Okay, never mind, you’re just a troll

I don’t worship youtubers, I’m just not braindead enough to deny reality because of my myopic personal preferences. This guy has a 110 million subscribers and his every video has been getting millions of views for well over a decade now. He is one of the biggest and most well known people on the internet, and he has a lot of influence because of it. When this guy puts out a video about a cause, his point of view is going to introduced and adopted by a lot of people. In this case, he put out a video on a cause that people in here advocate for, and they’re pleasantly surprised that their views are getting this kind of exposure. You not understanding this obvious nuance is your problem, not anybody else’s.

What in the fuck are you even on about? Your hypothetical doesn’t address my points and it’s not used to demonstrate a point of your own. What is the point you’re trying to drive here that endorsements from extremists is a good thing? That’s just stupid and so is this hypothetical because it’s a situation that NEVER happens. Nobody accepts endorsements from extremist groups they disavow. That’s why it’s a problem. Accepting an endorsement from an extremist group, especially when you preach that you’re against extremism, is a big red flag because it shows a conflict, it shows a contradiction. The inconsistencies in morals, views, values, and character are a problem. This common sense, this is obvious. I should not need to explain this to you this many times.

I don’t think you understand that hypotheticals need to have a valid point to make in order for them to be relevant. Making them for the sake of it is pointless. It’s clear you don’t even understand what my point is, what I’m arguing against, or why I’m arguing against it. I spelled it out for you multiple times, and you still don’t get it. There are only two possibilities for this, either you’re too ignorant for this conversation or you’re too disingenuous for it. Arguing for the sake of arguing is a waste of time, especially if you’re engaging in bad faith which I’m pretty sure you are. In the words of the great T-Pain “If you ain’t got it by now then you’re just ain’t getting it”

“I’m incapable of understanding the nuance of someone with a lot of influence speaking out in favor of a topic I advocate for because I’m ignorant and judgemental towards certain activities and people who make a living off of them”

Yeah okay, bud. Good mentality you got there. But you’re right, this conversation is pointless, so let’s end it here.

Ok, so that’s not happening. What do you think the consequences of that should be? Do you want him out of office? Or just for people to say hey, that’s bad! And then go about our business? Should we have withheld votes over that one thing or not?

It’s crazy that instead of acknowledging that this is a bad thing, you’re willing to go through all these mental gymnastics in hopes of sweeping it under the rug. Where’s your moral integrity?

We have a politician who is in position to be elected to a very powerful office, and this individual has accepted and endorsement from a group that’s known for being extremist, pro violence, and pro tyranny. That is a big red flag because it means he agrees with their views and actions enough to proudly accept and display their endorsement. I hope that I don’t need to explain why that would set a dangerous precedent.

As citizens of a democratic country, it is our civic duty to criticize him for things like this. The public should apply enough pressure on him to where he comes out and publicly distances himself from this organization, or at the very least have him explicitly condemn their extremist actions. That way he’ll be on public record that he has disavowed their extremist methods and views, and that’s a standard that he can and will be held to during his entire time in office. That way he can face consequences should he go back on his words and start employing tactics from this group.

Trying to make excuses for him because he’s a progressive is incredibly stupid. Nobody should ever have double standards for politicians. They should all face the same criticisms for same questionable actions. All politicians who openly accept endorsement from unethical organizations should face the same criticisms whether it’s Cuomo, Adams, or Mamdani. It should be clear at this point that I’m not criticizing him for the sake of it, but because I have an actual point and an actual concern. How you don’t see this as something concerning is beyond me.

Your questions? Oh I don’t care about the DSA thing at all. I’m more concerned with where his actual focus lies as a local mayor, not who endorsed him and the optics of endorsements.

It’s not about optics, that’s such a mind numbingly shallow point of view. Even if a politician’s platform doesn’t explicitly reflect an extremist group’s views, openly accepting their endorsement is still concerning. It legitimizes harmful ideologies, signals poor judgment, and undermines the candidate’s credibility, especially if they claim to stand for integrity or justice, which Mamdani does. Endorsements carry weight that goes beyond optics, and failing to distance from extremist groups erodes public trust and inadvertently amplify dangerous narratives, which is already a big problem in this country. Ultimately, it raises questions about his values and character, which is why a clarification is necessary.

I’m more curious as to what you hope to accomplish by your comments.

My comments express my opinions, and if they are able to raise awareness about this then that’s a plus. At least I have a point in my comments, what is the point of your comments? To me, it looks like you’re just big mad that I’m criticizing this guy for doing something questionable and you want that to stop.

One of the things the right does better than the left is maintaining party cohesion, so it always intrigues me when people self sabotage incremental moves in the right direction.

What in the fuck are you even talking about? The Republican part has zero cohesion. They have no platform, no ideology, no structure, no values, no leadership, nothing. The whole party starts and stops with Trump and his senile opinions that can change from one extreme end to other at the drop of a hat. The Republican party died when Trump started purging all the ideological diversity that existed within the party during his first term. Right now the party only consists of MAGA cultist worshipers and slimy opportunists who lack a spine.

The left should definitely NOT model itself to be more like the right. One of the hallmarks of a successful democracy is having these internal debates and having the ability to criticize politicians freely and openly about anything they do that’s deemed inappropriate. The progressives who think they should become blue MAGA are just as dumb as MAGA. This isn’t self sabotage, this is an opportunity for us to hold our politicians accountable so they could serve us better in the ways that we want them to.

I don’t know enough about the DSA or any of the stuff that are bothering you so much to make it a wedge issue.

Hold on, if you don’t even understand what I’m talking about, then why the fuck are you arguing and defending something you don’t even know?

I’m arguing with you right now. If you endorsed me, I’d accept it. I’d take your money and use it for whatever I wanted. I’d take your endorsement to mean you agree with my views, regardless of what your words say.

It’s easy to say this because you know I’m just a normal person, but imagine for a second that you got an endorsement from someone who isn’t normal. Say for example, an islamist group like Al Qaeda endorsed you, would you still accept their endorsement? How about if a branch of the KKK endorsed you? Maybe, the church of Scientology? You probably wouldn’t, but why? It’s because basic morals and ethics wouldn’t allow you to, or at least they shouldn’t. I don’t care how many votes or money their endorsements brings, their views and past doings are more than enough for me to reject their support.

Or are you claiming some quid pro quo we should be worried about? Because that’s usually the actual concern when talking about big money donors in politics.

That’s one issue, but it’s not the only one.

This isn’t a random youtuber and his video isn’t clickbait. You not understanding why people are talking about him posting this video is not the same as these discussions being pointless or spam.

People are out here calling him a nazi and that’s just crazy. It’s an example of how the left is not immune to propaganda, misinformation, poor critical thinking skills.

Oh no, 4 different posts that were posted on 4 different communities on 4 different instancess, all of which are about the topic he’s talking about in the video… The horror

The only people who have called this guy a nazi are terminally online far left jackoffs who get all their information from other jackoffs in the same echo chambers.

He’s one of the biggest and most loved youtube personalities. He has influence, and him saying this kind of stuff is a big deal. Pretending he’s a nobody shows that you’re simply ignorant.

That would literally be the best this to happen to this god forsaken platform. There isn’t nearly enough users, diversity of content, or sheer volume to make this place a genuine alternative to Reddit. Getting an influx from a huge youtuber like him means this place might finally get active communities for mainstream hobbies like sports, music, and videogames.

Calling this guy an ass shows that you have no idea who he is. You’re probably the type of person who thinks they’re well informed but exclusively get their info from echo chambers like Lemmy.

There’s no redemption arc because he literally never did anything wrong. His content was always family friendly

He literally never did anything evil or bad. This is a myth that was entirely created by the far left, who falsely call everything fascist, despite never watching his content.

He was never right wing in the first place

What kind of question is that? It should be extremely obvious that I think he should’ve ignored or rejected the DSA’s endorsement. Endorsements go both ways. By openly accepting their endorsement, he’s basically saying that he’s proud of them and what they do. Do you not find this at all concerning considering what the DSA has done and stood for in recent years? Do you think it’s not at least worth criticizing him over this? Just because he’s better than Cuomo for not being a sex pest and better than Adams for not being blatantly corrupt and accepting bribes, that doesn’t mean he’s now absolved from receiving criticism. Saying “but there’s worse” doesn’t in any way justify, excuse, or negate this endorsement. If accepting an endorsement by a billionaire funded right wing group or a foreign funded lobbyist group is problematic, then this should be as well.

There, I’ve addressed your point, can you finally address mine?

…and there it is. I was spot on about you word for word. Alright, go troll elsewhere.

It’s really simple actually. There’s two intellectually honest paths you could take here:

1. Mamdani accepting the DSA’s endorsement is a bad move and a red flag that we should criticize and keep an eye on because the DSA is a shitty organization that has done shitty things.

2. Mamdani accepting the DSA’s endorsement is a good thing because I support the DSA and the shitty things they do

Aren’t you tired of dancing around like a clown by running in circles with one desperate disingenuous fallacy after another? You’re not making yourself look smart, all you’re doing is demonstrating that you’re aware that DSA is shit and support them despite of that, but you’re too ashamed to admit it so you keep trying to mask your support with whatever this is. You can concede that I made a good point or own your support for the DSA so we can shift the conversation to how shitty they are. If you can’t do this, then you’re not worth another reply.

I literally don’t care how many of you mouth breathers downvote or repeat the same bullshit assertions. It’s not going to change anything. Not a single one of you has been able to address a single point or address a single argument or even point out a single flaw. You didn’t and I know you never will either.

This, right here, is the best you could ever do. I literally asked you to provide a case like 3 times now, and you’re simply not able to. That’s all there is to it. It’s clear you’re full of shit, you’re aware of can’t prove me wrong, but you’re dishonest to admit you’re wrong so you resort to whatever this is. You’re done here, I’ll only reply if you have something of substance to say, which I know you won’t.

“no u”

This was exactly the level of intelligence I was expecting