- 81 Posts
- 58 Comments
1·11 months agoIt was a best attempt at being respectful and substantive. Not resorting to the T or other slurs. Calling out a very real instance of misinformation and issues of bias. However, authoritarian ideologies are authoritarian first, right or left as an afterthought. Not to mention, personally I find being associated with them more detrimental than any sort of solidarity will offset. Often finding those on the right calling me a T slur and Leninists calling me a fascist. Spending more time having to distance myself from them and their ideas rather than actually discussing what most leftists are actually interested in. When it comes to criticism we shouldn’t hinder it when it’s substantive. That would simply be repeating the mistakes of countries that adopted Lenin’s system, and making us hypocritical in calling others out. I have no major qualms with anarchists, social libertarians and Marxists of the non Lenin variety. As well as others actually solidly on the left. Even when we disagree. Wet tend to largely agree and value social freedom.
Here you make criticisms of certain leanings and ideologies in saying “authoritarian ideologies are authoritarian first, right or left as an afterthought,” which is fine. Your original comment stating that it is “[h]ardly surprising unfortunately coming from leninists. They were never good at introspection or acknowledging the massive flaws of their ideology. And it really makes it hard to take anything they present seriously even if it’s correct. Which they struggle with,” might be phrased similarly to focus on the ideas. Something like “Leninism is authoritarian and a flawed ideology,” and then elaborate on your ideas. I agree that criticism shouldn’t be hindered when substantive, so avoiding ad hominems to make substantive arguments would be a frutiful approach. Be mindful that in this instance, you will be associated with various leftist ideas, including ML, so if you find that you are “having to distance [yourself] from them and their ideas” then this may be an instance you find yourself avoiding. If you choose to engage, however, you have to follow the rules.
This is true. But don’t we have better? Less obviously flawed, more honest? No one is without bias. But honesty and sincerity are important. If you’re biased, dishonest and insincere, then what’s left. There are lots of others that have made videos and essays about Prager U, that I don’t have to preface telling others before sharing. That I realize the messenger is biased and dishonest, but I swear they’re accurate on this thing at least. It doesn’t do your arguments any good.
Please feel free to post content and share ideas. Disagreement on the character judgement and analysis of motivations of one creator does not prevent members here from sharing their own ideas.
The wastefulness of the capitlist mode of production, through overexploitation, overproduction, and cyclical consumption, is at the root of the sustainability issue, not the number of humans. Shifting the focus to overpopulation only serves to arm the narratives of the capitalist class and establishment.
It’s definitely hypocritical coming from them.
What is hypocritical?
That video they had on authoritarianism was the final load of bullshit that broke the camel’s back. I found a lot of stuff questionable in other past videos but that just really sealed the deal.
Care to link?
Hardly surprising unfortunately coming from leninists. They were never good at introspection or acknowledging the massive flaws of their ideology. And it really makes it hard to take anything they present seriously even if it’s correct. Which they struggle with.
Kindly refrain from generalizing, outgrouping, and demeaning other leftists. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. See rule 2. Focus on ideas, not people if you would like to discuss and debate. You are welcome to tear apart Nazis and fascists of course.
2·1 year ago- This guy seems to have not heard that Oliver Anthony hates conservatives probably a lot more than he does.
The video directly addresses this, commenting about why regardless of the singers prsonal views, the song is being championed by conservatives and criticized by leftists.
- The whole condescending well-my-income-level-is-okay-so-let-me-explain-a-bunch-of-things-to-you vibe of this video is 100% why a lot of working class people don’t like the modern left.
The video describes the rural/urban divide and dicusses how it was explained by Marx and Engels long ago. In doing so, the creator emphasizes the difference in material situations and interests. It explains false consciousness and why the reactionary focus on blaming the poor on welfare is counterproductive for actually solving the issues that the singer is describing. The creator does this not to say that his level of income makes him right, but to highlight the common reasons for this difference.
Checking my communities.
3·1 year agoWell, I hear the wind talk and appreciate the discussion. I think in broaching a topic like climate change and especially how it relates to established social systems and norms, it takes all kinds. There is definitely an incentive you describe that is perverse when it’s just for money, but when it comes to getting a message out there, I think most well-meaning people just realize they have to play the game. Everything in in the digital age is always is jockying for leverage in the attention economy, and if what your putting out is something you really care about, you want it to have an impact. I definitely agree the approach can be counterproductive, but it’s up the creator in the end. And, other less genuine, reactionary, and shallow exchanges in this post’s comment section aside, at least in this particular case it led to something good.
Hop on over to c/breadtube and contribute more if you find these kinds of topics interesting. I’m hoping that while Lemmy is small, we can get something decent cultivated. Much appreciated :)
Very well. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I’m curious. If you think you know why, would you kindly share your thoughts?
I wouldn’t presume to know why they delete their comments, but I think that the reason many people delete comments is for image purposes, such as regretting saying something or being embarrassed and not wanting it to be seen by others.
Edit: missed a word
if you want to watch this, keep in mind that it’s made by a tankie.
What do you mean by this? Could you kindly explain what that term means to you, and why it is relevant to this discourse?
(I use this reply format to prevent my replies from being removed if/when the comment that I’m replying to is deleted by the creator.)
If just a few people who have never come to terms or heard the ideas before have engaged with it where they otherwise wouldn’t have, especially if they come to the comments ready to give a reactionary piece of their mind and see the discssion, then I think the shock value strategy worked. It’s ultimately the creator’s choice how they present it, and I see the value in being evocative. If the title were “How Heirarchical Social Systems Contribute to Anthropogenic Climate Change,” frankly it just wouldn’t get the exposure. As marketing, politcal discourse, and everyday experience will attest to, appeal to emotion works.
I agree that the creator may have chosen a title that could potentially be counterproductive, but it was certainly an intentional move. At least it led to some discussion on an issue that frankly doesn’t have much awareness is the generl public. “Shock value” is a strategy where creators intentionally use provocative or controversial imagery, titles, or content to elicit strong emotional reactions from their audience. This can be done to grab attention, spark discussions, and raise awareness about a particular issue, idea, or message. The goal is to make the audience think and engage with the content more deeply due to the intense emotional response it evokes. In this case, it worked pretty well, considering many videos posted have almost no discussion at all in the comments.
Edit: spelling
As Lewis’s Law dictates - the comments on any article about feminism justify the existence of feminism.
Haha I enjoy this one! :)
Criticizing patriarchy is not attacking men or dividing groups.
What an interesting thought given the title of the video is literally “are men killing the planet?”. People insist that blaming the patriarchy == blaming men yet in actuality this rarely seems to a distinction drawn by the same people who espouse the patriarchy rhetoric.
Criticizing patriarchy as a harmful social system isn’t the same as blaming men for its existence. These concepts address different aspects of the issue. When we critique patriarchy, we’re examining how societal norms, institutions, and power dynamics contribute to inequalities and cause harm in different arenas, in this particuar instance, anthropogenic climate change. This critique focuses on the overall structure, recognizing that while men might benefit more, they aren’t individually responsible for creating or maintaining the system.
Blaming men assigns collective responsibility to individual men for patriarchy’s existence. This overlooks the fact that many men also suffer from its constraints and norms. It’s not fair to hold all men accountable for a system they didn’t design or choose. Recognizing it and pointing it out, as this video does, can allow men, and anyone else, to potentially do something to address or change it in their own lives.
Critiquing patriarchy acknowledges its impact beyond individual intentions. It’s about recognizing how certain norms and power structures disadvantage people of all genders. This critique seeks to promote change and equality by challenging harmful norms and dismantling systemic barriers. This benefits not only women but also men who want to live without rigid gender expectations.
In essence, critiquing patriarchy aims to raise awareness for change without unfairly blaming men for the entire system. By understanding this distinction, we can collectively work towards a more just and inclusive society for everyone, while at the same time making progress on addressing the climate emergency.
Blaming men or women is beyond dumb. It’s greedy corporations and corrupt politicians. Videos like this only distract people
The video doesn’t blame men or women. It analyzes and criticizes the power structure that excacerbates serious issues and hinders us from making positive change happen.
(I use this reply format to prevent my replies from being removed if/when the comment that I’m replying to is deleted by the creator.)
I think the important thing is that we are divided along arbitrary lines, pitted needlessly against each other and thereby paralysed and unable to push for the necessary policy changes.
The video title is meant to be inflammatory to get people to watch it. Criticizing patriarchy is not attacking men or dividing groups. In fact, it does the exact opposite, resisting the power dynamics that stratify and divide groups and prevent us from working together to achieve change.
(I use this reply format to prevent my replies from being removed if/when the comment that I’m replying to is deleted by the creator.) Edit: typos
It’s ironic. I expected the post of the video was going to be downvoted to hell for this very reason. If people would at least listen and consider the idea, they might be able to start making change happen in an ideological cultural underpinning that runs so deep.
It’s fun to start with a small user base. The downtime is rough, and I have some minor issues with it like the fact that deleting a comment hides all of the replies to that comment. Overal, though, it’s kew.
I appreciate your openness and response. Some More News is more than welcome here, as are you, if you can stomach that there will be plenty of content you don’t necessarily agree with. Debate and criticism are welcome. I encourage you to create a discussion post to discuss your ideas with others here. Post content that you think is more suitable and reliable. Spread ideas that add to the development of the community.
What we are trying to do here is to cast a wide net, i.e. lay down a collection of content and build a community accessible for people on myriad paths in their political journeys. The aim is to guide people in the general direction of social progress, solidarity, class consciousness, and awareness.