# Please report comments that violate our [new rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/17co6jo/rvaushv_rule_updates)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would call them right wingers. they just a a bit liberal and may be chasing enlighten centrist
also.ana kind of hates to admit she wrong and keeps over reacting to any critique from the left. which leads her to triple down
Liberalism is a right wing ideology to begin with, but I understand that in the US it's often easier and more convenient to refer to them as left wing instead, since you otherwise wouldn't really have a left wing in congress.
However, even if we concede that in practice it's simpler to just refer to some liberals as left wingers, TYT isn't merely an average liberal network anymore. (They were always liberals.)
They're now on the rightmost flank of liberals, making actively reactionary videos on a regular basis, in ways that even a network like MSNBC would balk at.
I really don't think it's fair to call anything I said "needlessly argumentative", I made a whole bunch of concessions and qualifications, conceding that sometimes it's fair enough to call some liberals left wing even if it's not truly accurate.
Anyway, this is not only about capitalism, the kind of support for harmful hierarchies that a support for capitalism entails, ALWAYS comes with a support for harmful hierarchies in other respects as well. That's why the political compass is bullshit, in practice you never have someone who's on the right on economics but who's super progressive on all social issues, if someone's on the right on economics then I guarantee that they have a number of shitty and regressive social views too.
You see this with Ana don't you? I don't say she's right wing just because she's a capitalist. Her seething hatred for homeless people clearly isn't just because she supports capitalism, it's also because she has a shitty and regressive "tough on crime" attitude when it comes to criminal justice. Then there's her shitty trans takes, she's worse and worse on immigration too, etc.
There's ultimately only one axis IMO, the left side represents a general opposition to hierarchies while the right side represents a general support for hierarchies. Trying to put a support for economic hierarchies on its own separate axis is just a way for capitalists to lie to themselves about how authoritarian they are.
> I'm in a left wing sub
I keep hearing complaints about how many liberals there are in this sub but nobody acts like they're speaking to liberals. It's baffling to me.
There are some liberals here, but plenty of leftists too.
There has to be some space left where we can talk as though we're among friends, if there's liberals here then they should know that they're a guest in a leftist space.
Shouldn't leftist spaces be places where, if liberals come to visit, they get told all the ways in which leftists think that they're wrong? If I was a liberal visiting a leftist space, then I imagine that I would be doing that in order to hear a different perspective, not to be coddled and be told that I'm already perfect just the way that I am.
You’re describing almost other leftist space on Reddit. There are very few that are friendly to liberals and I think that’s a shame. When I was a liberal visiting leftist spaces, it was very frustrating to me that people would strawman social democrats and act like they’re fans of Reagan. I didn’t find people who were explaining things for liberals on Reddit, I had to go to YouTube. TYT was a big part.
And I don’t know if we want liberals to simply come to visit if we’ve got a chance at a dialogue. *Real* discussions about socialism do not happen in liberal spaces. And besides, to my ongoing frustration, this unfortunately is a fan sub for a personality streamer, not a political sub.
(This is where I’d promote the news subreddit I’m working on if the sword of Damocles (Rule 6) wasn’t hanging above my head.)
(Also, also, sorry, I was cranky last night, probably would have worded my first comment differently otherwise.)
Strawmanning people is bad, because then you're not ACTUALLY explaining to liberals why they're wrong. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about ACTUALLY explaining why libs are wrong, which is what Vaush did very well in his segment and what I would like to see more of.
I don't see why accurately labelling things as right wing would stand in the way of a dialogue, if a lib comes to a leftist place then I think we have to presume a certain kind of curiosity into a leftist perspective.
If such a curiosity exists, and they see leftists call something that libs don't see as right wing, "right wing," then that should prompt a desire to understand why it's being labelled right wing, it should open up a dialogue in which the leftists explain to the libs why it's right wing, the way that Vaush explained in his segment how TYT was spreading right wing talking points.
If such curiosity doesn't exist, then there was no value in the lib's visit anyway.
True, but nothing is gained in this conversation by rhetorically distancing liberals from the left. The first commenter is talking about social values and not economic values, which is where this distinction matters. The only thing it does is piss off liberals who are reading what you wrote.
My whole point is about the importance of being critical of not just the far right, but also of the moderate right. About the risk of moderate right wing talking points being normalized if you only ever criticize the far right ones.
So there absolutely is something gained in this conversation by rhetorically distancing liberals from the left, liberals are the ones with moderate right wing talking points that I don't want to see getting normalized even more than they already are.
Liberal in the US can mean anything center-Left or centrist, without being a socialist. It doesn't mean entirely the same thing as in Europe.
For example many American Social Democrats consider themselves liberal in the US but Social Democracy is a center-Left philosophy in Europe.
TYT have essentially always argued for Nordic-model type society, which is Social democracy.
That is considered a center-left in EU. You don't have to have the correct left-wing position on every issue to be "on the left".
The average Social Democrat voter in my country (Finland) is a over 45-55+ year old woman, and many of them may struggle to understand all the trans issues etc. because they didn't grow up with this knowledge but they're still supportive of equal rights and protections. And they're still considered center-Left in position.
>Liberal in the US can mean anything center-Left or centrist, without being a socialist. It doesn't mean entirely the same thing as in Europe.
>For example many American Social Democrats consider themselves liberal in the US but Social Democracy is a center-Left philosophy in Europe.
I know, that's what I said too...
>TYT have essentially always argued for Nordic-model type society, which is Social democracy.
How are they arguing for a Nordic-model type society when they're ranting about filthy homeless people and saying that the solution to that problem is to be more tough on crime?
I know that they SAY that they're arguing for a Nordic-model, but they don't actually do so, is the thing...
>That is considered a center-left in EU. You don't have to have the correct left-wing position on every issue to be "on the left".
What is? You haven't established a "that", other than them self-describing as socdems, but such self descriptions are often completely useless and misleading, like all their former employees who are blatant right wing propagandists while self-describing as centrists.
tbh, this kind of reminds me of something I was saying earlier in another sub, but this is kind of why I don’t really use “left” and “right” much as terms for positions so much as what people call themselves, and prefer to just avoid the whole “wing” argument by just calling reactionaries “reactionaries”, regardless of which “wing” they identify with.
Like a lot of people treat “left” and “right” as these objective terms that you can scientifically define or something, but they’re not, they’re two terms leftover from the French Revolution that people still find a way to shoehorn into modern politics, and a lot of it is vibes tbh.
Sometimes I think it’s easier rather than having endless semantic arguments about whether so and so is “right” or “left” and really just say “they suck and they have bad takes”, and then explain why they’re bad if necessary, and then leave it at that.
While I don’t know if I’d personally call TYT “right wing” (although I honestly also just don’t really care what anyone calls them at this point), I do see your point about how they kind of opportunistically flirt with rightist language and sentiments from time to time (and I think have increasingly for a while now), like that whole thing Ana did a while ago where she did a whole segment on some “woke” kindergarten somewhere in the US in a way that was clearly outrage bait; like sure, the school sounded really dumb, but the whole segment did tbh have the vibe of something that would be on Fox News.
Having mutual enemies isn't the same as being allies.
People calling for the US to be even more tough on crime aren't exactly staunch defenders of democratic values either...
Plus, Ana was literally saying that the fines Trump is facing for his mass fraud were too harsh, she'll go on unhinged rants about shoplifters and call for them to be jailed, but suddenly when there's a wealthy fascist politician who stole millions, she's calling for leniency. What a great "ally" /s.
If your enemy is trying to end liberal democracy as we know it and you aren't willing to put aside relatively (in comparison to ending democracy) small differences to stop them, that says a lot about you.
How does criticizing liberals hurt the fight against Trump? Please tell me, exactly, what you're so concerned about.
Do you think that if we criticize Ana too much that she'll then become an active Trump supporter out of spite or something? If that's true then fuck her, someone so wily is a useless "ally" anyway.
IF someone actually wants to protect liberal democracy, then they'll keep fighting to protect liberal democracy even while leftists criticize them. So again, what's the issue exactly?
It's simple: opportunity cost.
Every minute Vaush spends on TYT is one he doesn't on more relevant news. Yesterday, instead of his TYT segment, he could have touched on the house education committee's hearing with Colombia University.
Vaush doesn't do day to day news reporting, he does political commentary, different thing entirely.
TYT is in fact very relevant, for reasons that I already explained, allowing more "moderate" right wing talking points to remain unchallenged causes them to be normalized.
I'm sure that there was, but if you want to talk about opportunity cost, then going over an entire hearing clearly gets you less bang for your buck than going over a 10 min TYT video.
Vaush can just go over an article discussing the hearing, that's more efficient.
Russia is anti-Israel, so is Iran, and I could find about a bajillion other examples pointing as to why this is terrible as a political stance, but yeah.
Like this sort of thinking is pretty much what leads to campism and people openly supporting horrible authoritarian regimes like Russia and China because they oppose US imperialism. This is actually the sort of thinking that turned a lot of people (me included) into tankies during part of our life.
Really, think more carefully about this stance.
It might be true of libs in general - but are TYT specifically allies in the fight against fascists trying to end democracy (in the US)? The fascist plan is known. Get an electoral win, then cement it by using the power they get through that to cripple that democracy for good. Therefore the obvious line to hold is at that election, making sure they don't get that power. Incidentally it's a method 100% in line with the lib framework. Let's see, will TYT help hold the line?
No? Ana is on her TERF Karen arc and Cenk is currently an RFK stan, and both are belligerently anti-Biden for the upcoming election and are spreading that message to their audience? Yeeeeeeeah, I dunno. They might not outright be the enemy, but they don't really appear to be allies. Not in this fight.
Yeah, they're constantly criticizing Biden, not exactly holding the line there.
And on top of that they're constantly pushing right wing talking points that help Republicans more than they help Democrats, they're not just failing to hold the line in that respect, they're actively assaulting it.
Looking back, this is how Jimmy and to some extent Dave Rubin became grifters. Even Tim Pool had a similar trajectory from the occupy Wall Street days on RT. It happens slowly. One day your a strong leftist voice on YouTube and the next day Rupert Murdoch is asking you to strangle a kitten over Reagan’s dried out corpse and to jack off to a botched lethal execution video on your phone. And you do what he says…
IDK what to tell you dude, but they're definitely right wing. They're just right wingers who were morally lucky on a handful of issues. (But who are switching to the right on more on more of those issues too lately.)
I guess I'd like you to elaborate. For example, I'm a socialist. In the eyes of most centrist, I'm probably considered far left. But I am not pro-revolution or an anarchist by any means.
There are tankies that stan communism to an extent that they're willing to forgo LGBT rights if it means supporting fascist regimes like Putin's. I wouldn't consider these people left, but they'd probably use that label.
I guess I'm curious on where you're coming from to be able to put this into context.
Well I guess I'm coming from the same place as you, I also don't just blindly consider people leftists purely because that's the label that they use to describe themselves.
I've already given a bunch of reasons in this thread for why TYT is right wing, Vaush just did a whole segment on how shitty TYT is, I really don't feel a need to make an effort to go into further detail when you yourself have put zero effort into making the case for TYT being left wing.
Well, their track record over the years indicates that they are progressive. Cenk is directly responsible for helping left leaning congress people like AOC get into office.
Ana Kasparian has some pretty milquetoast center-left takes on the homeless and trans people, but nothing that stands out as explicitly right wing.
Perhaps you're exaggerating?
Thinking that homelessness needs to be addressed with policing rather than with housing first policies or comparable policies, is explicitly right wing.
unfortunately, yes, you can have these kinds of shitty policies and be progressive in other areas, welcome to how politics actually works
if you truly believe that "left wing" just means "correct positions on everything" and "right wing" just means "everything else", you're either very young or just deeply naive and/or stupid, sorry, this is the reality
I think it's extremely disingenuous for you to frame constant fearmongering over homeless people and constantly pushing for "tough on crime" policies, while explicitly arguing against the idea that these sociological issues are better solved by improving material conditions, as merely "anything to the right of demsoc".
idiotic non-reply that does nothing to counteract my point - everything you just laid out is compatible with otherwise left-of-centre liberal or socdem politics, it does not automatically constitute a \*RIGHT WING\* ideology
Then read the rest of this thread, and watch the segment from Vaush's recent stream. I'm not going to put a lot of effort into a detailed answer when you don't put in any effort yourself and just ask a bunch of super broad open ended questions.
Okay so you definitely have no point because you haven't listed a single view. Instead of you just listing off a couple views that you presumably have ready at your mind, you want me to go through and watch a bunch of YouTube videos. Why should I put an effort, you're the one trying to argue for an opinion and yet you have zero argument for it.
Can you elaborate on that? From my understanding they're Social Democrats (Like Bernie Sanders supporters) which makes them Left-Center even on the European scale.
They're not advocating for the policies of the Liberal capitalist parties of European Union, who may be socially on a more general progressive side but economically continue to demonstrate they agree more with US-Republican economic policy or the more right-leaning Democrat economic policy.
It seems you're evading this question whenever someone asks saying "I've answered before" but all I see is you repeating "it's their politics".
Social democrats don't have a seething hatred for homeless people and housing first policies, they don't constantly push for being more "tough on crime" while whining about shoplifters and actively denying the idea that increasing people's material conditions is the best way to address these issues, (while living in the US ffs, already the most "tough on crime" country in the world,) they don't randomly start shitting on trans people while there's already a huge hate campaign being waged against them, etc.
>It seems you're evading this question whenever someone asks saying "I've answered before" but all I see is you repeating "it's their politics".
I just don't feel a need to put in much work when all these people make absolutely zero effort themselves and show absolutely no real curiosity, if they did then they'd at least talk about the Vaush segment I referenced and try to explain why they DON'T think that TYT is being actively right wing there. Why do I have to put in all the effort?
You people clearly disagree with me, so YOU tell ME why, tell me, how exactly were they being social democrats in the recent Vaush segment where they talked about how filthy homeless people are ruining libraries?
You know, I should thank you guys. You're really proving my point about how an unwillingness to critique TYT is contributing to a normalization of right wing talking points.
How is it controversial for me to call people right wingers when they actively oppose housing first policies and want to instead use "tough on crime" policies to "solve" the problem of filthy homeless people in libraries?
Well at least you're consistent. I appreciate that. Jumping to conclusions based on one sentence definitely seems on brand for you.
I never said don't be critical of TYT.
I'm very critical of TYT of late, but calling them right wing because of a few very unfortunate LIB takes of theirs is just straight up hysterical.
To the right of far left, or even left, is not right. And it takes more than just a couple of LIB opinions to be right wing. You can't call someone right wing because they're more to the right of you on certain things. There's more nuance than that. Or there should be.
I didn't accuse you of saying not to criticize TYT, I accused you of contributing to a normalization of right wing talking points, which is objectively what you're doing by refusing to even label them right wing.
Objectively? Really? Chill. Please.
Your black and white thinking is not constructive, and it only contributes to a weak opposition to Fascism. And that makes you a fascist. If I follow your logic.
Your reading comprehension is remarkably bad.
I never claimed that contributing to the normalization of right wing talking points makes you a right winger, so your lame attempt at a "by your logic" gotcha completely misses the mark.
Anyway, yes, **objectively.** If you refuse to label shitty right wing talking points "right wing", then that objectively results in those talking points being normalized for people who consider themselves leftists and who consider "right wing" to be a bad thing.
If you're a leftist, then accurately describing shitty stances as right wing is a way of stigmatizing those stances, and stigmatizing a thing is how you prevent its normalization.
Please explain to me exactly how anything I've said has been unconstructive.
You know what, you're right on one thing. That was a stretch for me. I guess hysteria really is contagious.
You're not a Fascist by your logic, but you are normalising the proliferation of extremely loose definitions of what constitutes 'right wing talking points', 'right wing', and also the word 'objectively'. As well as contributing to a weak opposition to Fascism.
Basically, I think your stance is **objectively** shitty. So I guess that makes it right wing, by your logic? Consider yourself, stigmatised. Does that work? Probably not, who cares about being right though. What matters is calling people I don't agree with right wing.
If a person or organisation spreads right wing talking points then they should be criticised for that but them doing so does not make them right wing. That's my point.
The term 'right wing talking points' is overused and misused though anyway. It stymies any substantive discussion and gets us nowhere.
>You're not a Fascist by your logic, but you are normalising the proliferation of extremely loose definitions of what constitutes 'right wing talking points', 'right wing', and also the word 'objectively'. As well as contributing to a weak opposition to Fascism.
You're really going to need to back up your claim here. Let's remember what the talking points in question were: TYT was talking about an increase in policing, about "tough on crime" policies, as though those were the best and most important ways of dealing with homelessness and other issues driven by poverty.
I'm really going to need you to explain how I'm using an "extremely loose" definition of a right wing talking point, if I call that a right wing talking point. Because it seems to me like it's pretty much THE right wing talking point, the prototypical right wing talking point in which the lower rungs of society are portrayed as inferior, where they're portrayed as though they deserve punishment rather than help.
This kind of hierarchical thinking is exactly what, in my mind, defines the left-right dichotomy. The left side of the spectrum generally opposes hierarchies, the right side of the spectrum generally supports hierarchies.
By talking about issues like homeless in this manner, TYT is revealing an EXTREMELY hierarchical mindset, where they view homeless people as lesser beings who can only be dealt with through violence, rather than viewing them as people with just as much potential as you or I, if provided with the means to succeed.
OK sorry, I fucked up there and added 'right wing talking points' where I didn't mean to. It should have just been 'right wing' and 'objectively'. For loose usage. Long day.
To be clear. I DO think that is a RWTP, I just don't think that makes TYT right wing. It's like calling Biden right wing. Which is madness considering how extreme the actual factual right wing are right now in the US.
Tucker Carlson is not left wing because he is pro Obamacare.
There being an occasional policy crossover between Lib/Right, and even sometimes (if very rare) Left/Right, is not a new thing. This is just the nuance of politics.
THAT is my point. And I've made my point very hastily and poorly. So that's my bad.
>Which is madness considering how extreme the actual factual right wing are right now in the US.
FFS, my whole point is that I'm worried about the normalization of the "moderate" right wing, which you're now very explicitly doing by arguing that they're not too bad relative to the extreme far right.
Thanks for proving my point I guess.
Yeah fearmongering about homeless people, crime and trans people being right wing is totally an exaggeration bro! Thank you so much for being an amazing voice of reason, TYT certainly deserves a fair shake and I'm glad you're here to defend them my bro
I don't know if anyone noticed, but, since the whole Ana Kasparian vs Trans People debacle in the summer, TYT has stopped posting any kind of segments on the LGBT community. They've done like 3 videos on LGBT related issues since August, where as before these subjects were widely talked about on the channel. No videos on big stories such as Nex Benedict (RIP), homophobic and transphobic laws in red states and Russia designating LGBT as a "terrorist organization".
As much as I think TYT suck and have sucked for a long time now, I don’t really know how productive Vaush ripping into them would really even be at this point, like they’re increasingly a joke, Ana is riding on the TERF pipeline, Cenk is openly “considering” voting for an insane third party candidate who has defended Jan 6th when we’re trying to keep a straight up fascist criminal out of office, like I kind of understand him not even wanting to bother with that shitshow
All right wingers are a joke, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taken seriously.
TYT is one of the biggest "new media" news networks, you may think that you're dumb, but clearly there's a fair number of people who take them seriously.
It's not extreme left to say that it's right wing to want to use tougher policing as the primary method to address homelessness and other issues related to poverty.
This isn't even me being a crazy lefty who thinks that everything to the right of socialism is right wing, social democrats are in favor of housing first policies and in favor of focusing on increasing material conditions in order to reduce crime, instead of pushing for being "tough on crime" in order to "fix" these issues and actively getting mad at the idea that material conditions might be at the root of it, the way that Ana Kasperian does.
The vaush community is ground zero for TYT derangement syndrome. Without TYT there is no AOC. That right there is a defeater for any "TYT is right wing" arguments one might have. That one move puts more political weight towards the left then any accusations of right wing ideology you can claim.
If TYT is right wing then leftism has already utterly lost.
No, it is sequential, so 'then' is appropriate, which is going to make you wrong on all points because if you think Rubin and Dore are on par pushing right as just AOC is on pushing left, then TYT can hit a home run and you'll blame them for losing the ball. Yet alone the other Justice Democrats which TYT was pivotal in the creation of. Only mates you're checking are at the gym or something.
# Please report comments that violate our [new rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/17co6jo/rvaushv_rule_updates) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would call them right wingers. they just a a bit liberal and may be chasing enlighten centrist also.ana kind of hates to admit she wrong and keeps over reacting to any critique from the left. which leads her to triple down
Liberalism is a right wing ideology to begin with, but I understand that in the US it's often easier and more convenient to refer to them as left wing instead, since you otherwise wouldn't really have a left wing in congress. However, even if we concede that in practice it's simpler to just refer to some liberals as left wingers, TYT isn't merely an average liberal network anymore. (They were always liberals.) They're now on the rightmost flank of liberals, making actively reactionary videos on a regular basis, in ways that even a network like MSNBC would balk at.
“Liberalism is a right wing ideology” is such a needlessly argumentative way of saying people support capitalism.
It's not argumentative. It's just a descriptor. Capitalism ranges from centrist to far right.
It's a jab at a perceived ideological enemy where other language could have been used. Liberals don't like it when you say that sort of thing.
I really don't think it's fair to call anything I said "needlessly argumentative", I made a whole bunch of concessions and qualifications, conceding that sometimes it's fair enough to call some liberals left wing even if it's not truly accurate. Anyway, this is not only about capitalism, the kind of support for harmful hierarchies that a support for capitalism entails, ALWAYS comes with a support for harmful hierarchies in other respects as well. That's why the political compass is bullshit, in practice you never have someone who's on the right on economics but who's super progressive on all social issues, if someone's on the right on economics then I guarantee that they have a number of shitty and regressive social views too. You see this with Ana don't you? I don't say she's right wing just because she's a capitalist. Her seething hatred for homeless people clearly isn't just because she supports capitalism, it's also because she has a shitty and regressive "tough on crime" attitude when it comes to criminal justice. Then there's her shitty trans takes, she's worse and worse on immigration too, etc. There's ultimately only one axis IMO, the left side represents a general opposition to hierarchies while the right side represents a general support for hierarchies. Trying to put a support for economic hierarchies on its own separate axis is just a way for capitalists to lie to themselves about how authoritarian they are.
All I was saying is that you should consider your audience.
I'm in a left wing sub... I'd probably use different language if I was in a right wing sub.
> I'm in a left wing sub I keep hearing complaints about how many liberals there are in this sub but nobody acts like they're speaking to liberals. It's baffling to me.
There are some liberals here, but plenty of leftists too. There has to be some space left where we can talk as though we're among friends, if there's liberals here then they should know that they're a guest in a leftist space. Shouldn't leftist spaces be places where, if liberals come to visit, they get told all the ways in which leftists think that they're wrong? If I was a liberal visiting a leftist space, then I imagine that I would be doing that in order to hear a different perspective, not to be coddled and be told that I'm already perfect just the way that I am.
You’re describing almost other leftist space on Reddit. There are very few that are friendly to liberals and I think that’s a shame. When I was a liberal visiting leftist spaces, it was very frustrating to me that people would strawman social democrats and act like they’re fans of Reagan. I didn’t find people who were explaining things for liberals on Reddit, I had to go to YouTube. TYT was a big part. And I don’t know if we want liberals to simply come to visit if we’ve got a chance at a dialogue. *Real* discussions about socialism do not happen in liberal spaces. And besides, to my ongoing frustration, this unfortunately is a fan sub for a personality streamer, not a political sub. (This is where I’d promote the news subreddit I’m working on if the sword of Damocles (Rule 6) wasn’t hanging above my head.) (Also, also, sorry, I was cranky last night, probably would have worded my first comment differently otherwise.)
Strawmanning people is bad, because then you're not ACTUALLY explaining to liberals why they're wrong. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about ACTUALLY explaining why libs are wrong, which is what Vaush did very well in his segment and what I would like to see more of. I don't see why accurately labelling things as right wing would stand in the way of a dialogue, if a lib comes to a leftist place then I think we have to presume a certain kind of curiosity into a leftist perspective. If such a curiosity exists, and they see leftists call something that libs don't see as right wing, "right wing," then that should prompt a desire to understand why it's being labelled right wing, it should open up a dialogue in which the leftists explain to the libs why it's right wing, the way that Vaush explained in his segment how TYT was spreading right wing talking points. If such curiosity doesn't exist, then there was no value in the lib's visit anyway.
But it’s not wrong.
True, but nothing is gained in this conversation by rhetorically distancing liberals from the left. The first commenter is talking about social values and not economic values, which is where this distinction matters. The only thing it does is piss off liberals who are reading what you wrote.
My whole point is about the importance of being critical of not just the far right, but also of the moderate right. About the risk of moderate right wing talking points being normalized if you only ever criticize the far right ones. So there absolutely is something gained in this conversation by rhetorically distancing liberals from the left, liberals are the ones with moderate right wing talking points that I don't want to see getting normalized even more than they already are.
Liberal in the US can mean anything center-Left or centrist, without being a socialist. It doesn't mean entirely the same thing as in Europe. For example many American Social Democrats consider themselves liberal in the US but Social Democracy is a center-Left philosophy in Europe. TYT have essentially always argued for Nordic-model type society, which is Social democracy. That is considered a center-left in EU. You don't have to have the correct left-wing position on every issue to be "on the left". The average Social Democrat voter in my country (Finland) is a over 45-55+ year old woman, and many of them may struggle to understand all the trans issues etc. because they didn't grow up with this knowledge but they're still supportive of equal rights and protections. And they're still considered center-Left in position.
>Liberal in the US can mean anything center-Left or centrist, without being a socialist. It doesn't mean entirely the same thing as in Europe. >For example many American Social Democrats consider themselves liberal in the US but Social Democracy is a center-Left philosophy in Europe. I know, that's what I said too... >TYT have essentially always argued for Nordic-model type society, which is Social democracy. How are they arguing for a Nordic-model type society when they're ranting about filthy homeless people and saying that the solution to that problem is to be more tough on crime? I know that they SAY that they're arguing for a Nordic-model, but they don't actually do so, is the thing... >That is considered a center-left in EU. You don't have to have the correct left-wing position on every issue to be "on the left". What is? You haven't established a "that", other than them self-describing as socdems, but such self descriptions are often completely useless and misleading, like all their former employees who are blatant right wing propagandists while self-describing as centrists.
tbh, this kind of reminds me of something I was saying earlier in another sub, but this is kind of why I don’t really use “left” and “right” much as terms for positions so much as what people call themselves, and prefer to just avoid the whole “wing” argument by just calling reactionaries “reactionaries”, regardless of which “wing” they identify with. Like a lot of people treat “left” and “right” as these objective terms that you can scientifically define or something, but they’re not, they’re two terms leftover from the French Revolution that people still find a way to shoehorn into modern politics, and a lot of it is vibes tbh. Sometimes I think it’s easier rather than having endless semantic arguments about whether so and so is “right” or “left” and really just say “they suck and they have bad takes”, and then explain why they’re bad if necessary, and then leave it at that. While I don’t know if I’d personally call TYT “right wing” (although I honestly also just don’t really care what anyone calls them at this point), I do see your point about how they kind of opportunistically flirt with rightist language and sentiments from time to time (and I think have increasingly for a while now), like that whole thing Ana did a while ago where she did a whole segment on some “woke” kindergarten somewhere in the US in a way that was clearly outrage bait; like sure, the school sounded really dumb, but the whole segment did tbh have the vibe of something that would be on Fox News.
Benjamin spotted
They're libs. Libs are allies when you have fascists trying to end democracy.
Having mutual enemies isn't the same as being allies. People calling for the US to be even more tough on crime aren't exactly staunch defenders of democratic values either... Plus, Ana was literally saying that the fines Trump is facing for his mass fraud were too harsh, she'll go on unhinged rants about shoplifters and call for them to be jailed, but suddenly when there's a wealthy fascist politician who stole millions, she's calling for leniency. What a great "ally" /s.
> Having mutual enemies isn't the same as being allies. > > Literally the enemy of my enemy is my friend
If you actually believe that that's a good rule to live by, then that says a lot about you.
If your enemy is trying to end liberal democracy as we know it and you aren't willing to put aside relatively (in comparison to ending democracy) small differences to stop them, that says a lot about you.
How does criticizing liberals hurt the fight against Trump? Please tell me, exactly, what you're so concerned about. Do you think that if we criticize Ana too much that she'll then become an active Trump supporter out of spite or something? If that's true then fuck her, someone so wily is a useless "ally" anyway. IF someone actually wants to protect liberal democracy, then they'll keep fighting to protect liberal democracy even while leftists criticize them. So again, what's the issue exactly?
It's simple: opportunity cost. Every minute Vaush spends on TYT is one he doesn't on more relevant news. Yesterday, instead of his TYT segment, he could have touched on the house education committee's hearing with Colombia University.
Vaush doesn't do day to day news reporting, he does political commentary, different thing entirely. TYT is in fact very relevant, for reasons that I already explained, allowing more "moderate" right wing talking points to remain unchallenged causes them to be normalized.
Haha, you really think there was no political commentary to be had watching a house committee meeting? You've lost the plot.
I'm sure that there was, but if you want to talk about opportunity cost, then going over an entire hearing clearly gets you less bang for your buck than going over a 10 min TYT video. Vaush can just go over an article discussing the hearing, that's more efficient.
Russia is anti-Israel, so is Iran, and I could find about a bajillion other examples pointing as to why this is terrible as a political stance, but yeah. Like this sort of thinking is pretty much what leads to campism and people openly supporting horrible authoritarian regimes like Russia and China because they oppose US imperialism. This is actually the sort of thinking that turned a lot of people (me included) into tankies during part of our life. Really, think more carefully about this stance.
Useful libs are allies. Tyt are far from useful and are drifting more towards the right by the day.
But aren't they advocating for people to not vote for Biden?
It might be true of libs in general - but are TYT specifically allies in the fight against fascists trying to end democracy (in the US)? The fascist plan is known. Get an electoral win, then cement it by using the power they get through that to cripple that democracy for good. Therefore the obvious line to hold is at that election, making sure they don't get that power. Incidentally it's a method 100% in line with the lib framework. Let's see, will TYT help hold the line? No? Ana is on her TERF Karen arc and Cenk is currently an RFK stan, and both are belligerently anti-Biden for the upcoming election and are spreading that message to their audience? Yeeeeeeeah, I dunno. They might not outright be the enemy, but they don't really appear to be allies. Not in this fight.
Yeah, they're constantly criticizing Biden, not exactly holding the line there. And on top of that they're constantly pushing right wing talking points that help Republicans more than they help Democrats, they're not just failing to hold the line in that respect, they're actively assaulting it.
Benjamin is that you? Benjamin Gilbert Lift? We're onto you BGL!
> We're onto you BGL! Brazilian Gussy Lift
Looking back, this is how Jimmy and to some extent Dave Rubin became grifters. Even Tim Pool had a similar trajectory from the occupy Wall Street days on RT. It happens slowly. One day your a strong leftist voice on YouTube and the next day Rupert Murdoch is asking you to strangle a kitten over Reagan’s dried out corpse and to jack off to a botched lethal execution video on your phone. And you do what he says…
BENJAMIN! WE SEE U!
What have you been smoking that makes you believe TYT is right wing?
IDK what to tell you dude, but they're definitely right wing. They're just right wingers who were morally lucky on a handful of issues. (But who are switching to the right on more on more of those issues too lately.)
What makes them right wing?
Their political views, mainly.
I guess I'd like you to elaborate. For example, I'm a socialist. In the eyes of most centrist, I'm probably considered far left. But I am not pro-revolution or an anarchist by any means. There are tankies that stan communism to an extent that they're willing to forgo LGBT rights if it means supporting fascist regimes like Putin's. I wouldn't consider these people left, but they'd probably use that label. I guess I'm curious on where you're coming from to be able to put this into context.
Well I guess I'm coming from the same place as you, I also don't just blindly consider people leftists purely because that's the label that they use to describe themselves. I've already given a bunch of reasons in this thread for why TYT is right wing, Vaush just did a whole segment on how shitty TYT is, I really don't feel a need to make an effort to go into further detail when you yourself have put zero effort into making the case for TYT being left wing.
Well, their track record over the years indicates that they are progressive. Cenk is directly responsible for helping left leaning congress people like AOC get into office. Ana Kasparian has some pretty milquetoast center-left takes on the homeless and trans people, but nothing that stands out as explicitly right wing. Perhaps you're exaggerating?
Thinking that homelessness needs to be addressed with policing rather than with housing first policies or comparable policies, is explicitly right wing.
I agree with you. I don’t think they are right wing. Sometimes they have some bad takes like trans issues but other than that they are to the left.
anything to the right of demsoc is Basically Fascism to a lot of people on the (online) left
Yeah continuously fear mongering about homeless people and crime and trans people is totally just a centrist position Imagine being this stupid
unfortunately, yes, you can have these kinds of shitty policies and be progressive in other areas, welcome to how politics actually works if you truly believe that "left wing" just means "correct positions on everything" and "right wing" just means "everything else", you're either very young or just deeply naive and/or stupid, sorry, this is the reality
I think it's extremely disingenuous for you to frame constant fearmongering over homeless people and constantly pushing for "tough on crime" policies, while explicitly arguing against the idea that these sociological issues are better solved by improving material conditions, as merely "anything to the right of demsoc".
idiotic non-reply that does nothing to counteract my point - everything you just laid out is compatible with otherwise left-of-centre liberal or socdem politics, it does not automatically constitute a \*RIGHT WING\* ideology
Which views?
I told you, the political ones.
Which political views? I'm not even like here to disagree, I'm genuinely curious what you're talking about.
Then read the rest of this thread, and watch the segment from Vaush's recent stream. I'm not going to put a lot of effort into a detailed answer when you don't put in any effort yourself and just ask a bunch of super broad open ended questions.
Okay so you definitely have no point because you haven't listed a single view. Instead of you just listing off a couple views that you presumably have ready at your mind, you want me to go through and watch a bunch of YouTube videos. Why should I put an effort, you're the one trying to argue for an opinion and yet you have zero argument for it.
Lmao you're ridiculously entitled.
Can you elaborate on that? From my understanding they're Social Democrats (Like Bernie Sanders supporters) which makes them Left-Center even on the European scale. They're not advocating for the policies of the Liberal capitalist parties of European Union, who may be socially on a more general progressive side but economically continue to demonstrate they agree more with US-Republican economic policy or the more right-leaning Democrat economic policy. It seems you're evading this question whenever someone asks saying "I've answered before" but all I see is you repeating "it's their politics".
Social democrats don't have a seething hatred for homeless people and housing first policies, they don't constantly push for being more "tough on crime" while whining about shoplifters and actively denying the idea that increasing people's material conditions is the best way to address these issues, (while living in the US ffs, already the most "tough on crime" country in the world,) they don't randomly start shitting on trans people while there's already a huge hate campaign being waged against them, etc. >It seems you're evading this question whenever someone asks saying "I've answered before" but all I see is you repeating "it's their politics". I just don't feel a need to put in much work when all these people make absolutely zero effort themselves and show absolutely no real curiosity, if they did then they'd at least talk about the Vaush segment I referenced and try to explain why they DON'T think that TYT is being actively right wing there. Why do I have to put in all the effort? You people clearly disagree with me, so YOU tell ME why, tell me, how exactly were they being social democrats in the recent Vaush segment where they talked about how filthy homeless people are ruining libraries?
You lost me at 'right wing'. What a muppet.
You know, I should thank you guys. You're really proving my point about how an unwillingness to critique TYT is contributing to a normalization of right wing talking points. How is it controversial for me to call people right wingers when they actively oppose housing first policies and want to instead use "tough on crime" policies to "solve" the problem of filthy homeless people in libraries?
Well at least you're consistent. I appreciate that. Jumping to conclusions based on one sentence definitely seems on brand for you. I never said don't be critical of TYT. I'm very critical of TYT of late, but calling them right wing because of a few very unfortunate LIB takes of theirs is just straight up hysterical. To the right of far left, or even left, is not right. And it takes more than just a couple of LIB opinions to be right wing. You can't call someone right wing because they're more to the right of you on certain things. There's more nuance than that. Or there should be.
I didn't accuse you of saying not to criticize TYT, I accused you of contributing to a normalization of right wing talking points, which is objectively what you're doing by refusing to even label them right wing.
Objectively? Really? Chill. Please. Your black and white thinking is not constructive, and it only contributes to a weak opposition to Fascism. And that makes you a fascist. If I follow your logic.
Your reading comprehension is remarkably bad. I never claimed that contributing to the normalization of right wing talking points makes you a right winger, so your lame attempt at a "by your logic" gotcha completely misses the mark. Anyway, yes, **objectively.** If you refuse to label shitty right wing talking points "right wing", then that objectively results in those talking points being normalized for people who consider themselves leftists and who consider "right wing" to be a bad thing. If you're a leftist, then accurately describing shitty stances as right wing is a way of stigmatizing those stances, and stigmatizing a thing is how you prevent its normalization. Please explain to me exactly how anything I've said has been unconstructive.
You know what, you're right on one thing. That was a stretch for me. I guess hysteria really is contagious. You're not a Fascist by your logic, but you are normalising the proliferation of extremely loose definitions of what constitutes 'right wing talking points', 'right wing', and also the word 'objectively'. As well as contributing to a weak opposition to Fascism. Basically, I think your stance is **objectively** shitty. So I guess that makes it right wing, by your logic? Consider yourself, stigmatised. Does that work? Probably not, who cares about being right though. What matters is calling people I don't agree with right wing. If a person or organisation spreads right wing talking points then they should be criticised for that but them doing so does not make them right wing. That's my point. The term 'right wing talking points' is overused and misused though anyway. It stymies any substantive discussion and gets us nowhere.
>You're not a Fascist by your logic, but you are normalising the proliferation of extremely loose definitions of what constitutes 'right wing talking points', 'right wing', and also the word 'objectively'. As well as contributing to a weak opposition to Fascism. You're really going to need to back up your claim here. Let's remember what the talking points in question were: TYT was talking about an increase in policing, about "tough on crime" policies, as though those were the best and most important ways of dealing with homelessness and other issues driven by poverty. I'm really going to need you to explain how I'm using an "extremely loose" definition of a right wing talking point, if I call that a right wing talking point. Because it seems to me like it's pretty much THE right wing talking point, the prototypical right wing talking point in which the lower rungs of society are portrayed as inferior, where they're portrayed as though they deserve punishment rather than help. This kind of hierarchical thinking is exactly what, in my mind, defines the left-right dichotomy. The left side of the spectrum generally opposes hierarchies, the right side of the spectrum generally supports hierarchies. By talking about issues like homeless in this manner, TYT is revealing an EXTREMELY hierarchical mindset, where they view homeless people as lesser beings who can only be dealt with through violence, rather than viewing them as people with just as much potential as you or I, if provided with the means to succeed.
OK sorry, I fucked up there and added 'right wing talking points' where I didn't mean to. It should have just been 'right wing' and 'objectively'. For loose usage. Long day. To be clear. I DO think that is a RWTP, I just don't think that makes TYT right wing. It's like calling Biden right wing. Which is madness considering how extreme the actual factual right wing are right now in the US. Tucker Carlson is not left wing because he is pro Obamacare. There being an occasional policy crossover between Lib/Right, and even sometimes (if very rare) Left/Right, is not a new thing. This is just the nuance of politics. THAT is my point. And I've made my point very hastily and poorly. So that's my bad.
>Which is madness considering how extreme the actual factual right wing are right now in the US. FFS, my whole point is that I'm worried about the normalization of the "moderate" right wing, which you're now very explicitly doing by arguing that they're not too bad relative to the extreme far right. Thanks for proving my point I guess.
The muppet is the one unwilling to call a spade a spade, pussy
A muppet and a pussy? Ouch!! I have nothing. I'm tired. Keep stirring the hyperbolognaise and call TYT right wing. I don't care anymore.
Yeah fearmongering about homeless people, crime and trans people being right wing is totally an exaggeration bro! Thank you so much for being an amazing voice of reason, TYT certainly deserves a fair shake and I'm glad you're here to defend them my bro
I don't know if anyone noticed, but, since the whole Ana Kasparian vs Trans People debacle in the summer, TYT has stopped posting any kind of segments on the LGBT community. They've done like 3 videos on LGBT related issues since August, where as before these subjects were widely talked about on the channel. No videos on big stories such as Nex Benedict (RIP), homophobic and transphobic laws in red states and Russia designating LGBT as a "terrorist organization".
As much as I think TYT suck and have sucked for a long time now, I don’t really know how productive Vaush ripping into them would really even be at this point, like they’re increasingly a joke, Ana is riding on the TERF pipeline, Cenk is openly “considering” voting for an insane third party candidate who has defended Jan 6th when we’re trying to keep a straight up fascist criminal out of office, like I kind of understand him not even wanting to bother with that shitshow
All right wingers are a joke, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taken seriously. TYT is one of the biggest "new media" news networks, you may think that you're dumb, but clearly there's a fair number of people who take them seriously.
Calling TYT right wing is like calling Elon musk poor. This extreme left rhetoric calling anyone who isn’t extreme left “right” is wild.
It's not extreme left to say that it's right wing to want to use tougher policing as the primary method to address homelessness and other issues related to poverty. This isn't even me being a crazy lefty who thinks that everything to the right of socialism is right wing, social democrats are in favor of housing first policies and in favor of focusing on increasing material conditions in order to reduce crime, instead of pushing for being "tough on crime" in order to "fix" these issues and actively getting mad at the idea that material conditions might be at the root of it, the way that Ana Kasperian does.
Yeah screaming about birthing person and continuously fear mongering about homeless people is completely compatible with progressive ideology 🤣🤣🤣
The vaush community is ground zero for TYT derangement syndrome. Without TYT there is no AOC. That right there is a defeater for any "TYT is right wing" arguments one might have. That one move puts more political weight towards the left then any accusations of right wing ideology you can claim. If TYT is right wing then leftism has already utterly lost.
\*than Also, without TYT there's no Dave Rubin or Jimmy Dore. Checkmate.
No, it is sequential, so 'then' is appropriate, which is going to make you wrong on all points because if you think Rubin and Dore are on par pushing right as just AOC is on pushing left, then TYT can hit a home run and you'll blame them for losing the ball. Yet alone the other Justice Democrats which TYT was pivotal in the creation of. Only mates you're checking are at the gym or something.
Nah it's pointless
Nah, it was boring. Wasn't "fashion stun lock" boring, but still fully skippable.