Doug Lain vs. Ben Burgis on Twitter Files & Corporate Censorship
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 апр 2024
- Doug and Ben debate the differences between private and public censorship, and also the full significance of the Twitter files.
Follow Doug on Twitter: @DougLain
Follow Cyber Dandy on Twitter: @thecyberdandy
Follow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgis
Follow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_Show
Become a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:
patreon.com/benburgis
Read the weekly philosophy Substack:
benburgis.substack.com
Visit benburgis.com
I know this got pretty heated, and the mic muting should have never happened, but at the end of the day I see two people who both ultimately have very similar goals, albeit different ideas strategically of how to achieve those goals. I'd actually like to see you two debate more often because often I find Lain to offer some observations and framing that I don't see elsewhere on the left, but almost always accompanied by sometimes very serious flaws which can be corrected somewhat by conversations like this one.
EDIT: But you should make sure to hand shake on no unilateral muting next time lol
Doug is not an honest actor, he’s a pet for tech power who will take positions that will always benefit people like Musk, thats why he doesn’t criticize him
What Flaws do you see
@@tidakada7357
I suppose the main one that comes to mind, in this topic, is by drawing too much of a distinction between corporate and state entities. The history of the development of social media platforms, specifically their heavy funding by In-Q-Tel associated actors within military intelligence during their startup phases after the failure of DARPAs Total Information Awareness program indicates that the state realised it could not directly collect intensely personal information from the public with their consent and that private enterprise could serve as a viable commerical alternative for intimate domestic surveillance. A private branch of state surveillance that can take the heat, the collateral, from public discontent in a way that the state could not.
@@tidakada7357 All that said though, he's right to raise the alarm. Few are.
The laws underpinning the New York Times are essentially enumerated in the constitution and very difficult to change. The laws underpinning the social media companies were created less than 40 years ago and can easily be changed to undermine their business models. So it's much different when the government asks the New York Times not to publish something, compared to when the government asks social media platforms to suppress their users who wrongthink.
If the government is going to get involved in regulating social media, it should be doing its best to uphold the free speech rights of the users, over the censorship whims of the owners. The fact that the government is doing the opposite is obscene
how dare you use reason and advocate for basic social freedoms of the masses
Doug seems to be really ignorant of the fact that public access to telecomunications through private corporations has always been Orwellian.
Doug was involved in the stop SOPA and PIPA thing, section 230 stuff. The argument that speech was never that protected and corporations are bad and also censor has very little to do with the current legislation that I think Doug is currently involved with agitating against.
And the government spied on us before the patriot act. Doesn't mean they didn't expand and further in trench the monitoring with the patriot act.
Indeed it has always been that way. But I don't think Doug is simply being some naive idiot who points out that the king is naked. He just believes that this may be something to build upon. At the very least, it's better to have the corporates and the state at odds than to have them work seamlessly. Cynicism, on the other hand, discourages us from taking any action.
To what burgis said about Doug wanting him to be his enemy, its not just Burgis, its other leftists too, he’s gonna use this plus the trans issue to further drift from leftists and get cozy with rightwingers
Yep, keep seeing this happen.
Ya I’ve been trying to understand this shift. Like is it that they’re just grifting or something else?
Girfting isnt the right word. Doug self-identified in this video: libertarian. Doug treats his brand precisely like Jordan Peterson, Brett Weinstein, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al @@devos3212
@WhatdidtheCountessdo sir, the context was "the govt mesin w muh business". That's pretty economic
The issue is leftists aren’t on the left, because there isn’t one. People like Lain are going back to basics , lessons learned, and asking what one would look like . That means stances that will be mistaken as right wing, because they don’t follow from mere left tradition but experience, analysis, an left principles. . Would Lucy Parsons and Marx take these stances in today’s world ? Yes. The real grifters are the leftists who are really just “.progressive plus”. Nobody drives more people to the right than the majority report
I can see what Ben is saying. That the corporate censorship is more of an issue. I would like to know what the remedy the court issued on that bookstore censorship Doug is talking about. Because if the remedy is for the state to quit requesting. Then we will just be left with corporate censorship.
Why do I get the feeling the algorithm rewards Doug for talking about this issue this way?
What's next, claim he is a Russian or Chinese agent?
Anyone who watches this and is intrigued about the intersection of tech companies, free speech, govt's impact, etc should look into what Cory Doctorow has been saying for decades
There are people on the left that have cared about these topics for a long time!
I made this comment on a previous video of Doug's: "I don't take pleasure in calling this "security state" concern of Doug's his hobby horse but as I try to follow the story it continues to fail to rise from the bottom of my list of concerns. I get the connections he's trying to make, but, to me they're symptoms of other problems that earn my attention. For example, see Cory Doctorow's appearance on This is Revolution podcast. "The Internet Con (ft. Cory Doctorow)". At 33 minutes, he calls out a right wing narrative that calls for the deregulation of big tech. I think Doug's narrative, though not the same, is too easily conflated into the right wing one.
I'd really like a citation to that bookstore case Doug is talking about. Twenty years of being involved in civil rights law and I've never heard of such a case out of the Supreme Court
42:47 Doug admits he's conflating conflation
Personal notes, not for public
6:38 Ben catches Doug’s gist better than Doug.
7:39 Doug proceeds through the spurious argument
8:31 “we disagree and since I say we disagree then we call it a draw, now to my actual point which this thing we disagree about entirely depends on for relevance.”
10:24 Ben outright requiring Doug to stipulate his point.
11:34 Doug failing to stipulate his point
12:15 Ben explaining Doug’s point to him
Ouch, I have seen Ben and Doug drift apart after listening to both their podcasts for a long time. I appreciate both of their perspectives and find myself agreeing with one or the other on different points, but was sad to see this uncivil dialogue.
Doug was way outa line, and he wasn't even listening to Ben
This was like 10 hours into a marathon stream for the sublation anniversary. Doug was hangry.
Ben's response to Doug's question about "why do you think I think you're justifying it" (around the 25:45 mark) is perfect. I like Doug Lain but Burgis identified exactly what makes listening to him lay out his arguments so frustrating, especially recently.
Nice smoke rings, Ashley
I don’t know what it is about Lain but I’ve never liked him. Probably says more about me than him lol but man anyone else just want to flick this guy in the bean?
flicking the bean must mean something VERY different in your country
No no, ur instincts were right, he’s gonna pivot to the right, maybe not by becoming a right winger, but by defending ever miniscule right wing cause/actor using “leftist” arguments, its why he wont talk about elon and mohdi
That weird bullshit “ i am appalled” is something he tried to pull with Matt Binder too
The idea that Matt Lech is is considered a socialist and not an unhinged, dogmatic, ignorant, conservative sh*tlib scenester tabloid (the majority report) hack, that's driving the few working class people who see it to the right, is very supportive of Sublation's project in critiquing the so called "left". What contact do people like that, with all the resources in the world, have with organizing with the broad working class at all?
@emilianosintarias7337 Explain how Matt is "turning people to the right" and not Doug "Trans people are gross, covid leaked from a Chinese lab, TERFS are good, jan 6th rioters were disgruntled proles, Hamas are the real problfm" Lain?
Doug Lain lied about the EIP. His entire premise is bunk from the get go.
What a beautiful way to not think about any problems.
@@dx1all33 Huh? "Thinking of problems" doesn't necessitate lying.
I don't think Doug is lying, I think he truly believes what he's saying and is wrong. To say he's lying is similar to when he kept referring to people who didn't agree with him as disingenuous
@@secretasiandan The problem is you assume he's acting in good faith, and I just don't think he is. I'm not convinced that Doug is genuinely interested in these topics and just wants clicks for his channel (he's openly stated this before on other videos).
If he was coming from a place of good faith, he'd be equally if not more outraged at the book bannings going on, the fact that Twitter under Musk has banned journalists and others and he wouldn't be so quick to ban people like myself from commenting on his videos.
And the word he used was "appalling", not disingenuous.
Some years ago I mentioned to a friend that a benevolent dictator would be the most efficient form of government, but there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator.
When we met again a few years later he told me that he’s a Libertarian.
I think he stopped listening after efficient.
Do you make a distinction between government and governance ? The market produces your 'efficient' governance whereas political authority always tends toward tyranny.
@@robertcarpenter8077
Only in your warped mind.
Feudalism, which is what would inevitably be the result of your beliefs, is tyranny.
Libertarians are just authoritarians in denial.
Muting happens at 22:17
If you look in the dictionary under the term circle jerk, there will be an image of this thumbnail. But Doug finally solves the problem by (private)business. If only Doug were bright enough to accept that a bunch of unilateral business censorship IS capitalism. To have the self cynicism to realize he's an anarcho-capitalist. The solution to their problem is syndicalism. Poetic irony that they cite herman-but-CHOMSKY the syndicalist. Basically you'd have to be a good person--not just good with a whip-to own a business.
Government operates by force, anarcho capitalism by finesse.
@robertcarpenter8077 Unfalsifiable assertion. Logic, evidence and reason demonstrates that "anarcho" Capitalism would devolve into a feudal like system dominated by a private state.
Wow Doug Lain doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
Fr
Too much Critical Theory.
I think the Agency for Psychological Defense (or whatever a correct English translation would be) is an old institution in Sweden that goes back to the Cold War, but it has obviously become more prevalent recently because of our NATO membership. But to be fair I’m not sure how necessary it is given that most Swedes have an incredible tendency to believe whatever nonsense the government tells us…
Huffiness is always a bad look in debate just as finesse is most becoming.
Oh, now I see. Doug, I'd bet the Majority Report would love to have you on for a debate.
He doesn't debate centrists that much
@@emilianosintarias7337 Ha! Good one!
Look, MR is too optimistic about a certain tiny wing of the Democratic party. But, if Doug has such a bug up his ass about Seder or Matt, he should try to talk to them directly. He keeps referencing MR like it's CNN, and it certainly smells to me like a manufactured beef in search of clicks.
@@edmubarek5168 It's worse than CNN. Is anyone more slimy than those guys - have you ever been around normal people or seen how normal people behave? Why should anyone talk to them directly? I get that Brooks often in perfectly good faith, but he turned out to be overconfident and narrow in many of his views and alliances.
Their show is literally trolling and mocking the views of people into agreement with them, or into excommunication from an ideological bubble where an invisible graph of like 90 interconnecting , kafkaesque abstract stances, many of which are untenable, are what makes something left or "reactionary". They are downright objectively wrong about a lot of stuff that they would never change no matter the facts. Basically everything the are doing except long form interviews with authors, everyone should do the opposite of.
If I were running today's equal of a cointelpro I would be ROFL that these people are unintentionally working for me for free. I would love if there were stats on how many people they sent to the right, how many they have just made more hardened and bigoted idpol out of touch sh-tlibz, and how many they have actually inspired to help build a broadbased, popular movement.
@@emilianosintarias7337 Speaking of cointrelpro, a better example would be a posing as a leftist while "critiquing the left" while also spewing reactionary, right wing culture war shlock and conspiracy theories while platforming crypto right wingers and pederast defenders and having connections to Koch bros. And in case you're wondering, MR doesn't engage in any of these things.
Doug's take that Snowden = The Twitter Files is just f'ing insane.
Doug often seems to take somewhat vague claims as the basis of his concerns. He says he is concerned the left has a blindspot for state censorship in their hatred of big tech. That is fair if this is actually a trend among the left, but you are not going to sound relevant if you construct a big argument and engage in a full debate around this while not having examples of why this is an actually impactful issue. Is it something some leftist orgs have failed in? Or just some leftist commentator who criticised Musk without also mentioning the state source of censorship?
The one thing I got from this exchange is that Doug's anarchist past (if I'm remembering his original political background correctly) is showing in this focus on the state. Which is fine and not necessarily wrong, you just need to be careful not to actually turn into a "libertarian" because some people on the left frustrated you with not enough critiques of the state.
The state forms in order to bureaucratize the production of war toward the end of the medieval period - reaching a crescendo in the 20th century when war killed tens of millions. By contrast the stateless society is all about the peaceful, voluntary, mutually beneficial transaction.
@@robertcarpenter8077Whats "mutually beneficial" of class hierarchy?
To know why state censorship is bad you just need to read up on leftist history. The left doesn't really get censored now, and that just points to its irrelevancy. When in history the left was more relevant, they were constantly getting censored by the government. Of your goal is to build a substantial leftist movement in this country, then you should be worried about censorship. The moment socialism could seem like a possibility is the moment the government deems it a threat to national security.
@dx1all33 Nobody is saying state censorship is good, the contention is whether the state ordered Twitter to remove comments- it didn't. The Twitter Files were a nothing burger, but when you build your entire ideology off anti establishmentarianism and being anti DNC- which is what Doug does- then this is what you come out with.
@@orphaotheseeker2770 That's an important point. The corporation is hierarchical only because the first corporations in the US, the railroads, were the creation of former US military officers following the Civil War. The organizers of the railroads transposed the hierarchical organization of political authority onto the new entity of the corporation. Politico-military power, whether the formation is monarchic, democratic, socialist, or dictatorship, is structured in exclusively hierarchical relations of power. In contrast, the market is under the control of the dispersed, divergent, collective power of the consumer. Markets function to impose on the corporation the broad, collective, and disinterested will of the consumer. Political power functions to impose on the subject the narrow, selective, motivated will of the ruling class.
That was weird. Is that dude a libertarian? He's got the listening skills of one.
I watched him talk with Jared Bauer, and I got the vibe that if he were born 20 years later, he'd be an angry incel. According to that interview, he's a gatekeeping communist who thinks right-wing anti-trans comedy is actually hilarious and has a particular fondeness for Matt Walsh and his skits about trans people. Total dork.
whY is Lain so anti-censorship, when most of us live in a soft-powered hegemony that tolerates flag burning, has FOIA, etc. The institutional backlash against pro-palestine sentiment seems like the first actual instance of hardline censorship I can remember in my lifetime.
But what about covid? Lol
@@LukeMcGuireoides ah yes can't forget the CDC gulags
It's the premise of being able to obfuscate state censorship through private companies and sidestep the first amendment. Social Media companies don't have first amendment protections and aren't protected as publishers, Individuals have no first amendment protections for thier speech through the platform. Ben's arguing on theoretical grounds, and he's incorrect-
You don't let free speech regulation get worse because it is already bad; We used to have pretty decent speech and privacy protections - Before you were alive, apparently.
After 9/11, it was pretty bad. Given the legislative evolution, propalestinian protesters are just seeing the beginning- it can get much worse, in terms of what is legally possible.
@@shannonm.townsend1232 i mean people were banned or censored off platforms for "misinformation" like the lab leak theory. Except later the government themselves accepted the real possibility of the theory. The point isn't even exactly what they did with the censorship apparatus, just the fact that they are establishing it. So if there ever is a socialist movement big enough in the US to actually do something, well that's when you will see people getting censored. And it's not a stretch to say this, it already happened, countless of times in our recent history.
@@WhatdidtheCountessdo so you're saying he has a point; well I was b.1970, but not paying much attention to politics until early 2000's. I do remember the clawing back of rights and ramping up of the security state after 9/11.
Keep the Majority Report out ya mouth, Douggie
Well, this was something different…
Ben Burgis would really benefit from a public speaking course, just saying lol
Doug ignores the fact that the US state is at least partially under democratic (small d) control, but not a single private corporation is.
But he is literally railing against the part of the state that isn't under democratic control. Some of these positions in power and policies carry over president to president, administration to administration. It's similar to the us position on war. Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden. All different presidents with different policies, but somehow our military actions are fairly consistent across the 4 of them. Almost as if our democratic control over that system seems only surface level. They might say different things, but at the end of the day the government keeps moving in the same direction it has been.
More democratic does not necessarily mean more liberal (with regard to civil rights)
@@bandito_burrito I care about democratic 100x more than I care about liberal.
@@mattwasmyname Marx and Engels said if the workers had to choose between the rights of free speech and the right to vote, they should choose the former, not the latter
@@bandito_burrito I didn't say anything about voting. Also, I'm smarter than Marx and Engels, so your point is moot
What the hell was that gibberish opening statement by Douglas Lain? Dude's lost his mind.
Word vomit
Your brain on Critical Theory.
Ben was quite meandering when recounting his hypothetical first- amendment reasoning. He made it unclear why he was adumbrating a position counter to his own.
Rawkus>Rumble
Ehh I wouldn't jump on that hype train of purging Doug yet. I just checked his channel and this conversation turned out to be at the 10th hour of his 12-hour live stream. Apparently it was a 15-year anniversary event. Maybe cut the man some slack for getting a bit impatient and paranoid after 10 hours of talking and listening to people lol. But sentiments aside, I get that he is trying to focus the attention on free speech so we might be able to start a movement around it. I wouldn't be too cynical about this since only quite recently I've been getting these soft censorships for YT comments where they make the comments visible only through "newest first". And they were all lft-leaning political comments ofc. I get where Doug is coming from. He is taking a risky position but calling him a libertarian just displays the same kind of laziness as liberals do when they call everything they hate fascst.
Doug reacted the same way to Matt Binder, so blaming fatigue is disingenuous.
YT "soft censuring" people isn't the same as the state demanding YT take down comments.
Free speech is of course vital, but the hill Doug chose to die on regarding Twitter Files is a joke and based on ignorance and his almost pathological anti establishmentarianism, not on any actual hard evidence or factual basis.
@@orphaotheseeker2770 I was at first referring to his demeanor (muting and stuff) not his position. I had to watch that debate between him and Matt and Matt was the one who got impatient and yelled first. But regarding his position, he specifically clarified in that debate that his focus on the issue was to ensure an open discursive space in which scialist discussion can happen. So calling him a libertarian or anything is simply lazy if not stupid.
I mentioned the comment censorship of YT to point out the tightening of the rope in general. And if this happens to a comment under a comment thread in a popular video, virtually nobody will see it. I have no way to tell if this is just a corporate policy or requested by the state. But if you are some kind of scialist and see it as a part of the ideological warfare in general then the difference doesn't matter that much.
Tbh I am not that caught up with this whole twitter file thing, which is why I only just watched that debate with Matt. I commented because I was a bit pissed by the recent censorship I got, so I could sympathize with Doug, since he had a much more direct skin in the game than most of us as a publisher. And ofc, if we really want to build some kind of long lasting movement which eventually turns into scialists in power, then it will mostly be based in physical space. Still, I don't get this journalistic, legalistic approach of most people including possibly you, when it comes to matters at this scale. Ok he might be grasping at straws with the twitter files but he was not wrong about EIP being a state agency and it is true that a non-legal category "misinformation" was deployed to interfere with media content. Like what's with all this hostility against a person raising issue with all that? I thought initially it was because of his demeanors but apparently there is a deeper resistance against any action in disguise of all this "state is the lesser evil compared to billionaires". I mean, I'm sure he is not so stupid that if state is forbidden by the supreme court to further interfere, while Elon and his friends begin their own censorship, Doug would just sit around and clap his hands.
@winstonkay9110 I don't know which debate you watched, because the one I watched Doug was the one yelling, being patronizing and overall very emotional during the exchange.
No, the EIP is not a "state agency", but a research program for the University of Washington, whose sole purpose was to study how misinformation flows across social media. That's it. And legalese has absolutely nothing to do with this, because content moderation is at the discretion of the privately owned social media platform. Doug, like yourself, clearly have no idea how content moderation works.
The EIP had never told Twitter to remove any posts. Instead, it flagged certain posts that violated Twitters TOA, and in some cases violated the law ie accounts that posed as state representatives, as medical doctors etc were taken down. But again- this was completely at the discretion of Twitter and in MOST cases, nothing was done about the flagged accounts.
Doug may not necessarily be a right wing libertarian, but he certainly has connections to them ie Compact, Spiked etc are all right wing/libertarian outfits. Ashely Frawley, who frequently appears on his channel has definite links to right wing outlets; she wrote an article for the European Conservative titled "How the Gender Lobby hijacked the EUs policy Agenda". What kind of principled leftist would write such a thing? Shes a TERF, clearly and they are absolutely on the right of the political spectrum.
@@orphaotheseeker2770 ...ok I know where you are coming from now based on that last part. But I'll still try to respond chronologically.
ruclips.net/video/dn1CGYvtSQE/видео.html ← We are talking about this debate right? 45:14 is the first time any one of them started to yell. And they ended in a relatively friendly way just like this one with Ben. So idk, all this excessive anger towards Doug must be coming from somewhere else.
Regarding EIP and all that, again, I'm not updated, but just in 10s of Google search I found this: judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-details-how-federal-government-partnered-universities-censor.
Sure, this can be some kind of political maneuvering. Maybe EIP didn't do everything claimed there. But I wouldn't say the house committee lied even at the level of how EIP is founded and funded, namely, through DHS, which seems to be contradictive to the neutral, innocent image you tried to paint there (just a university research program). Maybe there is more to it since I couldn't believe it was so easy to find either.
But to your last point, this is going to be the most traumatic for you so trigger warning i guess. I did notice similar complaints under that Matt debate video so I guess this is where many of these grievances came from. You know, sticking to gender or identity politics doesn't really make you a principled leftist. It depends on what principles you are talking about, when and where. If people are facing daily threats of hunger or even death, the principles here should simply be a stable society which can satisfy people's basic needs. This is why we support Palestine. Even if we all know that when Palestine gains statehood, it will most likely operate under Muslim tradition, which means women and gender minorities will be oppressed, at least relative to the west. We don't say that as principled leftists, we do not support Palestine. So when there are two wars going on, refugee, economic, energy problems, etc., it is not against leftist principles to say, we should redirect the attention from gender politics to the more urgent issues. And perhaps the very reason that they published on these so-called right-wing outlets was precisely that they got censored/rejected by the politically correct "left-wing" outlets who, instead of agreeing to shift the focus, chose to stick to their untimely "principles". Again, this is not to say, we abandon these topics & struggles. They can all be pursued at the same time. But at the level of parliamentary politics, it's simply a matter of priorities. And if you factor in appeals to voters, which means to establish a leftist base in the long term - I really hate to repeat this old point - does the existing gender politics achieve solidarity with any people outside of the upper middle class?
Ok, but the entire exchange leading up to that 45 min mark, Doug is acting like a complete AH towards Matt. I suppose they ended things somewhat cordially, however it did come to an abrupt end due to Doug, who was clearly agitated.
Yes, but working with the SD is not the same as being a "state agency". The reason for this was because the SD was concerned about foreign interference in US voting, particularly regarding voter suppression, which should concern everyone and asked the EIP, who was studying how misinformation flows across social media, for their insight. The taking down of posts in regards to Covid conspiracies is something completely different and wasn't at the behest of the SD.
"Sticking to identity"
So does addressing homophobia, transphobia etc mean one is "sticking to identity politics"? Of course the vulgar Marxists like Doug and the clownshoe left at large claim so, but this is due to the fact that the clownshoe left are mostly out of touch boomers and Genxers, who think "racism, sexism, homophobia, Transphobia" etc "doesn't matter". And if you think that's a principles leftist position then I don't think you know what it means to be a principled leftist. People of various sexual orientations make up a large bulk of the working class, so I don't see how alienating them is conducive to a leftist project.
You can support Palestinians (which, Incidently Doug and particularly Chris Cutrone don't) while also supporting LGBQT+ people.
They get rejected by leftist outlets because leftists don't support bigotry and transphobia. I don't know what kind of leftists you associate with, but the ones I do certainly don't espouse reactionary, right wing talking points about marginalized people under the guise of leftist discourse.@@winstonkay9110
Lain should write a book: The Snowflake's View on Censorship.
The crucial distinction, which neither party to the debate seemed to understand, is that ‘narrative construction’ / ‘narrative management’ only matters within the political field, not within the economic field. How ? Why ? In the market society the producer must first make a convincing case to the consumer, must first provide him with sufficient, documented information - information he is invited to test, to subject to scrutiny, to verify and if he cannot, the sale does not proceed. In the political field the order is reversed. The subject is coerced into action, is effectively forced into the sale, information only being of concern retrospectively. ‘Information’ follows - not so that the consumer can choose, but to justify why choice is disallowed. In the market society information serves to finesse. In the political society information serves to justify the resort to force.
my utopia would be free speech for all except for robertcarpenter8077 RUclips comments
A utopia with a bill of attainder. Why not?
@@chrisbuchanan8579🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ben. quit calling them conservative, they are far right or right wingers. Conservatives died with the dodos.
Burgis dominating as usual by putting everyone to sleep.
Give them an argument (that puts them to sleep)?
yeah next time, he should totally have like whacky bells and whistles to keep you awake XD. You know what, I have a better idea. Just go play some video games :). I think you'd enjoy it a lot more. Deus Ex is a good one. Its got lots of conspiracies, you'll like it
@radscorpion8 no, he's right, they should have added subway surfers game play to the screen 😂
Busy in you straw man workshops I see
@@tulip2084 You can only place responsibility for the consequences of your daft claim on your daft claim.
What the fuck are you two on about?! Mind providing some context and sticking to specifics instead of some abstract mumbo jumbo?
The Dave Rubin of the Left is back.
Criticisms of the left from the left, for the benefit of the right
@@amez643 actually op is correct.
Doug Lain is embedded in talking about leftist ideas with minimal substance.
If you watch the video, Burgis is constantly sliding the pink slip under the door
He's a shill for right wing, Koch owned outfits like Spiked.
Ashely Frawley, who frequents his channel, is a crypto right winger who writes articles for right wing/alt right outlets like the European Conservative, articles with such titles as "How the Gender Lobby Hijacked the EU's Policy Agenda". Dougs joke of a channel also frequently hosts pederast defender and Palestinian genocide denier Chris Cutrone.
Fr.
Sad to see Doug literally censoring his opponent when given the chance.
Doug Lain loves censorship. He has censored me from commenting on his videos after I demolished him on the Twitter Files claim. He's a gross hypocrite.
I know it is prostrating to see that muting. But I can also understand why Doug felt he had to do that. He is just trying to finish his thought.