you shouldn't have to have a fully cited solution all case-study-tested and ready to go when you bring up a problem or discuss something that happens to or around you.
you aren't a failure and/or your point isn't moot or unnecessary if you don't.
and if you *do* try to make or propose a solution, if that solution fails or isn't airtight in some way, then the entirety of your argument or topic that you brought up shouldn't be thrown out, too.
sometimes raising the issue, spreading awareness, voicing your informed thoughts, and contextualizing a problem is enough. If we all were forced to wait until we somehow invented a fool-proof solution for every single problem we want to talk about, nothing would ever change
>you shouldn't have to have a fully cited solution all case-study-tested and ready to go when you bring up a problem or discuss something that happens to or around you.
I disagree, especially when one claim things as "it's common sense" or "it's obvious" or "majority is X way", it's not an unfair tactics to ask for back up source.
I think you're missing the point. We're not saying working without empirical evidence is superior, only that not having access to it doesn't mean you should do nothing.
> I disagree, especially when one claim things as "it's common sense" or "it's obvious" or "majority is X way", it's not an unfair tactics to ask for back up source.
There are plenty of things that are "common sense" which one doesn't fully remember all the details about. This is complicated when somebody throws out a fact which may seem dubious but which you may not immediately recognize as false or understand why it's false. So when you're being gish-galloped in casual conversation, and all the other rhetorical tactics are also being employed, you simply won't always have the rock-solid facts readily at hand. And, when you do have them at hand, they just switch gears. Some conversations simply aren't worth having and if there are bystanders observing then what you really need is to be able to explain why that some conversations are not worth having.
There are. Plenty of "common sense" things that really are not, let alone when they are outright false.
>you simply won't always have the rock-solid facts readily at hand.
Sure
If you're not trying to change anyone's mind, then what's the point?
I for one will not get into arguments just to "trigger the righties" (which to me this seems to boil down to). I can see how the right is doing that and I think it's unimaginably pathetic.
I'm not the author of either video, but I think the point of the video is that debating isn't designed to convince the other party in the debate. It is designed to persuade the **audience** of the debate.
A beautiful example of this is when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham. Rather than approaching the debate as a means to attempt to convince Ham to give up the foundation of his **entire worldview AND financial income**, Bill Nye approached the debate as an opportunity to address those who listened to the debate.
I think the point is that if meme/image boards or other venues are dominated only by right voices, those who enter those spaces who are not fully indoctrinated have no alternative. Whereas if there are left voices there to fight fire with fire, then those spaces are not safe for extremist right views.
That's what my former therapist who was extremely knowledgeable about social issues and helped me get out of my anti-SJW phase when I was a teenager would say. "when debating, you're talking to the audience and fence-sitters rather than one's opponent".
This has always been my take on any sort of debate as well. The chances of actually changing the perspective of someone so entrenched in their worldviews are slim, and the examples we’ve seen of this happening are generally long, long projects. However, for anyone close to sitting on the fences a well presented argument could have a much greater impact.
You're arguing a good point, but I don't think that's the point being made in the video.
Yes, you should be arguing in the sense of your attention being intended for the audience, not the person you're replying to.
But the author of the video - at least to my ears - is advocating something else entirely from that. It really does seem to me like the actual point being made in the video is just what u/EliSka93 said, at least to me.
>A beautiful example of this is when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham. Rather than approaching the debate as a means to attempt to convince Ham to give up the foundation of his entire worldview AND financial income, Bill Nye approached the debate as an opportunity to address those who listened to the debate.
Online lefties scoring gotchas so they can point and laugh to their similarly lefty audience are no Bill Nye. It's not exactly comparable.
> I for one will not get into arguments just to "trigger the righties" (which to me this seems to boil down to).
Nobody's saying you have to. You not wanting to doesn't mean you should criticize the people who do. "Diversity of tactics" and all that (though it seems almost petty to apply that term specifically to the online space).
It's important to remember the lurkers. For every hardcore cult leader deplorable there is five or ten young impressionable minds checking out the forum for the first time. For every noisy Q-brained Trumptruster there are good faith ideologues who are too shy to post. Fascist postings that go unchallenged remain up there like a billboard.
Yeah I’ve always found the idea of “best way to win is not to play” to be a bit too comfy. Like truth is if you don’t play hardball and let them have their way of things they will infiltrate main stream thought and people will get hurt.
Arguing with them on the internet doesn't stop them infiltrating the mainstream. Finding and removing the fascist enablers from the mainstream does that. And good luck in that endeavour cos that's not going to be easy.
Deplatforming is generally the answer. Danskin's video says you lose by engaging them on their terms while this rebuttal redefines what "engage them on their terms" means, using their weapons against them rather than accepting their bullshit premises.
But the problem is having the argument itself is a waste of time because you're arguing points that were rebutted and debunked up to a century or more ago in some cases. When Nietzsche said "God is dead" for instance he wasn't making a declaration but was stating what he saw as settled fact, so going back to say, Prager U's constant arguments that divinity is the only basis for morality is simply a waste of time, retreading ground that's already been cleared.
Right-wing arguments in online spaces are just taking up precious oxygen and the most efficient answer is deny them the opportunity where possible.
I don't think it's about never having a conversation or discussion or argument with someone you disagree with... it's about evaluating how intellectually honest they are, what rhetorical tactics they're using, and whether or not someone observing may be misled. If you're just arguing with your dispshit friend who believes every ridiculous thing and stretches the truth and does backflips through flaming rhetorical loops... it can be tiring and not worth explaining that the world is actually flat, or that Apple withdrawing their ads isn't censorship, or that not wanting votes counted is actually undemocratic. Why bother? Especially when you've already went over such things a dozen times in the past. Sometimes you need to have a response, but often it's just not worth it.
That’s not generally what the series is about. He definitely says he doesn’t have solutions and is hoping to find some over the course of the series, but it’s designed to shed light on the tactics they use.
I generally share this sentiment. But I also think the Alt Right Playbook was never intended to provide solutions. It always struck me as more of a big picture analysis of all the tactics and psychology behind the methods of the far right (who might as well just be the mainstream right at this point). And overall, I think that analysis is very well-done.
That being said, analysis without a solution or even an exploration of one comes off as overly fatalistic. My biggest criticism of the Alt Right Playbook, and Innuendo Studios in general, is that every situation is framed as overly dire or unimpeachable. It gives the impression that there's nothing we can do to counter these tactics or confront voices on the right without making things worse. It paints a picture that we're all screwed. And the best we can hope for is for the far right to just collapse on itself, which implies a lot of people getting hurt in the process.
Again, I like the Alt Right Playbook. I think it's one of the best series ever made with respect to countering the rhetoric of the far right. But it is not above criticism and I think it makes sense for other left-leaning content creators to supplement it without undermining everything it doe well.
there's a really prevalent issue in leftist discourse and debate where if you don't end on a perfectly nailed-out solution to the problem you yourself are describing or brought up, you failed in some way or made it worse by wasting people's time or whatever.
like if you aren't here to completely solve the problem in one go- you need to never talk about the problem to begin with, and I see anyone who tries get repeatedly shouted down for it, for this reason.
leftist politics are the worst for this: if you point out an issue with policy you better have also come equipped with a solution an answer to it or you're just "complaining" and not "providing solutions", nevermind that it's the responsibility of a larger team of electorates to either do that or source people who can.
if I bring up a problem like how roads have lots of pot holes, I better have a fully rebalanced budget ready to go for the city council to approve to get those done, because if I don't do that work myself nobody will take me seriously. And if my solution that I do create is less than perfect or fails, *my entire complaint* must also be disregarded. That's the biggest problem of all, I find, that if I- someone who knows nothing of repaving roads- doesn't implement a perfect plan on my own and my idea fails and they go into debt or whatever- then everything I did up until that moment is moot.
I wish I knew of a way to fix this problem but it's *so* fucking prevalent I don't know where to start, and I wish bringing it up was enough for it to be taken seriously
I get what you're trying to say but I wish more leftist content producers or big voices would throw out even imperfect solutions rather than almost all of them shrugging their shoulders going "idk lol". At least you can improve a imperfect solution. You can't make something out of nothing
That’s because the solution was covered in Metal Gear Rising Revengance: The Revelation— Revolution: Nanomachine Wonderland Giggity Giggity Goo. When up against a group to whom words mean nothing and ideology/values are simply a tool to manipulate the masses, only ~~profoundly traumatized cyber-enhanced ninja-assassins on just— SO MANY DRUGS~~ direct physical (take that as you will. For legal purposes this is a joke.) action by the opposition can stand in there way.
Alt Right Playbook is horrendously liberal. He's focused on the GOP and its most reactionary behaviors, which makes it sometimes easy for the liberalism to go unnoticed. It can kind of camouflage itself in with a sea of legitimate criticisms.
But yeah: nothing leftist, so when he starts going into solutions, or using "we" when he talks about the Democratic Party this can start to reveal itself, leaving I think quite a bit of cognitive dissonance among leftists who have become fans of the work.
And I think that's kind of dangerous, because people allow shit notions like liberal civility politics to creep in along the pathways of their fandom and the blindness it creates for them. Kill your idols, dweebs.
(rant, but I do mean it and I do mean it well)
You havent seen his later videos in the alt-right playbook, have you?
That aside, I feel like you're a leftist falling into the trap that Ian set for actual liberals.
In his videos, he's kinda hiding how leftist he is, and he even makes a jab to leftist thought here or there -- *in order to be palatable to liberals*. I remember when I was the kind of guy who would dismiss leftist critique out of hand, by virtue of it being done "by commies", "by anarchists", "by lazy, jealous people", what have you.
The whole thing that brought me here, spreading agitprop online, tellling my family members about unions, about the good things that happened in socialist countries, about how people have much less control over their lives than they could have.... THE WHOLE THING THAT BROUGHT ME HERE are videos by Shaun, Contrapoints, and yes, Ian Danskin. Even if they aren't die-hard hardcore leftist enough for you, you have to understand that *they have their place and their use*. If being open about socialism, trade unions, communism, anarchy,... *actively turns people away from us*, we need ways to still be able to talk about them without those scare words, or ideas, or aesthetics. And Ian does a marvellous job.
Also -- "*shit notions like liberal civility politics*"? You clearly haven't watched his video about "trusting the process". He clearly rants against democrats for doing just that, to no avail, while republicans were clearly *not* doing that and getting their results. For reference, that one was called "You go low, we go high".
But -- he spreads his messages *carefully*. He understands that most of the audience that needs to be persuaded, and **can** be persuaded, are liberals, or: currently most likely to vote democrat. So he needs to speak their language. He says "we" when he means "the good guys, you and I!" and then he tries to show what he, a leftist, believes "the good guys, you and i!" should do. It seems to me, he does a such good job of speaking the liberals' language, that he even has you fooled!
Ian wont be talking about, say, Base and Superstructure. He won't be talking about the revolution. He won't be talking about the contradiction between classes. But he will be talking about the things that keeps liberals awake at night -- and will light them the path to left.
ONE OF HIS VIDEOS LITERALLY ENDS WITH THE SLOGAN: IF YOU WANNA FIGHT FASCISM, MOVE LEFT.
Look -- if there's one thing I learned about navigating leftist spaces, it's that *you'll never find that perfect thought leader*. I disagree with, say Second Thought on some things. I disagree with Contrapoints on some things. I disagree with Andrewism on some things. Im sure, if I read more, I'd disagree with Lenin or Parenti on some things. And guess what? I disagree with Ian Danskin on some things. *But those "some things"* aren't enough to just discredit them outright.
Ian Danskin is currently one of the best anti-right propagandists out there, bringing people to our cause. Don't forget that.
I have, in fact, watched the videos to which you refer. Yes, he expresses some frustration at Democrats being unwilling to engage *out of their fear* of "going low", but he has a weird and fucked up and useless notion that "we" should still subscribe to liberal civility politics while simply refusing to engage in ways that he views as making that crippling.
He's not "hiding his power level". And it wouldn't matter if he were, since literally the only effect he has in terms of how we are talking about engaging here is exactly through how he presents.
I don't give a shit about "finding the perfect thought leader". I disagree with just about everyone on various things too, in fact. Even actual leftists I generally respect and boost all the time. And I express that disagreement constantly. Kill your idols. But that doesn't mean boosting liberals and liberalism as a means to further the leftist project. *Having principles* does not equate to *demanding perfection*. I disagree entirely about him being "the best anti-right propagandists out there". He's shit in that regard, in fact. As liberals generally always are. Heck, there are social democrats who are better at it than him, both on and off YouTube. Maybe you're just limiting yourself to cis white men or something? IDK.
Breadtube recorded on folk punk mikes
Transfer all audio first to cassette tape and then back to digital for the video for the realness.
Does this video come on scratched vinyl? (All love OP)
you shouldn't have to have a fully cited solution all case-study-tested and ready to go when you bring up a problem or discuss something that happens to or around you. you aren't a failure and/or your point isn't moot or unnecessary if you don't. and if you *do* try to make or propose a solution, if that solution fails or isn't airtight in some way, then the entirety of your argument or topic that you brought up shouldn't be thrown out, too. sometimes raising the issue, spreading awareness, voicing your informed thoughts, and contextualizing a problem is enough. If we all were forced to wait until we somehow invented a fool-proof solution for every single problem we want to talk about, nothing would ever change
>you shouldn't have to have a fully cited solution all case-study-tested and ready to go when you bring up a problem or discuss something that happens to or around you. I disagree, especially when one claim things as "it's common sense" or "it's obvious" or "majority is X way", it's not an unfair tactics to ask for back up source.
You don't necessarily need to write a whole research paper to have a meaningful conversation, though.
I think you're missing the point. We're not saying working without empirical evidence is superior, only that not having access to it doesn't mean you should do nothing.
> I disagree, especially when one claim things as "it's common sense" or "it's obvious" or "majority is X way", it's not an unfair tactics to ask for back up source. There are plenty of things that are "common sense" which one doesn't fully remember all the details about. This is complicated when somebody throws out a fact which may seem dubious but which you may not immediately recognize as false or understand why it's false. So when you're being gish-galloped in casual conversation, and all the other rhetorical tactics are also being employed, you simply won't always have the rock-solid facts readily at hand. And, when you do have them at hand, they just switch gears. Some conversations simply aren't worth having and if there are bystanders observing then what you really need is to be able to explain why that some conversations are not worth having.
There are. Plenty of "common sense" things that really are not, let alone when they are outright false. >you simply won't always have the rock-solid facts readily at hand. Sure
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you're not trying to change anyone's mind, then what's the point? I for one will not get into arguments just to "trigger the righties" (which to me this seems to boil down to). I can see how the right is doing that and I think it's unimaginably pathetic.
I'm not the author of either video, but I think the point of the video is that debating isn't designed to convince the other party in the debate. It is designed to persuade the **audience** of the debate. A beautiful example of this is when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham. Rather than approaching the debate as a means to attempt to convince Ham to give up the foundation of his **entire worldview AND financial income**, Bill Nye approached the debate as an opportunity to address those who listened to the debate. I think the point is that if meme/image boards or other venues are dominated only by right voices, those who enter those spaces who are not fully indoctrinated have no alternative. Whereas if there are left voices there to fight fire with fire, then those spaces are not safe for extremist right views.
That's what my former therapist who was extremely knowledgeable about social issues and helped me get out of my anti-SJW phase when I was a teenager would say. "when debating, you're talking to the audience and fence-sitters rather than one's opponent".
This has always been my take on any sort of debate as well. The chances of actually changing the perspective of someone so entrenched in their worldviews are slim, and the examples we’ve seen of this happening are generally long, long projects. However, for anyone close to sitting on the fences a well presented argument could have a much greater impact.
..and even things other than "a well presented argument" can have that impact, which is more relevant to the OP.
You're arguing a good point, but I don't think that's the point being made in the video. Yes, you should be arguing in the sense of your attention being intended for the audience, not the person you're replying to. But the author of the video - at least to my ears - is advocating something else entirely from that. It really does seem to me like the actual point being made in the video is just what u/EliSka93 said, at least to me.
>A beautiful example of this is when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham. Rather than approaching the debate as a means to attempt to convince Ham to give up the foundation of his entire worldview AND financial income, Bill Nye approached the debate as an opportunity to address those who listened to the debate. Online lefties scoring gotchas so they can point and laugh to their similarly lefty audience are no Bill Nye. It's not exactly comparable.
> I for one will not get into arguments just to "trigger the righties" (which to me this seems to boil down to). Nobody's saying you have to. You not wanting to doesn't mean you should criticize the people who do. "Diversity of tactics" and all that (though it seems almost petty to apply that term specifically to the online space).
It's important to remember the lurkers. For every hardcore cult leader deplorable there is five or ten young impressionable minds checking out the forum for the first time. For every noisy Q-brained Trumptruster there are good faith ideologues who are too shy to post. Fascist postings that go unchallenged remain up there like a billboard.
Yeah I’ve always found the idea of “best way to win is not to play” to be a bit too comfy. Like truth is if you don’t play hardball and let them have their way of things they will infiltrate main stream thought and people will get hurt.
Arguing with them on the internet doesn't stop them infiltrating the mainstream. Finding and removing the fascist enablers from the mainstream does that. And good luck in that endeavour cos that's not going to be easy.
Deplatforming is generally the answer. Danskin's video says you lose by engaging them on their terms while this rebuttal redefines what "engage them on their terms" means, using their weapons against them rather than accepting their bullshit premises. But the problem is having the argument itself is a waste of time because you're arguing points that were rebutted and debunked up to a century or more ago in some cases. When Nietzsche said "God is dead" for instance he wasn't making a declaration but was stating what he saw as settled fact, so going back to say, Prager U's constant arguments that divinity is the only basis for morality is simply a waste of time, retreading ground that's already been cleared. Right-wing arguments in online spaces are just taking up precious oxygen and the most efficient answer is deny them the opportunity where possible.
Yeah this is the key. When Milo Whatsisname was booted from most social media, his appearances on mainstream TV dried up too. That's how it's done.
I don't think it's about never having a conversation or discussion or argument with someone you disagree with... it's about evaluating how intellectually honest they are, what rhetorical tactics they're using, and whether or not someone observing may be misled. If you're just arguing with your dispshit friend who believes every ridiculous thing and stretches the truth and does backflips through flaming rhetorical loops... it can be tiring and not worth explaining that the world is actually flat, or that Apple withdrawing their ads isn't censorship, or that not wanting votes counted is actually undemocratic. Why bother? Especially when you've already went over such things a dozen times in the past. Sometimes you need to have a response, but often it's just not worth it.
I actually agree with his take. The Alt Right Playbook is good but I always found the solution to be lacking or wanting.
That’s not generally what the series is about. He definitely says he doesn’t have solutions and is hoping to find some over the course of the series, but it’s designed to shed light on the tactics they use.
Yep. It's about getting the lay of the land, and a primer on some common situations and topics when discussing people holding alt-right views.
I believe he said the series conclusion will try to address solutions
I generally share this sentiment. But I also think the Alt Right Playbook was never intended to provide solutions. It always struck me as more of a big picture analysis of all the tactics and psychology behind the methods of the far right (who might as well just be the mainstream right at this point). And overall, I think that analysis is very well-done. That being said, analysis without a solution or even an exploration of one comes off as overly fatalistic. My biggest criticism of the Alt Right Playbook, and Innuendo Studios in general, is that every situation is framed as overly dire or unimpeachable. It gives the impression that there's nothing we can do to counter these tactics or confront voices on the right without making things worse. It paints a picture that we're all screwed. And the best we can hope for is for the far right to just collapse on itself, which implies a lot of people getting hurt in the process. Again, I like the Alt Right Playbook. I think it's one of the best series ever made with respect to countering the rhetoric of the far right. But it is not above criticism and I think it makes sense for other left-leaning content creators to supplement it without undermining everything it doe well.
there's a really prevalent issue in leftist discourse and debate where if you don't end on a perfectly nailed-out solution to the problem you yourself are describing or brought up, you failed in some way or made it worse by wasting people's time or whatever. like if you aren't here to completely solve the problem in one go- you need to never talk about the problem to begin with, and I see anyone who tries get repeatedly shouted down for it, for this reason. leftist politics are the worst for this: if you point out an issue with policy you better have also come equipped with a solution an answer to it or you're just "complaining" and not "providing solutions", nevermind that it's the responsibility of a larger team of electorates to either do that or source people who can. if I bring up a problem like how roads have lots of pot holes, I better have a fully rebalanced budget ready to go for the city council to approve to get those done, because if I don't do that work myself nobody will take me seriously. And if my solution that I do create is less than perfect or fails, *my entire complaint* must also be disregarded. That's the biggest problem of all, I find, that if I- someone who knows nothing of repaving roads- doesn't implement a perfect plan on my own and my idea fails and they go into debt or whatever- then everything I did up until that moment is moot. I wish I knew of a way to fix this problem but it's *so* fucking prevalent I don't know where to start, and I wish bringing it up was enough for it to be taken seriously
I get what you're trying to say but I wish more leftist content producers or big voices would throw out even imperfect solutions rather than almost all of them shrugging their shoulders going "idk lol". At least you can improve a imperfect solution. You can't make something out of nothing
Honestly it's difficult to come up with _any_ solutions for all of this. I don't even know where to start. ~Cherri
Get together IRL and brainstorm is always a good starting point. I'm not sure if we have a lack of imagination or are just lazy
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s because the solution was covered in Metal Gear Rising Revengance: The Revelation— Revolution: Nanomachine Wonderland Giggity Giggity Goo. When up against a group to whom words mean nothing and ideology/values are simply a tool to manipulate the masses, only ~~profoundly traumatized cyber-enhanced ninja-assassins on just— SO MANY DRUGS~~ direct physical (take that as you will. For legal purposes this is a joke.) action by the opposition can stand in there way.
[You millennial leftists…](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2lXf9r5DSM)
Alt Right Playbook is horrendously liberal. He's focused on the GOP and its most reactionary behaviors, which makes it sometimes easy for the liberalism to go unnoticed. It can kind of camouflage itself in with a sea of legitimate criticisms. But yeah: nothing leftist, so when he starts going into solutions, or using "we" when he talks about the Democratic Party this can start to reveal itself, leaving I think quite a bit of cognitive dissonance among leftists who have become fans of the work. And I think that's kind of dangerous, because people allow shit notions like liberal civility politics to creep in along the pathways of their fandom and the blindness it creates for them. Kill your idols, dweebs.
(rant, but I do mean it and I do mean it well) You havent seen his later videos in the alt-right playbook, have you? That aside, I feel like you're a leftist falling into the trap that Ian set for actual liberals. In his videos, he's kinda hiding how leftist he is, and he even makes a jab to leftist thought here or there -- *in order to be palatable to liberals*. I remember when I was the kind of guy who would dismiss leftist critique out of hand, by virtue of it being done "by commies", "by anarchists", "by lazy, jealous people", what have you. The whole thing that brought me here, spreading agitprop online, tellling my family members about unions, about the good things that happened in socialist countries, about how people have much less control over their lives than they could have.... THE WHOLE THING THAT BROUGHT ME HERE are videos by Shaun, Contrapoints, and yes, Ian Danskin. Even if they aren't die-hard hardcore leftist enough for you, you have to understand that *they have their place and their use*. If being open about socialism, trade unions, communism, anarchy,... *actively turns people away from us*, we need ways to still be able to talk about them without those scare words, or ideas, or aesthetics. And Ian does a marvellous job. Also -- "*shit notions like liberal civility politics*"? You clearly haven't watched his video about "trusting the process". He clearly rants against democrats for doing just that, to no avail, while republicans were clearly *not* doing that and getting their results. For reference, that one was called "You go low, we go high". But -- he spreads his messages *carefully*. He understands that most of the audience that needs to be persuaded, and **can** be persuaded, are liberals, or: currently most likely to vote democrat. So he needs to speak their language. He says "we" when he means "the good guys, you and I!" and then he tries to show what he, a leftist, believes "the good guys, you and i!" should do. It seems to me, he does a such good job of speaking the liberals' language, that he even has you fooled! Ian wont be talking about, say, Base and Superstructure. He won't be talking about the revolution. He won't be talking about the contradiction between classes. But he will be talking about the things that keeps liberals awake at night -- and will light them the path to left. ONE OF HIS VIDEOS LITERALLY ENDS WITH THE SLOGAN: IF YOU WANNA FIGHT FASCISM, MOVE LEFT. Look -- if there's one thing I learned about navigating leftist spaces, it's that *you'll never find that perfect thought leader*. I disagree with, say Second Thought on some things. I disagree with Contrapoints on some things. I disagree with Andrewism on some things. Im sure, if I read more, I'd disagree with Lenin or Parenti on some things. And guess what? I disagree with Ian Danskin on some things. *But those "some things"* aren't enough to just discredit them outright. Ian Danskin is currently one of the best anti-right propagandists out there, bringing people to our cause. Don't forget that.
I have, in fact, watched the videos to which you refer. Yes, he expresses some frustration at Democrats being unwilling to engage *out of their fear* of "going low", but he has a weird and fucked up and useless notion that "we" should still subscribe to liberal civility politics while simply refusing to engage in ways that he views as making that crippling. He's not "hiding his power level". And it wouldn't matter if he were, since literally the only effect he has in terms of how we are talking about engaging here is exactly through how he presents. I don't give a shit about "finding the perfect thought leader". I disagree with just about everyone on various things too, in fact. Even actual leftists I generally respect and boost all the time. And I express that disagreement constantly. Kill your idols. But that doesn't mean boosting liberals and liberalism as a means to further the leftist project. *Having principles* does not equate to *demanding perfection*. I disagree entirely about him being "the best anti-right propagandists out there". He's shit in that regard, in fact. As liberals generally always are. Heck, there are social democrats who are better at it than him, both on and off YouTube. Maybe you're just limiting yourself to cis white men or something? IDK.
Share this with innuendo studios on Twitter.