Anatomy of delegitimizing an anti-trump protest -- I am prophetic!

bohm

So earlier this week I made these predictions about the coverage of the anti-trump protests on youtube:

Let us see what happens, but I am quite sure that Sargon of Akkad (and similar supposed "the real left"-wing "intellectuals") are now going to make videos where they will focus very heavily on the few negative stories surrounding the protests against trump.
They will focus on two things: (1) paint the protests as being ridiculous and self-defeating by pointing out stupid signs or stupid things that were said (2) paint the protests as violent and thereby hypocritical by pointing to the few episodes of smashed car windows etc.
Wait for the next installment of "this week in stupid" by sargon of akkad and let's see if I am right.

Let's see how my predictions stack up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajppWvtW2I4

As I predicted, at 16:00, Sargon of Akkad has found video of violent anti-trump protesters...but wait they are actually anarchists.... who smash up things and act stupid every occasion they get.

Then we get to the ridicule. That start in earnest at around 21 minutes in and last for the rest of the video. Oh look! Here is a protester who say stupid things! They don't have a clue!

As a small bonus:

After clips of emotional, exaggerated reactions to Trumps victory (cf. 1:35), Sargon starts the video:

"(laughter) what a glorious day it is. So we are obviously going to talk about DTs inauguration and how it has cost some of the best SJW meltdowns I have ever seen. In fact this (inaudiable) sums it up: autistic screeching as DT offers to give the us government back to the people and away from the SJW. They hate it, I love it. I love that they hate it. It is about time these fucking people lost".

Okay so "SJW" are having an emotional reaction and that is bad, and Sargon loves it. I do not understand this preoccupation with peoples emotional reaction but it is a general feature of both the nut-right/nut-left rhetoric (crying, sad, fit, meltdown, drink tears, etc.).

What is interesting is then at 39:00 when Sargon reads a tweet by Bernie Sanders and screams the following well-reasoned argument:

"(sound of hand slamming a desk) FUCK YOU. FUCK YOU. FUCK YOU BERNIE. FUCK OFF. TRUMP DID NOT TRY TO DIVIDE YOU BY RACE AND GENDER. YOU ARE THE CUNTS DIVIDING PEOPLE BY RACE AND GENDER. IT IS A FUCKING WOMENS MARCH BERNIE. FUCK. FUCK THIS IS GRRRR I AM TOTALLY TRIGGERED BY THIS FUCKING SHIT"

Projection much?

I don't blame Sargon of Akkad (whatever his real name might be), after all he earns 2500 a month on patreon alone and likely more from youtube adverts for the product he produces. But I don't think it is journalism, I certainly don't think it entitles him to smear the "mainstream media", and I think he should own up to the fact his product is so nearly identical to the product produces by the people he mocks he might as well mock his own emotional reactions and cut out the middle-man.

garyneal

Let's assume you're right. Sargon cherry picks facts and footage to get clicks and lots of money (though 2500 isn't really all that lucrative but I digress). How is that any different than what the mainstream press has been doing lately?

bohm

garyneal: I would object to Sargon of Akkad being the equivalent of the mainstream media.

For instance, the mainstream media does not have as clear an ideological bias as he exhibits (this is not the statement there is no ideological bias, btw., but I consider him to be far more biased than eg. MSNBC or Fox News) and does not for instance focus on people's emotional reactions ("meltdowns") to score points. I think a better comparison would be to someone like Glenn Beck, or someone equivalent on the left. I don't claim Sargon of Akkad is uniquely bad either (compared to e.g. Glenn Beck or the worst of the nut-left).

What I want to draw attention to is the type of rhetoric he uses. For instance the use of emotions, both his own (anger, triggering) and others (for ridicule, or as a scare tactic). Similar points can be made for many people on the left wing; that is my point: Sargon of Akkad is in many ways exactly what he criticize.

This should not be that surprising... if a particular type of toxic rhetoric sells on the left, we should assume it also sells on the right.

Simon

Is it better to be clear and honest or deceptive and underhand?

You need to judge by more than a single video. I don't rate all the ones he does but many are good. Sometimes he's angry and antagonistic, other times more thoughtful and mellow. Is variety allowed?

Would I replace news with just YouTubers? No - they don't have the resources.

But it's useful to have people call BS on the news from time to time or offer alternative viewpoints.

Checkout his interview with Dave Rubin or Glad Saad or his more prepared videos on some topic ("this week in stupid" is the livestream I think)

bohm

Simon: I did watch a few videos but not many... I think I also watched a couple of his videos a long time back (ca. 2014?) which I remember as provocative but not bad. The few videos I have seen recently makes him seem very unhinged. I will give his interviews a shot.

You need to judge by more than a single video. I don't rate all the ones he does but many are good. Sometimes he's angry and antagonistic, other times more thoughtful and mellow. Is variety allowed?

I think ridicule has its place but the kind of ridicule he uses is just so ... humorless? It seems mostly to be of the finger-pointing "haw-haw" variant.

SNL/Colbert Report/Daily show (the John Stewart version) also use ridicule, and sometimes they ridicule things that I agree with. But I still think they manage to be mostly fun and when they got nasty, it was for targets that were worth hitting. The young man that scream in the video does appear to be entirely well in the head (Sargon claims he is autistic, but I don't know if that is meant as a joke?!), so is making his issues the centerpiece of the introduction really very funny?

Try as a test to imagine the video from another ideological viewpoint:

Imagine a bill (C17) got passed in Canada that actually made it illegal to mis-use someones made-up pronoun, that is, it demanded that you said "zir" to someone or else it was a criminal matter.

Imagine people were livid and took to the streets in a large, country-spanning non-violent protests.

Now imagine that someone made a video where the centerpiece were people in the protest who were absolutely clueless and stupid ("we are here to protest that we are not allowed to protest") and focusing on a mentally deficient person who had an absolute fit.

Imagine the demonstration itself was non-violent, but that a group of neo-nazis used it as an excuse to smash a starbucks. Then the person who made the video focused on the neo-nazis, even though it was plain it mostly consisted of middle-class people who were upset with C17.

Imagine the person ended the video in a rage, screaming "fuck" and "cunt" and slamming the table because of a tweet he appeared to, well, lets just say he reads a lot of things into that tweet.

I don't think that even counts as journalism... I don't think you get to make that kind of video and at the same time claim the "mainstream media" has lost its marbles, or claim you represent a sensible alternative.

Village Idiot

Bohm,
Imagine the demonstration itself was non-violent, but that a group of neo-nazis used it as an excuse to smash a starbucks.

I didn't see the video but I think you're referring to Anarchists. They usually dress in black, some with ski masks on.

Young Anarchists are full of testosterone and always take advantage of peaceful protests to vent their frustrations and hatred of Capitalism. Starbucks is amongst the first ten establishments in their roster of evil corporations (Yes they are evil).

bohm

VI: It was indeed a group of black-clad anarchists, completely with anarchists flags, masks and slogans who conveniently smashed starbucks!

Here is another alt-right icon, Lauren Southern, who found the same group of anarchists and reported how violent the anti-trump demonstrations are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO2H_yT9A0U

Quote: "This is what the anti-trump movement is" (film clearly shows anarchists)

Jehalapeno

No true Scotsman would smash a Starbucks window.

LostGeneration

But I don't think it is journalism, I certainly don't think it entitles him to smear the "mainstream media", and I think he should own up to the fact his product is so nearly identical to the product produces by the people he mocks he might as well mock his own emotional reactions and cut out the middle-man.

But does it matter what you think? Or what I think? Nope, not one bit. The fact is the so called "mainstream media" was exposed as being in the hip pocket of the DNC by the Podesta Emails. They shilled for the DNC, censored, lied by omission, and straight up lied in order to prop up their chosen one.

And their monopoly has been broken, they no longer control the carefully spoon fed narrative of the world that they want sent out to the people they secretly despise. I for one couldn't care one bit about the bed they made for themselves.

bohm

LostGeneration:

But does it matter what you think? Or what I think? Nope, not one bit. The fact is the so called "mainstream media" was exposed as being in the hip pocket of the DNC by the Podesta Emails.

Just to be clear. When I talk about mainstream media I mean all major news outlets, including Fox News.

You are saying they were all in the pocket of Hillary, and there is somehow evidence of this in the emails?

Anatomy of delegitimizing an anti-trump protest -- I am prophetic!

Share this