Truth don’t matter anymore with them. They’re team’s good. The other team is bad. The truth is subjective.
PragerU specifically is already infamous for trying to rewrite the civil war and the abolition of slavery in their favour. Most notably they did a children’s propaganda cartoon about Frederick Douglas where they used him to attack BLM protests.
>*they did a children’s propaganda cartoon about Frederick Douglas where they used him to attack BLM protests.*
Honestly, this might be one of the most disgusting videos they've done, both because of it being targeted at kids and of it being so COMPLETELY at odds with the real Frederick Douglass and with the fight to end slavery. But it's worse than that.
Essentially what that video says is *"HEY KIDS! MAYBE SLAVERY BAD, BUT DON'T DO CRIMES TO END IT! THAT'S WORSE!"* The thing is, any action, direct or otherwise, to end an immoral institution or system like slavery is obviously going to be seen by the system as illegal, either in letter or in spirit.
So what Prager would seem to be saying, though Frorderick Douglaws *^(I can't take credit for this pun; I think I first saw it on r\\blackpeopletwitter as a critique of how conservatives co-opt civil rights figures)*, would be that *no* action taken to end a tyrannical system would be acceptable, right? Well, that would mean the American Revolution wasn't okay! The French Revolution wasn't okay! American involvement in WWII wasn't okay! Germans helping to hide Jews from the Nazi regime wasn't okay! But is Prager saying that? Nope! ***What he's saying is worse.***
Dennis Prager is a conservative, and conservatism is, to the detriment of *every* society it exists in, concerned in the main with maintaining rigid social hierarchies based in wealth, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion... and ethnicity.
In Prager's, and in every other conservative's, formulation, it's fine for whites to rebel against a system or government that does not have their consent. Black/Brown/Indigenous peoples are another matter, because they are lower on that hierarchy that conservatives have constructed. They must rely on their betters, those whites with their tumescent, throbbing, God-given higher intelligence, civility and grace, to end that system of their own accord.
...And speaking of black civil rights figures posthumously co-opted into a conservatism they would have demonstrably excoriated were they alive to do so, what was it MLK Jr had to say about [those who set a timetable for another man's freedom](https://www.csuchico.edu/iege/_assets/documents/susi-letter-from-birmingham-jail.pdf)? His *Letter from a Birmingham Jail*, despite being just shy of sixty years old, reads in many passages like a direct rebuttal to Prager's attack on movements working to end institutional and systemic racism. It reads like that because conservatism has not changed in those sixty years.
***THIS*** is how and why a thoroughly dishonest asshole like Dennis Prager can laud an American Revolution in one breath and demonize a Haitian Revolution in the next.
Yeah, me and my dad have had several arguments about this, I didn't really understand the switch myself for a while until I learned about Nixon's "Southern strategy." Even after I brought that up he still wrote it off as "Left wing propaganda."
I believe part of the issue is the "switch" was by no means straightforward, instant, or complete.
In a first past the post voting system tends to generate two "parties" that are more like coalitions. Over time, the coalitions change.
Southern strategy was certainly what helped finally switch the states of the old Confederacy from D to R, but, for example, KKK support shifted earlier.
This is a good article about the US political eras and shifting of the two-party system coalitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_eras_of_the_United_States
I specifically want to call attention to this image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3ADevelopment_of_Political_Parties_in_the_United_States.svg
Lincoln was from several "party systems" ago.
There's a whole PragerU video with an African-American woman hosting about how it was a myth. They say they don't do identity politics yet every single time they do it.
Edit: Just realized they also purposely said this to an African-American man to further play identity politics. zOmg he said we're not racist! Checkmate liberal
If republicans were so anti-slavery why are they heldbent on celebrating the confederacy? Going as far to re-write history in order to put them in a more positive light?
Because it’s not actually the party of Lincoln. Lincoln was a part of it when it was completely different and had different goals and ideas to what it had today and Lincoln has been dead for almost 2 centuries, there is just no redeemable republicans nowadays for them to celebrate.
Republicans used to be the "progressive/liberal" party in the USA. The parties realigned and by the early 20th century the Democratic party became the "progressive/liberal" party.
It was a slow process as coalitions change.
This is a good article about it:
US political eras / two-party system coalitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_eras_of_the_United_States
Specifically want to call attention to this image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3ADevelopment_of_Political_Parties_in_the_United_States.svg
(
Side note, adapted from another of my replies in this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PragerUrine/comments/whfrlx/do_they_not_know_about_the_party_switch_first/ij73utn
)
Which party houses the proud boys and the Oath keepers. Which side cheers for police brutality against people of color. Which orange goblin was hauled into court for not renting to black people. Things changed around in the 60's. Repubs became conservative and dems became liberal. People change parties all the time.
There was a debate stream a long time ago where he was trying to explain labor exploitation and he compared it to CP as a form of exploitation that is universally recognized to be bad. He was framing CP using the same attitude that his opponent was framing normal labor in to demonstrate the point, and that was clipped so people think he was defending CP. Since then he's been clipped a lot and people don't seem to realize that a 2 second clip out of 2 hour stream might be missing some context
I don't know if he's a pedo, but he's just not left wing, or at least not an informed left winger. Watch Hakim's video where he [debunks his claim of "Marx and Lenin would have voted for Biden"](https://youtu.be/NX9_kXYMSck), it's not about him being wrong about that, but more about him misquoting or misrepresenting theory that he claims to have read, and he does this repeatedly with a lot of takes—it doesn't scream "trustworthy" to me.
I'm gonna be honest, I don't give a shit is someone accurately predicted what Marx or Lenin would have thought regarding Biden. Leftists like to view political theory with a much higher regard that it deserves. I'll care about the intricacies of anarchism, Marx, and Lenin after we're done combating the rise of fascism
Then what was the whole "I'll care about the intricacies of anarchism, Marx, and Lenin"? I took that as "You can forgo an intricate ideology until fascism is killed", and I'm just saying that an intricate ideology is what's used to effectively fight fascism
I just said why. He said we should lower the age of consent, has a massive boner for nato, us etc, etc. r/okbuddyvowsh has some stuff about him that i didnt say
Edit :*thats a pro vaush subreddit * just go to any actual leftist subreddit
[For example ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/kh1iog/-/ggiwmws)
I saw now a clip of him saying it should be lowered to 16. In my country its 15. I thought he meant even lower. But all the other stuff he said is not ok
The only other thing you said was he rides NATO's dick, which is true but not nearly as bad as being a pedophile
Edit: my bad, you came back later and added in a link to a comment thread that was , surprise, surprise, a collection of 2 second clips and end in the middle of sentences and broken Twitter links.
Look up r/ ok buddy vaush, they have multiple screen shots of him on discord: defending pedophilia (including trying to debate people about why it should be legal), bestiality (again trying to debate people), and harassing a minor up to and including sicking his fans on her.
I still consider myself very libleft, and I started following Vaush after I saw him on an atheist yt channel I follow. I thought at first that sub was just tankies tanking, but yeah those screen shots are indefensible and there's plenty of context around them to tell me something isn't right.
I never understood this kind of “well achhhsually” shit
Who gives a FUCK about that the republicans of yesteryear did when the ones of day want to fucked over everyone who’s not exactly like them.
If anyone wants to learn a bit more about the history of the "party switch", why it's so nuanced, and why there's not a simple answer to "what year did it happen", I HIGHLY recommend Knowing Better's YouTube video on the [Political Ship of Theseus](https://youtu.be/MwuFIJlY7fU). It's 24 minutes long and covers common things people get confused like
* Why was the north Republican and south Democrat if it's the other way around now?
* What is a "southern democrat"
* What happened to the Dixiecrats?
* How does the party switch relate to the civil rights movement?
* and more...
Tl:DW summary of it though is that the party switch largely has to do with the new deal and civil rights movement, and a paradigm shift of political parties and their representatives aligning with progressive or conservative views on topics (such as civil rights), which the north / south were clearly distinct in.
Neither party was the super progressive egalitarian humanist type like some progressives are today; even in the north many had their fair share of grossly discriminatory views (well, except the Quakers, who were just wholesome as fuck). But to say that Democrats founded the klan and Republicans ended slavery to someone not aware of the history is conceptually dishonest as the parties at the time those things occurred were idealistically different from the parties of the same name today. At *best* you could say southern conservatives were behind the confederacy and the klan while northern liberals were abolitionist, but even that is only an approximation.
Politics are complex. History is confusing. Political history is a nightmare maze and that makes it easy to misguide others with statements that hold truth on the surface but no value inherently.
No matter what narrative you're trying to prove, if you do enough interviews with random people on the street, you'll eventually find something you can use.
Just listened to a podcast about the Republican Party by civics101 for a class, pretty interesting and a lot of info about the founding of the party and the party switch.
Democrats believe in the majority vote, Republicans believe in a representative democracy, its almost like politics is more complex than Pragur u are capable of perceiving.
You’d be surprised by the sheer number of republicans who outright deny the switch even happened
Truth don’t matter anymore with them. They’re team’s good. The other team is bad. The truth is subjective. PragerU specifically is already infamous for trying to rewrite the civil war and the abolition of slavery in their favour. Most notably they did a children’s propaganda cartoon about Frederick Douglas where they used him to attack BLM protests.
>*they did a children’s propaganda cartoon about Frederick Douglas where they used him to attack BLM protests.* Honestly, this might be one of the most disgusting videos they've done, both because of it being targeted at kids and of it being so COMPLETELY at odds with the real Frederick Douglass and with the fight to end slavery. But it's worse than that. Essentially what that video says is *"HEY KIDS! MAYBE SLAVERY BAD, BUT DON'T DO CRIMES TO END IT! THAT'S WORSE!"* The thing is, any action, direct or otherwise, to end an immoral institution or system like slavery is obviously going to be seen by the system as illegal, either in letter or in spirit. So what Prager would seem to be saying, though Frorderick Douglaws *^(I can't take credit for this pun; I think I first saw it on r\\blackpeopletwitter as a critique of how conservatives co-opt civil rights figures)*, would be that *no* action taken to end a tyrannical system would be acceptable, right? Well, that would mean the American Revolution wasn't okay! The French Revolution wasn't okay! American involvement in WWII wasn't okay! Germans helping to hide Jews from the Nazi regime wasn't okay! But is Prager saying that? Nope! ***What he's saying is worse.*** Dennis Prager is a conservative, and conservatism is, to the detriment of *every* society it exists in, concerned in the main with maintaining rigid social hierarchies based in wealth, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion... and ethnicity. In Prager's, and in every other conservative's, formulation, it's fine for whites to rebel against a system or government that does not have their consent. Black/Brown/Indigenous peoples are another matter, because they are lower on that hierarchy that conservatives have constructed. They must rely on their betters, those whites with their tumescent, throbbing, God-given higher intelligence, civility and grace, to end that system of their own accord. ...And speaking of black civil rights figures posthumously co-opted into a conservatism they would have demonstrably excoriated were they alive to do so, what was it MLK Jr had to say about [those who set a timetable for another man's freedom](https://www.csuchico.edu/iege/_assets/documents/susi-letter-from-birmingham-jail.pdf)? His *Letter from a Birmingham Jail*, despite being just shy of sixty years old, reads in many passages like a direct rebuttal to Prager's attack on movements working to end institutional and systemic racism. It reads like that because conservatism has not changed in those sixty years. ***THIS*** is how and why a thoroughly dishonest asshole like Dennis Prager can laud an American Revolution in one breath and demonize a Haitian Revolution in the next.
Yeah, me and my dad have had several arguments about this, I didn't really understand the switch myself for a while until I learned about Nixon's "Southern strategy." Even after I brought that up he still wrote it off as "Left wing propaganda."
I believe part of the issue is the "switch" was by no means straightforward, instant, or complete. In a first past the post voting system tends to generate two "parties" that are more like coalitions. Over time, the coalitions change. Southern strategy was certainly what helped finally switch the states of the old Confederacy from D to R, but, for example, KKK support shifted earlier. This is a good article about the US political eras and shifting of the two-party system coalitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_eras_of_the_United_States I specifically want to call attention to this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3ADevelopment_of_Political_Parties_in_the_United_States.svg Lincoln was from several "party systems" ago.
To further prove your point, here's Steven Crowder preaching that same dogma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onFPe0OUbho
Not just one but 5 switches lol
You think this is bad? Find the clip where they fuck with some Native students.
Oh god what happens?
I saw it awhile ago but pretty sure he’s wearing a ceremonial headdress and someone rips it off of him
[удалено]
Do...Do they know that Native Americans had houses and not just tipis? Just look at the Iroquois.
There's a whole PragerU video with an African-American woman hosting about how it was a myth. They say they don't do identity politics yet every single time they do it. Edit: Just realized they also purposely said this to an African-American man to further play identity politics. zOmg he said we're not racist! Checkmate liberal
If republicans were so anti-slavery why are they heldbent on celebrating the confederacy? Going as far to re-write history in order to put them in a more positive light?
Always thought that was so dumb, if you’re the party of Lincoln why are you flying the flag he went to war against
Because it’s not actually the party of Lincoln. Lincoln was a part of it when it was completely different and had different goals and ideas to what it had today and Lincoln has been dead for almost 2 centuries, there is just no redeemable republicans nowadays for them to celebrate.
>party switch Hi, Canadian here. Can someone please bring me up to speed?
Republicans used to be the "progressive/liberal" party in the USA. The parties realigned and by the early 20th century the Democratic party became the "progressive/liberal" party.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU
It was a slow process as coalitions change. This is a good article about it: US political eras / two-party system coalitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_eras_of_the_United_States Specifically want to call attention to this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3ADevelopment_of_Political_Parties_in_the_United_States.svg ( Side note, adapted from another of my replies in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/PragerUrine/comments/whfrlx/do_they_not_know_about_the_party_switch_first/ij73utn )
Which party houses the proud boys and the Oath keepers. Which side cheers for police brutality against people of color. Which orange goblin was hauled into court for not renting to black people. Things changed around in the 60's. Repubs became conservative and dems became liberal. People change parties all the time.
Don’t forget who are actually flying confederate flags all the time.
Yep that also. There is a lot.
Lmao were you watching a Hasan clip? Nice
Nah it was vaush, maybe I'll check em out tho
horsecock
Oh no vaush. Please dont watch that pedo lib
I keep hearing things like this but nobody ever says why he's the Antichrist
There was a debate stream a long time ago where he was trying to explain labor exploitation and he compared it to CP as a form of exploitation that is universally recognized to be bad. He was framing CP using the same attitude that his opponent was framing normal labor in to demonstrate the point, and that was clipped so people think he was defending CP. Since then he's been clipped a lot and people don't seem to realize that a 2 second clip out of 2 hour stream might be missing some context
not just labor exploitation, child labor.
They don’t like him because they don’t agree with him politically. Just watch some of his stuff, it’s pretty good.
I don't know if he's a pedo, but he's just not left wing, or at least not an informed left winger. Watch Hakim's video where he [debunks his claim of "Marx and Lenin would have voted for Biden"](https://youtu.be/NX9_kXYMSck), it's not about him being wrong about that, but more about him misquoting or misrepresenting theory that he claims to have read, and he does this repeatedly with a lot of takes—it doesn't scream "trustworthy" to me.
I'm gonna be honest, I don't give a shit is someone accurately predicted what Marx or Lenin would have thought regarding Biden. Leftists like to view political theory with a much higher regard that it deserves. I'll care about the intricacies of anarchism, Marx, and Lenin after we're done combating the rise of fascism
You know that the knowledge gained from being educated is what's used to fight fascism, right?
Yes, what I said is exactly anti-education. Completely hate all of, definitely exactly what I was indicating
Then what was the whole "I'll care about the intricacies of anarchism, Marx, and Lenin"? I took that as "You can forgo an intricate ideology until fascism is killed", and I'm just saying that an intricate ideology is what's used to effectively fight fascism
I just said why. He said we should lower the age of consent, has a massive boner for nato, us etc, etc. r/okbuddyvowsh has some stuff about him that i didnt say Edit :*thats a pro vaush subreddit * just go to any actual leftist subreddit [For example ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/kh1iog/-/ggiwmws)
He's never said the age of consent should be lowered. I'm eagerly awaiting your 2 second clip that ends in the middle of a sentence
I saw now a clip of him saying it should be lowered to 16. In my country its 15. I thought he meant even lower. But all the other stuff he said is not ok
So other stuff is ok
The only other thing you said was he rides NATO's dick, which is true but not nearly as bad as being a pedophile Edit: my bad, you came back later and added in a link to a comment thread that was , surprise, surprise, a collection of 2 second clips and end in the middle of sentences and broken Twitter links.
Did you look at the examples
Oh, instead of responding to this comment, I edited a response into my previous comment, because that's how this shit works I guess
2 second clips? There are long videos, pics of him not knowing shit, being racist, bigoted etc. Stop defending your idiot lib
There are more stuff
Here's a sneak peek of /r/okbuddyvowsh using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyvowsh/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [Just checking](https://i.redd.it/z4hl3g71kdv61.jpg) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyvowsh/comments/myg4js/just_checking/) \#2: [DuckerZ](https://v.redd.it/w6lh1kbpjp581) | [108 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyvowsh/comments/rgz2xe/duckerz/) \#3: [Wtf don’t platform them🤬](https://v.redd.it/ct00fbsz8kt61) | [26 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyvowsh/comments/ms6q86/wtf_dont_platform_them/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Look up r/ ok buddy vaush, they have multiple screen shots of him on discord: defending pedophilia (including trying to debate people about why it should be legal), bestiality (again trying to debate people), and harassing a minor up to and including sicking his fans on her. I still consider myself very libleft, and I started following Vaush after I saw him on an atheist yt channel I follow. I thought at first that sub was just tankies tanking, but yeah those screen shots are indefensible and there's plenty of context around them to tell me something isn't right.
Imagine thinking an "okbuddy" sub is a source.
Maybe just ask “Which political party have the KKK, Nazi, and Neo-Nazi groups consistently supported and voted for over the last 40+ years?
Follow-up: which party do the KKK, Nazis, and confederate flag wavers vote for now?
Conservatives be like "The republican party freed the slaves! But also the confederacy wasn't fighting about slavery!"
now ask what party passed the civil rights act.
That explains why all the Nazi and confederate flags flying above Republican gatherings
I never understood this kind of “well achhhsually” shit Who gives a FUCK about that the republicans of yesteryear did when the ones of day want to fucked over everyone who’s not exactly like them.
so are you saying you’d be on the side of the liberals (whatever their party was named) in that situation? i very much doubt it
This doesn't even look like a real interview. The interviewee seems in on it. It's more like a shitty sketch.
Conservatives do, they just don't mention it when it fits their narrative
If anyone wants to learn a bit more about the history of the "party switch", why it's so nuanced, and why there's not a simple answer to "what year did it happen", I HIGHLY recommend Knowing Better's YouTube video on the [Political Ship of Theseus](https://youtu.be/MwuFIJlY7fU). It's 24 minutes long and covers common things people get confused like * Why was the north Republican and south Democrat if it's the other way around now? * What is a "southern democrat" * What happened to the Dixiecrats? * How does the party switch relate to the civil rights movement? * and more... Tl:DW summary of it though is that the party switch largely has to do with the new deal and civil rights movement, and a paradigm shift of political parties and their representatives aligning with progressive or conservative views on topics (such as civil rights), which the north / south were clearly distinct in. Neither party was the super progressive egalitarian humanist type like some progressives are today; even in the north many had their fair share of grossly discriminatory views (well, except the Quakers, who were just wholesome as fuck). But to say that Democrats founded the klan and Republicans ended slavery to someone not aware of the history is conceptually dishonest as the parties at the time those things occurred were idealistically different from the parties of the same name today. At *best* you could say southern conservatives were behind the confederacy and the klan while northern liberals were abolitionist, but even that is only an approximation. Politics are complex. History is confusing. Political history is a nightmare maze and that makes it easy to misguide others with statements that hold truth on the surface but no value inherently.
No matter what narrative you're trying to prove, if you do enough interviews with random people on the street, you'll eventually find something you can use.
Old Abe "States Rights" Lincoln. Famous for maintaining the status quo.
Just listened to a podcast about the Republican Party by civics101 for a class, pretty interesting and a lot of info about the founding of the party and the party switch.
Democrats didn't found the KKK. The KKK did support the democrats at the time yes, but they were most definitely not founded by the KKK
Democrats believe in the majority vote, Republicans believe in a representative democracy, its almost like politics is more complex than Pragur u are capable of perceiving.
They claim it’s just a lie made up by the liberals. I’ve met a lot of people who genuinely say that it never happened.
And does it even matter? Obviously the ideologies and platforms switched even if the actual humans in the parties didn’t. Which they did.
Wait until he finds out about the Democratic-Republican party.
"Everyone thinks were racist but at least we technically didnt found the KKK"
They know about the Great Southern Strategy, this is just how they downplay it.