like a mantra - short, simple and quippy, drilled into your brain over and over until you believe it as a default and it's nearly impossible to break them out of it, no matter how much evidence you give them. Baffling indeed!
just here to say that the phrase The Card says Moops" has honestly saved me a lot of energy. Everytime on Twitter I see a guy in the comments of a progressive tweet trying to feed their animal brains, I just thinks about the cards and move on. If I do respond, I simply say "Card says Moops" and move on; That's how powerful this saying is to me
Not you dropping random UA-cam video references with no context and dipping 😭. The people in the comments will be thinking “wtf is that weirdo on about”
@@nubfunx7880 CNN 03/20/2019 -- James Clyburn and Top House Democrats compare Trump to Hitler USA Today 01/24/2021 -- Spike Lee compares Trump to Hitler AP News 11/17/2020 CNN’s Amanpour regrets equating Trump with Nazi assault I could go on. There were a lot more, but these were the first ones that popped up that were from major news outlets and "name" people.
@black bear I'm not sure what Leaked Reality is, but I'm pretty sure the other three had a lot to do with direct connections with alt-right terrorist groups and spreading incredibly dangerous conspiracy theories that ended in a riot and at least 4 deaths. So no, it isnt just "sites they don't like." You might have more of aan argument if there were liberal equivalents of those sites that weren't shut down, but I can't think of any.
@black bear because twitter isnt solely dedicated to those groups and at least sometimes bans them. And I fail to remember the last time either of those sites were implicated in an assault on the capital or murders. Not to mention the terrorist ties.
"It is piss easy to upset conservatives" 5:09 Saw the companies you threw in there. 4 years ago, never would have imagined that BUD LIGHT would end up in this category. Piss. Easy.
@@s-kazi940 what do you mean by the pain comment? are you saying that's when a fetus becomes a life? or that a fetus is a life, but abortion is wrong once it can feel pain?
@Hovjez Vrcholný it would be my guess that someone who gets an i had an abortion shirt is not doing so to celebrate but to de-stigmatize. similar to campaigns that highlight the prevalence of mental illness.
This is also why I hate trolls (or people who are claiming they are trolling) with a passion. Because, barring some exceptions, they undermine communities by trying to rile people up. It erodes the trust required that people will be acting in good faith and care about a certain issue. They're like a noxious gas in a space station's air supply. "Just kidding." should not fly as an excuse for whatever garbage they post. It's also why I think people who make particularly harsh jokes in meatspace are either bullies or very very good friends who know what they can or cannot say.
I have a method. Outdo them with the crazy. Two comments are enough to show your stance on the issue and to get them strongly involved in the conversation. Then you switch on them so hard and double or even triple their crazy. Trolling only works if you are being serious and they aren't.
Well im late to this convo but it reminds me of league of legends. Fun game, toxic community. So many times someone will get killed a few times, give up on winning completely, and then intentionally die over and over to make sure your team loses and then the excuse is “im just trolling”. Its like no, you just have no mental fortitude and dont know how team games work. It also reminds me of the “prank” videos where people just destroy peoples stuff and laugh it off like there arent real repercussions to their actions
Oh my god I just today played a game of "The card says Moops" with a Terf. she contradicted herself in every sentence, pretended not to understand things she clearly mentioned in other replies and all in all had decided what I was going to say before she even engaged and then just pretended I said what she had anticipated despite me explaining the opposite multiple times. Frustrating as fuck
@@moviemaestro800 people can “exist” however they like lol, most people are taking issue with the ideological underpinnings ie “a male is literally a woman because they say they are” (and it’s bigotry to disagree) etc
@alexbennet4195 That's a strawman, bud. Try just visiting places where trans people casually exist out in the open, like where I live, and you'll realize these talking points are a fake news media plot.
dat Meloriac font Also, that bit about maintaining ignorance of one's own beliefs really reminded me of Zizek on disavowal, and the whole Pontius-Pilate washing his hands thing
Yes! Reminds me a lot of the Pyrrhonists you described in your Transphobia video, with the whole eschewing of seeking truth to maintain 'ataraxia'. The Englebert's of the world are staying happy by not examining things deeply. The purpose for dropping or picking up beliefs is slightly different, I think, and you and Ian were describing different groups, but the tactic itself seems (at least to me) to be shockingly similar. So maybe the 'rationalists' of today are actually very similar to the 'skeptics' of the past. :\
Zizek, particularly through Lacan, I think is very at odds with this whole dichotomy here of holding a genuine or disingenuous opinion. I think Zizek would see this video and say that everybody holds "the Stanislavski opinion" and that believing otherwise is pure ideology, and so on.
As someone who nearly drove himself mad trying to figure out a coherent/internally consistent worldview as a kid, the concept of "maintaining ignorance of one's own beliefs" is so alien to me it feels like it shouldn't even be possible, but it's definitely held by my parents. Anything terrible I bring up is dismissed as quickly as possible, and sometimes I swear I've talked with them again the same week and it's like they've forgotten the entire conversation. They're not senile, _yet._ I don't know how it works. It's got to work somehow into the notion of prioritizing a coherent worldview over a true one. (I recognize the wording earlier, and the thing was I valued truth first, making the "coherent" part challenging, especially coming out of a religion)
all you need to do is just *not think about your beliefs and why you believe them* and people who aren't oppressed in ways that those beliefs would be relevant to their life tend not to have any obstacles that would force then to think about it and that's how you get people actually believing that MLK solved racism forever and that police are inherently trustworthy and those harmed by them must have done something to deserve it because they think the world on that axis is a just world because *they* never have to deal with that so it must not exist
The operative word isn't "coherent." It's "worldview." Go further up the tree. As long as it lets them live without pain, _logic is optional._ These are not productive people. Hence how they are limiting _you._
I mean, when you mention the worldview, it feels like it makes sense. How life-threatening would it feel if you grew up learning things and believing things in a certain way, and then a ton of people come out of nowhere that directly challenge your worldview? In the words of my grandpa: "It doesn't make sense how you can be gay on Monday and straight on Tuesday!" Except it seems that with the advent of the internet, some people are incapable of learning how to form their own opinions, and instead of just sticking to what they know within the communities they are close to, the entire internet is their community, so they end up adopting whatever they think they should adopt. At least that's a guess.
I literally said on a forum "It's racist for a white person to continuously say the n-word after it's been pointed out to them it's racist." What I got in response: "I'm not White, I'm Irish and we're oppressed by the brittish! And also by the VIkings who pillaged us 800 years ago." "Why are you pointing out that I'm white and hating me because of it?" "You won't convince people who disagree with what you just said so you might as well not try!" "Racism isn't when you spam the n-word to your friends repeatedly or post it on public forums." 2 of these people just said "Nu uh, pointing out I'm white is racist", 1 tried to define racism as a binary not a spectrum or scale, and 1 tried to say "racists will always exist".
The "I'm not white..." and "Why are you pointing out that I'm white..." comments are especially interesting. I've noticed that whenever you call someone out for doing something bigotted (even if the person themself isn't a bigot) they tend to see it as a personal attack on their character not as an opportunity to learn about larger systems of oppression. It shows a sort of self-absorbed world view that's really annoying to deal with. When you tell a white person "Don't say the n-word", a lot of times, the response is something like: "Black people can say it, why can't I?" "Freedom of Speech!" "I can say whatever I want!" They see it as an attack on their personal freedom to say whatever they want, rather than advising against using a word rooted in Slavery and stereotypes about black men that have been used to justify lynchings, segregation, mass incarceration, and police brutality.
@Blaire Sovereign It happened between me and my father. I pointed out to him some racist behaviors and ideas he exhibited, and he pulled the, “no u,” card on me immediately. Even after I tried to explain to him that I wasn’t calling him A RACIST, I was saying the things he was saying have racist effects, he still clung to the, “you’re calling me a racist so I don’t have to listen to you,” style defense over and over again. I agree with you that more often than not these confrontations are personal attacks, and it would probably be more effective in general if they weren’t. However, that does not absolve the accused. Wht people tone policing rather than trying to see through the anger to the point being made is part of the problem. An unwillingness to set aside the ego, the self-image and self-focus, to see how much their words and actions hurt others is hindering the conversation as much, if not more than the manner in which they’re being called out.
You have no idea how weird it is watching this video, about a year ago your first alt-right playbook video showed up for me and I was screaming since at the time, you were basically telling people how to deal with people like me. It was all a deconstruction of the person I was and the things watched and participated in at the time. But now after going through that year and meeting different people and making a serious shift in the media I watched and the way I thought and saw things, it's honestly a bittersweet feeling, knowing how easily one can fall into the rabbit hold of thing you aim to stop and seeing what you've done and hoping it can spark a change in others like it did for me. I hope you keep up what you're doing and others follow suit. I left alot of people behind, very few of which have managed to catch up and the following generations are already being infected. We can't afford to stop
@@theplaybunnyarcade3375 Well I can't speak for no one but myself but I find it to be in bad faith to assume that it's either or. Extremes are a negative regardless of what words come before or after it, and no label can exist free of the possibility of being corrupted.
@@beepbopboop7727 so the kkk and black Panthers are just about the same because they're both racist? There's literally no differences except for the name because of that one thing they have in common?
"Schrodinger's Douchebag." I can't tell you how many times I've encountered this personality online. Someone making some comment that they then go "Bro, it was just a joke!" or something similar. Nice to finally have a name to put to the personality.
That kind of reply warrants two replies, both of which are valid "In that case your sense of humour is horrible" or "Even you don't have belief in your own arguments so much to stick with them?"
@@austinadam5772 People like that are always arguing from the position that they wouldnt be on the receiving end of such treatment because of their self convinced exceptionalism. Someone on Reddit the other week argued that 90% of people should be killed to free up resources and stop climate change, etc. I said he only said that because he thought he wouldnt be in the 90% then he started rambling about a 'higher power' making teh choice.
As someone who used to be an edgelord that specifically enjoyed shocking and triggering conservatives, I can offer a little bit of insight here. See, if you're the type of person to be insincere about whether or not you're joking when you say something offensive, it stands to reason that you're also willing to be equally insincere about whether you take someone else's offensive statement as a joke or at face value, and for much the same reason... to create the appearance of winning. So, for instance, if I make a joke about how the "great replacement" can't happen soon enough, it doesn't matter how obvious it is that I'm just trolling the far right, they will turn around and present my statement as confirmation of their cuckoo conspiracy theories, as well as evidence that the left are in on it. If you try to clarify that you're just joking... well... then you'v e just fallen into a trap, because they're gonna throw all kinds of false equivalent examples of the left misreading offensive conservative edgy jokes as legitimate talking points. It doesn't really matter that their arguments don't hold water, because the appearance of having won the argument is good enough. If you actually believe in anything remotely left-leaning, it quickly becomes apparent that the practice of triggering conservatives is self-defeating. You don't do it, because it just doesn't help your case.
Great insight! I would add that while it's very tempting to try to rustle reactionaries I think there might be some instances where it is pertinent to do it. There's this Broad City episode where Abbi and Ilana are going to Israel and there's this scene where everyone aboard the plane starts chanting: "JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS!!!" and I was so fucking flabergasted that these girls had the nerve to actually pull that on TV in this decade. I think that's the way to do it.
"...or do you believe cops are civil servants and we should believe their account of events whenever they shoot a black man for looking like he might have a gun?" Innuendo's videos continue to be blatantly, nationally relevant. Even as the conversation shifts. Really hits home.
@@alex_roivas333 Greece and most of the balkans used to be controlled by the Ottomans, Sicily was under Muslim rule for 200 years from 1000-1200 CE, being white is something you are promoted to, and the further north in Spain you go the whiter they become.
the New Zealand killer just took this ideology to the next level to the point where /pol/ and T_D are actually claiming he was just a trolling to trigger "normies", and how he wasn't ACTUALLY a bigot. This is the best video explaining this kind of channer ethos.
u wot m8 This is a literal straw man, lol. You’ve brought nothing new to the conversation. You just make yourself sound like you’re disgruntled with this video and are looking for something to attack.
He claimed inspiration from Candace Owens and Pewdiepie. And you want us to believe he wasn't trolling? Well guess what? Nobody believes that. Because it's literally unbelievable.
I've stumbled onto this channel due to a video being shared by a friend. When I was younger, up until a couple of years ago, I was big into chan culture and considered myself part of the alt-right for a while. I never knew any of this, or realised I was doing this, but you're right on the money and you're being a big help to me understanding my past mistakes and what went wrong in my head and how I can continue to learn and improve. Thank you so much for making this series. I hope more people like me can see this and grow beyond their old selves, as well as people who are still part of the alt-right and don't see what's going on in their own heads. (Their instincts will tell them to reject it because it makes them uncomfortable, but not all of them will.)
@@deathbyhuehue6602 😂😂I mean, I‘m so sad you‘re not a bot. Like, I believe you‘re human and am making up cenarios what made you think you‘d somehow find an argument and you chose to literally permute letters at random
I used to be really fooled by this type of thing to the point where I joined a Kekistani fb group and was actually shocked by how much actual racism I saw there. I'm probably just stupid idk but either way, it was terrifying to see something I genuinely believed was just a joking and funny thing be unironically terrible :(( in retrospect I really should have seen it coming because I saw a bunch of these contradictions flying around but always assumed it was just flukes for a lack of a better word.
Omg yes, I almost forgot about Kekistan! I was in a vegan group (of all places, one would think that's a safe place to be) and there was a "Kekistani" dude who came in and described "Kekistan" so differently to how it really is. And that was before I'd ever heard the word, let alone researching it. At first, from him, Kekistan just sounded fun and LARPy, like D&D sort of thing which I love. But, this guy must've assumed we were all white, and all racist, but I'm not white and when I looked further into that whole ideology it was like 😲 and I eventually left the group and joined a different one.
you're not stupid, this sort of shit is designed to manipulate people, if it didn't work on normal, clever people, they wouldn't still be using it. the important thing is that you got out!
I'd like to offer a minor correction and a possible point in regards to Darwin's theory: it's not the strongest that survive, it's the most adaptable. Which, for this example, means the ideas that are most readily adapted or altered to fit the groupthink opinion are the most likely to endure; hence why so many of these alt-right ideas are contradictory.
Nathan Carter survival of the fittest as a phrase was invented by eugenicists to explain and justify social Darwinism and the domination over and desired extinction of certain groups of people. Darwin in no way supported it and said it went against his theory, he observed that cooperation was more often a useful survival method for a species and that ‘rugged individualism’ is rubbish. Marx and Kropotkin both wrote about it I believe.
@@edo458 "fittest" here means "most fitting solution", not "best performing athlete". In case of Homo Sapiens, "survival of the fittest" would mean survival of people who have good social skills, are smart, non-toxic character, i.e. husband/wife material. No one's like "my sweetheart is so psychotic and unstable, gotta marry her".
Why Biden was elected he used to not support gay marriage or trans gender a 5 years ago and he called for a larger wall saying metric tons of drugs were being imported but switched up real quick when pole criticized trump and others for that. Also a lot on racial issues I’m not hear to argue who should be president simply state a fact
"The most recent gay nightclub shooting wasn't an anti-queer hate crime, because the person guilty claims to be non-binary." Newest and trendiest incarnation of this unfortunately common argument tactic, just to give this comment section another time capsule.
this. god. "i can't be racist, i'm literally 8% cherokee" ok mckinsleigh and i'm a whopping 25% white. so next time i call you privileged, you're not allowed to cry reverse racism. those are the rules now. are you happy
i've not heard of this incident, so i may be missing the context to be able to answer this question myself, but: What would that even prove? "It wasnt an anti queer hatecrime" alright, and? its still bad, its still somthing we should try and prevent, its still a tradgedy. please inform me if you understand the intended conclusion
@@xyrissavage4983 Don't worry. I am fully in agreement with you. Unfortunately, some grifters tried to weaponize the Colorado Springs gay nightclub terror attack from November 2022, in a fashion similar to the mind games this video is talking about, because that particular terrorist claimed to be non-binary while on trial, and then retracted that claim when the response was essentially the same as yours. But, it didn't stop folks trying to derail the conversation about mass shootings motivated by anti-queer hysteria, by playing that card.
GOD, I just saw someone unironically arguing that most mass shootings were trans because they found three mass shooters that claimed to be trans. I want to bang my head into a wall.
I was a liberal troll for a while on Instagram, I legitimately took pride in dumbasses blocking me because I made them hate the fight they started. I stopped when I realized it damaged my personal life and made me have an unhealthy relationship with social media. "Trolling" is not something anyone needs to embrace, even if you win or "win" fights against people you hate.
@@vaguepepper4028 If you think the left doesn't have very public arguments all the time, then you need to get out more. Shades of Bernie vs. Hillary is STILL happening to this day all over the internet.
@@Carakav That may be true, but "HE", Innuendo Studios, has an entire series where he states tactics used by people, but says that the "alt-right" uses them. And in a video, he states that the right does not argue with the right, in the the series where he never argues the left.
@@vaguepepper4028 On the one hand though, he's making a series about the right, not about the left, so I don't know that it's fair to expect him to try to present on conflicts outside of that chosen topic. On the other, I think a lot depends on the context of how it was said: I'm not sure if it's this video, but he does discuss at one point the idea of false equivalency, where he does throw out the caveat that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "that's not to say that Democrats or the left don't also have their own issues, but..." etc... Could you point out the general time stamp of the video you're concerned with? Context matters. I don't want to just make sweeping statements or put words into his mouth.
they arent being serious, they are steering the conversation in a direction where people are pleading with them by pretending to misunderstand the point
A perfect example of this technique is Tucker Carlson. He merely spews a series of questions on an issue to stir the pot but never takes a position that is consistent with a heart felt belief system. The questions are often easily answered with a little research but he is not using them to take a fact based stand that supports a position. His purpose is to continue the controversy ad nauseam.
@@quesocoatl21 Yeah. Keep believing those alternative facts that FOX ENTERTAINMENT is feeding you. Don’t let Tucker boy’s tight little bow tie fool you. He hasn’t had an original thought in his life.
@@stevedougherty4569 Tucker Carlson actually challenges the rich and powerful billionaires with his expose. He has faced lawsuits for actually challenging billionaires who exploit and destroy the working class even when they are big republican donors. So you're nothing but a chickenshit tool compared to him.
@@quesocoatl21 You can call him Mother Teresa incarnated if you want but he still is a clueless, empty headed talk show host who feeds an empty headed audience with false equivalents, skewed statistics and straw man arguments.
there's also a lot of loaded questions, where there is a clear answer the person asking wants you to give, for example 'do you agree that the tobacco industries jobs and tax revenue offset the damage caused by tobacco products?', where even though i'm not technically voicing an opinion, it's very clear what my stance is
Love this! But I'd like to add one thing: I believe this phenomenon is older than digital culture. I have a "friend" in her 60s who became a fascist in 2016. One day, knowing I'm a socialist, she argued that I should admire Nazi Germany because they were socialists and they made Germany great. A few days later she argued that socialism was monstrous because Stalin! Venezuela! International Jewry! No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get her to see she was contradicting herself. She has no experience with chan culture, and I know she'd hate it. Her philosophy has come from right-wing UA-cam, Facebook, and the old-fashioned internet. I feel she could easily have adopted this way of thinking at any time, if exposed to the right books and articles. To me this suggests that this is a style of politics that's native to fascists of all times. There's a famous Hannah Arendt quote that supports this idea, but I can't find it at the moment, goddamnit.
"To me this suggests that this is a style of politics that's native to fascists of all times." Which, in a way, dovetails nicely with IS's remarks in the previous video about fascists being "whatever-gets-us-power-ists" as far as their tactics are concerned. This "I'm drinking arsenic to pwn the libtards and we should also poison the libtards with arsenic" style of rhetoric is perfectly consistent with it being all about power and dominance. Or as Orwell put it, "the object of power is power."
Found that Arendt quote ... a related idea to what I said: "In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and nothing was true... The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."
"like Newtonian physics, if you assume this framing, you will get highly useful results [...], but like Newtonian physics, this framing will be lower case 'a' 'accurate,' without being capital 't' 'True.'" I just needed to comment to say that this analogy was so beautiful I cried. But I just have a thing for physics. Regardless, YES.
This whole process - that truth is determined by the best arguer, not the actual facts - is fundamental to the way that high school debate classes and competitions operate. The whole idea is that you should be able to argue from any position, and in fact you're told to prepare "both sides" and are only assigned a position when you walk into the room ten minutes before the argument starts. This is a big part of why I quite high school debate.
And it's a fundamental part of our legal system, which has a lower chance of securing a conviction for violent crime than a coin flip. And most politicians are former lawyers, and the lawyers and politicians were mostly debate club kids. Yeah. Fun.
It's how all societies operate. I'm legit confused why people are saying this is a new thing when humans as a whole have never cared about the truth and truth has always been just what society said was true.
Being able to see the arguments for both sides of any debate is an essential skill to figuring out which side is correct. To "prepare both sides", all you have to do is summarize the entire back-and-forth you ought to have gone through in your mind to arrive at your own opinion of what is the truth, which then gives you an argument for one side, your real opinion; and then just leave off the final argument that pushes things in favor of that side at the end, to have an argument for the other side. If you can't even imagine why anyone would possibly take up the other side's opinion, if you can't even think of what they would say when asked to defend their position, then you haven't thought through the issue thoroughly enough yourself, and shouldn't be so secure in your own opinion. It's only if you know exactly why the other side would think what they think and what they would say to defend it, but ALSO know what ultimately defeats those reasons, that you can really be sure that you're on the right side yourself.
When I was young, I used to believe I could convince people of my position because I was learned, or because I was passionate. If I couldn't convince someone based on reason, I thought that I could convince them by my conviction and sincerity. "Surely," I thought, "if they don't buy my argument, they might see that I want to get to the truth earnestly." I would walk away from arguments, do my research, and try harder, but whereas I might question what I believe because I know I might be wrong, I have never received that impression from anyone I've argued with. To this day I have never convinced anyone of anything. I don't think it's possible.
If your goal is to change someone's mind, you cannot. It is impossible. I'd recommend looking into the Socratic method, and try to get the person your debating to truly justify their position through the evidence available. That may or may not work, and it deffinitely won't work the first time. I short, you can't change someone's mind, you have to get them to change it themselves.
"To this day I have never convinced anyone of anything." Not necessarily, especially if the arguments happened in public. The key is that debates aren't meant to convince your opponent (and even then, not immediately); they're meant to sway undecided or leaning onlookers to your position.
Direct argument isn't a very good way to convince the person you are arguing with. Arguing in public with them can sometimes convince the audience, either of your position or to go and do more research to try to find better arguments, however you need make sure that you aren't giving them access to your platform. Otherwise if you are trying to directly convince someone showing empathy and creating bonds that indirectly push back against their stereotypes works better than direct argument.
I think youre kinda missing the point. You can not convince anybody, because whether someone actually wants to change their mind is up to them. You can confront someone with the best argument under the sun, but they might still just go ahead and believe what makes them feel best. In fact all of us do that to some degree. All you can do is be open for new input and spend your time around people who are the same way. Dont waste your time trying to convince someone who doesnt want to be. You cannot change people, people can only change themselves.
Kinda sick of the comments claiming this to be a strawman or whatever. Innuendo is not making up a concept, he is literally explaining something that happens and we (and by 'we' I mean leftists who actually discuss with conservatives often) see every fucking time. If you don't use these tactics hey, great for you and he's not talking about you. But maybe, just maybe, you do use these tactics and don't even realize it. Not because you're "dumb" or "indoctrinated" and needs "enlightment from the progressives!", but because you're human. And humans can be biased, especially when it comes to strong beliefs. Just a hint: if your belief isn't racist at face value but ultimately leads to the empowerment of racists and to racist policies... maybe you should consider reavaluating them.
'Strawman' is just one of those all-purpose terms pseudo-intellectuals learn to use to derail arguments. These guys will call direct quotes 'strawman,' I've seen it happen.
Here's the thing: a healthy diet helps racists. Do we ban that? Or, just maybe everyone has become hyper sensitive and hyper fragile, and they refuse to admit that 1-5% of the population is nuts. The Left is just copying the rulebook from the nutty religious people, but they've swapped out 'God' for whatever 'ism' they're championing. It's hilarious to watch.
This comment reminds me of the thing I had to say almost every single day as a high school teacher: "If what I'm saying doesn't apply to you, I'm not talking about you." It was honestly exhausting dealing with people who thought that every single thing you said was about them. Me: "Take your backpack off the table" Kid: "My backpack isn't on the table." Then I'm not talking to you. Me: "Take out your notebook." Kid: "I have my notebook out." Then I'm not talking to you.
The video starts with video's POV character taking a random hypothetical commenter who points out that the tendency of the POV character to see bigotry everywhere is unfounded. Then he proceeds to state in categorical terms that this random conservative (based on what?) person is inconsistent in their beliefs. Then he moves on to stating that said inconsistencies are coming from the lack of sincerity. Then he states that despite that, those views are steeped in bigotry. At no pint did he specify talking about a particular group of conservatives - or hell, a particular group of people displaying certain argumentative behaviours. I fail to see why people 'on the right' shouldn't view this line of arguments as a strawman.
Very late into this, but I will say one thing. 4chan was not built to be a congregation of far right leaning, Moot did not develop the website for that purpose. The purpose was p0rn. However, the structure of 4chan breeds right wing ideology. Under the cover of anonymity, they can say things that doesn't bounce back at them. In addition to that, 4chan archives posts after 10 pages, so saying incredibly outlandish things creates a longevity in 4chan's constant self-destructive site. It's interesting how Tumblr is fundamentally the opposite, and did breed left leaning people. In having a username you have an identity that still doesn't have to be associated with people you directly know. The fact that it doesn't automatically delete posts means that it has an increased longevity, and posts can gain attention after the fact. 4chan forces intensity to be relevant. Tumblr allows identity to flourish.
I have never made an account on that hell hole that is Tumblr, but does it still trend towards left leaning given how mask off things are these days? I'm also surprised that place even still exists after they banned pornography.
usernames are the norm for social media, & all social media has fascists, including tumblr. plus tumblr's search function is so shit you probably could get away with some things. what tumblr's design does is form echo chambers without forums, though it's true that as far as anyone knows the leftwing echo chambers are much larger than the right wing ones
I remember a while ago one of my Facebook friends posted a transphobic meme. Most of the time I don't engage on Facebook but transphobia is the rock I will die on p much no matter what. Anyway, they posted this transphobic meme and I commented, politely I'd like to think, saying something along the lines of "hey this is transphobic just so you know", and at first, they defended it by saying it was just a joke. After saying a few other things like "well it's a joke based on misinformation" or "even as a joke a trans person will see this and probably be really hurt", and then, all of a sudden, the argument quickly and abruptly switched. It wasn't "it's just a joke" anymore, it was "I don't care because it's true". You are exactly right in saying Schrodinger's douchebag tends to just agree with the shitty things they say, even as a joke. But more to the point, even if it was, 100%, a joke, who cares? If trans people are the butt of your joke because they are trans, then the underlying truth of the joke, the one you need to believe in order to think it's funny, is "trans people are wrong and transphobia is right". When Kevin Hart made that "joke" on Twitter that if his son was gay he'd beat him, the thing you have to believe for that joke to be funny is that he's right, that gayness is undesirable. That beating your child is preferable to them being gay. And even if that wasn't the intent, in the end it doesn't matter. If you spread transphobia by making jokes about trans people, you're still spreading transphobia.
Yeah, always take this kind of "it was a joke" at face value unless the joke hits a Monty Python level of absurdity. People used to try to beat the gay out of their kids and think it was okay to do it, so this is less joke-writing and more preaching to a hateful choir. Absurd humor at a surreal level may actually be inclusive and helpful though.
I hate the excuse "it was just a joke". It gives no new information. It doesn't explain why the joke was ok to make, unless they believe all jokes are fine. So, do they really believe it's ok to spread hatred if it's done in form of jokes? That although it's not ok to litetally say one has something against certain people, it is ok to let all assume that between the lines anyway? Sounds cowardly to me. Maybe next time when I see an offensive joke on the Internet, I'll simply ask what they think about x (the thing the joke was about). Maybe they'll say something nice/neutral about x, that lessens the hurtful and hate-spreading effect of the joke. Or maybe they'll say something mean/negative, to prove it wasn't just an innocent joke after all.
@@muuuuuud humans were built to win a game of survival. theres no place for empathy in this game. For the right to exist as earth's dominant species, we made these difficult tradeoffs. you don't give them back at this point in our evolution. So for now, only the strong survive. RIP guy who dies at the sight of trasnphobic meme.
@@computertable3746 I plan on being either a history or social studies teacher for middle and/or high school and I definitely want to incorporate something like this into my curriculum in the future.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processional_cross Georgia cross plays a big role in the east. If somebody in the US wears it, 99% they want an Iron Cross. (avoid them) If somebody in Georgia wears is they 99% are just simple kind religious. (nice people) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)
@Vien LaCrose No. They probably connect that word to the USA, slavery and oppression. Switzerland themselves wasn't really a noticeable part of the big slave thingy the other counties were doing. The USA is in the wrong for forcing 600,000 innocent black people from their countries only to make them do slave work for Americans' own capital interests. I don't think you understand. If you click the Wikipedia link about Georgia above, they even use the symbol on their flag. It is very disrespectful to refer to the entire country's flag and history as nazi, when they only were normal religious people. All I am saying is that (1) if you see the symbol in the USA, then call them out. (2) If you see it while in Georgia then obviously referring to it as "nazi" would be rude and edgy.
“People are judged by their actions, not by what they believe in.” Even if you don’t believe in anything, if you preach, spread, defend, or tolerate alt-right and fascist ideology, that’s who you are. No questions asked.
You want to be able to label people as either with you, or against you and with your enemies, by association, via a certain action (censure) they _fail to take_ towards people who are definitely against you. But what if they also don't take that action towards people who are definitely with you, and just have an opinion you disagree with? How effective is it to keep telling such people "who they are" - that they're your enemies and are supporting the worst villains in the world?
Holy shit, that is true. I actually never thought about this video when that whole controversy was going on, but I did unironically see conservatives saying "it says figs, not fags, what's wrong with figs?" as though they were too stupid to understand the obvious innuendo.
I’ve been an active leftist since my generation collectively hit brain puberty circa 2016, but this channel is the only resource that has EVER made me understand what the far right is on. That is genuinely indispensable advice.
Right. Since the right is literally all about rhetoric (very mild exaggeration there) you can only really fight them by knowing how their rhetoric works. You can't debunk an argument that was never meant to be true. If you don't know how they work then you don't know how to detect - let alone defeat - them
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night EDIT: Damn, should have waited for the video to end to comment!
@@tegridyweed118 it's so surprising to me that people would think they have the right to be right and funny and trying to act like they believe all opinions are equal while simultaneously believing there's a natural order to who actually gets to be right and funny and that they get to tell other people what's right and funny
@@tegridyweed118 true, it's just insane that some people don't see right or funny as conditional, but a characteristic that must be true, consequences be damned
@@BeyondHydro Idk. I guess a racist can make a racist laugh and they can call it funny. Is it funny? I guess. It made somebody laugh. I guess all I can say is "Bad joke is bad." And continue looking at memes.
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." -Oscar Wilde And I think he knows a little more about truth than you do, pal, because he invented it!
If a person will not earnestly engage you in an actual conversation, you have no option but to straw-man them. Like I'm sorry, we'll start talking to you people when you want to. We're always here, patiently waiting for you to grow up. Until then all you're getting is being talked down to.
You are sorry. You're so patiently waiting , yet there is forum you can go on right now and make your case. You don't want to engage in a conversation unless you can ban someone from speaking. Silence anyone who disagrees with you. Yet you think you are not being disingenuous .... what is going on inside your head?! :\
@@akaMouse You're right, there are venues where we will engage you. Reddit, twitter, UA-cam comment sections, Facebook, you name it. Any venue where we can have at least some way to hold the real person behind the screen accountable for what they say, because that's how adults argue. We will not go on 4chan, because we don't play your games. Feel free to play it among yourselves and when you're done, we'll be in the real world ready to welcome you. On a side-note, I live in a very conservative country and most of my friends are conservative, at least in the economic sense. I will engage those people in a conversation frequently and these conversations change minds on both sides. But arguing faceless trolls on the internet is just not useful.
6:04 made me laugh because he just sounds so defeated by how many words are antisemitic dog whistles but also makes me sad about how many words are antisemetic dog whistles...
Ikr me too! I know all the slurs racists call people like me, but there's so MANY for Jews! 😞😡😢 Also sad how "dog whistle" has such a toxic connotation. I love dogs and I even have a traditional Maori greenstone dog whistle to call mine when they're outside. I wish we could come up with a different term for code words. Like "racist code" or something. Besides -- dog whistles call dogs. I can't think of any people LESS like dogs than racists! Dogs give unconditional and universal love. ♥️🐕 Edit: spelling
Why are they dog whistles? Why would Communism possibly be "antisemitic" do you think people just make random, irrational connections solely to bash this one random religious group? Seems irrational to assume the whole thing is just a product of irrationality.
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 And which group of people was notoriously overrepresented amongst communist intellectuals and leaders particularly amongst the revolutionary Communists who attempted to turn several European countries communist? What was Karl Marx's ethnicity?
It got its start during the Y2K scares, in my experience, used by Televangelists to sell prepper shit and roll in cash. They knew it was a lie, but they treated it as the truth to the point that most people started to go "okay, they're just targeting the dumb folk now that can't see the obvious hyperbole."
Oh Yeahh . I was in a debate group and someone got in who was playing centrist talking about how certain viewpoints were not so bad , but one time the mask slipped and it turned out they actually believed things farther to the right than they were arguing for. So I wonder how many people are actually like that because it becomes impossible to separate people who are far right playing nice and people who are actually fairly liberal who are just ignorant.
I just googled Poe's law and I got Wikipedia, Conservapedia, and rationalwiki on the first page. I read them all and... I can't tell if Conservapedia's version is a parody or not. How meta is that?
Conservapedia is intended to be serious, but I don't know if all contributors are. I've read some stuff there... Look up the lists of liberal movies and TV series, some of the entries are definitely Poe's law in action.
It sounds cool, but I see it as extremely misleading. It's really just not true at all. The dictionary definition of "Belief" is trust, *"faith, or confidence in someone or something".* A person cannot logically hold a belief while at the same time be ignorant of it, per the dictionary definition of the word "belief". It doesn't work that way.
@@SkillUpMobileGaming Or even better: "So much of American political rhetoric is maintaining ignorance of the consequences (and logical endpoint) of one's own beliefs."
Yeah, that makes more sense, plus it's no longer partisan. I'd also go as far as to say that this is also a problem that happens in politics outside of the United States, not specific to America.
@@SkillUpMobileGaming Not really. Fox and breitbart and whathave you gives them talking points, which they parrot. But if they never sink their teeth in and learn about what they're saying... then they scream vitriol and pledge support to stuff they don't understand. Worse, a lot of it is just straight up lies, but they never look past the surface.
I used to be quite close to someone who argued like this. He absolutely delighted in the fact that he could switch between contradictory opinions so easily. I remember how he used to brag "As long as I argue this way, I can never be wrong." He used everything from "What-about-ism" to false equivalence to contradictory opinions, and after the person he was arguing got fed up and left he would just smile smugly and say, "I won." He CLAIMS he supports democratic ideals-- trans rights, freedom of expression, etc. But he also claims that democracies can't be trusted. I don't talk to him anymore.
Yeah, support people who help stop crime - and supporting peoples right to protect themselves from criminals - those two seem really incompatible. Conservatives aren't all anarchists you know?
@Disposable Email 1. The second amendment serves to allow civilians to protect themselves. Be it from tyrannical government or from indruders. Not to suppress the rights of minorities. 2. Yeah, stop the terrorists who wander the streets demanding the heads of people they politically disagree with from getting guns. How racist. Gun control should stop criminals from getting guns. People who commit crimes have forfeited certain rights because they have infringed the rights of others. Not defending Reagan, what he did was wrong because it assumed the guilt of people. He shouldn't have done it.
@@InnuendoStudios what about him? Have you looked up the case recently? There are many better choices for your point like philando castile. But yeah, minority genocide errywhere guyz amirite? I know plenty of black gun owners who would think you are an idiot
I was just rewatching it and the entire time I was thinking "No. He's just autistic." 🤣 They make bad arguments to defend it because they don't actually care.
They legitimately do not care whether the words coming out of their mouths are true. That is what alternative-facts are for. You can say anything is true as long as you can just make up any amount of sh*t that you want to. As long as you or your guy wins, then it doesn't matter if you lied, or can't do the job. The only thing that matters to them is winning.
@@cristianiiv6418 You're confused, this is understandable because the left is prone to cognitive dissonance but try to remember which group is constantly moving the goal posts as to what regards racism, white supremacy, etc.
@@quesocoatl21 What goalposts have the left moved? The requests now are more or less the same they were in the 60’s: please stop indiscriminately killing black people for noreason. You can’t abuse a race for 60+ (not even considering slavery) and expect them not to get super angry.
The effort that has gone into mainstreaming “white supremacy” and the idea that all White people are working together even if subconsciously to oppress others by these people who then turn around and say “whattya mean j€VVS?!” They’re just individuals is serious chutzpah.
The best example I know of the whole “we are who we pretend to be” and “it’s just a joke, bro” thing is the fandom of Warhammer 40k. People start out jokingly saying things like “purge the unclean” and “suffer not the xenos to live”, essentially role playing as fictional fascists online either as a way of demonstrating their ‘membership’ in the fandom to others online, or for the purpose of humor with other fans. But in many cases, if this goes on long enough, it ceases to entirely be an act. You internalize ideas from the game, and it starts creeping into your other interests (for example, claiming that the humans from the movie Avatar were actually the good guys, or insisting that Cerberus from mass effect were actually right.). You start using catchphrases from 40k when talking about completely unrelated things. At this point, many fans start buying into the in-universe propaganda, and start trying to justify the horrible things the Imperium does as ‘necessary’, or start describing them as the ‘least evil’ faction. At any point in this process, if someone where to point out that the community seems to have a fascism infestation, or point out the fascist apologia seems to be rampant in both the community and the source material, best case scenario you get a response of “well, the setting started out as a deliberate parody of fascism/authoritarianism, so it’s not actually fascist apologia (despite having ceased to be parody/political commentary somewhere around 2nd edition)”. If you are unlucky, they will refuse to break character, and start accusing you of heresy. If this goes on long enough, it becomes hard to distinguish the person from the character they are RPing as. The mask ceases to be a mask. For some people it’s not a complete process; a bunch may not become full-on fascists, but they still start moving closer to the alt-right, becoming vulnerable to recruitment by fascists later on, and internalizing ideas that may not be fascist themselves, but are certainly fascism-adjacent. Speaking from experience, it is really easy to start internalizing unpleasant stuff from fiction, especially when you’re still trying to determine your own beliefs. It can happen with a lot of different fandoms. I’ve seen people go from being fans of fallout, to being fans of Caesars Legion in terms of lore or aesthetics or whatever, to actually claiming that they’re “doing what is necessary/making the hard choices”, and are really the good guys, to arguing that in IRL, a dictatorship can actually be good because it “gets things done”, etc.
I'd be curious to see how this shakes out along preferred army lines. Space Marine fetishests doing this make sense. Whereas you'd think playing Imperial Guard would force a very different view of the Imperium.
@@mysteriiis the problem is that the Imperial Guard fans tend to fetishize both the whole ‘heroic death/struggle.’ Which has fascists tendencies as well. In my experience, the space marines tend to draw in normies, and they are so over the top that it is easy to forget the fact they are brainwashed child soldiers. The imperial guard are more likely to have had fascist, right-wing, authoritarian, or militaristic leanings before coming to the hobby, rather than becoming radicalized by the hobby itself. Space marines are so medieval looking that the parallels between modern, real life regimes and the Astartes is less obvious, so the sort of people who gravitate toward the guard are often the sort of people who are super into real world historical fascism.
I love that you mention 40k here. The only time I've ever stumbled into a proper nazi/alt-right group was when I saw an ad for a 40k fan server. I joined it, expecting the standard mix of memes and such, and I got so many slurs. Did a little digging, some more moderate members explained that yes, those people do say that a lot, and no, a lot of them probably aren't ok. Such a wild place. Paradox games also unfortunately attract that same kind of crowd. You must be aware that while cracking planets and killing inefficient pops is the best way to play the game, those are just game mechanics, and any application of that system to a real life event or structure is immediately a cause for alarm.
@@firesire3971 War40k should add more high ranking minorities to the Imperium of Man, and make them front and center characters. So much that you can't even describe the Imperium without showing minorities in power. I bet that will make all those alt-right "snowflakes" go away.
I know it's a minor point, but there's a bigger reason the "every joke has a butt, therefore all humor is punching down" argument is wrong: jokes are funnier when their "butt" typically holds a higher station, subverting expectations. Thus, "punching down" isn't just socially irresponsible, it's structurally less funny.
Yeah, that's also true. It's why people who think Mel Brooks couldn't make a movie like Blazing Saddles really know nothing about comedy - it never punches down. It only punches up. You can be as crude and crass as you can possibly be, but as long as the direction of the comedy is toward those in power it's perfectly acceptable.
@@akaMouse Well, we'll see - Jojo's Rabbit is a movie about Hitler's Youth brigade (and their satirized misadventures). A bunch of child Nazi soldiers, messing up their knife throws, a Jewish guy literally plays an imaginary Hitler... Very offensive imagery, but it punches up. We'll see if it's at all controversial in the media sphere, and more importantly to whom it's considered controversial.
@A Mouse You're absolutely right, because there would be such a fury from the alt-right crowd that someone dare make jokes about the white race and portray a black man as intelligent and superior in every way, I'm sure most movie theaters would be scared to play the movie for fear of another Aurora.
@@alphabett66 How on earth does framing a real situation as a hypothetical for the purpose of logical analysis remove any implication of responsibility? He's still publicly stating and defending his points, Mr. Generic Username.
Say, for the sake of argument, that some poor fool wanders into -- or maybe seeks out -- a left-leaning discourse area and decides to get real wide and plop a flabbergasting pile of rhetorical feces into it. Are they trolling? Are they sincere, but can't muster the intellectual willpower to come up with a position? Do they _think_ they're being sincere, but are really just trying to win every argument that kinda sorta looks like it might make them out to be the bad guy? I don't know if it matters. What *does* matter is that they're trying to be cruel. They're trying to hurt people. Regardless of their reasons -- that's scary.
I used to lean right and it's scary to me how accurate some of the statements and mentalities presented are. I legit used to only speak in half-truths, claiming that I'm serious or kidding based on what I'd get out of the conversation. I didn't even realize I was doing it, until someone sat me down and pointed out my hypocrisy.
@@JoshSweetvalebro saw someone exposing his vulnerability and admitting to past wrongdoings, yet making amends and being a better person, and could only think ‘evil’
2:30 do you think these people realize that they have stumbled ass-backward into being liberal i.e. being open to new behavior or opinions even if they contradict their own?
It's literally doublethink, from 1984. Holding two contradictory opinions as equally true. Orwell even mentions the idea of rhetoric meaning something different when applied to an ally than when it is applied to an enemy.
I can see in these comments that people have already forgotten the "Never play defense" video. It's so frustrating to see the right getting away with changing the subject every time someone pushes them into a corner.
Anonymous have you not watched the video or have you conveniently forgotten what it says. You can’t have good discourse with a side that acts in bad faith, who believes in whatever is beneficial to him at the time, and whose only intention is to win.
On the humor point, there is a rational argument for taboo jokes. One of comedy’s central purposes is to promote discussion of uncomfortable parts of our society the laugh to keep from crying assertion. The problem is, there’s a big difference between joking to provide additional nuance and perspectives and joking to simply receive cheap laughs never really saying anything about the topic that adds to the normal discourse. Finding this boundary of nuance is extremely difficult and the reason only a handful of people are comedians and only a handful of them have succeeded in adding depth to our culture.
Exactly. It’s one thing for a professional comedian to make some edgy humor, they’ve earned the right, and if they have that level of nuance it works. It’s different if my buddy Steve says “Women moment” every time a girl does something remotely negative. Yes he might claim it’s all in jest, but eventually it becomes post-irony, where his old joke is now his new reality
6:31 "Truth is a democracy" VERY well said. Damn. And this is not just something that happens on the internet, or just about cultural issues. Just last week, a prominent politician in the Netherlands who is/peddles to the alt-right, Thierry Baudet, actually said something in parliament /almost/ revealing this attitude. Last month a group of Russian (FSB) spies were caught breaking into the OSCE headquarters in our capital the Hague, and our intelligence agencies found heaps of evidence, not all but much of which they publicised. To mr. Baudet however, these were "just reports" and the rest of parliament was being "undemocratic" because they "just believed it", and "in a democracy we weigh all the evidence". He has made similar claims about climate change, judging the rest of parliament for believing the IPPC report and not taking his crappy internet source seriously. This "Truth is a democracy" attitude" is seriously threatening our actual democracies, because it quickly derails debates about problem-solving policy into debates about established facts. This actually happened in this case too, the debate in which mr. Baudet made these claims was actually supposed to be about the finances of our defense department (which are in a sorry state) and he turned half of the debate time into a painstaking rebuttal of his bullshit..... which of course was the only thing covered by the mass media. You see the same thing happening with Trump, Democrats and the US mass media.
The problem is that while facts are eternal, truth can either be (1) something coming from the facts or (2) something consensus-based, or even (3) an opinion holding true for you. That conflation allows for the person described in this video to behave the way they are, because they generally start out with a random viewpoint that is somehow held by people who hate trans people or something like that (so they start with reason 2), then switch to reason 1, 2, or 3 depending on the argument made up. Reason 1 is used whenever facts that contradict whatever fact they bring up, reason 2 is used to muddy whatever clarity an opinion has, reason 3 deflects culpability. But it’s not like this is a problem limited to the person Innuendo describes. Reason 1 is used to establish a worldview that is wrong and deleterious but is made consensus so they can eventually rely on reason 2, and reason 3 wrangles straggling opinions. This is the misuse of facts by those in power. However, since the people in power are so entrenched in power, so unwilling to give it up, and they have already established leagues of defenses (one of which is any media), truth is imposed by trolls and those in power and no amount of actual truth that stems from the facts, is a valid consensus, or stems from your own experience will ever be brought out again save a PR project or for more nefarious purposes (like pitting two minorities against each other or instigating a war furthering imperialism).
Figs is in reference to the location where terrorist Che Guevara was executed in. "La Higuera" means "The Fig Tree" in Spanish. It's a tourist attraction. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Higuera
@@shalom6814 no, the limp wrist is obvious. It's not homophobic to use your brain and call that shitty shirt out. It definitely means f*g, we all know it means f*g, anyone that thinks that fig shit flies is either so deep in the derp they're drowning or they really think the left is that dumb. It's really pathetic to see this go down, dying on fig hill. But you'll see it to the end!
Innuendo Studios, I'm pretty sure you wont remember me, the dude that was critical of you in the your 'The Alt-Right Playbook: Introduction, I promised to watching more of your videos to have a better understanding of "your side/the left side". I remember commenting in your video that "you didn't understand the alt-right" but I was wrong in assuming that since their are many ways help Alt-Right causes without actually being Alt-Right, I was the centrist that defended the right no matter what and claimed to be neither left or right but rather a un-biased eye, while not noticing that my words, people and ideas I was supporting/defending were negatively affecting the people I care. Thank you for opening me up to The Lefts ideas and to amazing Left wing youtubers which have swayed me away from ideas that I deem hateful and destructive.
@@briarrosegael2015 I already have, sadly I first found out about her watching "Anti-SJW" who dont know what they're talking about. I believe I watched most of her videos by now.
@@Abanimations1 Lindsay Ellis dips her toes into that sphere every once in a while, but she does more film studies and critique, you might enjoy her; in fact, I believe she's friends with Natalie.
@@briarrosegael2015 Yeah I find her videos pretty entertaining as well, I believe I already know most if not all the lefty UA-camrs you'll recommend, I just need to watch more of them tbh.
In person, especially with strangers/acquaintances, I immediately go “hun, yeah” and leave if they say something insane. I have done this with anti-maskers, flat earthers, and people who literally ban immigration. I am a small person, and I like being alive
OH MY GOD, EVEN WHEN I WAS AN EDGY HIGH SCHOOL LIBERTARIAN (in an area where libertarianism was by far the dominant ideology and coming from a family who predominantly consists of libertarians, too lazy to really care, and a minor smattering of christian right-wing conservatism), I COULDN'T HELP BUT FEEL CONSERVATIVES HAD NO CONSISTENT WORLDVIEW, NO BELIEFS, JUST AN ABILITY TO DISAGREE WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS (the term hadn't quite taken hold yet though). When I finally really started to listen to more left-leaning people I realized that I actually agreed with them and that their points started to make sense given the data they were using. I grew an actual ideology that could exist and not just dismiss everyone else.
This is why I respect libertarians a tiny bit more than regular conservatives. Conservatives believe in a small government.. with a huge military and mass surveillance. They believe in individual freedom and liberty, but also in authoritarian law enforcement and imposing their own religious beliefs on everybody else by law. I recommend the book "The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump". One of the main thesis of that book is that the thing that "Reactionaries" (Conservatives, many Libertarians) actually stand for is defending "Hierarchy" and the priviledged classes, and are not afraid to contradict themselves in order to achieve that goal. (Notice, conservative quack Jordan Peterson is also big on hierarchy, that's not a coincidence).
@@SidheKnight back when I was a libertarian I was against authoritarian law enforcement. The capitalist hierarchy and valuing christianity despite not actually being a Christian were definitely aspects I believed in. I'll say this about libertarians, Christian conservatives (the ones who genuinely believe everyone should live in accordance with the bible, or at least their interpretation of the bible), and even the alt-right, they do have an actual vision for how to make the world better. They are wrong of course but they have goals.
this hit the nail on the head for me. i used to hang out in much edgier groups years ago, before deradicalizing and going a lot further to the left. and yet, when looking at how i got here, i'd remember having some very left-wing beliefs years ago, and yet saying some pretty far-right stuff much more recently, spending years in cognitive dissonance (i remember one time saving two memes at around the same time, one pro-palestine, one pro-israel, amd remarking that my beliefs seemed to change according to whichever i thought was funnier). watching this has made me realize what actually happened: it was not a shift from right to left, but from edginess to sincerity. the more left-wing opinions were sincere opinions of mine, and the edginess was stuff i said for the sake of approval from other edgelords, that slowly dug their way into my brain
I can't stress enough just how fucking *excellent* this video is. You've summed up things I've felt and half-known for years, but I couldn't have expressed this well if you put a gun to my head.
>entire video is literally about how these people don't give a shit about truth or sincerely held beliefs and will argue any point they want for as long as they want as long as they "win" against the libs >"well uh yeah kid if you really think that's true why don't you go over to /pol/ and ARGUE with them and PROVE them all wrong with FACTS and LOGIC" Hmmm, I'm STARTING to think this isn't a genuine challenge in good faith...
@@johnthomason9980 "entire video is literally about how these people don't give a shit about truth or sincerely held beliefs and will argue any point they want for as long as they want as long as they "win"" in other words...the entire video is an attempt to justify not engaging in discussion?
@@DIVAD291 It's only "an attempt to justify not engaging in discussion" inasmuch as it attempts to explain the truth of the alt-right's tactics, and why it's legitimately a terrible and useless idea to try and "debate" the kinds of people you'll find on /pol/, because none of them are interested in learning or changing their opinions, just pushing the same reactionary goals they always have Anyone who says that any kind of genuine debate that produces something good can happen on /pol/ is either deliberately lying or genuinely has no fucking idea what /pol/ is like.
This just reminds me of this one time I watched a George Floyd deepfake singing 'I knew you were trouble when you walked in'. One guy in the comments said it was disrespectful the comments immediately went from its just chill it's a joke to George Floyd was no saint to he already had high levels of substance in his blood so it wasn't really 'the cops fault' that he died some guy even called him a baby killer. Don't worry guys these people are not actually bigots they're just 'trolling'
I'm still mind-blown from the fact that we all watched a man slowly get choked to death, and right wing media tried spinning it as an drug overdose. They say they're not racist but engage and associate with any mental gymnastics they can to paint a black man's murder as justified. They hide behind so many dog-whistles that I'm not sure if they're lying to us or to themselves.
anyone else remember that video of the nazi who took off his shirt when things where getting too tough and claimed he did not actually believe what he was shouting and was only there for fun?
Well when you think about the fact that their leader was a coward who couldn't even face his crimes and offed himself I'm not surprised that a lot of them are also cowardly.
The fact that we have to return to such ground-level arguments like: "Are all people created equal?" scare me. I enjoy taking up the oppositions (Conservatives) views and attempting to defend them for myself before judging wheather or not they are valid oppinions (I've pissed off a lot of my friends doing this), but I always come around to the same conclusion of: "Who the fuck thinks this is a sensible idea?". I believe that the people who say that they don't care about which side is right as long as they win the argument just haven't thought the argument through. And that's what I heard you say in this video also (correct me if I'm wrong). I've recently began becoming politically active in one of the Liberal youth parties here in Sweden and at my first ever meeting, it struck me how much more sensible conversations got when people could agree on basic principles. We could argue about more subtle taxation issues or similar issues. It was wonderful. The political landscape has regressed so far that the arguments being held aren't about PROgressing anymore, they are about not REgressing any further. Thanks for coming to my TED talk
@@quesocoatl21 It's basic maths. When a resource (living shelter, food, money, time) is finite, it can be distributed evenly. What definition of "possible" where you thinking about here that put this into question?
@@TheHadMatters Are you slow? I didn't say "equality of distribution of resources" which in itself relies upon only Angels doing the distributing I said "equality" period as in equality of height, intellect, self-control, etc.
@@quesocoatl21 I'm a little fuzzy on what op means by "people are created equal" as well. It's a popular expression because it paraphrases the US Constitution, but I think what people typically actually mean is, "All people should be treated equally.". Which itself is up for debate I would say.
Hows your shithole of a Country doing ? Rape Rates still throu the roof? Crime Rates? No go areas? But Sure the "even contribution" of Wealth will fix your liberal hellhole.
As someone who was taking a tumble down the alt-right pipeline a few years ago, I believe one of the few things I did right back then, was sticking to my guns and upholding my most genuine beliefs, and readily discarding positions I did not agree with, or found to contradict my beliefs. I chose the fallible position, and when it eventually failed me, I had to reconsider what my position was, and what my beliefs were. Make no mistake, random person that may come across this comment somehow in 2024 after a second Trump Presidency was announced, many, many of the people that voted for him, don’t even know their own beliefs well enough to say for sure if they follow his. They just do it because they hate the idea that they could in fact be wrong.
I've spent a looooong time engaging right wing rhetoric to try and figure out how to get through it. And this episode more then any other reminds me of my experiences. The right winger is not engaging the ideas you express, they are scanning your statements for buzz and trigger terms that enable a "scoring" line. To such and extent that if you know what terms they're looking for, you can actively manipilate the conversation to illustrate their bad faith engagement.
Yuuuup, this re-contextualizes a lot of online arguments I've had, and makes me glad I'm on one of my "avoid religion and politics board on my usual forums" kicks.
Having gone on 4chan long ago I feel like this is one of the only times someone who wasn't a channer accurately described the board's behaviors. I hope what most people's takeaway is that engaging in debate is not the right way to go about changing someone's mind, because to a lot of people debates are a game they have to win and see you as the opponent.
In the game In Nomine, where you basically play as angels and demons fighting for the souls of humans, Seraphs are arbiters of objective truths, with magical lie-detector abilities. (Because of this, they're terrible at fitting in, and hate subjective concepts or fiction, and telling lies themselves is so contrary to their purpose, it starts warping their souls and acts like kryptonite to them.) When Seraphs fall, however, they become Balseraphs, twisted creatures that form their own subjective reality in their head and warp it to make it seem true to them. They are liars who believe their own lies, and have the magical power to be so convincing that they make others believe it, too. They need to maintain the illusion they believe what they say, though, because being called out in overt hypocrisy proves they're lying even in their own subjective reality, and is kryptonite to them. They therefore play by making their players have to constantly lie and change lies as the situation demands, but keep track of which lies everyone heard, because their critical weakness is being caught changing your mind about anything. For some reason, the discussion of just sitting back, changing what you believe whenever it's convenient, and waiting to call other people out as hypocrites even if just because you don't understand or outright assumed their position really reminded me of Balseraphs...
I remember this kid in my class who wanted to be exactly that: An argument/discussion winner. Then one day he started "debating" with a gay kid, who basically just kept ignoring him and giving him barebones answers. Mind you, the gay kid was out, by his own hand, at that point, so it's not like he could threaten to out him or anything, at least. At some point the debatebro started "losing" the debate simply because he wasn't getting any validation from the students around him, so he defaulted to calling him a homophobic slur. Kid just turned around, looked him straight in the eye, and said: Yeah, what is it? "What?" You called me, right? You said (homophobic slur), so, what do you need? Debatebro was so shocked at the fact that the precious little gay snowflake wasn't wailing and calling for his mommy that he just scoffed (VERY loudly, almost cartoonishly) and started doodling on his notebook, trying to keep his cool. T'was a thing of beauty.
a lot of this is true about Trump with a slight shift of context. and most of the mainstream media is poorly equipped to handle a president who says what's convenient and changes the story the next day
The mainstream media is poorly equiped because it is being killed by the Internet. They sank to shock jock levels to get views, and have hit rock bottom in terms of ethics. Now, the only way they can survive is to become a government regulated cartel. It's amazing to watch. What's more amazing is that an anti corporate Left completely abandons its beliefs when it comes to media. They want to dismantle all corporations except for media.
@@jiminagym4569 MSM did a lot to help elect Trump and they're doing way too little to combat US government's descent into fascism. as far as I can tell, this is a pretty common leftist position so idk what you're going for here
@@II00I00 The MSM gave Trump air time through rage bait. The only reason they put him on the quote was bc they wanted to mock his absurdity. Remember, the MSM was more outraged by Trump's private comment on a bus than it was by the DNC rigging it's own primaries. The Internet has ruined the credibility of the MSM. What I don't understand is why the anti establishment Left is defending them. Most of us live in the center. And right now, I don't know many in the center who are fearful of the Right at the moment.
@@II00I00 Depends on where you draw the line. Anything to the right of Marx is alt right these days. The Left has declared gay-married, pro-choice, pot smoking Dave Rubin as alt-right. So who knows what the clowns would call me...
The guy who passed off as a joke his repeated use of a homophobic slur in his videos would have no reason to lie about his homophobia. And "is for figs" totally explains the limp wrist on the shirt. You're fooling no one.
@Shahaan Singh The limp wrist is associated with gay people, and negro just means "black" in Spanish, but if a white person calls a black person 'negro', what should someone glean from you saying that? I get your point, that he's just making jokes, but very often he's putting out a very clear ideological message. Being anti- gay marriage, focusing disproportionately on misdeeds of gay people, saying the AIDS epidemic was a "waste of money" because it was spent on gays and addicts, not "real victims" adds a context to stephen crowder making gay jokes that suggests a genuine contempt for gay people and because of that, it's obvious what it's supposed to say. The "figs" thing is just a dodge.
Shahaan Singh It's an infamous stereotype of gay people that homophobes indulge in, and its presence confirms that the shirt does not say figs. Merriam-Webster has an entire paragraph on queer's use as a slur: "Formerly used only as a strongly pejorative term, queer is now commonly used by some as a positive self-descriptor. The word is also prominent as a neutral term in academic contexts that deal with gender and sexuality. ... *The pejorative uses of queer, however, have certainly not vanished. Both the adjective and noun continue to be highly offensive when used disparagingly.*" As Crowder is straight and not using the word in the aforementioned academic context, he's using it disparagingly, whether he knows it (and he does know) or not. But I know you know this and you're feigning ignorance because, as this video says, I can't prove you do. I'm just spelling it out so you know your dishonesty is fooling no one.
To touch briefly on the teenage experimentation with ideology thing, I think the 'alt-right', conservatives, fascists and any other extremist group has something else aiding them by coincidence of the world we now livein. Excluding 4chan and other such sites, teenagers these days are faced with a social scene that a lot of us younger millennials never really had to deal with, even though they were coming into existence in our teen years. That is, there is readily accessible evidence of their experimentation. When I was a teen and I said or did something stupid, I remembered it, the folks who were there remembered it for however long it was deemed important or amusing or whatever, and nobody else may even hear about it. If I had to apologise, it was to a limited group of people, and I was at the mercy of that group and how they personally felt about me, a real human being with whom they were face-to-face. But now, the stupid or regrettable things are out there for the whole world to see, and they linger on. The things they have said online are there to stay and can be used as 'receipts' in any conversation or as a comment on literally anything they say on an online platform in perpetuity. Any potential missteps and personal growth are rocks collecting at their feet, waiting until someone - anyone - decides to start throwing them. This leaves a person to then make decisions about not just what they believe, but how the past will affect them when they start publishing their new opinions. It's the sort of social pressure I cannot imagine having to face as a teenager. And since a lot of people are still raised by parents who, whether or not they explicitly state it, demonstrate that standing firm on your word is vitally important and that admitting that you were wrong or apologising makes you weak or a total failure, you're going to have a lot of young adults feeling stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to choose between making a decision to either publicly rescind old views and do their best to be their own PR team, or stick with what they've said to quash any potential shame and to look strong. And these decisions are made not necessarily by what a person believes, but by how big the backlash will be in their social group - it's peer pressure, but it's not the schoolyard, it's millions of strangers online across a spectrum of age groups and of varying earnestness. And outside even that social pressure, there's cancel-culture, which seems to be very good at taking a person's good intentions and digging up years old 'receipts' to wreak havoc for their own ends, apologising, admitting a mistake or even just changing your opinions and behaviour as you grow as a human being becomes risky in a way it previously never was. So I think that a by-product of the internet social space is that any child growing up surrounded by extremist ideologies in their personal social sphere is going to be beholden to that much more than in bygone eras where leaving town was enough to distance you, where the things you said to your peers may never reach the ears of your parents or community, where you had room to make mistakes and learn from them and not be dragged over the coals about them forever and ever. None of this has been very articulate, but I would love to see this idea explored by someone with more knowledge and who is better at collating and expressing their ideas than I am.
How is conservative an extremist group?! Innuendo maybe should be careful to not portray more right leaning as person as barely different than the alt right. Other than that I find your text to show an important part of that sordid story very accurately, I like it.
I guess the reason he is painting the group with a large brush is that in context “conservatives” mean “conservatives who are vocal online and will debate with you anything and everything to win, and behave similarly offline”. Conveniently, this applies to the Republican Party itself ever since Gingrich so that is why this is not just an internet issue. But it is a day and age where almost nothing stands without clarification except the inconsequential because nothing is uncontroversial, and defining terms to be clear what you are talking about is good debate practice to ensure you are arguing over the same beliefs. However, no one is looking for furthering an idea these days (unless it is their own); most stuff is about fighting the other side or reducing to a joke the other side and those bothering to do the work never advertise themselves or are shot down or are far worse than they appear if everything goes smoothly. But it is also safe to assume no one on the internet is willing to indulge a good debate. As a rule of thumb, everyone is hostile, a lurker, or apathetic until otherwise revealed, because otherwise “good” people can turn on you if you say the wrong thing or are led astray by rumors and libel. This also assumes those who run the internet aren’t influencing anything. In short, this isn’t just a “how to behave on the internet” advice, it is also one for politics.
@@SirBojo4 Recent history has shown "moderate" conservatives either do believe in far-right views and hide it, or just don't care that they're spread. Conservatives have rarely if ever rebelled against each other for extremism
Also, I am terribly sorry for the comment I left on your how to radicalize a normie video. You and people like you deserve better and you helped me see the light and become a progressive leftist. Thank you.
"Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man.
You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. "
Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man.
- A.R. Moxon
Ah yes, the Overton Shuffle
Also fits Ben Shapiro's "I'm not an expert, but...". It's Schrodinger's expert. If people call them out on made-up facts and severe misunderstandings, they can just back up to a position where whatever they said was a mere insincere thought-experiment. But to anyone who doesn't do the research, it is presented as sincere and genuine science.
This is great. Ill use this. Thank you TFTony
I suppose TERFs, eugenics fanatics and anti-vaxxers (as well as other pseudoscience peddlers) would also fit into the 'Schrodinger's Expert' mold.
@@jackmonaghan8477 No because those people wholeheartedly believe they know everything about their platform and its opposing forces. They never distance themselves from their views they just start yelling when they get debunked.
Ben Shapiro is an expert of biting his own tongue.
Sounds like "Let's try to figure this out to the best of our abilities." You just need to interpret it less negatively- it shouldn't be an accusation.
Someone in my high school ethics class offered “hate speech isn’t real” as a debate topic, the whole class pretended he didn’t even exist.
Smart group
@d R the teachers were often the only ones to reply to the kid, and their discourse often only proved the frailty of this kid. There is a point where the only thing that could bring kids like that back is literally years worth of talking and discourse, and often times even then they still have to do the research themselves on their own time and accept it for what it is. I’ve spoken with the kid myself a few times considering me and him went to the same school since primary school, and it was bad. One of the things he told me he “believed”, in senior year of high school mind you, was that the American continent was the garden of Eden and that the natives were originally its guardians. He also believed dinosaurs were demons. And believe me, I tried my best sometimes to convince him of things like evolution, politics, etc; on my own time during a free period every now and then, but there are people that exist who are not worth debating with. It’s wasted time and energy. Why else do you think an entire class would eventually learn to not bother with him?
@@squaddegenerate5000 Well, if it's an entire class it's usually:
Kid's an Ahole
Kid's being bullied (and or ostracised)
Kid's just weird, eg "on the spectrum", and then it can be ignored by the whole class, while the kid does much better in other sciences. Like STEM or sports for instance.
Before you fleshed out a bit, i also thought this was rather rude to the kid. I'm taking it were talking no more than high school here, right?
@@s.alpinus8395 no more then high school, yes. I couldn’t handle it after a while of talking and hearing his skewed worldviews, and I didn’t have any remorse for it because his ideals at times were straight up dangerous when looking between the lines. I ended up blocking him towards the end of senior year
@d R Starting with smth more broad - why not debate an issue? Because not every issue is debatable. If you think you're being smart by introducing topics like 2+2=5, you aren't smart. Why not argue a specific issue? Well, the simplest answer is that nobody has such an obligation, in addition to answer from the previous point. Giving platform to dumb positions is smth only griftgers can gain from. We won't be smarter if I accept the idea of arguing with creationist, but creationist might get some fame and maybe sell more of their merch.
And why not debate issue of whether hate speech exists? You said it - the answer is obvious and if it's obvious to collective, then it hardly gets their attention. It's like a whodoneit in which we already know who's done it. It's not going to be a learning experience, it's not going to be productive. Why anyone would be thrilled by this offer by default?
I've stopped a few arguments by asking "Do you actually care if your position is true or are you only concerned with winning the argument?"
Comment to boost.
based and blessed
+
Bro its the internet people fuck around calm down if you want an actual argument
@@computertable3746 I think the point is that the phrase stops a discussion from turning into a needless argument where you run in circles. It seems helpful when discussing issues with stubborn family members
I love the heavy sigh before he goes “it also means Jews”. He’s so annoyed
*spends hours reading a conspiracy theory to see what and why people believe this* “why does it always come down to anti semitism? This one didn’t even try to take the long road. Atleast I didn’t waste too much time to learn that this is some hateful crap.”
@@juliankirby9880 there are always very reliable key words you can look for to figure out if looking further wastes time. Birth rates? You’re looking at replacement theory. Others are sneakier, you’ve gotta actually look at more than one Qanon post because they start with “children are being trafficked” before they say “by Hollywood liberals and The Democrats”
It got to the point where I started a drinking game of "Take a sip of my water bottle if this conspiracy theory is Anti-Semitic"
Some stuff way to subtle- out beyond the 'dog whistle'.
@@carolinemcgovern4488 ☠
Yeah when I’m arguing with a conservative and they pull the “women don’t really deserve rights” or the “people’s lives don’t really matter” there’s nothing left to say. I can’t convince someone that people matter and I usually just leave. I would hate to think these people take that as them winning the argument and champion their disdain for humanity elsewhere
You've literally never talked to anyone that says that lol
@@quantumperception So, you two just necroed this comment to assume he's dishonest? It's pretty common to have conversations with disillusioned right-wing people holding self-contradictory beliefs. Just yesterday I saw a comment on one of this channels videos which was dumb enough to say racism, sexism, or homophobia is not a threat to freedom but rather the censorship of those acts. They said this essentially in the promotion of liberty in their mind to say whatever they want. What they failed to realize was the basics of all of human history on this topic along with the tolerance paradox.
This was only a memorably stupid comment I read but it's a common experience to see essentially Nazi level comments flavored with the pseudo-intellectual ramblings of a libertarian on videos like this. It's hard to say what that person actually even wanted other than to virtue signal themselves as a libertarian against the government even though their imagined issue is already largely protected under free speech.
@@quantumperception Insulting him after he destroys your comment is not very "rational" of you
Have you never been on the internet longer than an hour? This shit is common. Neck beards and incels are everywhere online dude. How have you missed them?
@@quantumperception
Okay, buddy, okay. It’s all gonna be okay. Just don’t hurt anybody, alright? Did you forget to take your meds?
See also: Kettle logic. Holding multiple arguments that are contradictory. Named after Freud's story about a neighbour who had borrowed a kettle, and returned it damaged. Confronted about this, the neighbour claimed, simultaneously, that he had returned the kettle undamaged, that the kettle was already damaged when he borrowed it, and that he had never borrowed the kettle in the first place.
If someone uses kettle logic when arguing against you, it is a clear sign that they don't actually hold a coherent narrative that they believe in, they just want to throw any argument that they can think of at you.
A common example that I have experienced is climate change denialists, who frequently simultaneously hold arguments like "the models don't match the temperature record" and "the temperature record is fradulent", yet for some unexplained reason the evil "warmists" didn't bother to fake the temperature record so that it matches the supposedly fake models. Or that climate change has stopped, and also it is cooling, and also the climate isn't changing in the first place, and again that the temperature record that supposedly shows that warming has stopped is fradulent (yet for some reason it wasn't faked to hide the supposed pause). Or that humans are too insignificant to cause climate change because CO2 is a trace gas that can't possibly change the climate (ie. CO2 is insignificant), yet somehow increased CO2 is having a massive effect in making plants grow faster (CO2 is extremely important).
Also famous from the legal "defense," "I didn't do it, and also it was in self-defense, and also he had it coming."
Andrew Weber sounds like the narcissist’s prayer: That didn’t happen,
and if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal,
And if it is, that’s not my fault,
And if it was, I didn’t mean it,
And if I did, you deserved it.
Isn't this very similar to doublethink from 1984?
@@chronicles2613 The difference is that in 1984, the populace was able to hold contradictory arguments at the same time, simply because they refused to notice they were contradictory. Like in the story, "Big Brother is perfect and wonderful because he raises our rations" and "The rations were higher yesterday than they were today" are contradictory, but the populace simply refuse to notice. Since their belief in Big Brother can't change, the only way to resolve this dilemma is to say, "I guess I was wrong about what the ration was yesterday."
That's what George Orwell found so horrifying. Not that people could hold contradictory beliefs (since that's impossible long-term without cognitive dissonance), but that they were more willing to distrust their own memory than the obvious lies of the Great Leader.
What you generally describe here in this video is what I have dubbed "Fat-free Fascism."
A fat-free food is often marketed as having all the pleasure of a fatty food without any of the guilt of actually eating a fatty food.
It's all the pleasure of fascism, fascist rhetoric and ideas, but without any of the guilt of actually having to admit to being a fascist to themselves or others.
"I Can't Believe it's Not Fascism (tm)"
The funny thing about fat-free foods is that they’re loaded with sugar, which converts into fat, and ends up being worse for you because there’s so much more sugar in it than whatever fat there would’ve been. I’m not sure how that fits into the metaphor, but that’s a thing also, lol.
@@cammy1349 "invisible" fascism that does comparably more damage that nobody can agree on the fundamental flaws of without careful observation of the actual consequences and behavioral patterns. . . Yep, fat-free fascism
Hmmmmm.... that's pretty good.
See Also: Diet Racism, Alt-Lite, and Volunteer Nazi Safety Advocate
"He believes he believes it" is a really interesting statement. I know 2 very conservative people that will come to the middle or even the left sometimes when you follow them down the rabbit hole of some conservative stance they take. But as soon as they go back to normal and especially when they get around their conservative groups, the last conversation is erased from memory and they are back to their far right stance again.
It's almost like it's the comfort of their old pattern that controls their stances. If you can lead them out of it, they are reasonable. But once they return to their resting state, it's back to the old ways.
This sounds just like what gambling addicts do when their friends or family try to bring them to reason, and I don't doubt the biochemistry is basically the same.
people don't like leaving patterns of behavior; even if those patterns are demonstrably both immoral and not in their best interest, they're used to it so they'll keep going back
it's why changing oneself is so hard and why so many people don't do it
Holy shit, yes! I had a discussion with my newly right-wing radicalized sister about them making Ariel black in the new Little Mermaid remake. She spouted all the typical right-wing rhetoric like "What if they decided to make Pocahontas white? That wouldn't be okay, but this is?!" I calmly rebutted that Pocahontas's skin colour literally ties into the themes and it wouldn't make sense if she were white, Ariel's skin colour means nothing to the plot and therefore can be changed without losing anything, like Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty - she agreed. She then said "What about white kids wanting a white Princess?" I vaguely gestured at the many white Disney Princesses they have to choose from, she had to agree on that too. Essentially she showed her true thoughts when she said "I can't relate to her (Ariel) now." because she's black....ooof.
Despite all the points she ended up agreeing with me on, a few weeks later our mother came to visit and she regressed right back to her original arguments! I reminded her of the rebuttals and it was like she was hearing them for the first time. Like wtf?
@@PeninsulaPaintingsooof is right. It is wild when they... "pretend"? "Have forgotten"? Idk. When they go on like the previous discussion never happened.
My mom literally comes to the family group chat talking to us (her 3 kids) about anti-abortion and anti-trans stuff and I literally can't tell if she just somehow forgets we're all pretty far left or if she just thinks we are on her side for some reason. But its been years. She knows. It makes no sense. Its baffling.
@@mike0rr It's also scary how sheltered they are in their bubbles. My sister knew nothing about Project 2025 when I brought it up a few weeks ago, something I've known about since February - called it fake news, of course. When the subject of Kyle Gass's Trump joke was brought up she was like "You shouldn't joke about violence like that." (never mind how much the Right loves joking about violence against women and LGBTQ+ people) but when I brought up that Trump joked about Paul Pelosi's attempted murder by one of his (Trump's) fans, she outright denied it saying that the media lies, and that Trump would never do that because he's a Christian (LOL), as if being a Christian...if Trump even is one...makes you a good person at all.
Right-Wing media only feeds their audience what they want to hear on constant repeat, they lie to them; not only directly, but by omission. Conservative talking heads are so repetitive with their rhetoric that it becomes like a mantra - short, simple and quippy, drilled into your brain over and over until you believe it as a default and it's nearly impossible to break them out of it, no matter how much evidence you give them.
Baffling indeed!
I take offense to the term "Mayonnaise Boy". The politically correct term is "Hellmann-Americans".
This is good.
That's quite a Kraft-y comeback.
I hate this comment so much I love it
Lol
"Dude! Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature! Asian American PLEASE!"
just here to say that the phrase The Card says Moops" has honestly saved me a lot of energy. Everytime on Twitter I see a guy in the comments of a progressive tweet trying to feed their animal brains, I just thinks about the cards and move on. If I do respond, I simply say "Card says Moops" and move on; That's how powerful this saying is to me
Not you dropping random UA-cam video references with no context and dipping 😭. The people in the comments will be thinking “wtf is that weirdo on about”
@@alexbennet4195funny enough i came back to this video today because somebody referenced it in an instagram comment section without context
@@alexbennet4195Bout as useful as anything else you could say to them, dude
Republicans: We are the party of Lincoln
Also Republicans: *waves conferderate flag proudly*
@black bear i dont remember any dems or leftists saying that first bit.
@@nubfunx7880
CNN 03/20/2019 -- James Clyburn and Top House Democrats compare Trump to Hitler
USA Today 01/24/2021 -- Spike Lee compares Trump to Hitler
AP News 11/17/2020 CNN’s Amanpour regrets equating Trump with Nazi assault
I could go on. There were a lot more, but these were the first ones that popped up that were from major news outlets and "name" people.
@black bear what sites are those exactly?
@black bear I'm not sure what Leaked Reality is, but I'm pretty sure the other three had a lot to do with direct connections with alt-right terrorist groups and spreading incredibly dangerous conspiracy theories that ended in a riot and at least 4 deaths. So no, it isnt just "sites they don't like."
You might have more of aan argument if there were liberal equivalents of those sites that weren't shut down, but I can't think of any.
@black bear because twitter isnt solely dedicated to those groups and at least sometimes bans them. And I fail to remember the last time either of those sites were implicated in an assault on the capital or murders. Not to mention the terrorist ties.
"It is piss easy to upset conservatives" 5:09
Saw the companies you threw in there.
4 years ago, never would have imagined that BUD LIGHT would end up in this category.
Piss. Easy.
"They agree with hateful shit but don't want to be reminded of it"
This explains so much.
@Voice of Reason The left don't think abortion is something to celebrate. A 24 week fetus cannot feel pain. A fetus is not a child.
@@s-kazi940 what do you mean by the pain comment? are you saying that's when a fetus becomes a life? or that a fetus is a life, but abortion is wrong once it can feel pain?
@Hovjez Vrcholný it would be my guess that someone who gets an i had an abortion shirt is not doing so to celebrate but to de-stigmatize. similar to campaigns that highlight the prevalence of mental illness.
Both sides taken to the extreme have something inherently wrong with there world view and beliefs.
@Hovjez Vrcholný wtf. i don't endorse sexual assault, child labor or sweatshops
This is also why I hate trolls (or people who are claiming they are trolling) with a passion. Because, barring some exceptions, they undermine communities by trying to rile people up. It erodes the trust required that people will be acting in good faith and care about a certain issue. They're like a noxious gas in a space station's air supply.
"Just kidding." should not fly as an excuse for whatever garbage they post. It's also why I think people who make particularly harsh jokes in meatspace are either bullies or very very good friends who know what they can or cannot say.
Yeah, and the just kidding is so often the Schrodinger's Deuschebag.
Trolls always seek control not honest interactions. And when they drive everyone else they fall upon themselves.
I have a method. Outdo them with the crazy. Two comments are enough to show your stance on the issue and to get them strongly involved in the conversation. Then you switch on them so hard and double or even triple their crazy. Trolling only works if you are being serious and they aren't.
The only time trolls were ever good from my memory was when they rated cory in the house for ds really high
Well im late to this convo but it reminds me of league of legends. Fun game, toxic community. So many times someone will get killed a few times, give up on winning completely, and then intentionally die over and over to make sure your team loses and then the excuse is “im just trolling”. Its like no, you just have no mental fortitude and dont know how team games work. It also reminds me of the “prank” videos where people just destroy peoples stuff and laugh it off like there arent real repercussions to their actions
Oh my god I just today played a game of "The card says Moops" with a Terf. she contradicted herself in every sentence, pretended not to understand things she clearly mentioned in other replies and all in all had decided what I was going to say before she even engaged and then just pretended I said what she had anticipated despite me explaining the opposite multiple times. Frustrating as fuck
"You're _cheating."_
I doubt it lol, considering that no logical argumentation seems to exist to justify trans ideology
@@alexbennet4195 What ideology? Existing freely and openly? 🤣
@@moviemaestro800 people can “exist” however they like lol, most people are taking issue with the ideological underpinnings ie “a male is literally a woman because they say they are” (and it’s bigotry to disagree) etc
@alexbennet4195 That's a strawman, bud. Try just visiting places where trans people casually exist out in the open, like where I live, and you'll realize these talking points are a fake news media plot.
"No social mores"
I believe you mean social moops
social Moors*"
THE COMMENT SAID MOOPS!
@@truedarklander NO, MOOPS
@@AslanW murs
zjc92 Sorry, the card says "Mopes"...
dat Meloriac font
Also, that bit about maintaining ignorance of one's own beliefs really reminded me of Zizek on disavowal, and the whole Pontius-Pilate washing his hands thing
Yes! Reminds me a lot of the Pyrrhonists you described in your Transphobia video, with the whole eschewing of seeking truth to maintain 'ataraxia'. The Englebert's of the world are staying happy by not examining things deeply. The purpose for dropping or picking up beliefs is slightly different, I think, and you and Ian were describing different groups, but the tactic itself seems (at least to me) to be shockingly similar. So maybe the 'rationalists' of today are actually very similar to the 'skeptics' of the past. :\
i bet that sounded cool in your head didnt it@@ukn0leo
OH HEY IT'S TECH DADDY OLIVER
Zizek, particularly through Lacan, I think is very at odds with this whole dichotomy here of holding a genuine or disingenuous opinion. I think Zizek would see this video and say that everybody holds "the Stanislavski opinion" and that believing otherwise is pure ideology, and so on.
"What is truth?"
As someone who nearly drove himself mad trying to figure out a coherent/internally consistent worldview as a kid, the concept of "maintaining ignorance of one's own beliefs" is so alien to me it feels like it shouldn't even be possible, but it's definitely held by my parents. Anything terrible I bring up is dismissed as quickly as possible, and sometimes I swear I've talked with them again the same week and it's like they've forgotten the entire conversation. They're not senile, _yet._ I don't know how it works. It's got to work somehow into the notion of prioritizing a coherent worldview over a true one.
(I recognize the wording earlier, and the thing was I valued truth first, making the "coherent" part challenging, especially coming out of a religion)
That's the thing, right? A consistent, all encompassing worldview isn't easy to cultivate. It's a complicating world and that freaks people out.
all you need to do is just *not think about your beliefs and why you believe them*
and people who aren't oppressed in ways that those beliefs would be relevant to their life tend not to have any obstacles that would force then to think about it
and that's how you get people actually believing that MLK solved racism forever and that police are inherently trustworthy and those harmed by them must have done something to deserve it
because they think the world on that axis is a just world because *they* never have to deal with that so it must not exist
The operative word isn't "coherent."
It's "worldview."
Go further up the tree.
As long as it lets them live without pain, _logic is optional._
These are not productive people. Hence how they are limiting _you._
I mean, when you mention the worldview, it feels like it makes sense. How life-threatening would it feel if you grew up learning things and believing things in a certain way, and then a ton of people come out of nowhere that directly challenge your worldview? In the words of my grandpa: "It doesn't make sense how you can be gay on Monday and straight on Tuesday!"
Except it seems that with the advent of the internet, some people are incapable of learning how to form their own opinions, and instead of just sticking to what they know within the communities they are close to, the entire internet is their community, so they end up adopting whatever they think they should adopt. At least that's a guess.
I literally said on a forum "It's racist for a white person to continuously say the n-word after it's been pointed out to them it's racist."
What I got in response:
"I'm not White, I'm Irish and we're oppressed by the brittish! And also by the VIkings who pillaged us 800 years ago."
"Why are you pointing out that I'm white and hating me because of it?"
"You won't convince people who disagree with what you just said so you might as well not try!"
"Racism isn't when you spam the n-word to your friends repeatedly or post it on public forums."
2 of these people just said "Nu uh, pointing out I'm white is racist", 1 tried to define racism as a binary not a spectrum or scale, and 1 tried to say "racists will always exist".
cool! a reference to previous video, nice to see an example of that :) ..and sorry that you had to experience that.
The "I'm not white..." and "Why are you pointing out that I'm white..." comments are especially interesting. I've noticed that whenever you call someone out for doing something bigotted (even if the person themself isn't a bigot) they tend to see it as a personal attack on their character not as an opportunity to learn about larger systems of oppression. It shows a sort of self-absorbed world view that's really annoying to deal with. When you tell a white person "Don't say the n-word", a lot of times, the response is something like:
"Black people can say it, why can't I?"
"Freedom of Speech!"
"I can say whatever I want!"
They see it as an attack on their personal freedom to say whatever they want, rather than advising against using a word rooted in Slavery and stereotypes about black men that have been used to justify lynchings, segregation, mass incarceration, and police brutality.
@Blaire Sovereign It happened between me and my father. I pointed out to him some racist behaviors and ideas he exhibited, and he pulled the, “no u,” card on me immediately. Even after I tried to explain to him that I wasn’t calling him A RACIST, I was saying the things he was saying have racist effects, he still clung to the, “you’re calling me a racist so I don’t have to listen to you,” style defense over and over again.
I agree with you that more often than not these confrontations are personal attacks, and it would probably be more effective in general if they weren’t. However, that does not absolve the accused. Wht people tone policing rather than trying to see through the anger to the point being made is part of the problem. An unwillingness to set aside the ego, the self-image and self-focus, to see how much their words and actions hurt others is hindering the conversation as much, if not more than the manner in which they’re being called out.
Literally liberals.
@@boilingpoint760 Which is the genuine answer to you?
You have no idea how weird it is watching this video, about a year ago your first alt-right playbook video showed up for me and I was screaming since at the time, you were basically telling people how to deal with people like me.
It was all a deconstruction of the person I was and the things watched and participated in at the time.
But now after going through that year and meeting different people and making a serious shift in the media I watched and the way I thought and saw things, it's honestly a bittersweet feeling, knowing how easily one can fall into the rabbit hold of thing you aim to stop and seeing what you've done and hoping it can spark a change in others like it did for me.
I hope you keep up what you're doing and others follow suit. I left alot of people behind, very few of which have managed to catch up and the following generations are already being infected. We can't afford to stop
Yeah gotta be careful that you consume the right media. Lmao
@@theplaybunnyarcade3375
Well I can't speak for no one but myself but I find it to be in bad faith to assume that it's either or. Extremes are a negative regardless of what words come before or after it, and no label can exist free of the possibility of being corrupted.
@@bigol9223 Well, the left media, but yes, you gotta be careful about it.
@@beepbopboop7727 so the kkk and black Panthers are just about the same because they're both racist?
There's literally no differences except for the name because of that one thing they have in common?
So you became leftist. BETA!
"Schrodinger's Douchebag." I can't tell you how many times I've encountered this personality online. Someone making some comment that they then go "Bro, it was just a joke!" or something similar. Nice to finally have a name to put to the personality.
That kind of reply warrants two replies, both of which are valid
"In that case your sense of humour is horrible" or
"Even you don't have belief in your own arguments so much to stick with them?"
BERNIE BROS CAN'T WIN DEBATES Umm, what?
@@austinadam5772 Tbf, it was an obvious joke.
@@austinadam5772 People like that are always arguing from the position that they wouldnt be on the receiving end of such treatment because of their self convinced exceptionalism.
Someone on Reddit the other week argued that 90% of people should be killed to free up resources and stop climate change, etc. I said he only said that because he thought he wouldnt be in the 90% then he started rambling about a 'higher power' making teh choice.
@@tappajaav I prefer "Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?" It's a lot more witty than "You have a bad sense of humor."
As someone who used to be an edgelord that specifically enjoyed shocking and triggering conservatives, I can offer a little bit of insight here.
See, if you're the type of person to be insincere about whether or not you're joking when you say something offensive, it stands to reason that you're also willing to be equally insincere about whether you take someone else's offensive statement as a joke or at face value, and for much the same reason... to create the appearance of winning.
So, for instance, if I make a joke about how the "great replacement" can't happen soon enough, it doesn't matter how obvious it is that I'm just trolling the far right, they will turn around and present my statement as confirmation of their cuckoo conspiracy theories, as well as evidence that the left are in on it. If you try to clarify that you're just joking... well... then you'v e just fallen into a trap, because they're gonna throw all kinds of false equivalent examples of the left misreading offensive conservative edgy jokes as legitimate talking points. It doesn't really matter that their arguments don't hold water, because the appearance of having won the argument is good enough.
If you actually believe in anything remotely left-leaning, it quickly becomes apparent that the practice of triggering conservatives is self-defeating. You don't do it, because it just doesn't help your case.
@innuendo studios
Pin this comment!!!
I can't wait for the great replacement.
Great insight! I would add that while it's very tempting to try to rustle reactionaries I think there might be some instances where it is pertinent to do it. There's this Broad City episode where Abbi and Ilana are going to Israel and there's this scene where everyone aboard the plane starts chanting: "JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS!!!" and I was so fucking flabergasted that these girls had the nerve to actually pull that on TV in this decade. I think that's the way to do it.
Never play games you can't win.
Yup, been here and have to agree. Knocked it on the head now, because it's a waste of my time at best and self-defeating at worst.
"...or do you believe cops are civil servants and we should believe their account of events whenever they shoot a black man for looking like he might have a gun?"
Innuendo's videos continue to be blatantly, nationally relevant. Even as the conversation shifts. Really hits home.
No one ever said that about Mike Brown
Except all of the forensic evidence supports Daran Wilson's account of events so we arent just "taking him at his word"
Doesn't being a civil servant mean that you should be held accountable for your actions by the state?
Me: Police brutality is bad.
Chan: Police brutality is good except when they hurt people who look like me.
maybe the black man wouldn't need to be shot if he were a law-abiding citizen
"Was Spain really invaded anyway?"
Yes.
By the Moops.
yes, they drove off the invaders and they'll do it again
@@リンゴ酢-b8g more like they interbred with the invaders and now they are the least white country in europe lol
@@alex_roivas333 Greece and most of the balkans used to be controlled by the Ottomans, Sicily was under Muslim rule for 200 years from 1000-1200 CE, being white is something you are promoted to, and the further north in Spain you go the whiter they become.
Edgy 13 year old me is in this video he and doesn't like it.
Lmaooo same however now i have to live in a house with an verbally abusive nazi brother with no ability to get out 👌😔
@@urlocalgoblin7831 How you doing?
@@urlocalgoblin7831 You should show him some of these videos.
Lol i’m 13 right now and I don’t really like Edgy Stuff.
Search 5 dancing Israelis.
the New Zealand killer just took this ideology to the next level to the point where /pol/ and T_D are actually claiming he was just a trolling to trigger "normies", and how he wasn't ACTUALLY a bigot.
This is the best video explaining this kind of channer ethos.
Herbivore citations?
@@jamesfield6141 the killer's manifesto.
u wot m8 This is a literal straw man, lol. You’ve brought nothing new to the conversation.
You just make yourself sound like you’re disgruntled with this video and are looking for something to attack.
u wot m8 holy shit youre stupid
He claimed inspiration from Candace Owens and Pewdiepie. And you want us to believe he wasn't trolling? Well guess what? Nobody believes that. Because it's literally unbelievable.
I've stumbled onto this channel due to a video being shared by a friend. When I was younger, up until a couple of years ago, I was big into chan culture and considered myself part of the alt-right for a while. I never knew any of this, or realised I was doing this, but you're right on the money and you're being a big help to me understanding my past mistakes and what went wrong in my head and how I can continue to learn and improve. Thank you so much for making this series. I hope more people like me can see this and grow beyond their old selves, as well as people who are still part of the alt-right and don't see what's going on in their own heads. (Their instincts will tell them to reject it because it makes them uncomfortable, but not all of them will.)
you know nothing of chan culture gafwen if you ever considered yourself anything but anon plz lurk 2 years minimum
@@deathbyhuehue6602 Yikes.
@@alalalala57 the newest of sgafwen yikesposting on a yourube comment about halfchan. lost the game in the process, breathing manually, tisk tisk
@@deathbyhuehue6602 😂😂I mean, I‘m so sad you‘re not a bot. Like, I believe you‘re human and am making up cenarios what made you think you‘d somehow find an argument and you chose to literally permute letters at random
@@sebastianlenzlinger9291 if the letters seem random you need to lurk minimum 2 moar years
I used to be really fooled by this type of thing to the point where I joined a Kekistani fb group and was actually shocked by how much actual racism I saw there. I'm probably just stupid idk but either way, it was terrifying to see something I genuinely believed was just a joking and funny thing be unironically terrible :(( in retrospect I really should have seen it coming because I saw a bunch of these contradictions flying around but always assumed it was just flukes for a lack of a better word.
No one's amune to this.
Omg yes, I almost forgot about Kekistan! I was in a vegan group (of all places, one would think that's a safe place to be) and there was a "Kekistani" dude who came in and described "Kekistan" so differently to how it really is. And that was before I'd ever heard the word, let alone researching it.
At first, from him, Kekistan just sounded fun and LARPy, like D&D sort of thing which I love. But, this guy must've assumed we were all white, and all racist, but I'm not white and when I looked further into that whole ideology it was like 😲
and I eventually left the group and joined a different one.
Let me guess: they brought up racial crime statistics.
Yeah, that's how they recruit. Make something seem like fun and jokes and slip in the radicalisation over time.
you're not stupid, this sort of shit is designed to manipulate people, if it didn't work on normal, clever people, they wouldn't still be using it. the important thing is that you got out!
I'd like to offer a minor correction and a possible point in regards to Darwin's theory: it's not the strongest that survive, it's the most adaptable. Which, for this example, means the ideas that are most readily adapted or altered to fit the groupthink opinion are the most likely to endure; hence why so many of these alt-right ideas are contradictory.
Nathan Carter survival of the fittest as a phrase was invented by eugenicists to explain and justify social Darwinism and the domination over and desired extinction of certain groups of people. Darwin in no way supported it and said it went against his theory, he observed that cooperation was more often a useful survival method for a species and that ‘rugged individualism’ is rubbish. Marx and Kropotkin both wrote about it I believe.
@@edo458 You are both correct.
@@edo458 "fittest" here means "most fitting solution", not "best performing athlete".
In case of Homo Sapiens, "survival of the fittest" would mean survival of people who have good social skills, are smart, non-toxic character, i.e. husband/wife material. No one's like "my sweetheart is so psychotic and unstable, gotta marry her".
Why Biden was elected he used to not support gay marriage or trans gender a 5 years ago and he called for a larger wall saying metric tons of drugs were being imported but switched up real quick when pole criticized trump and others for that. Also a lot on racial issues I’m not hear to argue who should be president simply state a fact
@@time4955 simple. the election was rigged
"The most recent gay nightclub shooting wasn't an anti-queer hate crime, because the person guilty claims to be non-binary." Newest and trendiest incarnation of this unfortunately common argument tactic, just to give this comment section another time capsule.
this. god. "i can't be racist, i'm literally 8% cherokee" ok mckinsleigh and i'm a whopping 25% white. so next time i call you privileged, you're not allowed to cry reverse racism. those are the rules now. are you happy
i've not heard of this incident, so i may be missing the context to be able to answer this question myself, but: What would that even prove?
"It wasnt an anti queer hatecrime" alright, and? its still bad, its still somthing we should try and prevent, its still a tradgedy.
please inform me if you understand the intended conclusion
@@xyrissavage4983 Don't worry. I am fully in agreement with you. Unfortunately, some grifters tried to weaponize the Colorado Springs gay nightclub terror attack from November 2022, in a fashion similar to the mind games this video is talking about, because that particular terrorist claimed to be non-binary while on trial, and then retracted that claim when the response was essentially the same as yours. But, it didn't stop folks trying to derail the conversation about mass shootings motivated by anti-queer hysteria, by playing that card.
@@moviemaestro800 i see, thank you very much! v helpful
GOD, I just saw someone unironically arguing that most mass shootings were trans because they found three mass shooters that claimed to be trans.
I want to bang my head into a wall.
I was a liberal troll for a while on Instagram, I legitimately took pride in dumbasses blocking me because I made them hate the fight they started. I stopped when I realized it damaged my personal life and made me have an unhealthy relationship with social media. "Trolling" is not something anyone needs to embrace, even if you win or "win" fights against people you hate.
I could probably write a "how to troll a troll" guide tho
@@crunchylettuce5446 dude i could read that.
I did the same thing on iFunny for the longest time. I actually stopped going on that app years ago and never looked back.
The interesting bit for me is how you came to realize the damage.
I'm amazed how many people watched this whole video and only got "so you think all Conservatives are racist?"
Some people are beyond help.
Because he preaches that the right will not attack anyone on their own side, while also not attacking his own side.
@@vaguepepper4028 If you think the left doesn't have very public arguments all the time, then you need to get out more. Shades of Bernie vs. Hillary is STILL happening to this day all over the internet.
@@Carakav That may be true, but "HE", Innuendo Studios, has an entire series where he states tactics used by people, but says that the "alt-right" uses them. And in a video, he states that the right does not argue with the right, in the the series where he never argues the left.
@@vaguepepper4028 On the one hand though, he's making a series about the right, not about the left, so I don't know that it's fair to expect him to try to present on conflicts outside of that chosen topic. On the other, I think a lot depends on the context of how it was said: I'm not sure if it's this video, but he does discuss at one point the idea of false equivalency, where he does throw out the caveat that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "that's not to say that Democrats or the left don't also have their own issues, but..." etc...
Could you point out the general time stamp of the video you're concerned with? Context matters. I don't want to just make sweeping statements or put words into his mouth.
they arent being serious, they are steering the conversation in a direction where people are pleading with them by pretending to misunderstand the point
A perfect example of this technique is Tucker Carlson. He merely spews a series of questions on an issue to stir the pot but never takes a position that is consistent with a heart felt belief system.
The questions are often easily answered with a little research but he is not using them to take a fact based stand that supports a position. His purpose is to continue the controversy ad nauseam.
Tucker Carlson has shown more humanity and care for working class Americans than any leftist in recent times: fact.
@@quesocoatl21 Yeah. Keep believing those alternative facts that FOX ENTERTAINMENT is feeding you. Don’t let Tucker boy’s tight little bow tie fool you. He hasn’t had an original thought in his life.
@@stevedougherty4569 Tucker Carlson actually challenges the rich and powerful billionaires with his expose. He has faced lawsuits for actually challenging billionaires who exploit and destroy the working class even when they are big republican donors. So you're nothing but a chickenshit tool compared to him.
@@quesocoatl21 You can call him Mother Teresa incarnated if you want but he still is a clueless, empty headed talk show host who feeds an empty headed audience with false equivalents, skewed statistics and straw man arguments.
there's also a lot of loaded questions, where there is a clear answer the person asking wants you to give, for example 'do you agree that the tobacco industries jobs and tax revenue offset the damage caused by tobacco products?', where even though i'm not technically voicing an opinion, it's very clear what my stance is
Love this! But I'd like to add one thing: I believe this phenomenon is older than digital culture. I have a "friend" in her 60s who became a fascist in 2016. One day, knowing I'm a socialist, she argued that I should admire Nazi Germany because they were socialists and they made Germany great. A few days later she argued that socialism was monstrous because Stalin! Venezuela! International Jewry!
No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get her to see she was contradicting herself.
She has no experience with chan culture, and I know she'd hate it. Her philosophy has come from right-wing UA-cam, Facebook, and the old-fashioned internet. I feel she could easily have adopted this way of thinking at any time, if exposed to the right books and articles.
To me this suggests that this is a style of politics that's native to fascists of all times.
There's a famous Hannah Arendt quote that supports this idea, but I can't find it at the moment, goddamnit.
As a side note I can't not read the words "international jewry" without hearing the golden one's voice in my head.
It's called "crank magnetism." People who hold conspiratorial beliefs tend to gravitate toward others, even if those beliefs are contradictory.
"To me this suggests that this is a style of politics that's native to fascists of all times."
Which, in a way, dovetails nicely with IS's remarks in the previous video about fascists being "whatever-gets-us-power-ists" as far as their tactics are concerned. This "I'm drinking arsenic to pwn the libtards and we should also poison the libtards with arsenic" style of rhetoric is perfectly consistent with it being all about power and dominance. Or as Orwell put it, "the object of power is power."
@@saoirsecameron Or BEH-TAHs. LOL
Found that Arendt quote ... a related idea to what I said:
"In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and nothing was true... The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."
"like Newtonian physics, if you assume this framing, you will get highly useful results [...], but like Newtonian physics, this framing will be lower case 'a' 'accurate,' without being capital 't' 'True.'"
I just needed to comment to say that this analogy was so beautiful I cried. But I just have a thing for physics. Regardless, YES.
This whole process - that truth is determined by the best arguer, not the actual facts - is fundamental to the way that high school debate classes and competitions operate. The whole idea is that you should be able to argue from any position, and in fact you're told to prepare "both sides" and are only assigned a position when you walk into the room ten minutes before the argument starts.
This is a big part of why I quite high school debate.
It's also a function of the information age also being the disinformation age.
And it's a fundamental part of our legal system, which has a lower chance of securing a conviction for violent crime than a coin flip. And most politicians are former lawyers, and the lawyers and politicians were mostly debate club kids. Yeah. Fun.
Well, in theory, values and opinions should be debated, but everyone should be on the same page regarding truth and facts.
It's how all societies operate. I'm legit confused why people are saying this is a new thing when humans as a whole have never cared about the truth and truth has always been just what society said was true.
Being able to see the arguments for both sides of any debate is an essential skill to figuring out which side is correct.
To "prepare both sides", all you have to do is summarize the entire back-and-forth you ought to have gone through in your mind to arrive at your own opinion of what is the truth, which then gives you an argument for one side, your real opinion; and then just leave off the final argument that pushes things in favor of that side at the end, to have an argument for the other side.
If you can't even imagine why anyone would possibly take up the other side's opinion, if you can't even think of what they would say when asked to defend their position, then you haven't thought through the issue thoroughly enough yourself, and shouldn't be so secure in your own opinion. It's only if you know exactly why the other side would think what they think and what they would say to defend it, but ALSO know what ultimately defeats those reasons, that you can really be sure that you're on the right side yourself.
When I was young, I used to believe I could convince people of my position because I was learned, or because I was passionate. If I couldn't convince someone based on reason, I thought that I could convince them by my conviction and sincerity. "Surely," I thought, "if they don't buy my argument, they might see that I want to get to the truth earnestly." I would walk away from arguments, do my research, and try harder, but whereas I might question what I believe because I know I might be wrong, I have never received that impression from anyone I've argued with.
To this day I have never convinced anyone of anything. I don't think it's possible.
If your goal is to change someone's mind, you cannot. It is impossible. I'd recommend looking into the Socratic method, and try to get the person your debating to truly justify their position through the evidence available. That may or may not work, and it deffinitely won't work the first time. I short, you can't change someone's mind, you have to get them to change it themselves.
"To this day I have never convinced anyone of anything."
Not necessarily, especially if the arguments happened in public. The key is that debates aren't meant to convince your opponent (and even then, not immediately); they're meant to sway undecided or leaning onlookers to your position.
Direct argument isn't a very good way to convince the person you are arguing with. Arguing in public with them can sometimes convince the audience, either of your position or to go and do more research to try to find better arguments, however you need make sure that you aren't giving them access to your platform.
Otherwise if you are trying to directly convince someone showing empathy and creating bonds that indirectly push back against their stereotypes works better than direct argument.
I think youre kinda missing the point. You can not convince anybody, because whether someone actually wants to change their mind is up to them. You can confront someone with the best argument under the sun, but they might still just go ahead and believe what makes them feel best. In fact all of us do that to some degree. All you can do is be open for new input and spend your time around people who are the same way. Dont waste your time trying to convince someone who doesnt want to be. You cannot change people, people can only change themselves.
You've least convinced me you exist. That is something.
Kinda sick of the comments claiming this to be a strawman or whatever. Innuendo is not making up a concept, he is literally explaining something that happens and we (and by 'we' I mean leftists who actually discuss with conservatives often) see every fucking time. If you don't use these tactics hey, great for you and he's not talking about you.
But maybe, just maybe, you do use these tactics and don't even realize it. Not because you're "dumb" or "indoctrinated" and needs "enlightment from the progressives!", but because you're human. And humans can be biased, especially when it comes to strong beliefs.
Just a hint: if your belief isn't racist at face value but ultimately leads to the empowerment of racists and to racist policies... maybe you should consider reavaluating them.
'Strawman' is just one of those all-purpose terms pseudo-intellectuals learn to use to derail arguments. These guys will call direct quotes 'strawman,' I've seen it happen.
Here's the thing: a healthy diet helps racists. Do we ban that?
Or, just maybe everyone has become hyper sensitive and hyper fragile, and they refuse to admit that 1-5% of the population is nuts.
The Left is just copying the rulebook from the nutty religious people, but they've swapped out 'God' for whatever 'ism' they're championing.
It's hilarious to watch.
This comment reminds me of the thing I had to say almost every single day as a high school teacher: "If what I'm saying doesn't apply to you, I'm not talking about you." It was honestly exhausting dealing with people who thought that every single thing you said was about them.
Me: "Take your backpack off the table"
Kid: "My backpack isn't on the table."
Then I'm not talking to you.
Me: "Take out your notebook."
Kid: "I have my notebook out."
Then I'm not talking to you.
@hollow Pretty sure that's illegal XD
The video starts with video's POV character taking a random hypothetical commenter who points out that the tendency of the POV character to see bigotry everywhere is unfounded.
Then he proceeds to state in categorical terms that this random conservative (based on what?) person is inconsistent in their beliefs. Then he moves on to stating that said inconsistencies are coming from the lack of sincerity. Then he states that despite that, those views are steeped in bigotry.
At no pint did he specify talking about a particular group of conservatives - or hell, a particular group of people displaying certain argumentative behaviours.
I fail to see why people 'on the right' shouldn't view this line of arguments as a strawman.
Very late into this, but I will say one thing.
4chan was not built to be a congregation of far right leaning, Moot did not develop the website for that purpose. The purpose was p0rn.
However, the structure of 4chan breeds right wing ideology. Under the cover of anonymity, they can say things that doesn't bounce back at them. In addition to that, 4chan archives posts after 10 pages, so saying incredibly outlandish things creates a longevity in 4chan's constant self-destructive site.
It's interesting how Tumblr is fundamentally the opposite, and did breed left leaning people. In having a username you have an identity that still doesn't have to be associated with people you directly know. The fact that it doesn't automatically delete posts means that it has an increased longevity, and posts can gain attention after the fact.
4chan forces intensity to be relevant.
Tumblr allows identity to flourish.
I have never made an account on that hell hole that is Tumblr, but does it still trend towards left leaning given how mask off things are these days? I'm also surprised that place even still exists after they banned pornography.
The structure of these social media apps are fascinating, Reddit’s forums allows communities to form, etc
usernames are the norm for social media, & all social media has fascists, including tumblr. plus tumblr's search function is so shit you probably could get away with some things. what tumblr's design does is form echo chambers without forums, though it's true that as far as anyone knows the leftwing echo chambers are much larger than the right wing ones
“The left thinks I’m insufferable and nobody wants to be within 1 mile of me, I must’ve won the argument and PWNED THE LIBS!!!11!111!”
- nobody
@@philly442 - some people
@@philly442 Does that rock you're living under have electricity?
Lucky Luciano dude my friend has not seen a vagina in years it’s hilarious so I wouldn’t say nobody
Absolutely true, but like the guy in the vid, you're implying that this is only done by the right.
Using Seinfeld for good. I can get behind this.
Well, if it isn't lord Tigerstar.
Big fan of your videos by the way.
Holy Crap, one of my favorite channels is subbed here😍😍😍
I, on the other hand, am happy about it...
@1984 is not a handbook If you'd be so kind, please, enumerate the "problems" as you've percieved them.
I like your content but I always find you under videos that make really bad arguments.
I remember a while ago one of my Facebook friends posted a transphobic meme. Most of the time I don't engage on Facebook but transphobia is the rock I will die on p much no matter what. Anyway, they posted this transphobic meme and I commented, politely I'd like to think, saying something along the lines of "hey this is transphobic just so you know", and at first, they defended it by saying it was just a joke. After saying a few other things like "well it's a joke based on misinformation" or "even as a joke a trans person will see this and probably be really hurt", and then, all of a sudden, the argument quickly and abruptly switched. It wasn't "it's just a joke" anymore, it was "I don't care because it's true". You are exactly right in saying Schrodinger's douchebag tends to just agree with the shitty things they say, even as a joke. But more to the point, even if it was, 100%, a joke, who cares? If trans people are the butt of your joke because they are trans, then the underlying truth of the joke, the one you need to believe in order to think it's funny, is "trans people are wrong and transphobia is right". When Kevin Hart made that "joke" on Twitter that if his son was gay he'd beat him, the thing you have to believe for that joke to be funny is that he's right, that gayness is undesirable. That beating your child is preferable to them being gay. And even if that wasn't the intent, in the end it doesn't matter. If you spread transphobia by making jokes about trans people, you're still spreading transphobia.
Yeah, always take this kind of "it was a joke" at face value unless the joke hits a Monty Python level of absurdity. People used to try to beat the gay out of their kids and think it was okay to do it, so this is less joke-writing and more preaching to a hateful choir. Absurd humor at a surreal level may actually be inclusive and helpful though.
you sound like one of the gays. Joke hurt me. Jokes are bad.
I hate the excuse "it was just a joke". It gives no new information. It doesn't explain why the joke was ok to make, unless they believe all jokes are fine. So, do they really believe it's ok to spread hatred if it's done in form of jokes? That although it's not ok to litetally say one has something against certain people, it is ok to let all assume that between the lines anyway? Sounds cowardly to me.
Maybe next time when I see an offensive joke on the Internet, I'll simply ask what they think about x (the thing the joke was about). Maybe they'll say something nice/neutral about x, that lessens the hurtful and hate-spreading effect of the joke. Or maybe they'll say something mean/negative, to prove it wasn't just an innocent joke after all.
@@GreenLightMe Did you know people with less empathy have less grey matter? Fun fact.
@@muuuuuud humans were built to win a game of survival. theres no place for empathy in this game. For the right to exist as earth's dominant species, we made these difficult tradeoffs. you don't give them back at this point in our evolution. So for now, only the strong survive. RIP guy who dies at the sight of trasnphobic meme.
This should form part of the curricular for the "surviving the internet" course taught in every school
Surviving the internet class lol
@@computertable3746 I plan on being either a history or social studies teacher for middle and/or high school and I definitely want to incorporate something like this into my curriculum in the future.
Ik old ass comment but seriously, we should be requiring a semester of media literacy for high school students to graduate
"Oh, this isn't an Iron Cross, it's a Gregorian cross!"
"The shirt says figs"
Thank you for bringing that up
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processional_cross Georgia cross plays a big role in the east.
If somebody in the US wears it, 99% they want an Iron Cross. (avoid them)
If somebody in Georgia wears is they 99% are just simple kind religious. (nice people) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)
@Shrdlu
I suppose the n-word has a different meaning in switzerland as well?
@Vien LaCrose No. They probably connect that word to the USA, slavery and oppression. Switzerland themselves wasn't really a noticeable part of the big slave thingy the other counties were doing. The USA is in the wrong for forcing 600,000 innocent black people from their countries only to make them do slave work for Americans' own capital interests.
I don't think you understand. If you click the Wikipedia link about Georgia above, they even use the symbol on their flag. It is very disrespectful to refer to the entire country's flag and history as nazi, when they only were normal religious people. All I am saying is that (1) if you see the symbol in the USA, then call them out. (2) If you see it while in Georgia then obviously referring to it as "nazi" would be rude and edgy.
“People are judged by their actions, not by what they believe in.”
Even if you don’t believe in anything, if you preach, spread, defend, or tolerate alt-right and fascist ideology, that’s who you are. No questions asked.
The Dango Witch yes but violence is the last option.
You want to be able to label people as either with you, or against you and with your enemies, by association, via a certain action (censure) they _fail to take_ towards people who are definitely against you. But what if they also don't take that action towards people who are definitely with you, and just have an opinion you disagree with?
How effective is it to keep telling such people "who they are" - that they're your enemies and are supporting the worst villains in the world?
How is preaching and spreading the same thing as defending and tolerating the same thing???
@@citrusblast4372 because you're enabling it in your "tolerance"
@@CIDILIABRA yeah thats bullshit. I can feel it in my gut
"the shirt says figs"
I'm glad that this video made a few months ago can be so so relevant for this months mess with bigots
RIGHT?! "IT sAyS fIGs"
OH *OK*
Holy shit, that is true. I actually never thought about this video when that whole controversy was going on, but I did unironically see conservatives saying "it says figs, not fags, what's wrong with figs?" as though they were too stupid to understand the obvious innuendo.
what was this? did i miss something? can someone explain this thing to me?
@zivbu10 can't say I'm surprised that someone like Crowder would do that, but jeez.
I mean, Socialism is for figs, The Fig tree, where che guevara was killed :) La Higuera.
I’ve been an active leftist since my generation collectively hit brain puberty circa 2016, but this channel is the only resource that has EVER made me understand what the far right is on. That is genuinely indispensable advice.
Right. Since the right is literally all about rhetoric (very mild exaggeration there) you can only really fight them by knowing how their rhetoric works. You can't debunk an argument that was never meant to be true. If you don't know how they work then you don't know how to detect - let alone defeat - them
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
― Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night
EDIT: Damn, should have waited for the video to end to comment!
@@tegridyweed118 it's so surprising to me that people would think they have the right to be right and funny and trying to act like they believe all opinions are equal while simultaneously believing there's a natural order to who actually gets to be right and funny and that they get to tell other people what's right and funny
@@BeyondHydro Everyone can be right and funny. Some people are just wrong and unfunny.
@@tegridyweed118 true, it's just insane that some people don't see right or funny as conditional, but a characteristic that must be true, consequences be damned
@@BeyondHydro Idk. I guess a racist can make a racist laugh and they can call it funny. Is it funny? I guess. It made somebody laugh. I guess all I can say is "Bad joke is bad." And continue looking at memes.
@@tegridyweed118 to me it's just weird that "it's just a joke" and "why can't you take me at my word" escape the same person's mouth
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."
-Oscar Wilde
And I think he knows a little more about truth than you do, pal, because he invented it!
And then he perfected it, so that no man could lie to him in the ring of honor!
@@Leitonhaack5586 And from that day forward when a group of animals are gathered together its called a Zoo.
@@sterlingmorse5409 unless it’s a farm
@@groundbird7477 TUUU, TUUU, TUUUU, TUUU, TU TU TU TUU (I don't really know how to write the music, but here ya go)
@@taiyoqun notes?
I love that you animated sitting the channer down in a chair for this conversation. That's nuance.
you have to talk down to them like babies
Yet you are terrified of spaces like 4chan
If a person will not earnestly engage you in an actual conversation, you have no option but to straw-man them.
Like I'm sorry, we'll start talking to you people when you want to. We're always here, patiently waiting for you to grow up. Until then all you're getting is being talked down to.
You are sorry. You're so patiently waiting , yet there is forum you can go on right now and make your case. You don't want to engage in a conversation unless you can ban someone from speaking. Silence anyone who disagrees with you. Yet you think you are not being disingenuous .... what is going on inside your head?! :\
@@akaMouse You're right, there are venues where we will engage you. Reddit, twitter, UA-cam comment sections, Facebook, you name it. Any venue where we can have at least some way to hold the real person behind the screen accountable for what they say, because that's how adults argue.
We will not go on 4chan, because we don't play your games. Feel free to play it among yourselves and when you're done, we'll be in the real world ready to welcome you.
On a side-note, I live in a very conservative country and most of my friends are conservative, at least in the economic sense. I will engage those people in a conversation frequently and these conversations change minds on both sides. But arguing faceless trolls on the internet is just not useful.
I just showed this to my mother because it's how my grandfather argues, and she loved it. Thanks for sparking healthy conversation in my family ❤
6:04 made me laugh because he just sounds so defeated by how many words are antisemitic dog whistles but also makes me sad about how many words are antisemetic dog whistles...
Ikr me too! I know all the slurs racists call people like me, but there's so MANY for Jews! 😞😡😢
Also sad how "dog whistle" has such a toxic connotation. I love dogs and I even have a traditional Maori greenstone dog whistle to call mine when they're outside.
I wish we could come up with a different term for code words. Like "racist code" or something.
Besides -- dog whistles call dogs. I can't think of any people LESS like dogs than racists! Dogs give unconditional and universal love. ♥️🐕
Edit: spelling
Why are they dog whistles? Why would Communism possibly be "antisemitic" do you think people just make random, irrational connections solely to bash this one random religious group? Seems irrational to assume the whole thing is just a product of irrationality.
@@quesocoatl21 Because the Nazis literally painted Jews as communists infiltrators?
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 And which group of people was notoriously overrepresented amongst communist intellectuals and leaders particularly amongst the revolutionary Communists who attempted to turn several European countries communist? What was Karl Marx's ethnicity?
@@quesocoatl21 Damn didn't take you long to let the mask slip. Must be a world record
Never thought I'd see the day where Poe's Law is weaponized, but here we are.
It got its start during the Y2K scares, in my experience, used by Televangelists to sell prepper shit and roll in cash. They knew it was a lie, but they treated it as the truth to the point that most people started to go "okay, they're just targeting the dumb folk now that can't see the obvious hyperbole."
Oh Yeahh . I was in a debate group and someone got in who was playing centrist talking about how certain viewpoints were not so bad , but one time the mask slipped and it turned out they actually believed things farther to the right than they were arguing for. So I wonder how many people are actually like that because it becomes impossible to separate people who are far right playing nice and people who are actually fairly liberal who are just ignorant.
I just googled Poe's law and I got Wikipedia, Conservapedia, and rationalwiki on the first page. I read them all and...
I can't tell if Conservapedia's version is a parody or not.
How meta is that?
Conservapedia is intended to be serious, but I don't know if all contributors are. I've read some stuff there... Look up the lists of liberal movies and TV series, some of the entries are definitely Poe's law in action.
@@FoggyMcFogFace IIRC 90% of Conservapedia contributors are trolls
Love the massive amount of comments literally proving your point.
yes the PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH ME JUST MEANS I AM RIGHT point of view
@aguyuno Did you just disagree with me? Haha I guess that means I'm right, tough luck kid.
Thanks Stroheim
aguyuno Imagine thinking a Kafka trap is a valid argument
What comments? He deleted as many comments as he could that were contrary to his position.
‘They don’t care what they believe, but they know what they hate’
*and I took that personally*
Why tho ?
"So much of conservative rhetoric is maintaining ignorance of one's own beliefs." That's a bombshell you dropped right there.
It sounds cool, but I see it as extremely misleading. It's really just not true at all.
The dictionary definition of "Belief" is trust, *"faith, or confidence in someone or something".* A person cannot logically hold a belief while at the same time be ignorant of it, per the dictionary definition of the word "belief". It doesn't work that way.
@@SkillUpMobileGaming I'll fix it:
"So much of *American political rhetoric* is maintaining ignorance of *the consequences of* one's own beliefs."
@@SkillUpMobileGaming Or even better:
"So much of American political rhetoric is maintaining ignorance of the consequences (and logical endpoint) of one's own beliefs."
Yeah, that makes more sense, plus it's no longer partisan. I'd also go as far as to say that this is also a problem that happens in politics outside of the United States, not specific to America.
@@SkillUpMobileGaming Not really. Fox and breitbart and whathave you gives them talking points, which they parrot. But if they never sink their teeth in and learn about what they're saying... then they scream vitriol and pledge support to stuff they don't understand. Worse, a lot of it is just straight up lies, but they never look past the surface.
I used to be quite close to someone who argued like this. He absolutely delighted in the fact that he could switch between contradictory opinions so easily. I remember how he used to brag "As long as I argue this way, I can never be wrong." He used everything from "What-about-ism" to false equivalence to contradictory opinions, and after the person he was arguing got fed up and left he would just smile smugly and say, "I won."
He CLAIMS he supports democratic ideals-- trans rights, freedom of expression, etc.
But he also claims that democracies can't be trusted.
I don't talk to him anymore.
Scott Almighty a more civilized country would have his skull kicked in for that attitude towards life.
I don’t think you quite understood what your friend was saying.
@@neomcdoom pooh looks like the friend has a burner account
Tyko Brian
Damn it you caught me
You're spineless
That point about them being being pro 2nd amendment to overthrow the government while vehemently supporting the police is quite baffling.
Yeah, support people who help stop crime - and supporting peoples right to protect themselves from criminals - those two seem really incompatible. Conservatives aren't all anarchists you know?
@Disposable Email
1. The second amendment serves to allow civilians to protect themselves. Be it from tyrannical government or from indruders.
Not to suppress the rights of minorities.
2. Yeah, stop the terrorists who wander the streets demanding the heads of people they politically disagree with from getting guns. How racist.
Gun control should stop criminals from getting guns. People who commit crimes have forfeited certain rights because they have infringed the rights of others. Not defending Reagan, what he did was wrong because it assumed the guilt of people. He shouldn't have done it.
The problem is the politicians, not the police
Say that to Mike Brown.
@@InnuendoStudios what about him? Have you looked up the case recently? There are many better choices for your point like philando castile. But yeah, minority genocide errywhere guyz amirite? I know plenty of black gun owners who would think you are an idiot
The January 2025 elon musk nazi salute online debate brought me here.
I was just rewatching it and the entire time I was thinking "No. He's just autistic." 🤣 They make bad arguments to defend it because they don't actually care.
They legitimately do not care whether the words coming out of their mouths are true.
That is what alternative-facts are for. You can say anything is true as long as you can just make up any amount of sh*t that you want to. As long as you or your guy wins, then it doesn't matter if you lied, or can't do the job. The only thing that matters to them is winning.
Says the people going on about black genocide and saying all white people are evil.
@@quesocoatl21 ... what
@@quesocoatl21 you are a example of this video^
@@cristianiiv6418 You're confused, this is understandable because the left is prone to cognitive dissonance but try to remember which group is constantly moving the goal posts as to what regards racism, white supremacy, etc.
@@quesocoatl21 What goalposts have the left moved? The requests now are more or less the same they were in the 60’s: please stop indiscriminately killing black people for noreason. You can’t abuse a race for 60+ (not even considering slavery) and expect them not to get super angry.
: "*sigh* It also means... Jews..."
That cracked me up
The effort that has gone into mainstreaming “white supremacy” and the idea that all White people are working together even if subconsciously to oppress others by these people who then turn around and say “whattya mean j€VVS?!” They’re just individuals is serious chutzpah.
The recent actions of a certain South African billionaire brought me back here
The best example I know of the whole “we are who we pretend to be” and “it’s just a joke, bro” thing is the fandom of Warhammer 40k. People start out jokingly saying things like “purge the unclean” and “suffer not the xenos to live”, essentially role playing as fictional fascists online either as a way of demonstrating their ‘membership’ in the fandom to others online, or for the purpose of humor with other fans. But in many cases, if this goes on long enough, it ceases to entirely be an act. You internalize ideas from the game, and it starts creeping into your other interests (for example, claiming that the humans from the movie Avatar were actually the good guys, or insisting that Cerberus from mass effect were actually right.). You start using catchphrases from 40k when talking about completely unrelated things. At this point, many fans start buying into the in-universe propaganda, and start trying to justify the horrible things the Imperium does as ‘necessary’, or start describing them as the ‘least evil’ faction. At any point in this process, if someone where to point out that the community seems to have a fascism infestation, or point out the fascist apologia seems to be rampant in both the community and the source material, best case scenario you get a response of “well, the setting started out as a deliberate parody of fascism/authoritarianism, so it’s not actually fascist apologia (despite having ceased to be parody/political commentary somewhere around 2nd edition)”. If you are unlucky, they will refuse to break character, and start accusing you of heresy. If this goes on long enough, it becomes hard to distinguish the person from the character they are RPing as. The mask ceases to be a mask. For some people it’s not a complete process; a bunch may not become full-on fascists, but they still start moving closer to the alt-right, becoming vulnerable to recruitment by fascists later on, and internalizing ideas that may not be fascist themselves, but are certainly fascism-adjacent. Speaking from experience, it is really easy to start internalizing unpleasant stuff from fiction, especially when you’re still trying to determine your own beliefs. It can happen with a lot of different fandoms. I’ve seen people go from being fans of fallout, to being fans of Caesars Legion in terms of lore or aesthetics or whatever, to actually claiming that they’re “doing what is necessary/making the hard choices”, and are really the good guys, to arguing that in IRL, a dictatorship can actually be good because it “gets things done”, etc.
I'd be curious to see how this shakes out along preferred army lines. Space Marine fetishests doing this make sense. Whereas you'd think playing Imperial Guard would force a very different view of the Imperium.
@@mysteriiis the problem is that the Imperial Guard fans tend to fetishize both the whole ‘heroic death/struggle.’ Which has fascists tendencies as well. In my experience, the space marines tend to draw in normies, and they are so over the top that it is easy to forget the fact they are brainwashed child soldiers. The imperial guard are more likely to have had fascist, right-wing, authoritarian, or militaristic leanings before coming to the hobby, rather than becoming radicalized by the hobby itself. Space marines are so medieval looking that the parallels between modern, real life regimes and the Astartes is less obvious, so the sort of people who gravitate toward the guard are often the sort of people who are super into real world historical fascism.
I love that you mention 40k here. The only time I've ever stumbled into a proper nazi/alt-right group was when I saw an ad for a 40k fan server. I joined it, expecting the standard mix of memes and such, and I got so many slurs. Did a little digging, some more moderate members explained that yes, those people do say that a lot, and no, a lot of them probably aren't ok. Such a wild place.
Paradox games also unfortunately attract that same kind of crowd. You must be aware that while cracking planets and killing inefficient pops is the best way to play the game, those are just game mechanics, and any application of that system to a real life event or structure is immediately a cause for alarm.
@@firesire3971 War40k should add more high ranking minorities to the Imperium of Man, and make them front and center characters. So much that you can't even describe the Imperium without showing minorities in power. I bet that will make all those alt-right "snowflakes" go away.
This is the first time seeing someone else express this sentiment.
It's really bad. More nazis than the jojo fandom.
I encounter this kind of 'trolling' a lot. Where someone only decides they're joking based on the reaction.
It's the political version of "Sorry, someone else had my phone."
"it's just satire bro"
We can debate whenever.
I know it's a minor point, but there's a bigger reason the "every joke has a butt, therefore all humor is punching down" argument is wrong: jokes are funnier when their "butt" typically holds a higher station, subverting expectations. Thus, "punching down" isn't just socially irresponsible, it's structurally less funny.
Yeah, that's also true. It's why people who think Mel Brooks couldn't make a movie like Blazing Saddles really know nothing about comedy - it never punches down. It only punches up. You can be as crude and crass as you can possibly be, but as long as the direction of the comedy is toward those in power it's perfectly acceptable.
Yet Blazing Saddles could never be made today
@@akaMouse Well, we'll see - Jojo's Rabbit is a movie about Hitler's Youth brigade (and their satirized misadventures). A bunch of child Nazi soldiers, messing up their knife throws, a Jewish guy literally plays an imaginary Hitler... Very offensive imagery, but it punches up. We'll see if it's at all controversial in the media sphere, and more importantly to whom it's considered controversial.
@u wot m8 So you're saying you'd be okay with pedophiles running Hollywood if they were proper white gentiles?
@A Mouse
You're absolutely right, because there would be such a fury from the alt-right crowd that someone dare make jokes about the white race and portray a black man as intelligent and superior in every way, I'm sure most movie theaters would be scared to play the movie for fear of another Aurora.
How did "Say-for-the-sake-of-argument" become your catch phrase?
@@alphabett66 How on earth does framing a real situation as a hypothetical for the purpose of logical analysis remove any implication of responsibility? He's still publicly stating and defending his points, Mr. Generic Username.
He did a talk a while back about this series. He mentioned why there, but I can't remember myself. The talk is on UA-cam.
Say, for the sake of argument, that some poor fool wanders into -- or maybe seeks out -- a left-leaning discourse area and decides to get real wide and plop a flabbergasting pile of rhetorical feces into it. Are they trolling? Are they sincere, but can't muster the intellectual willpower to come up with a position? Do they _think_ they're being sincere, but are really just trying to win every argument that kinda sorta looks like it might make them out to be the bad guy? I don't know if it matters.
What *does* matter is that they're trying to be cruel. They're trying to hurt people. Regardless of their reasons -- that's scary.
I'm not sure that it is, even though it does seem that way since he opens every Alt-Right Playbook video with that phrase.
Search "Ian Danskin" on UA-cam and pick the video with the powerpoint presentation
I used to lean right and it's scary to me how accurate some of the statements and mentalities presented are.
I legit used to only speak in half-truths, claiming that I'm serious or kidding based on what I'd get out of the conversation. I didn't even realize I was doing it, until someone sat me down and pointed out my hypocrisy.
Evil
@@JoshSweetvalebro saw someone exposing his vulnerability and admitting to past wrongdoings, yet making amends and being a better person, and could only think ‘evil’
@@MinnowTF No, I was responding to 'what I was doing'
Evil. He was doing evil.
*DEEP SIGH*
"It also means Jews."
YES. YES YES YES.
When does it not mean the Jews?
@@H4PPYx337 It often means feminists, too.
Lewis Kaminski why people hate Jews?
@@manidavis4126 because life is hell.
2:30 do you think these people realize that they have stumbled ass-backward into being liberal i.e. being open to new behavior or opinions even if they contradict their own?
I laughed so hard at the animation of putting the 4chan guy into the chair for a sit down talk. Something about it felt so brilliant to me, haha
M i s t e r c o n s e r v a t i v e !
hey now, 4chan has moderators! although their literal only purpose is to delete child porn threads.....
good
Better than nothing lmao
Their other purpose is to let all the white sup. shit slide, while banning anyone who opposes it. "Free speech" on 4chan is the biggest myth ever.
@@johnnyd6953 thats wrong they dont delete anything disagreeing with white supremacy
They delete CP and create BBC threads.
It's literally doublethink, from 1984. Holding two contradictory opinions as equally true. Orwell even mentions the idea of rhetoric meaning something different when applied to an ally than when it is applied to an enemy.
Vance's "Officials didn't say Haitians didn't eat cats, they said they had no evidence of it" is a textbook case of "the card says moop"
This is the best title for a video I've ever seen. That's like my favorite line from Seinfeld. Well played
MOOPS!!!
As a Spaniard I can confirm the Moops invaded us. If you disagree then you are a triggered libtard.
@@mikelmontoya2965 Glad you took a lesson from the video.
I can see in these comments that people have already forgotten the "Never play defense" video. It's so frustrating to see the right getting away with changing the subject every time someone pushes them into a corner.
Kiwipai That’s a bit of a Kafka trap my dude ngl
Nice meme
The video also tells you to not play defense as well. It doesn't provide for good discourse, and promotes non-communication between two sides.
He can't keep getting away with it
Anonymous have you not watched the video or have you conveniently forgotten what it says. You can’t have good discourse with a side that acts in bad faith, who believes in whatever is beneficial to him at the time, and whose only intention is to win.
On the humor point, there is a rational argument for taboo jokes. One of comedy’s central purposes is to promote discussion of uncomfortable parts of our society the laugh to keep from crying assertion. The problem is, there’s a big difference between joking to provide additional nuance and perspectives and joking to simply receive cheap laughs never really saying anything about the topic that adds to the normal discourse. Finding this boundary of nuance is extremely difficult and the reason only a handful of people are comedians and only a handful of them have succeeded in adding depth to our culture.
Exactly. It’s one thing for a professional comedian to make some edgy humor, they’ve earned the right, and if they have that level of nuance it works. It’s different if my buddy Steve says “Women moment” every time a girl does something remotely negative. Yes he might claim it’s all in jest, but eventually it becomes post-irony, where his old joke is now his new reality
6:31 "Truth is a democracy" VERY well said. Damn. And this is not just something that happens on the internet, or just about cultural issues. Just last week, a prominent politician in the Netherlands who is/peddles to the alt-right, Thierry Baudet, actually said something in parliament /almost/ revealing this attitude.
Last month a group of Russian (FSB) spies were caught breaking into the OSCE headquarters in our capital the Hague, and our intelligence agencies found heaps of evidence, not all but much of which they publicised. To mr. Baudet however, these were "just reports" and the rest of parliament was being "undemocratic" because they "just believed it", and "in a democracy we weigh all the evidence". He has made similar claims about climate change, judging the rest of parliament for believing the IPPC report and not taking his crappy internet source seriously.
This "Truth is a democracy" attitude" is seriously threatening our actual democracies, because it quickly derails debates about problem-solving policy into debates about established facts. This actually happened in this case too, the debate in which mr. Baudet made these claims was actually supposed to be about the finances of our defense department (which are in a sorry state) and he turned half of the debate time into a painstaking rebuttal of his bullshit..... which of course was the only thing covered by the mass media.
You see the same thing happening with Trump, Democrats and the US mass media.
The problem is that while facts are eternal, truth can either be (1) something coming from the facts or (2) something consensus-based, or even (3) an opinion holding true for you. That conflation allows for the person described in this video to behave the way they are, because they generally start out with a random viewpoint that is somehow held by people who hate trans people or something like that (so they start with reason 2), then switch to reason 1, 2, or 3 depending on the argument made up. Reason 1 is used whenever facts that contradict whatever fact they bring up, reason 2 is used to muddy whatever clarity an opinion has, reason 3 deflects culpability.
But it’s not like this is a problem limited to the person Innuendo describes. Reason 1 is used to establish a worldview that is wrong and deleterious but is made consensus so they can eventually rely on reason 2, and reason 3 wrangles straggling opinions. This is the misuse of facts by those in power.
However, since the people in power are so entrenched in power, so unwilling to give it up, and they have already established leagues of defenses (one of which is any media), truth is imposed by trolls and those in power and no amount of actual truth that stems from the facts, is a valid consensus, or stems from your own experience will ever be brought out again save a PR project or for more nefarious purposes (like pitting two minorities against each other or instigating a war furthering imperialism).
too bad this wasn't made today or you could have called it "the shirt says figs"
Figs is in reference to the location where terrorist Che Guevara was executed in. "La Higuera" means "The Fig Tree" in Spanish. It's a tourist attraction.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Higuera
@@shalom6814 do you do this for free
@@shalom6814 nice try. We're not stupid
@@coffee115 You are stupid, hence why you took it out of context.
@@shalom6814 no, the limp wrist is obvious. It's not homophobic to use your brain and call that shitty shirt out. It definitely means f*g, we all know it means f*g, anyone that thinks that fig shit flies is either so deep in the derp they're drowning or they really think the left is that dumb.
It's really pathetic to see this go down, dying on fig hill. But you'll see it to the end!
Innuendo Studios, I'm pretty sure you wont remember me, the dude that was critical of you in the your 'The Alt-Right Playbook: Introduction, I promised to watching more of your videos to have a better understanding of "your side/the left side". I remember commenting in your video that "you didn't understand the alt-right" but I was wrong in assuming that since their are many ways help Alt-Right causes without actually being Alt-Right, I was the centrist that defended the right no matter what and claimed to be neither left or right but rather a un-biased eye, while not noticing that my words, people and ideas I was supporting/defending were negatively affecting the people I care.
Thank you for opening me up to The Lefts ideas and to amazing Left wing youtubers which have swayed me away from ideas that I deem hateful and destructive.
If you want more left ideas that are well reasoned, in my opinion, you should try Contrapoints, if you haven't already.
@@briarrosegael2015 I already have, sadly I first found out about her watching "Anti-SJW" who dont know what they're talking about. I believe I watched most of her videos by now.
@@Abanimations1 Lindsay Ellis dips her toes into that sphere every once in a while, but she does more film studies and critique, you might enjoy her; in fact, I believe she's friends with Natalie.
@@briarrosegael2015 Yeah I find her videos pretty entertaining as well, I believe I already know most if not all the lefty UA-camrs you'll recommend, I just need to watch more of them tbh.
one conquered soul :D
In person, especially with strangers/acquaintances, I immediately go “hun, yeah” and leave if they say something insane. I have done this with anti-maskers, flat earthers, and people who literally ban immigration. I am a small person, and I like being alive
Valid! Sometimes you have to pick your battles.
OH MY GOD, EVEN WHEN I WAS AN EDGY HIGH SCHOOL LIBERTARIAN (in an area where libertarianism was by far the dominant ideology and coming from a family who predominantly consists of libertarians, too lazy to really care, and a minor smattering of christian right-wing conservatism), I COULDN'T HELP BUT FEEL CONSERVATIVES HAD NO CONSISTENT WORLDVIEW, NO BELIEFS, JUST AN ABILITY TO DISAGREE WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS (the term hadn't quite taken hold yet though). When I finally really started to listen to more left-leaning people I realized that I actually agreed with them and that their points started to make sense given the data they were using. I grew an actual ideology that could exist and not just dismiss everyone else.
ITS HAPPENING
This is why I respect libertarians a tiny bit more than regular conservatives.
Conservatives believe in a small government.. with a huge military and mass surveillance. They believe in individual freedom and liberty, but also in authoritarian law enforcement and imposing their own religious beliefs on everybody else by law.
I recommend the book "The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump". One of the main thesis of that book is that the thing that "Reactionaries" (Conservatives, many Libertarians) actually stand for is defending "Hierarchy" and the priviledged classes, and are not afraid to contradict themselves in order to achieve that goal.
(Notice, conservative quack Jordan Peterson is also big on hierarchy, that's not a coincidence).
@@SidheKnight back when I was a libertarian I was against authoritarian law enforcement. The capitalist hierarchy and valuing christianity despite not actually being a Christian were definitely aspects I believed in. I'll say this about libertarians, Christian conservatives (the ones who genuinely believe everyone should live in accordance with the bible, or at least their interpretation of the bible), and even the alt-right, they do have an actual vision for how to make the world better. They are wrong of course but they have goals.
Turn off your caps lock. You mother is worried.
Like what SidheKnight said, those are what you call 'reactionaries'.
this hit the nail on the head for me. i used to hang out in much edgier groups years ago, before deradicalizing and going a lot further to the left. and yet, when looking at how i got here, i'd remember having some very left-wing beliefs years ago, and yet saying some pretty far-right stuff much more recently, spending years in cognitive dissonance (i remember one time saving two memes at around the same time, one pro-palestine, one pro-israel, amd remarking that my beliefs seemed to change according to whichever i thought was funnier). watching this has made me realize what actually happened: it was not a shift from right to left, but from edginess to sincerity. the more left-wing opinions were sincere opinions of mine, and the edginess was stuff i said for the sake of approval from other edgelords, that slowly dug their way into my brain
I can't stress enough just how fucking *excellent* this video is. You've summed up things I've felt and half-known for years, but I couldn't have expressed this well if you put a gun to my head.
@@ukn0leo oh hell no.
>entire video is literally about how these people don't give a shit about truth or sincerely held beliefs and will argue any point they want for as long as they want as long as they "win" against the libs
>"well uh yeah kid if you really think that's true why don't you go over to /pol/ and ARGUE with them and PROVE them all wrong with FACTS and LOGIC"
Hmmm, I'm STARTING to think this isn't a genuine challenge in good faith...
@@johnthomason9980 but are you prepared to answer the real question. Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?
@@johnthomason9980 "entire video is literally about how these people don't give a shit about truth or sincerely held beliefs and will argue any point they want for as long as they want as long as they "win""
in other words...the entire video is an attempt to justify not engaging in discussion?
@@DIVAD291 It's only "an attempt to justify not engaging in discussion" inasmuch as it attempts to explain the truth of the alt-right's tactics, and why it's legitimately a terrible and useless idea to try and "debate" the kinds of people you'll find on /pol/, because none of them are interested in learning or changing their opinions, just pushing the same reactionary goals they always have
Anyone who says that any kind of genuine debate that produces something good can happen on /pol/ is either deliberately lying or genuinely has no fucking idea what /pol/ is like.
This just reminds me of this one time I watched a George Floyd deepfake singing 'I knew you were trouble when you walked in'. One guy in the comments said it was disrespectful the comments immediately went from its just chill it's a joke to George Floyd was no saint to he already had high levels of substance in his blood so it wasn't really 'the cops fault' that he died some guy even called him a baby killer.
Don't worry guys these people are not actually bigots they're just 'trolling'
I'm still mind-blown from the fact that we all watched a man slowly get choked to death, and right wing media tried spinning it as an drug overdose. They say they're not racist but engage and associate with any mental gymnastics they can to paint a black man's murder as justified. They hide behind so many dog-whistles that I'm not sure if they're lying to us or to themselves.
anyone else remember that video of the nazi who took off his shirt when things where getting too tough and claimed he did not actually believe what he was shouting and was only there for fun?
YES.
No, but Nazis running away crying with a trail of clothing behind them when things get too tough is my idea of fun...
Trifling they are so big n bad but can't even be honest about their beliefs 😂 #Denial
yes, Jay Allen's explanation of chan anon culture explains that guy so much.
Well when you think about the fact that their leader was a coward who couldn't even face his crimes and offed himself I'm not surprised that a lot of them are also cowardly.
The fact that we have to return to such ground-level arguments like: "Are all people created equal?" scare me.
I enjoy taking up the oppositions (Conservatives) views and attempting to defend them for myself before judging wheather or not they are valid oppinions (I've pissed off a lot of my friends doing this), but I always come around to the same conclusion of: "Who the fuck thinks this is a sensible idea?".
I believe that the people who say that they don't care about which side is right as long as they win the argument just haven't thought the argument through. And that's what I heard you say in this video also (correct me if I'm wrong).
I've recently began becoming politically active in one of the Liberal youth parties here in Sweden and at my first ever meeting, it struck me how much more sensible conversations got when people could agree on basic principles. We could argue about more subtle taxation issues or similar issues. It was wonderful.
The political landscape has regressed so far that the arguments being held aren't about PROgressing anymore, they are about not REgressing any further.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk
I'm curious how you came to the idea that equality is even a possibility given supposedly "rational" you.
@@quesocoatl21 It's basic maths. When a resource (living shelter, food, money, time) is finite, it can be distributed evenly.
What definition of "possible" where you thinking about here that put this into question?
@@TheHadMatters Are you slow? I didn't say "equality of distribution of resources" which in itself relies upon only Angels doing the distributing I said "equality" period as in equality of height, intellect, self-control, etc.
@@quesocoatl21 I'm a little fuzzy on what op means by "people are created equal" as well. It's a popular expression because it paraphrases the US Constitution, but I think what people typically actually mean is, "All people should be treated equally.". Which itself is up for debate I would say.
Hows your shithole of a Country doing ? Rape Rates still throu the roof? Crime Rates? No go areas? But Sure the "even contribution" of Wealth will fix your liberal hellhole.
You should sell a shirt with Crowder's face on it and the writing: "The card says moops!"
As someone who was taking a tumble down the alt-right pipeline a few years ago, I believe one of the few things I did right back then, was sticking to my guns and upholding my most genuine beliefs, and readily discarding positions I did not agree with, or found to contradict my beliefs. I chose the fallible position, and when it eventually failed me, I had to reconsider what my position was, and what my beliefs were.
Make no mistake, random person that may come across this comment somehow in 2024 after a second Trump Presidency was announced, many, many of the people that voted for him, don’t even know their own beliefs well enough to say for sure if they follow his. They just do it because they hate the idea that they could in fact be wrong.
The Card Says Moops, AKA South Park's politics
Whoa! My name was used in a video by innuendo studios!
Day made
You have a great name, sir.
Steven Crowder deserves a b*llet
He works hard and appreciates the male physique. He would absolutely enjoy seeing a ballet.
He should stick a g*n in his mouth
Preferably mixed with t*nic and ice
"STEVEN CROWDER E[S]TS D[O]CKS"
As in he establishes harbor fixtures. Metaphorically.
They had us in the first half,not gonna lie
i dont have the time to watch the video and im saving it for later. why does steven crowder deserve a bullet?
@@manjoniggga He said ballet. _That you read it as "bullet" says more about YOUR prejudices!_
I've spent a looooong time engaging right wing rhetoric to try and figure out how to get through it. And this episode more then any other reminds me of my experiences. The right winger is not engaging the ideas you express, they are scanning your statements for buzz and trigger terms that enable a "scoring" line. To such and extent that if you know what terms they're looking for, you can actively manipilate the conversation to illustrate their bad faith engagement.
Yuuuup, this re-contextualizes a lot of online arguments I've had, and makes me glad I'm on one of my "avoid religion and politics board on my usual forums" kicks.
Having gone on 4chan long ago I feel like this is one of the only times someone who wasn't a channer accurately described the board's behaviors. I hope what most people's takeaway is that engaging in debate is not the right way to go about changing someone's mind, because to a lot of people debates are a game they have to win and see you as the opponent.
In the game In Nomine, where you basically play as angels and demons fighting for the souls of humans, Seraphs are arbiters of objective truths, with magical lie-detector abilities. (Because of this, they're terrible at fitting in, and hate subjective concepts or fiction, and telling lies themselves is so contrary to their purpose, it starts warping their souls and acts like kryptonite to them.) When Seraphs fall, however, they become Balseraphs, twisted creatures that form their own subjective reality in their head and warp it to make it seem true to them. They are liars who believe their own lies, and have the magical power to be so convincing that they make others believe it, too. They need to maintain the illusion they believe what they say, though, because being called out in overt hypocrisy proves they're lying even in their own subjective reality, and is kryptonite to them. They therefore play by making their players have to constantly lie and change lies as the situation demands, but keep track of which lies everyone heard, because their critical weakness is being caught changing your mind about anything.
For some reason, the discussion of just sitting back, changing what you believe whenever it's convenient, and waiting to call other people out as hypocrites even if just because you don't understand or outright assumed their position really reminded me of Balseraphs...
Aw I learned some cool mythology today. Thanks !
Oh even if it is a game mythology still cool .
@@eartianwerewolf I would argue game mythology is just as valid as other mythology. Hides folders and 25 precent of memory devoted to starwars lore.
I remember this kid in my class who wanted to be exactly that: An argument/discussion winner.
Then one day he started "debating" with a gay kid, who basically just kept ignoring him and giving him barebones answers. Mind you, the gay kid was out, by his own hand, at that point, so it's not like he could threaten to out him or anything, at least.
At some point the debatebro started "losing" the debate simply because he wasn't getting any validation from the students around him, so he defaulted to calling him a homophobic slur.
Kid just turned around, looked him straight in the eye, and said: Yeah, what is it?
"What?"
You called me, right? You said (homophobic slur), so, what do you need?
Debatebro was so shocked at the fact that the precious little gay snowflake wasn't wailing and calling for his mommy that he just scoffed (VERY loudly, almost cartoonishly) and started doodling on his notebook, trying to keep his cool.
T'was a thing of beauty.
a lot of this is true about Trump with a slight shift of context. and most of the mainstream media is poorly equipped to handle a president who says what's convenient and changes the story the next day
The mainstream media is poorly equiped because it is being killed by the Internet. They sank to shock jock levels to get views, and have hit rock bottom in terms of ethics.
Now, the only way they can survive is to become a government regulated cartel. It's amazing to watch.
What's more amazing is that an anti corporate Left completely abandons its beliefs when it comes to media. They want to dismantle all corporations except for media.
@@jiminagym4569 MSM did a lot to help elect Trump and they're doing way too little to combat US government's descent into fascism. as far as I can tell, this is a pretty common leftist position so idk what you're going for here
@@II00I00 The MSM gave Trump air time through rage bait. The only reason they put him on the quote was bc they wanted to mock his absurdity. Remember, the MSM was more outraged by Trump's private comment on a bus than it was by the DNC rigging it's own primaries.
The Internet has ruined the credibility of the MSM. What I don't understand is why the anti establishment Left is defending them.
Most of us live in the center. And right now, I don't know many in the center who are fearful of the Right at the moment.
@@jiminagym4569 you're not in the center
@@II00I00 Depends on where you draw the line. Anything to the right of Marx is alt right these days.
The Left has declared gay-married, pro-choice, pot smoking Dave Rubin as alt-right. So who knows what the clowns would call me...
Except now it's "the shirt says figs".
@Shahaan Singh Sure buddy, keep telling yourself that.
The guy who passed off as a joke his repeated use of a homophobic slur in his videos would have no reason to lie about his homophobia. And "is for figs" totally explains the limp wrist on the shirt. You're fooling no one.
@Shahaan Singh The limp wrist is associated with gay people, and negro just means "black" in Spanish, but if a white person calls a black person 'negro', what should someone glean from you saying that?
I get your point, that he's just making jokes, but very often he's putting out a very clear ideological message. Being anti- gay marriage, focusing disproportionately on misdeeds of gay people, saying the AIDS epidemic was a "waste of money" because it was spent on gays and addicts, not "real victims" adds a context to stephen crowder making gay jokes that suggests a genuine contempt for gay people and because of that, it's obvious what it's supposed to say.
The "figs" thing is just a dodge.
Shahaan Singh It's an infamous stereotype of gay people that homophobes indulge in, and its presence confirms that the shirt does not say figs.
Merriam-Webster has an entire paragraph on queer's use as a slur: "Formerly used only as a strongly pejorative term, queer is now commonly used by some as a positive self-descriptor. The word is also prominent as a neutral term in academic contexts that deal with gender and sexuality. ... *The pejorative uses of queer, however, have certainly not vanished. Both the adjective and noun continue to be highly offensive when used disparagingly.*" As Crowder is straight and not using the word in the aforementioned academic context, he's using it disparagingly, whether he knows it (and he does know) or not.
But I know you know this and you're feigning ignorance because, as this video says, I can't prove you do. I'm just spelling it out so you know your dishonesty is fooling no one.
@Shahaan Singh it also just happens to rhyme with a certain anti-gay slur. But why let facts get in the way of a good B.S. session, Mr. Moops.
To touch briefly on the teenage experimentation with ideology thing, I think the 'alt-right', conservatives, fascists and any other extremist group has something else aiding them by coincidence of the world we now livein. Excluding 4chan and other such sites, teenagers these days are faced with a social scene that a lot of us younger millennials never really had to deal with, even though they were coming into existence in our teen years. That is, there is readily accessible evidence of their experimentation. When I was a teen and I said or did something stupid, I remembered it, the folks who were there remembered it for however long it was deemed important or amusing or whatever, and nobody else may even hear about it. If I had to apologise, it was to a limited group of people, and I was at the mercy of that group and how they personally felt about me, a real human being with whom they were face-to-face.
But now, the stupid or regrettable things are out there for the whole world to see, and they linger on. The things they have said online are there to stay and can be used as 'receipts' in any conversation or as a comment on literally anything they say on an online platform in perpetuity. Any potential missteps and personal growth are rocks collecting at their feet, waiting until someone - anyone - decides to start throwing them.
This leaves a person to then make decisions about not just what they believe, but how the past will affect them when they start publishing their new opinions. It's the sort of social pressure I cannot imagine having to face as a teenager. And since a lot of people are still raised by parents who, whether or not they explicitly state it, demonstrate that standing firm on your word is vitally important and that admitting that you were wrong or apologising makes you weak or a total failure, you're going to have a lot of young adults feeling stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to choose between making a decision to either publicly rescind old views and do their best to be their own PR team, or stick with what they've said to quash any potential shame and to look strong. And these decisions are made not necessarily by what a person believes, but by how big the backlash will be in their social group - it's peer pressure, but it's not the schoolyard, it's millions of strangers online across a spectrum of age groups and of varying earnestness. And outside even that social pressure, there's cancel-culture, which seems to be very good at taking a person's good intentions and digging up years old 'receipts' to wreak havoc for their own ends, apologising, admitting a mistake or even just changing your opinions and behaviour as you grow as a human being becomes risky in a way it previously never was.
So I think that a by-product of the internet social space is that any child growing up surrounded by extremist ideologies in their personal social sphere is going to be beholden to that much more than in bygone eras where leaving town was enough to distance you, where the things you said to your peers may never reach the ears of your parents or community, where you had room to make mistakes and learn from them and not be dragged over the coals about them forever and ever.
None of this has been very articulate, but I would love to see this idea explored by someone with more knowledge and who is better at collating and expressing their ideas than I am.
Lolol "alt right, conservatives fascist and other extremists groups" lolol conservatives are am extremists group now? No ones reading your text wall
How is conservative an extremist group?! Innuendo maybe should be careful to not portray more right leaning as person as barely different than the alt right.
Other than that I find your text to show an important part of that sordid story very accurately, I like it.
I guess the reason he is painting the group with a large brush is that in context “conservatives” mean “conservatives who are vocal online and will debate with you anything and everything to win, and behave similarly offline”. Conveniently, this applies to the Republican Party itself ever since Gingrich so that is why this is not just an internet issue.
But it is a day and age where almost nothing stands without clarification except the inconsequential because nothing is uncontroversial, and defining terms to be clear what you are talking about is good debate practice to ensure you are arguing over the same beliefs. However, no one is looking for furthering an idea these days (unless it is their own); most stuff is about fighting the other side or reducing to a joke the other side and those bothering to do the work never advertise themselves or are shot down or are far worse than they appear if everything goes smoothly.
But it is also safe to assume no one on the internet is willing to indulge a good debate. As a rule of thumb, everyone is hostile, a lurker, or apathetic until otherwise revealed, because otherwise “good” people can turn on you if you say the wrong thing or are led astray by rumors and libel. This also assumes those who run the internet aren’t influencing anything.
In short, this isn’t just a “how to behave on the internet” advice, it is also one for politics.
@@stevemasterson7776 bro you read the text wall. good job contradicting yourself like any conservative would.
@@SirBojo4 Recent history has shown "moderate" conservatives either do believe in far-right views and hide it, or just don't care that they're spread. Conservatives have rarely if ever rebelled against each other for extremism
In my opinion, this is the most fascinating alt-right playbook phenomenon. It shows how insane these people are.
Also, I am terribly sorry for the comment I left on your how to radicalize a normie video. You and people like you deserve better and you helped me see the light and become a progressive leftist. Thank you.
@@tylerchambers5809everyone loves character growth, nice one 🤜
I think this goes more into the phenomenon especially when you move onto the more recent dramas like Palworld and such.