Yeah, it's pretty disgusting... what's worse is that some people treat them like a reputable source.

I've given feedback on youtube several times that their content is plain offensive

Fearmongering 101

@Sauron I had a teacher in high school who used them as a source on the history in the middle ages. 

This guy deconstructs PragerU in an interesting way, imo

@lewdicrous That's a rather interesting take. Analysing the Prager U oeuvre as a collective work of propaganda is pretty cool way of going about it. 

Looking through the bullshit, if you will

Oh yeah, Dennis Prager once made a video about how modern civilization and concepts like freedom is based on Judeo-Christian theology. Anyone who studied history can refute that in less than 20 minutes. 

@captain_to_fire After having watched a lot of their infotainment videos, they (and by that I mean Dennis Prager) seems to be caught in the weird paradox that is conservative libertarianism.

On one hand their speakers seem to advocate for maximizing freedom in all its forms, yet, they also want to dictate how you think. 

For example, they have several videos advocating for a free market economy (the more free the better), but in their video on modern art they outright say that the free market doesn't work and that proper art is to be determined by a technoratic panel of experts.   

A lot of these "classical liberals" as they call themselves don't even know what they're talking about when it comes to state regulations to the point that mentioning "state regulation" becomes their own trigger warning.

And don't even get me started with Dennis Prager's cringe worthy religious apologetics 

Nonetheless, most religious conservatives in the US call themselves "pro-life" but healthcare becomes negotiable.

@captain_to_fireYou unfortunately see this a lot when you observe extremists of any sort. They all reach a point where their ideology doesn't stand up to what's being observed in reality.

I hate going back to the art example, but I do think it's a good example.

A lot of these more right-wing political types tend to adhere to the ideas of objectivist aesthetics, which values accurate representations of reality and manifestations of will as the goal of art. But objectivism also preaches about the free market. But what do you do when the free market chooses not to adhere to objectivistic aesthetics? Apparently, Prager U decided to just swollow their own pride and began dictating what's good and what's bad. If you're Paul Joseph Watson, you chuck it up to a nefarious plot by an ill defined other.

You see the same thing with the libertarian-to-alt right idea, where people will paradoxically argue for defending freedom by limiting freedom:

In regards to Dave Rubin, that podcast made me lose what little respect I had for him. While it pains me to say, I think I'm beginning to agree with Ana Kasperian on Dave being an ideological shill. He's basically a talking head for hire.

Tbh I'm not a fan of TYT especially its hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian as they have the tendency to use ad hominem attacks on people they disagree and the Dave Rubin video by Ana is no exception (including the alleged funding from the Koch brothers which I think is moot and immaterial to the actual argument), they often pander with the crazy people on the left and they don't have the balls to criticize another Abrahamic religion involving headscarves and child marriages because they're afraid to lose their "progressive" street cred.

With that said, I do agree that Dave has become a talking head for hire. 

But I do understand why Jordan Peterson lectures or PragerU videos garner thousands or even millions of views and it's not because it is absolutely correct but rather, it is presented in a way that is easy to digest which panders ideas they agree with by anchoring awful ideas with some truth and thinly disguise "tribalism" as a quest for "free speech", which is often misconstrued nowadays by both extreme sides.

TYT is in many ways symptomatic of the problems that plagues the political left. It's this kinda soft critique where explanations of a phenomenon is often used as an excuse.

Child marriage are accepted because it's part of a culture. The same with headscarfs.

All the while they tend to critique symptoms of larger problems rather than the problems themselves.

However, the opposite reaction, where cultural context isn't even considered, is also not really helpful.

I surely do understand why people like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are popular. They are almost the textbook definition of what my dad calls "negative populism". It's this notion that nuanced problems have easy and well defined answers.

There are no grey zones in their world. Only black and white.

Although, they're also excellent at double speak, especially Jordan Peterson.

He's the one preaching about the evils of creating a system based on equality of outcome (to which I would actually agree), yet he preaches equality of outcome when it comes to finding a romantic partner, due to social concerns.

The same can be said for Shapiro's adherence to "American values", where those are seen as set in stone and as a prerequisite for freedom. Essentially, you can only be free if you think a certain way.

Quote

Child marriage are accepted because it's part of a culture. The same with headscarfs.

Hmm nah. Sure child marriage has been a part of culture but it doesn't mean it is moral or right. Same goes for forcing women to wear headscarves or telling them what to wear because this is 21st century. But again, it's a topic for another discussion.

But that is the conflagration.

It's a form of culturally based moral relativism. A lot of people on the left tend to conflate the explanation of a phenomenon as a justification for a phenomenon.

This idea seems to be rooted in a general fear of seeming racist or unaccepting.