[low_poly_shiba]

famous left wing youtubers are people like Hbomberguy (known for helping trans charities)

famous right wing youtubers are people like Prisonplanet (white genocide propaganda, Brexit)

there's no comparison between the two outside of rise in popularity

[ralusek]

Paul Joseph Watson (prisonplanet) is the most conspiratorial of the anti-left, he works for InfoWars. There are plenty of anti-left (a more apt term, as many are liberal/libertarian) that add quite a bit to the conversation. Karen Straughan, 1791L, Sam Harris, Janice Fiamengo, Brett/Eric Weinstein, sometimes Jordan Peterson, Independent Man, Computing Forever, ShortFatOtaku, Asian Capitalists, among others.

[low_poly_shiba]

sure and there's other tamer lefttube people like Jenny Nicholson, Lindsay Ellis, etc.

I was comparing hard to hard. "Hard left" youtube seem to be great people, whereas "hard right" youtube is utter trash.

One has to stretch "both sides are bad" to great extremes to pretend that the problem is intractable.

[coldtea]

>I was comparing hard to hard. "Hard left" youtube seem to be great people, whereas "hard right" youtube is utter trash.

Or you know, that's a version of "everyone I agree with is good, everyone I disagree with is Hitler".

[low_poly_shiba]

who's your go-to left equivalent of Jordan Peterson or PrisonPaul or Crowder?

site doesn't let me reply but I can't believe you're seriously saying Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul, lol

Let's narrow it down to those two. Who's the left Crowder/Prisonpaul if not Hbomb? And if it's Hbomb, how can you deny he's better than those two?

[coldtea]

Equally "bad" you mean (and assuming those are bad)? Cause I don't consider e.g. Jordan Peterson bad, or even really that right. Conservative yes (which is another thing). In terms of classic left/right politics (and not the modern fashion of id politics) I'd say he's more or less a social democrat.

That said, for people on the left I follow, I'd mention Slavoj Zizek, Chomsky, Michea, and others (including authors on Counterpunch, NLR, Mother Jones, etc).

I like my leftists old school, regarding class, colonization, imperialism, and such, and don't care about the US obsession with identity politics (in fact I dislike it). I don't think the US has had many real leftists since like the 60s, and surely none in the mainstream.

>site doesn't let me reply but I can't believe you're seriously saying Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul, lol

You should be able to reply, I think it just takes a minute for the link to appear or so. Can always click on the parent comment's date though to go to a reply page iirc.

That said, I didn't say "Chomsky and Zizek are the left equivalents of Crowder and Prisonpaul". I said those are some on the left I personally follow. I'm not sure what "equivalent" means here. Equivalent in what?

If it's about having polarizing opinions or away-of-centre opinions on things, well, all those mentioned have those.

>Let's narrow it down to those two. Who's the left Crowder/Prisonpaul if not Hbomb? And if it's Hbomb, how can you deny he's better than those two?

I wasn't sure who Hbomb is, so I paid a visit. Seems like someone making dumb jokes from what (in the US) passes for a leftist view. I haven't seen much Crowder (only heard about him through the recent fuss) but this Hbomb is not in my eyes any better than Prisonpaul. If anything, he's more grating.

(Also, better in what? Better person? Better opinions? More agreeable? More hipster-likable views?)

[mistermann]

I would nominate folks like Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert, both very effective persuaders who use humor and selective facts to reinforce partisan beliefs in a like-thinking audience.

Peterson and Chomsky I would say are in a completely different league, as they tend to deal in a high-dimensional representation of reality, versus the comically low-dimensional representation that is typically a common denominator of all cultural meme war arguments.

[exactlywthwas]

both sides are bad, the US president said so

[ralusek]

I don't think most of the people I listed are tame, I think they're "hard liberal" or "hard libertarian." One of the problems is that there are really 3 camps in most western countries at this point. There is

1.) the authoritarian left, which prioritizes racial and gendered identity, collectivism, equity, all facilitated by the state.

2.) the anti-authoritarian liberal, which prioritizes individual liberty, universality under the law, accountability and self-determination.

3.) the authoritarian right, which prioritizes tradition and national identity.

An extreme person in any of these camps would not result in "great people." I do not think that the left's collectivization of society along racial and gendered lines is "great." I do not think the left's conviction in its moral superiority and subsequent willingness to censor and deplatform is "great." I do not think that the left's disassociation of merit and value in pursuit of arbitrary equity is "great." These are very dangerous things. Radical leftism is responsible for tens of millions of deaths.

[low_poly_shiba]

I suppose your own bias aside, these roughly map to

- AOC/Sanders

- Obama/Clinton

- Bush/Trump

? I'm not american but it's no contest I'm "authoritarian left", I guess. If "universal health care" is authoritarian, sign me up.

[camdenlock]

Is it possible that a group/party can offer something you find very agreeable, like universal healthcare, while simultaneously being dedicated to installing unrelated authoritarian policies?

[low_poly_shiba]

I don't think so. Got any examples?

Any "national socialist" that tried to couple free healthcare with racist ideas about who gets it would be making a mockery of "universal", for example.

There's probably a good reason why health care/women's rights/pacifism/environmentalism all go hand in hand, something to do with compassion and one's idea of where hierarchies come from.