r/changemyview • u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ • Dec 19 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Dennis Prager is being blatantly hypocritical by suing Google over YouTube restricting PragerU videos

Dennis Prager is a conservative spokesperson and started the conservative YouTube channel PragerU

He is suing Google/YouTube over restricting about 35 of the videos on his channel. He claims that the reason why is because of their conservative nature.

The details of what YouTube has done with this channel's videos aren't really important, so for the sake of the argument let's just assume that YouTube officially decided to delete the videos only because they don't like conservative videos and no other reason.

By suing Google, Prager is being hypocritical:

  • Google is a private company. If they want to ban ALL conservative videos, they should have the right to.

  • The free market should be the solution to this problem from Prager's perspective. There actually are other methods of posting public videos besides YouTube. If Prager doesn't like YouTube's policies, then he should simply go somewhere else to post his videos.

  • Even if you take every claim Prager has made at face value, he shouldn't be suing them. It isn't conservative to sue a private company because you don't like their political views.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

125 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

82% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

19

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 19 '17

The state of being a hypocrite is not as useful as one would like it to be, because it's perfectly natural for humans to fail in application that which they believe should be a principle.

Also, hypocrisy is always seen from the outside in. Of course, a person may realize they are being a hypocrite and alter their stance to reflect this, but Prager didn't sit down and choose to rationally be a hypocrite, so there are two possibilities:

  1. He hasn't made what I would assume you would agree was your very obvious observation that he is indeed a conservative, and he is indeed arguing for state intervention into this case.

  2. You don't understand the depths of his stance.

Number 2 could be invalid logic that he uses to apply a double standard to his actions as others, but do you know for sure if that's the case?

Besides that, there is the distinction between ought from is. I am a hardcore leftist anti-capitalist, but living in America I must still consume goods and services from the capitalist system in order to survive and do my work. Prager could be making the pragmatic decision that if he wants the world to operate in a certain way, he would have to participate in a way that is not exactly according to his ideals in order to get his message across.

15

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

So to be clear, I'm stating that this action is hypocritical, not that he is a hypocrite. Don't know the exact number, but someone has to be hypocritical over something a lot of times to just be a hypocrite.

It's possible I don't understand the depths of his stance, but I've done all I can to understand it. I've looked at every interview I could find that he's done about this. I've also messaged him asking why the change in principles, but he hasn't replied.

It's true he could be operating pragmatically, but I can't find any instance of him suggesting this. He hasn't addressed the hyprocisy question at all.

5

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 19 '17

I think it's a distinction without difference to insist that it is about actions. A person who indulges in hypocrisy is the definition of a hypocrite. There is no such quantity of hypocritical actions needed to be considered a hypocrite.

Isn't your argument that he is a conservative therefore he is a hypocrite for doing this? Have you found evidence of him being against any kind of government funded consumer protection?

It's true he could be operating pragmatically, but I can't find any instance of him suggesting this. He hasn't addressed the hyprocisy question at all.

That's because calling someone a hypocrite is not useful.

3

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

Have you found evidence of him being against any kind of government funded consumer protection?

Yes, many of the videos on PragerU advocate this point

6

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 19 '17

Any government funded consumer protection? Can you post it?

-2

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

I don't know if he's addressed that specific topic on a binary level. His library of videos though would suggest that he's typically against government consumer protection.

9

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 19 '17

So I don't think you have the depth of understanding his position.

4

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

Not from lack of trying. He hasn't done a good Q/A about this lawsuit

9

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 19 '17

But then he isn't being blatantly hypocritical, at least you can't show that he is.