I think that after watching at least five different half-hour or more long Youtube videos about why PragerU sucks, a lot of folks (nominally) on the left are really failing to understand why these right wing propaganda videos are so effective. Which in turn, is resulting in numerous people all trying to combat what PragerU is doing in what I hate to say it is, precisely the wrong way; or at least a way that I don't think will ultimately be effective.
For example, a lot of counter-propagandists dissecting PragerU videos will focus on how absurd it is to think you can really learn everything about an issue, particularly issues surrounding ethics, moral values and the social contract, in five minutes. Or they'll create long, nerdy reply videos that demonstrate PragerU is selling ideology as fact, or in many cases simply has the facts wrong.
That's all useful to a certain point, but it doesn't address the reason PragerU is winning.
The reason PragerU's propaganda is so effective is, near as I can tell, two-fold, but the second factor is merely about reinforcing the first.
The first factor is that they're based on "common sense" in a strictly Gramscian sense of the world - ie, beliefs that are commonly held by the public at large. It's important to understand here that this says absolutely nothing about the veracity, quality or righteousness of those beliefs; just that they're already held widely by many, even a majority.
The second reason then becomes the longer term, right wing capitalist project to sell elitist, neoliberal and ultimately anti-labor class ideas to the whole of society; which is a fascinating tale that spans well over a century in American history in particular but featured essentially the purchase and production of idea factories across academia, the media, think tanks, policy mills and of course the political sector.
Thus, the problem with the Youtube Left's approach in refuting the PragerU videos claim by claim, and talking about the paucity of factual information offered in each five minute dose, is that ultimately you're not only fighting infinite money and ten decades worth of manufactured "common sense" but also the structural underpinnings of the neoliberal worldview embedded inside those popular sets of ideas.
If one does not address the underlying roots of capitalist accumulation, the poison pill of those "common sense" ideas being disseminated with these PragerU videos, then no matter how many you refute and deconstruct, the people who assume those "common sense" beliefs will simply fall for the next one.
It's an endless game of catch up you can't win; and it's a game that minus complex media forms, is as old as capitalism itself.
This is why Marxism and most vaguely coherent left wing, redistributive ideologies focus so heavily on deconstructing capitalist propaganda and teaching critical analysis - ways to think about power, ways to think about capitalism, ways to think about class.
Because if you don't know that you live lies, and you don't know how to perceive the world for what it is, elite rule for what it is - you're a chump for whoever controls "common sense" and propagates its beliefs.
Thus, in short, you'd honestly be better off sitting down for a half hour in front of your camera to just read and explain Marxist theory, or Kropotkin's mutual aid, than any number of "debunking PragerU's latest video" shenanigans.
Until we attack the structural underpinnings of that "common sense" - we're always going to lose to that fat fuck and his billionaire fascist backers.
@AnarchoNinaWrites I use #hashtags to tell the story, neo-liberalism is a #deathcult that has pushed individualism to spread ignorance #stupidindividualism
@AnarchoNinaWrites This is the general argument against "Fisking"-style rebuttals generally: you're fighting on the adversary's chosen ground, using their chosen weapons and methods.
And within their epistemological frame.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24977848
Beter to present the alternative argument clearly and succinctly.
@AnarchoNinaWrites Studying PU's rhetorical methods can be useful, as their videos are a showcase of logical fallacies and simple, attractive, easily communicated, motivated-reasoning based, and almost wholly incorrect arguments.
Truths typically resist such treatments, but striving for clarity, simplicity, brevity, and correctness has great value.
Great toot series here BTW.