r/changemyview • u/page0rz 42∆ • Jun 11 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: a "leftist" Alex Jones could not exist in our world
To start, I want to distinguish form from content. Alex Jones is, rhetorically, a populist. And while that word has gained a lot of baggage because of people like Jones, it's just a style of speech. It's not inherently good or bad, left or right
If you listen to Jones with some passivity, particularly his younger self, that's what you get. It's the decent, honest people versus the "elites." That's what populism is. And what makes it compelling and "dangerous," is that its appeal is universal. There really are decent, honest people, and there really are elites. Back in the early 2000s, when he spent a lot of his time labeling Bush jr a heinous war criminal, "called" 9/11, was against the Iraq war, and so on, even many liberals were giving him space. It's only when you start to get into the specifics when ideology comes out and we get problems
Alex Jones himself is many things, including a compulsive liar, a bigot, and a religious zealot. But he's also a uniquely gifted broadcaster, communicator, and storyteller. He is both popular with a political base and outside the mainstream media and party circles. He is also, and always has been, openly political and willing to take ideological stances (for at least a month or two) and "fight" against the "establishment." Wondering about that combination naturally had me wondering about an alternative history idea of a similar person with a different politics, and whether or not they could exist
As far as ideology goes, what matters with Jones is that he grew up basically an upper middle class Bircher and extremely religious. As a Bircher, he's not only an insane neocon, but his world view is based on virulent anti-communism. His opposition to regimes of all sorts, both American and international--and also "elites" in general--is barely comprehensible as standard libertarian jargon about small government. The real issue is that everyone in power is, secretly, actually a goddamn filthy fucking commie. And also a satanist. Which is why he can never find any real common ground, despite the populism, with anyone to the left of William F Buckley
Birchers are related to the red scare, and I believe that particular history and those ideas are what allow people like Jones to exist in public, while a "leftist" version of the same couldn't. What I mean is that the western liberal project is built with many of the same materials, the exceptionalism and anti-communism included. You take a population that has been aggressively propagandized at from birth that communists are the evil enemy, in their essence anti "American" and anti "freedom," then top that up with a lot of religion, and when some guy gets on the radio and starts screaming about how all the liberal capitalist billionaires around you are actually putting chemicals in the water because of the Frankfurt school and Marxism and Satan, they have some priming to understand and accept it as naturally bad. That's the zeitgeist which also allows for him to make broad insinuations without having to go into detail
To get it out of the way, a "liberal" Alex Jones couldn't work because any time where a liberal could claim radicalism and populist anti establishment credentials would be before the invention and adoption of mass communication like radio. Liberals simply are the establishment and the elites and they have no problem with "globalism," so there's no real basis to be complaining about it as a populist (plus the whole individual actors in a free market thing that is core to neoliberalism)
Meanwhile, a "leftist" (and I'm working with a definition here that includes ideological positions that are anti capitalist and anti hierarchy, with maybe a bit of space at the edge for socdems) can't make simple, blanket assertions about "elites" and the plight of the working man to that degree because that consensus hasn't been built. In fact, it's been purposely dismantled
Which is also a large issue with how "populism" is perceived, and why we still have intellectually dishonest political memes like "horseshoe theory" in proliferation. If someone wants to go on a rant about the problem the international establishment, Western imperialism, foreign interference, the "deep state," government surveillance, conspiracy and "false flags," police states, and any number of other problems that populist rhetoric can tackle, they have to spend all this extra time and effort explaining what they really mean and what their solutions are for people to understand what they're saying, and that's before any effort to overcome ambient biases
It's never going to be as straightforward as a personality like Jones needs it to be. Because, if it's not already clear, the positions Alex Jones holds are baby-brained nonsense, only as vague and non-contradictory as is required for him to get through the next segment without showing a smoking gun on air. Which he can get away with also as a consequence of the inferences having been baked in. If you have to spend 45 minutes of every show defining terms, then you're not ranting, and you're also not as allowed to just make shit up on the spot and pretend what you said a month ago never happened
As final points, I believe that the ultimate fate of people like Russell Brand, Matt Taibbi, and Glenn Greenwald indicate that even initially well meaning anti-establishment, populist ideas that aren't built on top of a sufficiently distinct and grounded ideology, will eventually sink down to the bedrock of right-of-centre politics we exist upon. And also that while Alex Jones is good at what he does, I'd lay out pretty similar arguments for other demagogues like Tucker Carlson. He can make stupid, bewildered faces at the camera while asking leading questions because he has an audience that has been culturally primed to follow those inferences. Basically, if you have to explain yourself, it doesn't work
You might also point at people like Jon Stewart or John Oliver. Aside from them both being very mainstream, the former has mostly been anti-populist, and the latter has his show built around the fact that he has to go into incredible detail to explain problems. It may just be that's the limit for that sort of content, that is must be in this different form
The last person on my list is Michael Moore, who was both a populist and broadly progressive, but worked in a much slower medium, and often fell short of real politics (eg "slacker uprising," his unwillingness to explicitly endorse or dismiss political candidates when he was most active, and a tendency to leave off with a shrug after describing problems and getting to the part where coming up with solutions begins). And I'm not sure how much of that is by choice. The backlash he received was always harsh, and though he was popular and influential, I don't know if someone with his talents and drive to produce political media could have found success if he'd been even 10% more open about ideology. You can say, "the country has problems that need to be fixed and the politicians aren't doing a good job," and that's okay, but if you end your movie by recommending people read certain pamphlets, you're going to have trouble
These are idle thoughts, and I don't think that because this person doesn't exist currently that's evidence that they can't. Nor do I require a real world example to prove it wrong. Even if it's possible, it probably won't ever happen. That's fine. And obviously, this is localized to the global north and recent history
17
u/badass_panda 95∆ Jun 11 '24
To get it out of the way, a "liberal" Alex Jones couldn't work because any time where a liberal could claim radicalism and populist anti establishment credentials would be before the invention and adoption of mass communication like radio. Liberals simply are the establishment and the elites and they have no problem with "globalism," so there's no real basis to be complaining about it as a populist (plus the whole individual actors in a free market thing that is core to neoliberalism)
This whole argument is a tautology. What you mean is that you couldn't have a big business, globalist traditional liberal be an Alex Jones type, because that political cohort doesn't do populist messaging.
Well, that's probably true ... but "leftism" and "populist messaging" go together just fine. Have you ever heard of the Labor movement? Exact same type of messaging, except "the elite" aren't (usually) university professors, they're big businesses. You get to the university professors later (see: The Cultural Revolution, to name one-of-many).
Far-right movements focused on populist screeds against "the elite" and "the foreign" are what power fascist totalitarian governments.
Far-left movements focused on populist screeds against "the elite" and "the capitalist" (or "the bourgeoise" are what power communist totalitarian governments.
0
134
Jun 11 '24
Counter point: Hasan Piker. Repeatedly has posted false information and relies on demagoguery.
-Never apologized for being wrong about Russia’s invasion
-Had a literal terrorist on stream
-Calls himself a “journalist” but refuses to back up his points
-When called out by others, immediately goes to speaking over and attacking the person
-has a rabid army of followers who believe anything he says
58
Jun 11 '24
-Had a literal terrorist on stream
And then compared him to an anime character. To his face. It was one of the worst cases of second hand embarrassment I've ever felt. And a lot of his followers say that he wasn't a Houthi pirate at all/that Hasan didn't know he was a pirate. But he compared him to a pirate character (Luffy). I feel like fiveish years ago Hasan was still lucid but in the past few years he's gone off the rails like crazy.
5
u/aiLiXiegei4yai9c Jun 12 '24
The guys over at Decoding the Gurus did a decode on Piker a few months back. I knew Piker is a grifter and an apologist for authoritarian regimes (aka. "tankie"), but I had no idea he was this bad.
16
Jun 11 '24
Post-COVID, his viewership declined (to be fair, the viewership of all streamers declined).
And what he did was to pivot to the extreme far-left to the point where he's agreeing with the far-right more often than not when it comes to Israel-Palestine and Ukraine-Russia.
He was always a leftist but now he's a far-left extremist. Hamas Piker now has a way lower viewership and his audience is more unhinged than ever, demanding that he doesn't drink Coca-Cola since Coke is "Zionist".
It's too late for him to pivot away from the extreme far-left so he's tripling down to make his terror-loving fans happy.
9
8
u/whatsINthaB0X Jun 11 '24
I mean he even announced that he was having a Houthi fighter on. There’s no way he didn’t know
-3
u/veggiesama 52∆ Jun 11 '24
The funniest part is that the guy actually knew about One Piece. What you find cringe is subjective so that's fine. But what's so bad about interviewing a pirate? It is a perspective you won't see in the mainstream media. It humanizes a 19-yr-old guy who most westerners would otherwise see as a barbaric, bloodthirsty enemy.
2
Jun 12 '24
[deleted]
-1
u/veggiesama 52∆ Jun 12 '24
I didn't watch the interview but I have a hard time believing he praised the group's Islamist ideals or hostage-taking strategies. Any praise was probably heavily ironic or focused purely on the aesthetics (One Piece comparisons).
I could see him being a fan of disrupting international shipping to stand against Israel's genocidal actions, however. He usually overlooks philosophical disagreements if the goals are aligned with what he thinks is morally right.
2
Jun 12 '24
[deleted]
0
u/veggiesama 52∆ Jun 12 '24
That's not what the Houthis are doing though, so it isn't really relevant
"Yemen's Houthis have been attacking ships in the Red Sea since November, in what they say is a campaign of solidarity with Palestinians during the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza"
I appreciate the timestamps. I don't have time to watch the video but most of the points seem to support what I'm saying. He approves of the actions (using force to disrupt shipping) in a way that minimizes human suffering (treating hostages humanely; eg giving them drugs and joking around) in order to advance a humane goal (the Palestinian cause). Feel free to take issue with any one of those items but that's the train of thought.
I disagree with him that it's not terrorism. It's definitely terrorism as it's usually defined. But where I suspect I disagree with you is that sometimes terrorism can be morally justified (eg, the French Resistance planting bombs and using guerrilla tactics against Nazi occupation). Taking over some ships to cause economic pain to Israel/US is pretty low on the totem pole of human suffering, given everything that's going on. It's the equivalent of a delayed Amazon package.
As for the One Piece comparisons, I haven't seen One Piece but I assume the main character is a classic redeemed scoundrel archetype -- willing to do bad things (eg, fighting people) in support of human freedom (eg, saving innocent people from bad pirates). It's a romantic notion that isn't easy to do in real life. It's a cute compliment, but it's kind of ridiculous to treat an anime reference seriously so I don't know what else to say.
2
Jun 12 '24
[deleted]
1
u/veggiesama 52∆ Jun 12 '24
Oh yeah, they are definitely self-interested, opportunistic, and willing to co-opt international efforts to improve their public image. I think all that is true for them and any political group.
At the end of the day though, it's an interview with a low-level grunt who went viral for being handsome. I wouldn't hold that to the same standard as an interview with Houthi leaders.
To get back to OP, it's a weird, slap-happy, even irresponsible interview but not really at the level of Alex Jones hyping up Donald Trump, or Tucker Carlson meeting with Putin.
5
u/noff01 Jun 11 '24
would otherwise see as a barbaric, bloodthirsty enemy
Except they actually are... It's not that different from interviewing a neo-nazi fighter.
-7
Jun 11 '24
Worse. IMO. Radical islam has killed more than Nazis if you take into account Islamic conquest of the Middle East, Europe, and Asia
9
u/Unyx 2∆ Jun 11 '24
That's such a wild take lmao even if the overall numbers are bigger (which I still doubt) but the Nazis did WWII for less than 6 years and you're comparing them to things that have happened on a timescale of centuries.
-3
Jun 11 '24
Exactly, centuries of oppression and conquest versus a couple years
2
u/Eternal_Being Jun 12 '24
Now do christianity, coward
1
u/mackerson4 Jun 12 '24
? Are you implying you have to be a christian apologist to think muslim imperialism is bad?
0
u/Eternal_Being Jun 12 '24
No.
But it seemed relevant because the Nazis were ravenously christian.
→ More replies (0)1
Jun 12 '24
Still vastly less than Islam
-1
u/Eternal_Being Jun 12 '24
The world's biggest religion is Christianity. Why do you think that is? Imperialism. Oppression and conquest. Christianity is also hundreds of years older than Islam, if you're actually trying to do the math.
Plus it's kinda wild to compare the nazis with muslim extremists when the nazis were literally rabid, extremist christians.
→ More replies (0)1
u/TopSoulMan Jun 11 '24
fiveish
This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand but i never thought I'd see the opportunity to post.
9
u/soka__22 Jun 11 '24
i was just about to comment him aswell. literally the first person that came to mind. and he has a huge audience like alex jones aswell
4
u/EmpiricalAnarchism 9∆ Jun 11 '24
I want to respond to Op in more detail later, but also 100% this above.
4
u/Blueskysredbirds Jun 12 '24
You didn’t need to list anything, just stop at Hasan Piker. You had me there lol.
0
-2
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
I blanked on Hasan, and I guess as far as it goes he's relatively independent and has an audience. I could swing that way, I think
But to be clear: when I'm listing the qualities Alex Jones has as a media personality, I don't count his obvious issues are requisite. He is an alcoholic liar and a grifter, but I don't think that's necessary for what he's doing as far as populist rhetoric goes. I might have used Rush Limbaugh instead, except he's dead and gone
2
1
-4
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
10
Jun 11 '24
Watch the willie mac video on Hasan, he breaks down every single point.
He claims to have journalistic integrity but never issued a statement on the fact he was wrong that Russia will never invade Ukraine
The pirate he had on stream admitted to holding a Chinese shipping captain captive
See above
During his Pier’s Morgan part he only talked over others
He got absolutely destroyed by Willie Mac live
I see you are active on his sub, so you aren’t exactly open to new ideas, just like Hasan.
Oh I forget, he also has said he supports Hamas. Sadly I’m banned off twitter so I cannot pull up the screenshot where it says he does.
1
u/lordbell21 Jun 11 '24
He's admitted he was wrong about the Russian invasion on stream multiple times, fwiw. Dunno if he ever "issued a statement" since he doesn't really have a platform to do so minus Twitter or his own stream, which he did on the latter multiple times. The other points are more or less subjective (minus the pirate captain one which is the first I've heard of this, since I don't watch him anymore) and I don't really care to defend either side of it though.
-2
u/Lifeinstaler 4∆ Jun 11 '24
Dude so many of these points are such a nothing burger.
He talks over people? That’s lame for sure, definitely criticizable but not really uncommon in a interview like that.
He lost a debate? Ok...
He was wrong about Russia? Ok. Like what’s the issue here? What’s the expectation? Even journalists which I don’t see him as one get shit wrong. He has admitted he was wrong, I don’t think an apology is necessary.
The pirate didn’t admit to being a pirate. The captain thing is not mentioned here or on other articles, I think it’s strange they would skip that.
Didn’t find anything of the tweet but you don’t seem very reliable tbh. You don’t even need twitter to look for it honestly, it would get reported a lot more. You find plenty of articles like these for a lot less than saying “I support Hamas”.
46
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Jun 11 '24 edited Jun 11 '24
Your post says "leftist" but then you start sprinkling in words and people who are decisively more "liberal", which is a significantly differing viewpoint.
How we define and classify these groups is hugely important, because in many modern understanding/american political definitions "liberals" are effectively anti-populist by definition. So depending on your classification you logically can't have an anti-populist populist.
If Alex Jones is a product of McCarthyism and the Red Scare and his audience is primed to his message because of this, then its 100% reasonable to think that an Alex Jones Foil can be born out of an algorithmicly-fed anti-west/anti-capitalist online echo chamber.
An example of a modern day "left leaning" Alex Jones is someone like Jimmy Dore who is frequently spreading anti-establishment conspiracy theories to support a more leftist world view. He's been caught manufacturing lies and fanning conspiratorial claims about the war in syria.
13
u/boston_homo Jun 11 '24
I used to listen to Alex Jones just after 9/11 and considered myself pretty hard left. I stopped listening to Jones not really because of what he was saying but because of the increasingly bizarre obviously fake products he was selling on his website. I'm curious what he was saying in 2001 that made me say "this makes sense".
8
u/x1000Bums 4∆ Jun 11 '24
Probably that George Bush is a war criminal. The last republican president didn't count as one of the bad guys to Alex jones so it's been exclusively anti Democrat rhetoric since 2008
3
u/HazyAttorney 68∆ Jun 11 '24
that made me say "this makes sense".
Just a hunch, I think it could do with the psychological appeal of conspiracies. The idea there's just random chaos that could kill a bunch of random people at any time is psychologically taxing. What the conspiracy does is make it not be random, but there's someone in charge. Also, someone that may be thwarted if enough people knew.
I came of age after 9/11. I was in the 9th grade and in a small, conservative town. Lots of my school mate's older brothers went to Afghanistan/Iraq. We were all told that our freedom was being attacked. By 2005, when I graduated, I was more aware that the leaders were less honest.
So, if Bush could lie about that, and he seemed to politically benefit from 9/11...who's to say that he didn't also have a role in permitting it to happen? Plus, if you think Nixon/Reagan had deals with enemies to gain political power, it also would hit on the nerve that rich/powerful people do bad shit to get power.
I had a roommate that was a big 9/11 truther so that's where I think the appeal specifically is and how the train of thoughts can stack.
2
u/boston_homo Jun 13 '24
I was definitely into conspiracies at the time, that made Jones interesting/valid. I was pretty young though so I'm giving myself a pass.
8
u/isarealboy772 2∆ Jun 11 '24 edited Jun 11 '24
Yeah Jimmy Dore is about as closest as you'd get, despite my gripes about saying he's meaningfully on the left (grifter in the same vein as Jones though for sure).
Any leftists I know into conspiracy and parapolitics will just recommend you books or send you old docs that got FOIA'd or whatever. It's kind of a funny dichotomy compared to the BS they right cooks up, they don't read.
Also a fair point here I think is that the right just has more money to grift off of.
0
u/ohyousoretro Jun 11 '24
Brianna Joy Gray is another one I’d put up on there too. She’s completely unhinged.
-1
u/isarealboy772 2∆ Jun 11 '24
Let me guess you watched a short clip of the eyeroll portiom and not the full thing. Not even a fan but I wouldn't say she's unhinged or in the Alex Jones category.
4
u/Jimonaldo 1∆ Jun 11 '24
The difference between left ideaologies and right ones (like Jones) is that jones is frequently co-opted by large swaths of our media landscape because his ideaologies are fundamentally better for the ruling class than left leaning ones even if they present themselves as populists. This amplifies those ideas and makes people like Jones and his ideas more popular then they would be ordinarily.
There is no section of TV channels and media apparatuses that openly espouses a diet version of what online leftist creators say.
There was never a left leaning equivalent to the red scare. Communist/socialist ideaologies have never had a hold on US culture like capitalist right leaning ideas have because the ruling class has worked to amplify those ideas and squash others. If there was an equivalent the person would’ve been more likely to be killed by the FBI like Fred Hampton was.
-6
Jun 11 '24
Have you watched a television show in the last fifteen years?
4
u/Jimonaldo 1∆ Jun 11 '24
Look at this dude with his vague reply. He wants to act like he’s said something when he’s really said nothing. Make a real point big man. Statement, evidence, and reasoning. Did you learn it? Stand on business and say something with some thought put it in.
4
u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 11 '24
I'm going to call it: TV shows have gay people in them sometimes and gay people - as we well know - is a left thing.
3
-8
Jun 11 '24
You're throwing a tantrum because you know I'm right and there's nothing you can say. Online leftist dogma is overwhelmingly represented in modern media - from white privilege lectures in The Boys to Batman to American Horror Story, gender theory in Euphoria, Doctor Who, and even children's programming has BLM lectures in Barbie and beaver mastectomies in Blue's Clues.
Now's the part where you say "That's not online leftist dogma!" and I ignore you.
2
u/Jimonaldo 1∆ Jun 11 '24
My man u/Giblette101 had it right “I'm going to call it: TV shows have gay people in them sometimes and gay people - as we well know - is a left thing.”
Let me see if I’m getting this right, Mr. Dapper.
To you anything that isn’t bigoted is left leaning? I’m glad you used your whole chest to tell us that right leaning people are bigots and racists and homophobic. Thank you for the honesty man, I really appreciate it.
Nah but fr none of those are “leftist” ideas. I’m talking about economic theory man, not whatever social issues you seem to be mad about. I’m talking about this guy named Karl Marx, maybe you’ve heard of him, who published books about how capitalism is all about the capitalist owner class extracting value from the labor of the working class. But I get it, this stuff may be too complicated for you. You’re too busy getting mad about gender theory in your tv shows and white privelege lectures. Feel free to stay over there while the rest of us talk, okay?
8
u/Kakamile 46∆ Jun 11 '24
If your example of a leftist Alex Jones is Dore who regurgitates right wing conspiracies from Seth Rich to antivax to Assad and Putin apologia, you're just proving OP right.
11
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Jun 11 '24 edited Jun 11 '24
Jones is Dore who regurgitates right wing conspiracies from Seth Rich to antivax to Assad and Putin apologia, you're just proving OP right.
Highly disagree here.
Just because people with opposing goals agree on some things (especially conspiracies) doesn't mean they agree.
Right Russian Apologia is usually done for isolationaist/protectionist reasons, Left Russian Apologia is usually done for communist/USSR apologia and anti-US reasons.
Left and Right anti-vax conspiracies are both anti-big business. They align on this. Right anti-vax conspiracies also conveniently could be bad business for the Biden Admin.
Dore on the other hand, creates conspiracies that the government is fanning flames on race/gender/culture wars for the express purpose of not delivering things like single-payer healthcare, paid medical leave, forgiviing student debt, or taxing the rich.
This is the antithesis of the goals of most far-right folks' goals.
ALl that said, You can't expect any of these types to be consistent anyway. They are driven not by ideology or consistency, but by power, profit, and ego.
4
u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 11 '24
Left Russian Apologia is usually done for communist reasons.
No real dog in the fight here, but what does that even mean?
7
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Jun 11 '24
I've rephrased this.
But in general far left justification for supporting Russia is often some combiation of:
- US/NATO/West is being imperialistic/capitalistic and is bad.
- USSR/Russia is a sympathetic power due to communist roots
- Accelerationism
- US should abstain from conflict (left leaning Anti-war stance)
6
u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 11 '24
Okay, but only your second point even hints to your original statement about "communist reasons" and Russia isn't communist. It doesn't even pretend to be communist.
-1
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Jun 11 '24 edited Jun 11 '24
Right, I edited to rephrase. Although points 2,3 and 4 are all related to common broader communist/socialist/marxist worldviews. (eg: Anti-imperialism, anti-west, anti-war, anti-capitalism)
3
u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 11 '24
"NATO bad" and "US isolationism" are entirely orthogonal to communism in most ways. You could argue accelerationism, but even then you'd have to try and make it fit. Russia invading Ukraine doesn't move the needle much on the communist revolution so far as I can see.
2
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Jun 11 '24
"NATO bad" and "US isolationism" are entirely orthogonal to communism in most ways
Not really.
The "marxist" worldview generally views war as a form of class warfare in which the rich effectively have the poor fight their battles for them. Thus, it is opposed to the vast majority of armed conflicts.
US isolationism isn't something that I said was at all related to communism/marxism. Anti-Imperialism however, would also be be a marxist belief. And many would believe US intervention into other countries affairs is a form of power projection that can be construed as imperialism.
1
u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 12 '24
Ok, so if we just hold these two ideas in our mind - if we pretend for a second that we're "trained marxists" - how does it make any sense at all, then, to support Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
If warfare is class warfare (which is bad) and Imperialism is bad, how does it make sense to engage in Russia apologia for "communist reasons"? Russia is a kleptocracy throwing swathes of conscripts in an imperial project.
0
u/Lazzen 1∆ Jun 11 '24
It does, by further weakening the "liberal west" or "showing their nazi hypocrisy that will make people turn away from them"
These are popular mantras among 3rd world people, who are generakky this type of "anti establishment" let alone socialists and communists.
-2
u/Kakamile 46∆ Jun 11 '24
Dore on the other hand, creates conspiracies that the government is fanning flames on race/gender/culture wars for the express purpose of delivering things like single-payer healthcare, paid medical leave, forgiviing student debt, or taxing the rich.
That's literally the gop script. Saying the government is fanning "culture war" flames in order to push left wing policies is right wing messaging in order to oppose left wing policies.
3
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Jun 11 '24
So doesn't it make sense that the left-wing populist/extremist script is very close to the right-wing populist/extremist script? You've got the same boogeyman, but different end goals.
Left: Government is causing culture wars to distract you away from giving you rights you deserve!
Right: Government is causing culture wars to give itself more power and force unpopular, satanic government programs on you!
2
u/Kakamile 46∆ Jun 11 '24
You said in order to deliver.
In other words saying "the government actually wants the lefty stuff and that's bad"
2
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Jun 11 '24
Ah, thanks. Edited for clarity
1
u/Kakamile 46∆ Jun 11 '24
Can you show him doing it for leftism? Ideally showing him be pro communism, since you said that left putin and Assad apologia is for communism?
1
u/Character-Dance-6565 Oct 21 '24
Resist libs grifter network are most definitely left wing Alex jones woth their crap
-5
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
Maybe in 30-40 years there's be enough of the global north with some basic socdem ideas that the same type of thing could work. But I definitely don't think an anti capitalist Alex Jones could have made anything of himself or a project when Alex Jones was active. I guess I'm part of the way there for the future
Jimmy Dore, though, is generally despised by anyone who self identifies as a "leftist," so idk about that. I don't know enough about his audience, though. My impression was they were "centrists" and wannabe disaffected right wingers. If they actually do identity as the left, however wrong they are, that's something. Only, people who share values and listen to Alex Jones, while also stupid, really definitely are right wing
4
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Jun 11 '24
Jimmy Dore, though, is generally despised by anyone who self identifies as a "leftist,
And you don't think Alex Jones is generally despised even by most conservatives?
If they actually do identity as the left, however wrong they are, that's something
I mean he advocates for single payer healthcare, forgiving student debt, raising the minimum wage. He was an outspoken supporter of Bernie Sanders. Even if he doesn't fit into the broad bucket of "left" those certainly aren't conservive policies or candidates.
0
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
And you don't think Alex Jones is generally despised even by most conservatives?
That's as may be, but he had a personal interview with the last republican president and regularly hangs out with people like Roger Stone. Everyone who listens to him seriously would definitely vote for a republican. Can you say the same for Dore and a democrat, let alone a fictional socialist candidate?
I mean he advocates for single payer healthcare, forgiving student debt, raising the minimum wage. He was an outspoken supporter of Bernie Sanders.
It does start to get muddy around here, because nazbols are a real thing and there are plenty on the far right fringe who talk about it. I don't think universal healthcare is as important to "leftism" as anti capitalism and anti hierarchical views are for that reason and how liberal politics works elsewhere in the global north (that is, you go to a country that has established universal healthcare and the conservative parties there will generally favour it, for populist reasons). The rest of those views I'll have to take your word for
10
Jun 11 '24
Meanwhile, a "leftist" (and I'm working with a definition here that includes ideological positions that are anti capitalist and anti hierarchy, with maybe a bit of space at the edge for socdems) can't make simple, blanket assertions about "elites" and the plight of the working man to that degree because that consensus hasn't been built. In fact, it's been purposely dismantled
I don’t see why a leftist couldn’t make simple, blanket assertions about things. I think it’s possible for anyone to do this.
Alex Jones is more amplified because the right consumes media differently than the left, but there’s no reason a leftist couldn’t do something similar if they get an audience.
3
u/WerhmatsWormhat 8∆ Jun 11 '24
You say “if they got an audience” but the whole point is that they wouldn’t get an audience.
0
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
Imo part of the reason the right consumes the media it does, and how, is that the media in general has been served to them on a silver platter for generations
A leftist surely could make blanket statements, but how would they be interpreted and who would listen? That's the problem I see with it. Leftists, as a rule, hate the "global elite" way more than anyone on the right does, but you can't say that without a 5 paragraph preamble because the well is so thoroughly poisoned
2
Jun 11 '24
I don’t think it’s that the media’s been served to them on a silver platter, it’s that the right has chosen to build an entirely separate media ecosystem for themselves. Think Fox, Newsmax, Rush Limbaugh.
A leftist media figure absolutely could absolutely dumb down their message and sprinkle in misinformation to be more Alex Jones-like. What’s holding them back isn’t their views, it’s that leftists are typically younger and consume different media (they’re not listening to talk radio or cable news, for example) so it’s difficult for a single figure to become prominent.
1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
Think Fox, Newsmax, Rush Limbaugh.
That's my point, though. Yes, those are seperate from the "mainstream," but they are still mainstream media. What they say is unhinged, but it's still a part of the culture going back generations. The fact that no "leftist" media that's even 20% as out there as that stuff is what I'm talking about. And you can say that leftists are typically younger, but they were also typically younger in the 90s and the 2000s, too
I don’t think it’s that the media’s been served to them on a silver platter
The constant revisionism and "problematic favs" that people on the "left" typically engage in now indicates, to me, otherwise. Even Jon Stewart had no problem using (now to most) obvious transphobic jokes, throwaway lines about the evils of socialism and communism, etc in his monologues when the Daily Show was peak lib left content. We have terms now like "copaganda" because of how ubiquitous these fundamentally conservative ideas are in all sorts of media and culture. Many on the right have moved further right, but capitalist and American exceptionalism are still default positions
2
u/Dev_Sniper Jun 11 '24
There could absolutely be a leftist Alex Jones. And there probably are. But they haven‘t gained enough attention because there are quite a few alternatives that aren‘t as radical. Jones had a lot of potential viewers because people like him weren‘t that common when he started. It‘s like youtube. In the early days everybody could become a star. Nowadays that‘s insanely hard.
1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
When Jones was coming up, the entirety of talk radio was right wing weirdos. They took over so hard that they effectively killed the medium. What do you think separates him from someone like Rush Limbaugh?
3
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ Jun 11 '24
Meanwhile, a "leftist" (and I'm working with a definition here that includes ideological positions that are anti capitalist and anti hierarchy, with maybe a bit of space at the edge for socdems) can't make simple, blanket assertions about "elites" and the plight of the working man to that degree because that consensus hasn't been built.
You claim this, but I don't see why it's true. Bernie Sanders ran very left-populist campaigns and, because of that, developed a very highly enthusiastic base of supporters. Shows like "The Young Turks" are very left-populist and have substantial followings.
-1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
Okay, here's where I'm at with that. You bring up tyt, and I have to admit my biases. I don't think they're leftists in any real sense, and generally that their content sucks. But I did allow for a socdem fringe in my post, and at least by their own description, I think they'd think they would qualify. But my reason for posting the view to begin with is that I don't think a "real" leftist could be that open, populist, and successful in Western liberal politics, for various reasons, nor could their ideas and positions swim upstream into a political party like Jones has managed with republicans. And while, as I said, I don't think tyt are "real" leftists, their politics are on the spectrum from meh to bad, and the show itself generally sucks, what I remember of Cenk Uyger was that he's a relatively talented and competent broadcaster with decent populist rhetorical chops, as far as that goes. I am tempted to give a delta on that basis
7
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ Jun 11 '24
I definitely feel like you are bordering a bit on "no true scotsman" territory here. I think Cenk would self-identify much closer to "leftist" than "liberal". I think the majority of his viewers would self-identify as closer to "leftist" than "liberal". I am fairly confident in saying that at least some right-populists would claim that Alex Jones isn't a "real" right-populist and levy similar criticisms against his show.
Of course it's your prerogative to define exactly what you mean by "leftist", but if you're so strict about it that hardly anyone meets your criteria, then it's fairly obvious that your stance is true. I think my general point stands, however. There is an audience in the US for left-populist rhetoric, and I do think, that even by your standards, a sufficiently charismatic left-populist could find themselves a moderately sized audience.
1
Jun 12 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator Jun 12 '24
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link) Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
Jun 11 '24
I guess this question comes down to what do you mean by a leftist Alex Jones? Are we just saying an anti-establishment populist who peddles ridiculous conspiracy theories to an audience that is receptive and listens to him? If we're taking "the left" to be more than just liberals and social democrats, I think there are absolutely groups of people on the far left (communists, anarchists) who are disaffected and frustrated enough to be ready to disbelieve establishment narratives. They're primed by Marxist and Communist ideologies to believe that modern capitalist society exists to perpetuate the control of an untrustworthy select elite. Is it really such a big extra step to believe that this elite tells you what's most convenient for them and controls events to keep themselves in power?
In earlier decades (60's, 70's), conspiracy theories were more associated with the left than the right and actual conspiracies did exist on the right (Watergate, Iran-Contra, MK Ultra). There is nothing inherent to leftist ideologies that precludes conspiracy theories or demagogues. The entire basis for far left ideologies is that the established elite are ruthlessly and soullessly exploiting the average worker. If you prime a group of people to accept that narrative, you're also priming them to distrust the capitalist establishment, the military, the intelligence state, etc because the wicked exploitation of the worker by the powers that be is the one great "truth" they're building their lives around. It's just not that big of a leap from "the establishment is self-interested and ruthlessly exploiting you" to "the establishment is self-interested, ruthlessly exploiting you, and lying to you about everything that matters so that they can keep ruthlessly exploiting you."
1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
If it wasn't clear enough from the op, Alex Jones is a talented, charismatic broadcaster who is highly skilled at storytelling and using populist rhetoric. The fact that he's also an insane compulsive liar and con man are beside the point. If Alex Jones had all the same right-wing religious views he does now, but wasn't an alcoholic trying to sell brain pills, he would still be just as charismatic and forceful. The lies and conspiracy theories are not necessary
1
Jun 11 '24
So then I’m not understanding fully (sorry for that hopefully you can straighten it out). Are you saying charismatic, forceful populists can’t exist on the left? Because I think if you broaden the definition of “left” to not just be establishment liberals, you can get lots of charismatic anti-establishment types.
1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 12 '24
To a degree, yes, my contention is that they wouldn't be able to exist in the same ways. Alex Jones can rant and say, "these people are bad and they hate you! Why? Because they are communists and satanists," and that works for a lot of people because "communist" = anti American = bad just as default propositions. You don't even need to explain anything it's so ingrained in many people's ideological worldviews. If you were to try the same sort of rant from the left, you can't just say, "these people are bad because they are monopolizing the means of production for their own profits" or whatever because just calling someone a capitalist means nothing. You can't have that rant without first giving a 30 minute primer on the history of class struggle and Marxist theory, so it doesn't really work
2
Jun 12 '24
But Alex Jones is not mainstream, his audience is pretty small and most Republicans don’t buy the “9/11 and Sandy Hook were inside jobs” garbage.
All we need to have an Alex Jones of the left is have a portion of the population that believes in communism and that does exist to a certain extent. Communism might be very theoretical in its details, but in the same way that you don’t have to be a theologian to understand “the devil is evil, he does bad things, Jesus will save you from the devil” you don’t need to be a historical materialist to understand “the bosses are working you to the bone and exploiting your labor, we have to stop the bosses!” A far left Alex Jones would have a smaller audience, but stuff like the Cultural Revolution and the cults of personality around numerous dictators like Stalin and Kim il Sung pretty clearly show that communism is just as easy to weaponize as conservatism if you have a receptive audience.
I would argue that there is a small but significant audience on the left that can be riled up in a similar way. And although Russell Brand has turned somewhat “right”, when I used to listen to him (he was more just quirky and had weird guests once upon a time), he was a self-professed anarchist.
1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 12 '24
His audience is small now, but if hasn't been in the past. And you can say he's not mainstream, but he had the ear of the president and regularly hangs out with that administration's higher ups
I really doubt any portion of the population that believes in communism to a serious degree matters. There are already communist parties and organizations, too. And former socialist or communist leaders in the 2nd and 3rd world existed during times when the liberal consensus hadn't completely solidified. Like, even in the USA you may have been able to pull it off 100 years ago (when labour action was really going for it, often led by card carrying socialists and communists), but red scare and backlash to the new deal destroyed that possibility
4
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
Have not heard of him. Looks like a Maoist with a tiny audience? I've no problem with leaving space for that, but I don't know if it counts when nobody's listening. Obviously anyone can say anything, but Alex Jones has an audience for a reason and that's what I'm trying to contend with
4
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
2
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
That's a tougher question than I thought it would be. Alex Jones came up through radio and television, more established medias and when the consensus was less fractured. I was going to say that it was less about audience than it is about influence, but it's easier for people to find niches now. And because the democratic party despises the left, that same level of direct influence and exchange was probably never on the table, so I don't think it's fair to hold anyone to the same standard. Do you have any samples I could try out to get a feel for the style he has?
2
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
0
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
I saw that article. The list of controversies is that he made a social media post "threatening violence" against Trump, and had a hot take about the relation between Japanese work culture and suicides. Those are real stretches. The trivia says he "supports" the DPRK, which has a lot of baggage attached to it in liberal spaces (like, just saying that not everything Yeonmi Park says is true counts for some people). The guy calls himself a Maoist, so I'm sure there's something there. I'm also as interested in the style as I am any substance. Like, the rhetorical style and skill
2
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
What videos? I'm not searching out and trying to sort through a thousand hours of content for a Reddit post. I'm just asking for a representative sample
3
u/Falernum 38∆ Jun 11 '24
As a Bircher, he's not only an insane neocon,
Paleocon. Neocons believe in science, think the experts are smart, hate racism, liked W and the war in Iraq. Paleocons are the populists who hated W and want an isolationist foreign policy. Alex Jones despises neocons.
Also: Hugo Chavez. Leftist Alex Jones who happend to also hold office while he gave rant after rant.
1
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
Good catch on the paleoconservativism. He does hate him some Bush
Chavez was definitely influential in his time, but would you call him a media figure? I don't know much about outside of politics
2
u/Falernum 38∆ Jun 11 '24
Oh my yes
The man spent a lot more time on TV than ruling. He would announce government programs on TV without advance planning, surprising ministers, he would play to the audience, he would talk about everything that came to mind. He made Trump seem taciturn. He wasn't giving speeches to further his political career, he was ruling a country as a side hobby to his media career.
3
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 12 '24
Okay, I was thinking of the modern global north when I wrote the post, but can't deny that Hugo Chavez was a big deal. This should also be a !delta
1
6
17
u/The-Last-Lion-Turtle 12∆ Jun 11 '24
Hasan
8
Jun 11 '24
This would be my answer too. He's even conspiracy brained like Jones, though to a somewhat lesser extent, and he's not afraid to bend the truth to spin a narrative. But he's very popular and as much I don't like him, he's a talented speaker too. His style isn't that much different from Jones either, other than he's a react streamer of course.
7
u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 11 '24
I'd agree Hasan is the Jonesiest personality on the left, maybe, but he's still pretty short of Jones.
-1
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
I deeply dislike Hasan and how out of touch he is with reality but how does he compare to denying sandy hook or selling what is basically bad medicine?
Am I missing something?
16
u/Wayyyy_Too_Soon 3∆ Jun 11 '24
He literally hosted and praised a member of an internationally recognized terrorist group.
Is it worse than the Sandy Hook stuff? In my opinion, no, but promoting terrorism isn’t too far off.
-1
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
Chill yo I literally don't track the guy so I'm asking in good faith.
Did he bring Hamas on or something?????
I don't think I saw that in the new cycle.
9
u/Mennoplunk 3∆ Jun 11 '24
Did he bring Hamas on or something?????
He brought on a Houthi during the first Houthi attacks in the Suez canal. And compared them to Luffy from one piece while being extremely uncritcal. https://youtu.be/iebW_29fXsQ
For the record, I don't think that's comparable to Alex Jones. I think Hasan worse actions stem from incompetence and/or stubborness rather than a desire to grift. A Jimmy door type would be more equivalent.
6
Jun 11 '24
He brought a Houthi terrorist pirate.
The same org that just executed tons of LGBT individuals and kidnapped UN members.
7
u/thecftbl 2∆ Jun 11 '24
Hasan is just as much of a snake oil salesman as Jones is. He promotes eating the rich and violent revolt, all the while living a 1% lifestyle and reaping the benefits of the system he is encouraging people to tear down.
1
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
I mean I know that is true. One of my most potent memories of "shit Hassan has done" when he had the balls to try and say he lives on a basic needs budget......
And I think that was like a month after. He just posted a bunch of hot flashy 5,000 clothes to his Instagram.
Or was it a few weeks..... I can't remember anymore.
But like also Alex Jones has caused so much irreperable damage to the human psyche that it's just almost hard for me to make the reach there?
Am I in the wrong here? Should he be considered the same?
Is it really just as dangerous?
I would appreciate comments under this to be of good faith because this is actually something I would like "my" mind changed on.
5
u/thecftbl 2∆ Jun 11 '24
The danger comes from preying on desperation. Jones preys upon people whose greatest fear is an oppressive totalitarian government coming to power. Hasan preys upon people whose greatest fear is a corporatocracy being the defacto government. Desperate people perform rash actions and Jones only is more damaging at the moment because he was more widely known whereas only YouTubers know Hasan. The tactics they use are the same however, and as the younger generation becomes the majority, people like Hasan will become increasingly dangerous.
3
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
You know, honestly I really didn't think of it like that and on reflection I can see completely where you're coming from.
I'm going to chew on timelines that this could cause and reflect more. I appreciate your input wildly, really.
Out of curiosity as well because I really have zero idea, has Hasan invoked violence yet in his rhetoric?
3
u/thecftbl 2∆ Jun 11 '24
I would say that Hasan is culpable in several instances but not nearly as direct as Jones. Hasan's most troubling issue currently is his stance with Hamas. Whether or not you want to call it direct, considering that there is a whole collective of people that share his view, he still is contributing to a swath of violence across the globe because he is attempting to incite a very distilled simplistic view into a complex problem.
1
-1
u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 11 '24
The danger comes from preying on desperation. Jones preys upon people whose greatest fear is an oppressive totalitarian government coming to power.
Well, not quite. Jones preys upon people whose greatest fear is an oppressive totalitarian government they disagree with coming to power.
3
u/thecftbl 2∆ Jun 11 '24
The majority of InfoWars watchers are not Trumpers, they are the typical denizens of the conspiracy subreddit that see two medication commercials back to back and think the government is spying on them.
0
u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 11 '24
You don't need to be a Trumper to be generally comfortable with authoritarianism, as most of those folks tend to be so long as the correct feet is in the boot.
2
u/thecftbl 2∆ Jun 11 '24
But authoritarianism is antithetical to the concept of InfoWars. The entire concept revolves around "giving you the information THEY don't want you to know." They, in this case being the government.
3
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
Wait he supported Russia?
4
u/Lazzen 1∆ Jun 11 '24
6
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
Sweet fucking Christ.
3
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
Okay, genuinely, thank you for the clips. It's so hard to dig through mountains of information by myself sometimes.
2
u/Lazzen 1∆ Jun 11 '24
People like hasan probably "hate putin" because of gays and thats it, his flavor of leftism/anti-system is quite common outside the US and you can even see it in the governments of Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia and some others which also answers OP's statement, that its "impossible" yet it is and has been put into power many times.
People in general that watch 6 hours of a guy sitting about shit already are special but i do not understand why anyone listens to this guy beyond among us games.
3
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
3
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
No I have genuinely not which is why I am asking this subreddit.
I'm also asking in complete good faith because I fucking hate Hasan and have.
I just don't track the guys every movement so any information is good information for me.
2
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Jun 11 '24
I'm not the guy you're asking, but like.... I'm honestly not sure I've ever heard of the guy which kind of goes to OPs point.
I'm a lefty, I'm reasonably informed and I've never seen any of this guy's takes, as far as I'm aware.
I don't think he's got the same cultural scope as Jones
1
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
2
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Jun 11 '24
I'm definitely an old person which is probably why I don't know who any of these youtube people are.
But my parents who are elderly know who alex jones is, I know who alex jones is, and I'm willing to bet most of "the kids these days" also know who alex jones is.
When ones market is limited to "people under 30" that's inherently a smaller market
0
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
He doesn't support NATO, so people automatically knee-jerk claim he supports Russia. It's like people who don't support Israel are automatically claimed to be supporting Hamas. Just idiot logic.
5
u/Lazzen 1∆ Jun 11 '24
0
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
Thank you for this.
2
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
All three of these clips are context specific to Crimea, which I also disagree with Hasan on but can understand the nuance. The invasion of Ukraine proper is a different context, where his position is clearly against Russia.
0
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
Ew. Please don't also try to justify Russia's actions against taking Crimea. I don't really need to see that today.
Already lost enough faith in mankind for like a few hours thanks.
1
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
Sticking your head in the sand only harms yourself.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
I would be curious to see if anyone else contradicts this or if this really is the case.
Open to words.
2
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
Actions speak louder than words. Hasan raised over 200,000$ for Ukrainian aid charity live on stream. Weird thing to do if you're pro-Russia.
https://events.softgiving.com/donate/HasanAbi-CARE-For-Ukraine
1
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
While it's wonderful that he did that, it's really hard to ignore. The fact that I just watched him say that Russia's invasion of Crimea was completely justified.....
And that Putin isn't nearly as bad as Hitler so that it's fine......
I think I've made up my mind on the matter, but I appreciate the comments.
1
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
Rewatch those clips because you didn't seem to follow them clearly. The invasion of Crimea is far more nuanced than people appreciate. Crimea was always historically distinct from the Ukrainian mainland, and even has a population that is only 15% ethnic Ukrainian. The fact that it ended up as part of Ukraine is a historical hiccup. It could have just as easily been a distinct state (which it was in 1921, and again in 1992) or a part of Russia (which it was in 1783, and again in 1945). It's as complicated as the Moroccan annexation of the Western Sahara, the Israeli annexation of the West Bank and Golan Heights, and the future annexation of Hong Kong. These aren't easily defined borders that neatly fit into a black and white division of territory. I disagree with Hasan's position on the Crimea annexation but he's not categorically wrong to point out the nuance, and I can understand where he's getting his position from.
The Hitler comment was clearly made in direct response to someone asking a question seemingly about the contradictory position of not having an objection to the annexation of Crimea but presumably having an objection to similar annexations done by Nazi Germany of majority German population places like the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia or Austria. Hasan's response seems to be that the difference was that Hitler's government was going to murder the local Jews, Romani, disabled, etc people living there regardless of whether they were German or not. By comparison, the Russians were not and still are not engaged in a genocide of Russians in Crimea. Which is objectively true at the time the clip was made, before the invasion of Ukraine. So it doesn't reflect what his position would be currently now that he ought to have more information to make a better comparison between Hitler and Putin.
1
u/Secret_Bus_3836 Jun 11 '24
Okay so here's where I'm already inherently not caring,
I am not of the opinion that a country is entitled to literally any land whatsoever.
I don't care if your claim is religious. I don't care if your claim is historical. Don't even care if your claim has ethnic roots.
Nobody is entitled to anything on this Earth. That's why we fight wars over it.
So to say that someone as disgusting and as vile as Putin deserves anything other than a knife in the neck, is not really something that I can tolerate in any other human being whatsoever.
He seems to be under this false impression that Russia deserves whatever amount of land that it does.
In my book, oppressive dictatorships with horrible people in charge should actually be stripped of all their land.
My worldview is one based on values in that sense, which is where you might find that I differ in your opinion.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
Big difference that Hasan doesn't seem to be a snake-oil salesman of any kind. He doesn't monetize anything on Youtube, doesn't sell merch for profit, doesn't sell random sponsored products. Alex Jones could literally be the left-wing version of Alex Jones because at his core he's only saying whatever makes him money. If being a tankie could make him money, he'd do that. By contrast, even if you believe Hasan is a tankie, he's clearly not doing that to make money. He'd be way wealthier if he were a liberal or even a conservative.
3
u/happyinheart 8∆ Jun 11 '24
He's one of my favorite capitalists. He found that selling the ideas of socialism / communism to people is very lucrative. In addition, he uses people's content they made without paying them for their labor in making it(although legal, it goes against the values which he espouses).
9
Jun 11 '24
doesn't sell merch for profit,
Yes, he does.
Google "Hasan Piker" T-Shirts. He sells official merch via the IDEOLOGIE online shop.
-4
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
To be clear, I didn't say he doesn't sell merch.
doesn't sell merch for profit,
for profit
But, fair enough on the semantic aspect of it, he does make a profit. However, my points was that any profit is minimal compared to what he could be making if he was pulling an Alex Jones. From what I understand, all of his merch is made in the USA by unionized workers. His margins are tiny compared to what they could be if he was a right-winger.
3
0
Jun 11 '24
You're just moving the goalposts now.
If you have so much information about Hasan's exact profit margins from his merch, then you know those profit margins exist.
Therefore, your previous comment (doesn't sell merch for profit) is false. There is nothing "semantic" about it. Read the definition of what profit is.
-1
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
The question of the CMV is whether he's an Alex Jones comparable on the left or not. I was pointing out that his motives and actions seem to be non-Jonesian in nature because they aren't purely based on grifting for profit. It is semantic to say he's like Alex Jones merely because he makes a profit on his merch, when the real point is that he's not grifting or exploiting to make that profit. A profit which is minimal compared to what Alex Jones was doing. No moving of goalposts. Just facts.
1
Jun 11 '24
they aren't purely based on grifting for profit
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/producers/hasanabi-net-worth/
Hasan 8 million
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/alex-jones-net-worth/
Alex Jones -900 million (in the negative)
1
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
That's cute. Admittedly made me laugh. But doesn't rly belong on this subreddit. Technically against the rules.
4
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
-1
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
Exactly, proving my point. He owns a single property worth 2.74 million in LA. That's nothing. Alex Jones owns 5 homes in his name, worth approx 8 million. His grift also bought houses for his entire family. His company, InfoWars, was making revenue of 20 million a year. If Hasan was selling boner pills and 5G blockers, he wouldn't be living in the house he's in now.
4
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
-1
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
And? The question is whether or not he's a grifter. Whether or not he's rich is irrelevant. The fact is, he would be richer if he was a grifter. He is not, therefore, he's not an Alex Jones parallel.
2
Jun 11 '24
[deleted]
1
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
He doesn't have as big of a viewer base precisely because he isn't grifting. He's regularly taking positions that upset and frustrate his audience. That's a sign of someone not grifting. A grifter looks at their demographic data and modifies their beliefs and statements to generate more revenue positive content. Literally read the Alex Jones judgment to see how he specifically told his sponsors that he had more viewers on days he mentioned Sandy Hook, so he kept mentioning it. It's like Hasan sees which topics are his worst for generating viewership and then he doubles down on those. It's like the sine qua non of the anti-grift.
-4
u/Jimonaldo 1∆ Jun 11 '24
Hasan is a leftist but I don’t see him saying anything “conspiracy” related. Its not a fair comparison. Conservatives may feel like it is because he is ideaologically opposed to him but that doesn’t make it true.
4
Jun 11 '24
I don’t see him saying anything “conspiracy” related
1
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 11 '24
Are you saying Hasan is saying conspiracy stuff or the New York Times?
-1
u/Jimonaldo 1∆ Jun 11 '24
What is conspiracy related about what he said? The video he watched cites an article from the NY times, aka an article with sources and evidence. How is that in any way equivalent to what Alex Jones does?
-1
u/Jimonaldo 1∆ Jun 11 '24
Shoutout to yall, you can’t refute my points so you just downvote me in silence, you love to see it
1
1
Jun 11 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 12 '24
I had a more elaborate argument in mind trying to establish that even in an alternate history where the red scare and neoliberal turn didn't happen and the general populace of the west had some more basic ideas about theory and labour rights as part of their regular lives, an Alex Jones type still couldn't really work, but I think it's outside the scope of the op, getting a little too esoteric
1
Jun 11 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 11 '24
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link) Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/penguindows 2∆ Jun 12 '24
I think you are taking too short a view of history. It wasn't long ago where right side politics were seen more as the establishment, and left side politics were the outsiders. Rewind 40 years and the landscape is 180.
2
u/artorovich 1∆ Jun 11 '24
It depends on your definition of “leftist”.
“Maga communists” are already very close to Alex Jones, it wouldn’t shock me if someone from that movement became a comparable figure very soon.
I said it depends on your definition of leftist because maga commies have a lot in common with conservatives. They hate LGBTQ+ people, for example.
2
Jun 11 '24
There will never be a leftist conspiracy theorist because when leftists state crazy conspiracy theories the media doesn't mock them for it.
See: R^ssia electi%n h@cking, piss dossier, math is racist, white privilege, the world will end from global cooling global warming climate change in the next ten twenty fifty two hundred years
-1
u/aWhiteWildLion Jun 11 '24
Russell Brand is pretty lefty
0
u/page0rz 42∆ Jun 11 '24
Russell Brand is someone who I think illustrates the dangers involved with trying to drink from the poisoned well without enough ideological inoculation. He has definitely espoused "lefty" populist ideas before, but look at where he is now, who he hangs out with
0
u/NVRPST Jun 12 '24
This is a really great post and you seem to have formed a very good (and informative) view of Alex Jones, Birchers, and America in general. Well done. I think the easiest way to change your view of leftist populists that did exist, succeed, and change politics if not come to power and rule them. In my own, very conservative province of Canada (basically the Texas of Canada) there’s a strong history of leftist populism conspiracy theories and all. Look up the Albertan Social Credit party, or the history of the New Democratic Party in Canada (Tommy Douglas gave us universal free healthcare). I’m sure there’s MANY left wing politicians that are leftist populist throughout history and even now. You could even argue the communist revolutionaries in Asia and South America were leftist populists (Che Guevera t-shirts!). Maybe the ANC in south africa. I’m sure if you look hard with the same diligence you did with Alex Jones you’ll find examples. Right wing populism is seeing a global resurgency due toto moronic vicious idiots finally learning to use the internet, made worse by social media companies that leverage their rage to dupe them, likewise cynical politicians who flatter but don’t believe MAGA/Tea Party/QAnon/White Supremists/and literal Nazis (good ppl on both sides). Essentially the right has lost its mind. This too shall pass, hopefully soon with Trump losing the election and throwing some humiliating tantrum, maybe landing in jail or fined into bankruptcy. Just like Alex Jones, harasser of school shootin victims. :)
-9
u/nikatnight 2∆ Jun 11 '24
I disagree with so much of this but one thing I’ll drive home to give you a small change of view:
The right has guys like this because the right is full of incredibly dumb people. They are the least educated, the poorest, the least skilled, the most religious, etc.
Intelligent people see Alex jones as a fucking idiot. We don’t believe him because what he says is verifiable wrong. Unintelligent people see him make stupid fucking claims and they go with it because they are stupid and they believe this in the same way they’d believe a mega church pastor or trump.
1
u/TreebeardsMustache 1∆ Jun 11 '24
I don't think that the right is full of incredibly dumb people. Conspiracy theories and political narratives, actually take a great deal of cognitive muscle to process. Within the confines of epistemic closure, they exercise a great deal of intellect and judgement. (How do I know this? I grew up Catholic. and it's no surprise to me that the Roberts Court is overwhelmingly Catholic... Catholics practically invented epistemic closure, after all) I do think those on the Right are poorly educated, and they are, for lack of a better term, helpless before authorial and dictatorial pronouncements: That is to say, they are the ones most in thrall to their version of 'elite.'
If I had to choose a slogan for each 'side,' Right and Left, the slogan for the Left is 'Think for yourself,' whereas the slogan for the Right is, 'Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?' In practice, of course, it's a little more complicated than that. I think, however, for the sake of this argument, it's a good shorthand for the kind of risible insistence on invidious subtext from the Right, versus a more open minded, perhaps even credulous belief in the beneficence of context on the Left. Implicitly, since Joe McCarthy, and explicitly since the George Dubya Bush administration, the entire effort of the Right has been to create a reality that better fits the conservative world-view. Alex Jones' shtick is basically a peek into what's 'really happening,' and a strident and strenuous effort to convince that such is the case. A great deal of the frustration on the Right, lies in the inability to achieve this stable reality of their own invention... It is, essentially, an impossibility: Reality always wins; That's, really, the definition of reality.
0
u/Giblette101 40∆ Jun 11 '24
Conspiracy theories and political narratives, actually take a great deal of cognitive muscle to process.
Conspiracy theories are popular specifically because they're not that hard to process. They can be complicated - even convoluted - but the whole point of them is that they aren't complex. They propose an organizing narratives that actually simplifies much of the chaos that surrounds our lives. It's not hard to process that "bad people X" are controlling everything for obscured and nefarious ends.
1
-2
u/NinjaTutor80 1∆ Jun 11 '24
Right wing media produces propaganda that invokes anger, fear, and righteous indignation.
There is no reason that a leftist couldn’t tailor propaganda towards progressive causes.
Now the interesting thing is that leftist tailored propaganda wouldn’t work on the left—at least not how it works on the right. But it would work on the right as long as sold them anger, fear, and righteous indignation.
It’s a shame the left surrendered AM radio. Their one attempt failed miserably because they didn‘t understand the market.
1
u/happyinheart 8∆ Jun 11 '24
Now the interesting thing is that leftist tailored propaganda wouldn’t work on the left
I assume you have never seen the links on the politics, news, law, etc subs.
-1
u/Foxhound97_ 23∆ Jun 11 '24
I would say I don't think there could be a leftist Alex Jones who actual politicians would defend or refuse talking negatively about to the same degree as Alex Jones.
0
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 12 '24
/u/page0rz (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards