Authoritarian Leftism: The ACTUAL "Regressive Left"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 окт 2024
- --Our investigation into authoritarian leftist tendencies and our continued exploration of the so-called regressive left
--Produced and Edited by Noah Ferguson
www.breitbart.c...
www.therebel.me...
hotair.com/arch...
techraptor.net/...
www.cfr.org/col...
www.bbc.com/new...
www.adl.org/isr...
mic.com/articl...
www.jpost.com/J...
www.kantorcente...
On the Bonus Show: University of Miami to establish chair of atheism studies, China's dog meat festival, Mexican police kill protesting teachers, more...
Support TDPS by clicking (bookmark it too!) this link before shopping on Amazon: www.amazon.com/...
Website: www.davidpakma...
Become a Member: www.davidpakma...
David's Instagram: / david.pakman
Discuss This on Reddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
TDPS Twitter: / davidpakmanshow
David's Twitter: / dpakman
TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
Subscribe to The David Pakman Show for more: www.youtube.com...
Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!
Broadcast on June 21, 2016 --Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
--Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
Authoritarian left is more associated with marxism and communism so it's easier misunderstood. Regressive left is imo a better term. There is another term to describe the in general extremist left. Which is SJW. PC-left is also a common term.
The only problem with the term "regressive left" is that right-wingers are now starting to use the term on everyone on the left.
Does the label "regressive" fit on every person that gets the label? No. Kyle Kulinski (Secular Talk) has been called by a portion of Sam Harris fans a regressive leftist (i am myself a Sam Harris fan). Some portion of his fanbase can't think for themselves and are almost following him blindly so people can't even disagree with him without them being offended. (Again i agree more with Sam than Kyle).The difference between Kyle and Cenk, Abby, Hedges, Reza, CJ Werleman, Nathan Lean etc. Is that Kyle understands the concept of "respectfully disagreeing". He doesn't pretend that he is a mindreader and that Sam is a "closet-racist" as the previously mentioned do. He realizes that the concept of new atheism needs to be defended and that liberals should be new atheists since islam, christianity etc are not compatible with liberalism and progressivism. He realizes that he and Sam agree on most things and doesn't deserve the level of scorn that the left has against true right-wing nutbags such as Sarah Palin, Bill Kristol etc.
Kyle can balanced on Sam Harris Cenk just lies about him and Dave Rubin goes a little soft on him imo.
Sam Harris doesn't have any smart solutions to religious extremism.
Solutions can't come until alleged "progressives" have the balls to admit it exists and talk about it.
+マスター禅 Marxism is such a broad philosophical discourse it becomes practically useless to describe someone as a Marxist without a different discussion about how they're using the word. I'm a Marxist but not necessarily a socialist (I favor a mixed economy). Hitchens said the same about himself. It's such a buzzword now it's meaningless to use the word in casual conversation.
+Hubert Califex - I have a solution. How about the US stop supporting radical theocratic regimes which breed religious extremists and terrorists? How about we stop arming groups like Al Qaeda and the groups which became Isis? How about we stop sending weapons to support the Israel occupation? How about we help tackle the mass poverty in the Middle East which helps lead to radicalization? Economics and radicalization are very closely tied together. Groups like the Nazis only rose to power thanks to mass poverty.
I was afraid you were going to go in a different direction with this, but it turns out you did an excellent job. Well done.
He did a lousy job and the entire vid was a lure to promote Palestine hate
Talk about safe spaces.
bigraviolees - How you can watch this video and come to such a misguided and stupid conclusion is unbelievable. You did exactly what he criticizes you for.
I don't necessarily agree with you on Black Lives Matter. But I totally despise statements like "Whitesplaining" and "Mansplaining." We already have better words for that. It's called "your argument is illogical." Skin color or sex has nothing do with the validity of an argument.
The problem with blm, as I see it, is that the shooting of Mike Brown, for example, was justified. But anybody who looked at the evidence of reality was called a racist. Myself included. So here's how the story goes: I look at the evidence and I see the cop to be justified. And then my fellow liberals tell me I must be a right winger. Now I know better, I know that I'm still a liberal. But many people in the same situation will say "well I guess I am a right winger." After all, fox news turned out to be the ones who were right, simply because of mindless nonsense from every corner of the liberal media from Jon Stewart, msnbc, the huffington post, The Young Turks, etc. They were all wrong, and would call you a racist in a heartbeat for disagreeing with them. For this reason, people are royally pissed off at the left.
David 666 , this is the thing about the Mike Brown situation. At the beginning NO ONE had the evidence. And we still don't quite know what happened. We can only guess from the evidence and witnesses. And (come on dude) they actually had someone on tape saying he had his hands up. It wasn't until a federal investigation that his testimony was discredited. So people who were yelling "THE COP IS INNOCENT! THE COP IS INNOCENT! I KNOW IT!" were wrong. They did not know that at the time and could not know that at the time. Even considering all fo that. If it happened like the reports said, while he may have been justified, it didn't seem like he handled the situation correctly.
Does this mean you are a racist? No. Does mean that TYT was dead wrong? No. What TYT only asked for throughout was an impartial investigation. And that's no reason to be pissed at the left.
Are you a racist? I have no idea. I do know that people will say "I was called a racist just for disagreeing!" and then when you actually talk to them, it seems they are kind of racist. So, I 100% believe they should have pushed for an investigation in the Mike Brown incident simply because no one knew what the situation was at that point. Going forward, I think the reasonable thing to do is admit it was likely justified, but Wilson could have handled it differently.
Well first of all, you're wrong to say we still don't quite know what happened. We do know what happened, it's just that most liberal media outlets didn't really cover it once the truth came out. It's in the doj report though, and having read it for myself, it's clear as day the cop was justified. But more importantly, my position from the beginning was that I can't claim to know what happened. I believed Dorian Johnson at first when he said Brown had his hands up, but then the physical evidence painted a different picture pretty fast. And I was back to "I don't know what happened."
I specifically remember seeing a fox news segment where Sean Hannity was debating some social justice activist. The activist was saying "He's a racist murdering cop," and Hannity was saying "we don't know what happened and you're jumping to conclusions." Now what Hannity said, was what I was thinking. It's a bizarre world when I find myself agreeing with fox news, and it's only because of liberals jumping to conclusions. And when I would tell people this, they would say I was defending a murdering police officer.
So I don't know who pretended to know the cop was innocent when they couldn't know as much. But it seemed that even saying "I don't know what happened" was tantamount to saying the cop is innocent. I do know that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. So those saying "the cop is guilty" have the burden of proof. And there was never any evidence of this, other than what the kid's friend said - the kid who also robbed the store but didn't mention that in his story. At that point we were back to square one. To me, this is a rational way to look at it, and it turns out to be the right way because the cop turned out to be justified. But this way of thinking was called racist. To be on the right side of history, one apparently has to jump to conclusions of guilt without evidence, and I can't do that. Hence the accusation of being a racist, a right winger, on the wrong side of history, etc. And I see liberals digging themselves a hole.
David 666 ...Sigh.... Really dude?
"Well first of all, you're wrong to say we still don't quite know what happened. We do know what happened,"
No, you just happen to be confident about what happened. That's different than _actually_ knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt or even reasonable doubt (it is my understanding Federal investigations have a higher burden of proof to clear).
I get it. You read the report and concluded that there is no doubt that Wilson was 100% justified. However, other people read the report, David -- people like me. People like Cenk who did a video on it after the release of the DOJ report. And I do not believe that Wilson was beyond a shadow of a doubt justified, given the information. All you have left to do is call names and claim I'm just biased on some crap, but I could claim the same about you.
Either way, from the beginning I claimed not to know either way and from the beginning TYT claimed not to know either way. It was people on _your_ side who were jumping to conclusions and posting false information about Wilson losing an eye socket. Were a lot of the BLMers doing the same? Yes, and I disagree with them. But ironically, you stand here basically claiming you were there and you know beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened. Sorry dude, but this is why people take exception to you.
It seems you've picked sides in this. Because you only hear one side when they jump to conclusions. I have been in numerous conversations where I merely state possibilities and they say "YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!" And then they go on to state their own possibilities as if they are fact. So don't try to make this seem like the right was 100% correct and the left was 100% wrong.
"when I would tell people this, they would say I was defending a murdering police officer. "
And they're free to reach the conclusion based upon the data. It is a fact he killed someone. It may not legally be murder, but the law is not the end all be all to some.
"To me, this is a rational way to look at it, and it turns out to be the right way because the cop turned out to be justified."
No. the way you're looking at it is that you think if black people are killed by cops there should be no investigation. That's why people might consider you racist. You are saying BLM was wrong to ask for an investigation of a black man dying and in the future if a black man is shot, just trust the cops. So, given this interpretation of your words, you can see how some might interpret you as racist.
"To be on the right side of history, one apparently has to jump to conclusions of guilt without evidence..."
No, you are being foolish and unreasonable. You said you know beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened based on hearsay which any researcher will tell you is dubious at best. The ballistics give us some idea, but not the whole picture. But that's not what you said. You essentially said scientists are dumbasses and when they say you can never know these things 100% they're probably just liberal black people who have their panties in a wad.
In conclusion, the investigation demonstrated that it is likely that Wilson was fully justified in shooting Mike Brown. No, we do not know this 100%, but in the future if there is a shooting of an unarmed black man with conflicting stories swirling around I believe (unlike you) we should _still_ push for an impartial, public investigation. And every step of the way, _both_ sides should be cognizant of the fact that not all the evidence is in and we do not know what happened. But you apparently disagree with all this which is why the only person digging a hole here is you.
Wait a minute, we have to prove 100% that the cop was justified? Anybody can make a claim about anybody and we'll never know with 100% certainty whether or not it's true. You don't prove innocence. That's why the burden of proof is on those who claim guilt. You're innocent until proven guilty. Forget about 100% certainty, anybody who reads the doj report sees that the narrative of "hands up don't shoot" simply didn't happen, and the cop was justified. I actually don't believe that you read the report for yourself. You probably just watched the young turks video where they couldn't bring themselves to admit they'd bought into a false narrative. I think anybody reading this should just read the report for themselves. And then go watch the tyt videos, and you'll see who's spinning things.
David Pakman is so close, yet so far. he criticizes the regressive left, then goes on to say that racism is thriving and that BLM is entirely valid...
Authoritarianism is not a "right wing" tactic being used by the left. It is a political tactic used by the right and left who believe the state should be the ultimate arbitor of morality or "social justice".
The progressive left was built on coopting state (authoritarian) power back in the days of prohibition. They are now completely willing to trample the private property rights of those they do not morally agree with in the name of 'equality'. This attempt at their utopian egalitarianism has had a most de-civilizing affect on society; you can see the signs all over and this video actually shines light on some. Unfortunately, cause and effect have been reversed by the makers of this video. They need to go back a little further in history to uncover the violence at the root of their progressive ideals.
Brexit was only the beginning of the decentralization of state power that must take place in order stop the devolution and de-civilization at the root of this moral rotting process going on worldwide. The state is an anti-social institution that simply cannot exist if freedom and justice are to prevail anywhere.
I have been watching this channel for years and I have never found as interesting an segment as this. This is what Davids good logic is made for. I would love to see more of this on this channel.
Yes, the term has become toxic and worthless because it was poorly defined by those who popularized it and co-opted by those on the Right as a way to criticize everybody on the Left and as a buzzword to try and shut down conversations. That being said, we don't really need a term to describe harmful ideas, and I would rather people talk about harmful ideas no matter which side of the political compass they reside.
That would introduce ambiguity in the discussion, and if there is one thing that defines authoritarians it's their ability to handle nuance and ambiguity. We need to identify who the enemy is and label them otherwise we will be no better than the authoritarians who go around calling people names. Even worse we actually listen to their subversive ideas. Carry on citizen.
I agree. It's not so hard and way more productive. But many people loves their drama and to draw lines, and to divide. I hope David would take that position. Discussing the "regressive left" does nothing to dismantle it and only comes across as self-congratulatory.
Rob McCune I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
+Rob McCune How exactly is it authoritarian to call people names? Lol. This is not how the term authoritarian is defined. I think you're confusing authoritarianism with bullying.
Reich-Wing Watch This is what David said, I differ to his judgement because he is in charge. People who he says are authoritarian for things like breaking rules, being rude, bad manners, name calling, or differences of opinion are authoritarians, while people like me who dutifully listen and obey David and people like him are freedom loving not-authoritarians.
Excellent oral essay! Please do more like this.
This was complete and utter bullshit
Videos like this give me hope. Ive been so frustrated with my fellow liberals and this beautifully expresses what Ive seen, and the things Ive been saying.
David, I love when you drill down on a subject like this. You always get it right.
Great piece, David. I can hardly wait to quote you out of context!
Dogmatic Left is a good term imo.
Just a quick point about a reoccurring theme I'm hearing. "Right wing tactics" isn't a thing, the tactics you're describing are just as much a "left wing" tactic as they are "right wing". The correct term is just plain old "authoritarianism", which is obviously a bad thing no matter which party is supporting it.
The problem is too many people think that politics only exists on a single axis, which is why they equate authoritarianism with the right and libertarianism/liberalism/individualism with the left.
Hell, these tactics apply to cults as well, which are apolitical in the conventional sense.
And when you have someone who leans left and libertarian at the same time, heads pop.
He's using it because it used to be overwhelmingly used by the right, but now even the left is using it.
+SpitshineSneakers That's based on the French Revolution. Right-wing is associated with authoritarianism.
David how are censorship and us-vs-them mentality, inherently right-wing tactics? I'm a leftist but I do not see how these are right-wing tactics. Both the left and right have used these tactics, so perhaps you think authoritarianism is inherently right-wing? But that is not the case either.
They are not inherently right wing, but in USA they have been so heavily used by the right that they have become almost synonymous. The left has almost not used them up until the rise in popularity of these mentioned forces. (at least, not beyond the normal human.)
I missed him saying that. Those tactics aren't the property of either side.
I think he said they were "authoritarian" tactics, not right wing.
"authoritarianism is inherently right-wing" It used to be, but now both sides use it
anshul sanam not really it's always been used by both the right and left.
The whole distinction between "left" and "right" is outdated anyway: it was introduced after the French Revolution do distinguish between republicans and monarchists (and we don't have those anymore). Communism and capitalism are, simply put, just idiologies about how to allocate resources to their recipients and how to increase a nations productivity, nothing more!
The same argument goes for concepts like ethnicities (or racism), religion, etc.: none of those concepts have anything to do with the origin of the political "left" and "right"! F.e.: You can be a communist/socialist, yet still be a racist and/or homophobe (just look at Russia before 1989... as well as now!).
We need to update those terms if we want to have a serious, in-dept disucssion about topics instead of just throwing labels and catchphrases at each other!
Even so, I haven't seen a single communist/socialist that is a nationalists, racist, bigot or homophobe
Yes.
@@khumomatlakane2009 How about Xi Jin Ping?
@@khumomatlakane2009 You do have a good point though, nationalism and racism is typically less common on the left than on the right, but that doesnt mean it cant happen
Thanks a lot David for making these videos and ACTUALLY standing up for liberal principals and values of the enlightenment
+Lazare Landais This has ZERO to do with liberal principals and everything to do with propaganda manipulation and bull to promote Palestine hate
Thank you David, for this much needed call for sane, rational, respectful dialog.
David, you're a sensible, calm, rational commentator, who investigates the perspective of both sides, and favors empiricism first.
That's rare for pundits these days, and unfortunately, it is not as popular as the ideologues and zealots on the fringe extremes. Thank you for staying consistent and open-minded. That's why I like this channel.
My appreciation for your views on Israel/Palestine just went way up. I am tired of hearing from news sources that either depict Israel as the perfect, benevolent entity, whose hand is always forced, or news sources that depict the Palestinians exclusively as victims, who have no agency or free will or responsibility for their actions. It is clear that any practical solution to the quagmire must start with the realization that NEITHER side is perfect. Neither side is comprised of angels and saints. But for some reason, that's a difficult concession for people to make.
I proudly called myself a "leftist" during the years of George W. Bush. Now that I have seen how hasty the political left is to undermine free speech, I have dissociated myself entirely from that side of the political spectrum. The only label I hold now is that of a Secular Humanist.
David without question the best commentary you've shared in a long time. I am so proud of you and as soon as I can will be subscribing. Again, thank you.
This definitely needs to be talked about more. Morality is fleeting when your methods are contradictory to your message.
great video! would appreciate an updated take on this in light of, well, 2020.
Same in 2024. Also I seen crazy stuff that "Safe Spaces" have a new meaning since this video was made. Safe Spaces according to Marjorie Taylor Greene is far right place where other speech is banned and only MAGA and Pro-Putin Speech is allowed.
David desperately needs to read up on the Progressive Stack. Basically describes it in part here, and it's incredibly illiberal foundation has inspired me to divide the left along Liberal(libertarian) and Progressive(authoritarian) lines, and the "right wing" strategies are authoritarian strategies, probably because the Libertarian left has done a masterful job of differentiating itself from authoritarianism on the right. "Right wing tactics" is a disgustingly partisan perspective to perpetuate, and the left leaning libertarians desperately need to dissociate from their illiberal authoritarians.
Exactly, True Liberals only use data structures with a FIFO policy. Please report the use of Stacks, Binary Search Trees, or Hash Maps, all these are considered contraband, even if it means guilt by Associative Array. Carry on citizen.
Thank you David Pakman Show, for addressing this issue. Well done!👌👍
*The non-issue
If the knot is too tight the rope will snap.
-Buddha
As a liberal who appreciates your nuanced views on Israel-Palestine, I was a bit taken aback when you mentioned the "Palestinian human shield" narrative, which was so prevalent in the American media. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this been debunked? As far as I know there is no report from the UN or any reputable human rights group that substantiates this claim, on the contrary they found IDF soldiers guilty of this practice on a few occasions. I'm just wondering if you did a story on this a while back where you detailed the evidence for this practice, and I can look it up? That aside, I enjoyed the video. Personally I've always trivialized "safe spaces" and speech codes because I've never had to deal with them in real life and think some of the anti-PC crowd love to over-sensationalize it. Though it is a potential problem, I think we should reserve the term "authoritarian" for more serious instances of censorship or force employed in enforcing a liberal agenda.
nope, the Palestinian Arabs have long used civilians as human shields. And not dissimilarly Hamas encourages civilians to martyr themselves for their cause. Not to mention they build terrorist base camps in and around schools, mosques, and other public places.
pathologicaldoubt Just in case you missed it, I asked for a report or study by a reputable source that proves it. I'm well aware of what people *claim* to have happened.
I think Anita Sarkeesian disabled the comments on her videos because they would be overrun with trolls if she didn't. If the options are giving a free-for-all to trolls versus having no discussion I understand disabling all comments. Trolls disable free speech for those looking to have civil discourse if they are allowed free reign anyway.
RottingintheMidwest I guess that's why she also disabled the like-dislike bar. Because of the trolls disliking her video 🙄
I disagree. There are effective ways to deal with trolls. You could ignore them, or cleverly call them out using intellect and facts. Trolls only win when they smell intimidation. They are the victors when free speech is shut down. It's like a chess game. Don't be afraid to spar with them.
'more likely to be pulled over by police' - more likely to commit crime.
'more likely to be arrested' - more likely to commit crime.
'more likely to be killed' - more likely to commit crime -> more interactions with police.
'more likely to be convicted' - more repeat offenses -> less leniency.
'hasher sentences' - more repeat offenses -> harsher sentencing.
Steven Clark
Humans aren't divorced from reality. If a certain group commits a certain crime more than others, it's impossible to stop people from recognizing that, and accommodating for it in minute, unconscious ways. It'd be nice if we could make a system where judges and cops were perfect beings and ignore the real associations between certain races and crimes, but it's probably not possible. The only effective action is to actually deal with the realities that create these associations. I'm all for encouraging judges and cops to be unbiased, but thats not what BLM does. It's not some calm criticism over the effectiveness of systems, it's an angry, malicious antagonism and dehumanization, with violence and reverse racism on top.
1. I'm sure blacks to an extent are more likely to get longer sentences in the court system. Nevertheless, the only effective way to dissolve the perception that blacks are more likely to be criminals, would be to make blacks less likely to be criminals. BLM's tactics are completely ineffective, worsens race relations, and by in supporting it you're doing the opposite of helping.
2. Various circumstances of lead to the current conditions. BLM actions, this channel's suggestions, and probably your suggestions are completely ineffective in dealing with the conditions.
Nice try. ALL of leftism is economically authoritarian, and thus regressive. The difference is just that Tankies are also socially authoritarian, while Postmodern Liberals are socially liberal.
Always remember, leftism is the creationism of economics. And if you are a leftist, please learn basic economics - there are plenty of great resources for that on the Internet, such as the free courses on FEE.org.
Beautifully on-point. Thanks for this video, David.
An amazing job here once again, david. Some people seem to don't like that kind of video because they're more used to some other RUclipsrs full of platitudes and vague information.
1:10 It very much is a paradox. You cannot use force in an attempt to force people to be free. You cannot manufacture freedom using force. It cannot be imposed from the top down.
In that case you would be against the civil war which freed the slaves?
An interesting question, but it's pretty clear that the slaves wanted their freedom.
The problem comes when slaves would fight to remain slaves.
TheTurnipKing They wanted their freedom but the the ideals of the Union were forced down the throats of the confederates, were they not? This was "top down tyranny" in the eyes of the Confederacy. Though I would say it was justified because the tyranny of slavery was much greater. Truth is, there is no such thing as a society free of authoritarianism. Democracy itself is authoritarian, because the minority must conform to the will of the majority.
This is why I enjoy your show over your peers. I don't agree with everything you say (there is no one that I completely agree with), but i respect that you give a measured and sober opinion versus many who feel that ad hominum attacks and hyper-emotionalism are the go to tactics of shows like this. Lets not forget everyone's favorite: if you can't persuade, go for volume!
I do not see you employing these tactics and I find that very refreshing.
Love your long form videos David.
This was a great show. Thank you for showing the difference between liberals & regressives. It is an important distinction to make.
Steve Shives disagrees with everything in this video.
He'll never see it tho, he blocked the world
And if he doesn't, he will sleep in the couch tonight.
Is Pakman #BlockedBySteve ?
lol
ScottishAtheist If he wasn't, he is now. In a few more years he'll have every rational person in the world blocked. Social media sites will have to install more servers just to hold his blocked lists.
+ScottishAtheist BlockedBy Steve needs to be meme.
difference between liberal and leftist
Brilliant, David. Well done and thanks.
This is my favorite video of yours, and I've been following you for years. You perfectly explained all of the issues I have with the left and helped me gather my thoughts that I do agree with the goals of groups such as black lives matter but disagree with their tactics.
Your best video yet, David. Spot on
And this is why I respect David Pakman, I disagree with a lot of what he says but at the end of the day he's an individualist.
Thank you for this video, David. Seriously, this kind of thing isn't addressed nearly enough.
Excellent video. Authoritarianism in any form is dangerous.
On point again David! You are awesome!!!! Its people like you, David Rubin, Armored Skeptic, Thunderfoot, Amazing Atheist, etc... are the new heroes of the age. Heroes of reason!!!
Perfect David, just perfect. Thank you!
a individualist and a collectivist and not Authoritarian.In fact I am libertarian left or left libertarian.
I am a bit of a troll at times.
There is no fun without the occasional trolling.
Good work, David!
An outstanding analysis David.
Spot on. Can I suggest the most important message here is that the best way to challenge bad ideas is to allow them to be presented, to engage with them and to defeat them on the intellectual battlefield. Denying people their right to speak doesn't eliminate bad ideas it just drives them underground where they can fester in ignorance.
This is brilliant. Well done, David.
I appreciate the effort you put into this (oral) essay. It highlights some of the more extreme positions that liberal/leftists promote that have been puzzling to me. Their positions aren't based on looking carefully at all sides of a complicated situation, but on some kind of narrow view that favors the underdogs. I've seen an awful lot of absolutism and casting anyone who disagrees as "an idiot" or "clueless" or a "troll" during the primary season. I'll have to watch myself and make sure I don't add to the problems.
Nice segment, David. Well done (as usual).
I came by this video by chance and was very surprised as I had just minutes ago posted a comment on another social media comparing our current president to the infamous Hugo Chavez and I know what I say because I recognized the exact same behavior I witnessed first hand a decade ago happening HERE WITH THE CURRENT PRESIDENT .//:”Haven recently moved back to America after more than a decade abroad , I am scared to say that it is very concerning how the current president behaves much in the way that I saw a very dangerous and later , deadly , dictator behave when he first came to power . For example : -people that opposed or dissented with the views of the leader were publicly ostracized and insulted -slowly but surely , started criticizing the press and freedom of speech, as they obviously would call out this outlandish and terrible behavior only to finally shut down all major private owned television and cable channels - would also intimidate those who were originally his supporters into total devotion by sending to jail or using other tactics to guarantee total support and submission and finally trying to eliminate the 3 distinct powers in government :laws,army,executive into one force that doesn’t oppose him and , last but not least , only governing for half the population ( those that show unwavering support) the rest , DO NOT MATTER AND ARE VILIFIED AND disrespected.I am talking about Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez , who turned Venezuela once the richest country in Latin America into the mess into it is now . Very scary 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱....” That was my comment very scary indeed ...
I was shocked by how good this video is.
I agree with a great deal of this but the phrase "authoritarian left" used to describe these sorts of people I feel isn't a good phrase. I think it's a damn big leap to associate rigidly thinking people who can be annoying to people like Stalin and Mao.
Never thought about a lot of this, David. Thank you!
man, remember 8 years ago when we had room to worry about this stuff?
specific political aims aside, the way i usually describe the triumph of methodology over ethics is that "using n*zi tactics in pursuit of a good cause doesn't make it okay. it just makes us a new kind if n*zi". part of doing good is not letting bad people turn us into bad people.
Whoa, this video is 4 Sargon's long.
Can you summarize it please?
Good job as always David!
Only halfway through this and you have already hit so many nails on the head
Thanks for standing up for true liberal policies, sometimes i feel like SJW's are the left wing tea party.
these kind of vids are why David is the best on RUclips.
This is a fantastic sophisticated piece, especially the weaving of the imagry into the narrative.
Well done David. A very good video!
"You're either for us or against us" = "You can't be neutral on a moving train" Those people need to be reminded who they're speaking for and against
This is the first David Pakman video I've seen. He sounds pretty reasonable, but for one problem: He basically holds the position that while people on the left can be authoritarian go too far, people on the right have those flaws by definition.
So Pakman is commiting the same sin as many authoritarian leftists -- he's just being much more diplomatic about it.
On point as usual Pakcisman.
No he was full of shit as he usually is every time he brings up his glorified Palestine hate videos
Good stuff, David.
Excellent work!
Hi David, I think there is still an issue you left out of the conversation and that is where people actually draws the line for what is authoritarian left. Unfortunately that line is all over the place depending on who you ask. That's why I don't think it's productive having a conversation in such broad terms. It is way easier to discuss separately each of the issues encompassed by "regressives". People will more likely agree with you if you go onto the specifics of a single group rather than clumping together feminists, BLM, Ben Affleck, Reza, safe spaces and many more entities into an indiscernible straw man.
Not to mention most of the things mentioned in the video aren't even examples of authoritarianism.
Great disclaimer in the beginning of the video! Underless you had said that in the beginning I would most likely have dismissed the video from the start as just another video where someone is gonna attack SJWs.
THANK YOU so much for this David.
I'm largely in agreement with this video. In many ways, David was talking about me. Someone who proudly identified as a progressive for years on the basis of being a rationalist, secularist and egalitarian who, while respecting much of libertarianism, ultimately supports social safety net programs, universal healthcare, accessible education, etc. Today, I neither identify with the left or right. I'm a mixture of left liberal and libertarian values, straddling the borders.
However, two major points of concern:
1) I ask, is it appropriate to equate authoritarian techniques with the right? Is it appropriate to say that when people on the left act as authoritarians, that they are acting like right wingers? David gave several historical and current examples of left wing authoritarians. Yes, we could readily find right wing examples of the same. But we could also point to principled libertarians, or to moderates on the right. People who have economically conservative views, and maybe even socially conservative views, but who would never try to shut down those who disagree with them.
2) Is it appropriate to act as if playing the victim and playing to fear is something that right wingers do? Yes, there are right wingers who do this .But CLEARLY this is happening on the left, and has many times before.
Maybe it's more appropriate to say that a person can be on the right or left and also be relatively authoritarian or relatively open and tolerant of opposition and people who don't share their values and behavioral standards.
Great video David. It made me become a little clearer and more informed on my views on this issue. A lot of has to do with peoples unscientific way of thinking and sometimes not evaluating things in a rational and unbiased way. Human behavior can be strange to me. So much tribalism out there.
David, as a black person u have earned my trust in the rational and empathetic way you analyse issues, I will definitely hear your point about issues on race e and I think you made great points here
Thank you, David. Great video!
That dude on the bottom left corner in that picture of Donad Trump at a rally where a sign says, "Thank you, Lord Jesus, for President Trump" (LMFAO) looks like the guy from "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids." 😂😂😂😂
if all political commentary could be a little more like this i think we'd be light years ahead as a civilization.
You made a lot of good points in this video.
Authoritarian tactics are not innately "right wing" David, not even close.
Well researched and well said, as always.
I disagree in the case of Anita Sarkeesian at 11:09. I think Anita Sarkeesian has disabled her comment section to avoid online harassment of which she has been a victim.
I really appreciate these purely informative videos.
I have often thought that, taken to their utmost extremes, the ultra far right and ultra far left have more characteristics in common than not. Either way, they become very authoritarian, the opposite of true progressivism.
love his 'blind allegiance' and 'apologetics' for israel while hammering on palestine.
How is censorship a right-wing concept? Ever heard of communism?
Excellent video! Very good analysis of dictatorships!
THANX the complete & in depth EXPLANATION, the on television, so named media misleads the sheep & your show separates the animals, with full reasoning based with real facts!!
David you tend to share some narratives with the regressive left that I object to, but you do allow and engage with descent and that is the most important distinction.
maybe the only video I like from this guy
How can we get a transcript of this video? There are several great parts worth quoting!
Us vs. Them can be a perfectly valid analysis of a situation. Labor vs. capital is not zero-sum. A business pacified by a union can never hope to achieve what a socialist co-op could, but unless you are a Utopian socialist, you can probably see that the conflict of class interests exists, that these classes are an automatic feature of capitalism, and that one is far more powerful in proportion to its size than the other.
Good video David! Do more videos like this! I appreciate your comment about the Alt right and liberals like myself who feel they must instead identify as anything but.
As long as Hillary gets elected it's all good.
No just no
Madame President!
a thousand trumps over crooked hillary!
H I L L B O T S INC :\
Peel the orange man!
I've also used "Far Left Terrorist Sympathizers" at times in order to drive a point home.
"Authoritarian Left" fits well and calls it out for what it is.
This is why it's important to consume media on both sides of the political spectrum, right wing and left wing, it's the only way to hear both sides and get a good synopsis on the issues.
Great video!
I never understood why you keep bringing up the library incident so often like it was a big deal. In my university such incidents happen every other month almost always by white student for no apparent reason other than for fun so why this would even register on the news or would be something worthy to mention more then once seams extremely strange to me.
I remember a time when context and intent were factors when people considered something "offensive." They don't matter anymore as long as someone or some organization, regardless of their true sympathies, is brought down in the name of perpetuating the "narrative."
Superbly articulated Mr Pakman. Sometimes it's difficult to understand how anybody not in the 1% can identify with right wing views that are clearly against their own interests, until you look at the way the alternative presents itself. I recall a photograph many years ago in an Australian newspaper of a protest against populist Australian Pauline Hanson, (something of an antipodean Palin who struggled to counter accusations of being xenophobic because she didn't know what the word meant). The photograph showed Hanson looking frighten and bewildered while being screamed at by a young man whose face was contorted with hate and rage. The man was a liberal, wanting a tolerant and inclusive society. It could have a a photograph from krystallnacht.
I hit the like button multiple times. I'm helping.
That actually was not a Sanders rally that was interrupted in Seattle; it was a socialist rally mostly dedicated to social security, I was there behind a tent and had to hear a bunch of boring speakers before Sanders was briefly let on. I was also part of the audience that started yelling shit at the stage when the shit show commenced, I even started a Shame On You chant that was mentioned on the Huffington Post. The blacklivesmatter interruption strategy was used on Sanders in weeks before and that had me worried, and then when Sanders got on stage the front row of the crowd put up this black curtain suddenly, and that was when my suspicions were immediately confirmed.