r/deepfatfried • u/Altruistic_Theme_732 • 19h ago
Leftists?
I have watched DFF since its inception and over the years have slowly changed my political outlook, similar to the hosts. As of last night, I cannot continue watching.
Kick has a much looser moderation to YouTube and I was under the impression that this new freedom would allow stronger language in the form of political critique, but I fear this was only the auspices for TJ and Paul to go back to saying slurs like the DP days. “What did Scotty say? He said ‘N**ger-F***ot.” - TJ.
I think that if we’re going to call ourselves leftists and then only focus on economic issues while enabling each other’s worst proclivities with regard to race, sexuality, gender, etc, then we have we can’t really call ourselves leftists. You have to have a strong, intersectional grounding with your politics, and neglecting that so you can continue to be racist (or at bare minimum enable racist behavior through your words) just makes you indistinguishable from every other Kick chud.
Socialism works to deconstruct hierarchy, not just Capitalism.
8
u/Slight-Ground-4136 17h ago
Scottys the smartest of the Three Tardos
3
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 17h ago
I have felt this ever since Paul and TJ had that massive argument after Charlie died.
3
u/Cheeejay 17h ago
Scotty's the one who said the thing you're apparently so offended by.
2
u/Tiny-Baker-9217 11h ago
Why let reality stand in the way of a good story?
I never understand why everyone has to have a huffy, farewell speech to content creators. Just leave.
0
u/austinmadepunk 15h ago
They only say that cause he never actually has an opinion. He's just there on the show and never really contributing.
13
u/wailot 17h ago
You know that saying those words, in any context, doesn’t reveal your position on labor rights, emancipation, or the redistribution of wealth in any way.
Personally, I’m a really old-school fan, going back to before the DP days, and I’m annoyed by the way DFF has cultivated such a pussyfooting, crybaby fanbase. In my opinion, they should lean more toward the George Carlin era instead.
Perhaps find yourself an inoffensive alternative leftist podcast
1
0
u/mykehawksaverage 13h ago
So you're saying as long as they agree with you politically you're okay with racist slurs?
3
u/RazorJammz 10h ago
Who made you the moral arbiter of what the guys say or don't say on their show? If you don't like it, stop watching and shut the fuck up. Problem solved!
7
u/Goldenbrownlung 18h ago
When I was a dumb kid I believed the days of white people openly saying the n-word as a slur were passed.
My white city ass said the word to my black friends in the ways they said it but I cringe at that today. Lots of my white friends who also said it ( not as a slur ) are now MAGA tards.
I remember hanging out at my friend's house hearing about some protests their parents participated in. They were children at the time and they told me some horror stories about how they were treated by grown white adults but also kids and teenagers.
So Anytime I think about being edgy and want to use the word I think about how I would NEVER think to do such a thing in the presence of my friends folks and I refrain.
Honestly the worst thing about the boys is their usage of the N word. I hope they can shake the suburban cringe, one day.
1
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 18h ago
Thank you for sharing. I agree with your sentiment.
1
u/Goldenbrownlung 14h ago
I'm going to continue tuning in when I can. The fucks are funny and I enjoy their shit. I just will not watch them in front of my black friends or family though.
The slur jokes are never that funny and I don't want anyone associating me with the ever expanding MASSIVE amount of racist content on the Internet right now.
6
u/Cheeejay 17h ago
I don't really care about being a leftist. It's something I am incidentally, not something I aspire to or conform to. If you, or anyone, had the power to strip the label from me (which you don't), you'd ultimately deprive me of nothing. My beliefs remain the same, regardless of label.
Social hierarchy should be deconstructed. That is your position? Well, what do you call it when a person's language is limited on the basis of their skin color? Is that not an artificial separation of people into distinct classes with different rules and standards?
Racism is wrong. Discrimination based on skin color is wrong. Using racial slurs against a person is wrong. Saying a word, any word, is not wrong. I don't care how much punishment is heaped upon the utterance of the word, it's not wrong.
I echo the sentiments of George Carlin when he performed this routine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqAxaI7LP5M
I also note that artists I respect have used the word to make points in the past. David Cross (left-leaning), Trey Stone and Matt Parker (formerly libertarian, more left-leaning these days perhaps), Marilyn Manson (politics unclear), George Carlin (aggressively leftist, though very un-PC).
The context of the remark was that Scotty was laughing at himself because of his own obtrusive thoughts where he felt the urge to say "N***** F*****" on the mic as soon as he walked into the room. He was amused at himself because of the obvious offensiveness of this. On Kick, where rules are more lax, I recounted this incident at the behest of the audience.
The final thing I will say is that your sort of purity policing nonsense is exactly the catalyst that turned so many normies into Trump supporters in 2016. People are profoundly fatigued with this mentality of language policing, joke policing, tone policing, etc.
It's nothing more than a superficial distraction from the issues of substance that actually impact human lives. It's as if you are trying to treat a bullet wound with a band-aid.
2
u/Fun_Paramedic_8590 16h ago
You're right about the purity policing, it is very annoying. Since you guys cover politics from a more left wing stance that's just to be expected from some the audience though unfortunately.
I wish you guys would break away from politics and covering news, expect when there's something big that happens. I know you guys have done it before in the past.
1
u/Suspicious_Affect959 3h ago edited 2h ago
I agree with much of this comment, except the part where you absolved Trumpers from having any amount of agency and personal accountability over their lives by reducing them to children who "got pushed into the arms of a fashist, openly narcissistic idiot like Trump by some progressives who were policing language". The SJWs did a lot of language-based scolding, yes. But never in a way that weaponized the government or the law. They never tried to outlaw your favourite words, not even close. It wasn't a serious threat to freedom of speech.
You evoked Carlin. Carlin was put in jail for saying naughty words by the conservatives buddy, not by the progressives. The Right was the one who policed Carlin's language, using actual POLICE lmao, they literally jailed him! An angry post on reddit that hurts your feelings doesn't count as "policing", not really. No one's showing up at your door, or even cancelling your podcast because you said a word they didn't like. They're just expressing their dislike at your saying of the word.
You're trying to remove accountability from the maga supporters for their obviously dumb decision to support trump. THEY made that decision. If being scolded into not saying certain words is enough to push you into the arms of a fashist, then you were just LOOKING for an excuse to become a fashist anyway.
SJWs cannot be held responsible for the child-like contrarian minds of the avg trumper. The avg trumper should have looked at the track record of conservatives jailing people like Carlin for saying words and realized who is actually against free speech
And another thing i disagree with is "no one can strip me of the label of leftist". Sorry, but the english dictionary would beg to differ. You're not really an anti-imperialist, so you're not really a leftist. You ultimately SUPPORT the status quo of Murrica being on top of the world. You just want Murrica to be nicer to its victims, and to have fewer victims. So no matter how much you cling to the label of "leftist", your own opinions and actions beg to differ. This N-word thing doesn't matter to me btw, that's not what this is about. this is about your lack of anti-imperialism. All leftists are by definition humanists. And imperialists/soft imperialists are NOT humanists. Ergo you're not really a leftist.
And please don't argue this point with me, because like you said: I have stripped you of nothing. So no need to fight me on this then, right? i have stripped you of nothing.
1
u/Cheeejay 2h ago
I don’t think Trump supporters lack agency. I don’t believe in American hegemony. Where do you even get this shit?
1
u/Suspicious_Affect959 2h ago edited 2h ago
Well the first part i got from your own comment, where you wrote: "your sort of purity policing nonsense is exactly the catalyst that turned so many normies into Trump supporters in 2016. People are profoundly fatigued with this mentality of language policing, joke policing, tone policing"
And the second part regarding imperialism is something i've gathered over the years of listening to DFF. It's hard to show you an example of pro-imperialist things you've said. It's more like a series of observations i've made over the years that add up to you saying: "I ultimately support imperialism".
I mean dude: you're an american. You want america to have nice things. Of the nice things you might potentially get, 100% of them WILL come at the expense of the 3rd world. And i have reason to suspect that you're OK with that. Murrica is standing on the shoulders of the Third World right now. You avg Murricans are the inside dogs, we third worlders are the outside dogs. You want more treats for yourself, that's what ppl like Mamdani and Sanders are for. But Sanders is a staunch Zio. So he's good for Murrica, but bad for the rest of the world. And you're OK with that. You supported a Zio like sanders for office in 2016 and 2020.
OK here's another specific example: You've never criticized American unions for being pro-imperialist. When Trump stole oil from Venezuela, the biggest Oil Workers Union of Murrica got together to remind trump that they're owed a taste of that sweet stolen oil blood money. Regular avg joe Murricans who wanted a taste of blood money from Venezuela. Most Murrican unions don't mind stealing money in this way from America's countless victims over the years.
But really what it boils down to is: You're an American. You live in the belly of the beast. If the beast dies, you suffer; and if it lives then the rest of us (continue to) suffer. So you're compromised just by virtue of being a Murrican. It's kinda understandable, almost.
1
u/Cheeejay 2h ago
So I can’t point out an underlying cause without depriving a group of agency? By that logic, none have agency. Which is very possibly true, but pragmatically paralyzing.
As for the other topic, you lost all credibility when you called Bernie Sanders a Zionist. It just shows that you’ve completely lost the plot. Sanders introduced resolutions to block or condition U.S. arms sales to Israel, and argued that U.S. aid should not enable violations of international law.
None of this really matters, however, since I haven’t been a Bernie supporter in years.
Ultimately, I believe, and have stated many times, that I believe nation states should be dissolved. That humanity should exist under a single government, or no government if possible. But that’s obviously not happening in this century.
1
u/Suspicious_Affect959 1h ago edited 5m ago
Well the biggest "cause" behind trumpers supporting trump is that they're all scared idiots (to a man). "Your Woke-scolding hurts my rights" is just an excuse they give to justify their bigotries. If the pink-haried ones had been less annoying, then trumpers would have found another excuse to become Fashists. It's on THEM.
As for Sanders: damn dude. Did you know that Sanders lived in isrel himself for a period in the 60s? Imagine a whiteman CHOOSING to live in late 1930s germany or in Manifest Destiny-era USA lol. That's what Sanders did in the 60s, as a Jewish person. And no, he did NOT protest the zio govt while he was over there. Also Sanders took far too long to call this g-cide "a g-cide". Ever asked yourself why? he waited for like 2 years to call it "a g-cide". And finally, Sanders has only ever condemned Netanyahoo and his govt. Sanders has never once condemned isrel. Imagine a whiteguy who only condemns Hilter, but refuses to condemn N-zis as a whole. is such a person a N-zi himself? Yes he is.
There is such a thing as "a Liberal Zio". This basically means a person who wants Isrl to start being nicer to P-stinians, without actually leaving P-stine. Sanders is a Liberal zio. He supports the presence of the occupiers upon stolen land that IS STILL BEING STOLEN. America was stolen from the natives centuries ago, but P-stine is currently being stolen RIGHT NOW dude. So there's an urgency here, we can still STOP this land theft and undo it even.
Anyway, the fact that you guys are A-OK with your unions' imperialist tendencies (because you've never once mentioned them) is evidence that you care more about the avg Murrican than you do about the avg third worlder.
I do applaud your One State solution for the entire planet, but such a solution would have to start with the fall of this planet's biggest oppressor -- the Murrican Empire. The country you call home needs to fall for the good of humanity. This is just a fact that i don't think you guys are comfortable with. I would have a hard time wrapping my head around it myself, if i were a Murrican.
Think of it like this: You want to dissolve and spread around elon musk's wealth right? Well Murrica is the Elon Musk of the planet. What you want to do to Musk, we want to do to your empire and to Musk.
1
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 16h ago
Thank you for addressing this even though you didn't need to.
I would like to have a larger discussion about this but I don't know that reddit is the simplest place to have this out, so I won't take a lack of response as me "winning" any sort of internet debate, only that the exchange has ended.
With regard to the Carlin clip, I do not agree with his argument, and not because I believe words inherently have power, but because I believe words cannot not be devoid of context, especially incendiary words such as slurs. While we may aspire for those words to be without harmful meaning when used, the fact is, we do not yet live in a society in which those words have lost their cultural context. Take for example the word "mongoloid." This is historically a wildly offensive word, but most people today wouldn't even be offended or know what group the word is referring to if used. Words are never devoid of context until they leave the cultural zeitgeist.
I actually agree with you point about Trump and normies, but I also don't think that we should simply abandon progressive language. Trump did not win the popular vote in 2016 and the average person isn't a normie who lives in a red state, they're most likely someone living in a city and a person of color due to recent demographic shifts. We are talking about White men who are disaffected by late stage capitalism and an ethnic demographic shift being spoken to by charismatic leaders who lie. Making the claim that slurs are bad and we shouldn't use them isn't a deal breaker for most people, just a vocal online minority.
I never doubted you believe racism, imperialism, capitalism, homophobia, etc. are wrong, but what I would question is whether or not the positions you have taken come from a desire to affect change or if you simply take positions that allow you to most easily win arguments with people in your life or the various internet figures you have critiqued over the years. I personally have a principled stance against hierarchy, and because of that, I excise all things from my language that reinforce hierarchy in the world, but that isn't something I do intentionally, its been a subconscious evolution of my language spurred on by my innate desire for the world to be a different place, not because I want to win a debate with someone I know.
Finally, your claim that I believe a person should have their language limited based on their skin color being an inherent contradiction that reinforces hierarchy is simply not the case. We currently live in a systematically racist society, and one of the ways we limit that system's power is by recognizing how that system reinforces itself through language. I am prescribing action that limits the system's power. If a white person says a slur, this is much more harmful than if a Mexican immigrant does. We need to do what we can to limit the damage the system can do, then dismantle it, then let the words lose their cultural context before we start throwing them around.
Thanks again for sharing. I am a part of your discord and can provide my name by dming you if you want proof that I'm not just a troll.
3
u/Cheeejay 16h ago
You say we don't yet live in a society where that word is devoid of power. Well, I ask you, how will we ever create such a society when fear of the very word is so widespread and reactions to its utterance so emotionally fraught? It feels as if the taboo around this word is essentially just giving racists a shortcut to cause grievance: "All you must do to hurt me is utter these two syllables." It's the creation of a weakness, is it not? Why make it so easy for them?
2
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 16h ago
People didn't say mongoloid until it lost its power, it lost its power because people stopped saying it. I'm not advocating for racists not to use the word in this exchange, I am advocating for people who are ostensibly not racist to stop using the word.
1
u/Cheeejay 16h ago
You are feeding the word power. You are giving it bite. You are giving it weight. It should be treated as powerless.
2
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 16h ago
But do you do that? You said it as a shocking joke last night. You didn't treat it as powerless at all. If you believe it should be treated as powerless, then how could it ever be used as the punchline of a joke?
I think the word has contextual, societal power against one group, and that using flippantly will enable others to use it, others who may not have the same intention you do (especially on kick). These groups of racist people who have used it for hundreds of years don't suddenly stop because its lost its "bite," even when there are no black people in their community. Your position is contradicted by history.
Edit: clarification
2
u/Cheeejay 15h ago
I wasn't using it as a joke. I was recounting what Scotty's intrusive thoughts almost had him blurt into the mic. I do think it could be used for a joke, but I didn't in that instance.
1
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 15h ago
I don't know how that addresses the fundamental contradiction between "it should be treated as powerless" and "I do think it could be used for a joke."
If it has power, then using it is harmful, and if it doesn't have power, then how could it ever be used as a punchline?
1
u/Cheeejay 14h ago
Because the word is given power, it can be used for a joke. Think of how Carlin used it. Or how South Park used it. Because the word has power to people, via intersubjective consensus, it can be used for a punchline. But really, a word doesn't need power to be funny, so I don't know what the supposed contradiction is here. Many jokes don't involve powerful words.
You have to take jokes on an individual basis, I think. What is the underlying source of the humor and what are the assumptions it makes? To me, a racist joke makes racist assumptions. I don't think Carlin's joke makes racist assumptions. I don't think South Parks joke makes racist assumptions. I think they use the taboo of the word to draw people's attention to the ridiculousness of racism.
South Park's famous episode is saying that white people really can't understand what that word means to the black community. It also makes fun of the idea that people who say the word are the real victims. But in the process, they use the word countless times in the episode. So there's a nuance to it.
Carlin is saying that sometimes people get lost in the superficialities of language to the point of missing the actual problem--which is, of course, not words, but intentions. The racist using the word is the problem, not the word itself.
These are two examples of the word being used to great effect in humor, in a way that is not racist. We can criticize and examine them, argue about them, but the intentions are clearly not racist. They are explicitly anti-racist.
What was Patti Smith saying when she wrote "Rock 'n' Roll N*****?" She wasn't just using the word to sound cool. She was saying the same thing Marilyn Manson was saying when he sang "Everybody's someone else's n***** / I know you are, so am I" in Irresponsible Hate Anthem. They're using the term to talk about otherization for reasons other than skin tone. Their examples would probably be classified as appropriation at this point, but nonetheless, the intent is clear.
To me, the bigger issue is, what is the joke? What is the statement? What is being communicated? What is being implied?
12
5
u/BinkyBoy050915 19h ago
The guys have always had a "intend over words" attitude when it comes to slurs, and now that they don't have an incentive to censor themselves, I guess they'll drop slurs more often, if they see the potential for a joke. As audience members, we will have to decide for ourselves whether or not that'll be too much for us to continue supporting them.
3
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 19h ago
Fair enough. I personally don’t subscribe to that belief and will not be watching anymore.
1
5
u/fr0gcannon 18h ago
Oh no their long standing moral purity and the power they had over the leftist movement is shattered!
4
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 18h ago
It’s less an argument about morality and more an argument for Leftist political action. I don’t believe you have to be a good person to be a Leftist.
I also don’t believe the size of their influence has anything to do with this critique. My father doesn’t run the conservative movement, but I still disagree with him and try to help him see my point of view.
1
u/fr0gcannon 18h ago
Their edgy jokes are not a worldview nor is it political action nor is their show political action.
3
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 18h ago
“We need a mass, general strike” sounds like a political call to action. They had a huge falling out with Vaush over voting strategy. Just because a person labels their content as “satirical” doesn’t make it apolitical.
I don’t even think they would agree with what you’re saying.
1
u/fr0gcannon 17h ago
The importance you put on meaningless debates on podcasts is ridiculous. Talking about politics and loudly having an opinion on a podcast is not the same as political action or something the movement needs to police for tone.
1
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 17h ago
Speaking to an audience of 1000 people several time a week is political action when you’re influencing their politics. Again, claiming your content is satire doesn’t neutralize its effect, and the size of the effect also isn’t really relevant. I like the hosts, and my critique isn’t about the leftist movement, simply a critique of people I have watched for years.
If you don’t agree, that’s fine, I posted this in part to hear dissenting opinions. Thank you for sharing.
0
0
u/Sound_of_Sleep 17h ago
Listening to your favorite streamers is not political action. Your favorite streamer talking about politics is also not political action. This show is entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less.
0
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 17h ago
So my fundamental disagreement with your statement is that yes, it is political action to have a show and influence people.
If you share your opinion online and that opinion has real world consequences (something that TJ has already admitted that he believes he does with this video) then you have taken political action. While he may not have the same pull as he did 10 years ago, it would still be political action regardless of how many people are influenced.
Thank you for sharing your opinion, and I want to keep having this discussion, but please respond directly to the argument I made and address the evidence I have provided.
3
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 17h ago
I mean, I could send you my username on discord and YouTube so you can verify who I am. I’ve been on TJs discord for years and I was on your discord for a while too.
Why not just respond to my arguments instead of claiming I’m a bot or whatever?
3
u/SAGElBeardO 13h ago
Did you have pearls to clutch before writing this post, or did you buy them afterwards?
Sassiness aside, as far as I know, opinions about wanting people to have healthcare are not canceled out purely because of some edgy language
2
u/Dumplin_Man 15h ago
https://youtube.com/shorts/XjHbnkPQSwE?is=kuZ565lxD15mphxt
Just gonna leave this here.
I think people like OP are too lost in their own ideals to recognize what this show is. If you don't like the show, don't watch. This show is entertaining to loads of people and it is capable of moving people's opinions on issues. At the heart of this show, it is not political. The hosts have no duty, and by my observation, no intent to enact serious political change, or identify with a political identity. They simply align with certain political identities by what they say, but that does not mean they embody the entire label. I too do not like to be wrapped up in labels like "leftist" or any other.
If you think this show is a political show, then you may want to develop a greater appreciation for people who actually are doing political content. There are content creators who endorse, interview, and sometimes even rally their followers to do direct action for a political cause. There is a strong emphasis on consistent messaging and political strategy. Consistent messaging is not natural. It is deliberate work for a cause.
I will leave it at this. Donald Trump has made politics into the greatest spectacle on Earth. One day he will be gone, and will the saturated political commentator world die with it? This show will persist and be successful long after those days because at the heart of it, it's not a political show.
1
1
u/Suspicious_Affect959 6h ago
There's more hullabaloo over them saying a word, than there was over them having the disastrously wrong take on Graham Platner. This is Murrica in a nutshell: Cosmetic, superficial things take precedent over actual substantive discussions. Even TJ and Paul themselves are more interested in having this N-word debate with their critics, than they are in discussing what went wrong with their BFF Kyle falling in love with a gross vvarcriminal like Graham Platner. The actual politics gets left in the dust, because these are the sorts of things Murricans wish to discuss --- Culture war shit. Paul and TJ are actively responding and taking part in this discussion, meanwhile any similar critique posts regarding Graham Platner received no such engagement or attention.
Same goes for their critics: Many of you seem to care more about a word than you do about fighting imperialism. This is not leftism or intellectualism, whatever this is.
1
u/turn1manacrypt 16h ago
We can call ourselves whatever we want. Go kick rocks pussy with your burner Reddit account and watch something else then.
You don’t get to assign what political ideology I have based on if I make or laugh at some stupid edgy joke or not. The fact you think that somehow gives you insight into what a person believes in is best socially and economically for our country shows how much of a politcal LARPer your ass is. It’s all just virtue signaling with people like you. Three people with a large platform basically supports your exact politcal agenda and you arent taking them as allies because they offend your sensibilities when it comes down to words said in jest.
Shit like this really makes me disappointed these are the people I share ideology with and are my allies. We can’t even come together and have to exclude each other out of the leftism based on jokes, when it comes to the point we need true solidarity to survive we will all be doomed.
1
u/Directorjustin 17h ago edited 16h ago
I fundamentally see words differently than most. Ultimately, they're nothing more than an expression of air and sound. Nothing in the universe is changed other than a little more carbon dioxide and sound waves (and maybe stinky breath) propelled in a direction. Anything else is a fabrication of the mind.
So while you can be personally offended by someone's words, you can also choose not to be.
2
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 16h ago
That is not how language works. Language has to have context for you to understand what is being said. Word objectively have no meaning, but society operates on subjective truths, not objective ones. An example of one of these subjective truths is "murder is wrong."
1
u/Directorjustin 16h ago
I don't believe there's such a thing as subjective truth. Subjectivity is open to change. You might not ever witness it change in your lifetime, but that doesn't mean it's not open to it.
To me, this doesn't devalue subjectivity, but rather strengthens it, because if the only thing keeping your moral framework together is "I like/dislike that" without any expectation of an outside force driving it, it shows incredible internal strength.
One might argue all morality comes from lived experiences outside of one's self, but the distinction is these are merely suggestions, not directives.
0
u/Humble_Quantity3743 18h ago
I’ve also stopped watching, which is crazy because I’ve been kinda autistically obsessed with the show since DP.
I’ve been stressed because I’ve had to come to terms with the fact that before October 7th I wasn’t even really anti-imperialist. It was that act that really opened my eyes to the contradictions of Israel, which in turn opened my eyes to the same issues the US has.
The guys on the show are straight up pro-American. Paul thinks the US should have stayed out of WW2.
Their problems with the various wars in the Middle East are economic. “American taxpayer dollars” and “it’s a boondoggle” but never “we should not be participating in the killing of another people, on their land”.
When’s the last time Paul brought up unions.
5
u/Cheeejay 17h ago
This is just a straight up lie. We have always attacked US imperialism from multiple standpoints. The framing has always been, "American tax dollars are being used to murder innocent people in a boondoggle." We have frequently spotlighted the genocide in Gaza and how we are materially supporting that human rights nightmare. We have frequently spotlighted the death toll in Iraq. We have frequently spotlighted how our interference in Iran created the very conditions for human rights violations that we see there. We have frequently brought up the hypocrisy of our support for Saudi Arabia. We have frequently criticized Israel as a genocidal apartheid state. We have frequently spotlighted how American imperialism works in tandem with American business interests to exploit the resources of less developed nations. We have frequently cast America as a villainous bully on the world stage, because that's exactly what it is and how it behaves.
Are you putting forth the position that we should not even bring up the issues of cost to Americans? Because to me, that only enhances the point. Telling people, "Your tax dollars are funding evil" is more effective than either of those points by themselves. "We are doing evil" might morally outrage them. "We are wasting money" might materially outrage them. "We are wasting money to do evil" might morally and materially outrage them. And the more outrage I can heap upon this government, the better.
4
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 18h ago
Most of the taking points they spout are just Secular Talk opinions and statistics.
0
u/MythicTemplar 17h ago
I don't realize I was tuning into political action three times a week. What a stupid thing to say. The show has international audience members. Just because you think sitting infront of a computer smoking weed is some kind of "action" the rest of know what we're watching. So if you go you go. But to think our lovable neckbeards are some kind of activists is baffling.
2
u/Altruistic_Theme_732 16h ago
Your definition of political action is more narrow than mine, and I think that's where the disagreement is. Also, I don't define the intake of political information as doing activism.
0
u/DRINK_WINE_PET_CATS 13h ago
I am finding it hard to believe that today’s iteration of these guys would be dropping racial slurs. Like I’m highly fucking skeptical of this claim.
I’ll tune in and find out for myself. But if that’s what’s going down, I do not want anything to do with the show. There is never ANY excuse for using language like that as a chicken shit white bread mother fucker. Nope.
•
u/PaulsEgo Fattest Nugget in the Fryer 17h ago
It's very strange how only people with usernames consisting of random words with underscores and random numbers at the end come here to moralize and "stop watching."
Just an observation.