the only part of this post with any meaning is your admission that you consume utter fucking garbage from randos and hacks on Youtube. If you're going to dismiss either Ball or her show's history out of hand, and then start pitching pieces of shit like Dore, Grey, CTH or whatever, I'm not going to take you seriously. I follow academics and antifascists, not fucking Jacobin lmao. American "leftists" or Berniecrats or whatever really are just liberal versions of Rush Limbaugh listeners who think that listening to one-percenter Brooklynites interview random fringe dipshits makes them revolutionaries.
also, admitting that Krystal Ball uses the same talking points as Jimmy Dore really doesn't help your argument when Dore takes money from far-right orgs to propagandise on their behalf. Jimmy's pretty tight with Matt Heimbach's Syrian friends.
almost forgot to shout out to the time Bernie called Grey irresponsible for her behaviour leading up to the general election, and Grey sabotaged his chances for Labour Secretary in retaliation by spreading disinformation claiming Biden's a pedophile and rapist.
You were arguing that Rising is right wing.
Jimmy goes off the deep end for sure— but you follow a comedian for entertainment (and to get your rage on). But the arguments he makes are mostly sound and you can easily fact check him and his sources.
The rest of the folks I mentioned— well it just shows you haven’t watched them and don’t understand what type of content it is.
I never told you to use YouTube as single source of truth or to not look up facts; but left tube is not rush Limbaugh or infowars— you can verify pretty much all the facts, and sources often given.
Of course the narrative comes from ideology— but people have ideologies, and you don’t end up following left tube by having no exposure to mainstream or right wing narratives— you do have exposure and end up ultimately rejecting them. Mainstream content is unavoidable, and those who believe it generally do without exposing themselves to other arguments.
But how very Democrat to think only experts’/academics’ opinions can be verifiable.
I would submit that the easiest way to spot a need for greater suspicion of a source though, is how a source is influenced by power. Where does research or academia get its funding? Who pays the bills for a journal? How does the narrative being made shape the world for the most powerful?
Bernie was most believable because the things he proposed and argued for were in open opposition to the most powerful— and as a result, only regular people and unions would give him any money.
Biden’s words are shit because he abjectly serves the most powerful. Campaign finance is verifiable in this country, and even the part not kept in the dark is damnable for most politicians.
The folks I mentioned are independent media outlets without corporate boards and corporate funding, without Koch brother’s financing, making arguments that are objectively in opposition of the centers of power and wealth in society— Secular Talk is not going to be sponsored by big Pharma, or the weapons industry, or Wallstreet, or Silicon Valley, or billionaires of any kind, or the leadership apparatus of either party; because the arguments being made square all of them as the problem.
Left tubers have an ideology yes— but you clearly see that the ideology draws no support except popular support, and serves no interest but public interest...
and any of these folks could trade their following and expertise in for REAL money if they were willing to become the next smarter and better Dave Rubin. The real money is on the right because the right serves power. Left tubers only continue to do what they do while opposing those interests and always at risk of being censored, de-platformed, and de-legitimized by them.
When you watch independent media should you verify sources when you want to circle your wagons? Yes, duh. Same goes for mainstream.
But when expert opinion or authoritative opinion is making arguments that clearly benefit the interests of power, there’s a much bigger need to be suspect.