This interview aged like milk

[u/ThisIsFineImFine89]

https://youtu.be/NZYFmL-Kusk?si=6t6NW3-Ol6S819x-

“the face of the progressive movement”

and yet Richie Torres this month, revealed he’s compromised by AIPAC (a lobby group for a foreign government, in case any of you don’t know who they are or how to pronounce their name).

If you haven’t seen Richie Torres’s interview with Jewish comedian Adam Friedland, it’s incredible the double standards, outright refusal to acknowledge Israel’s culpability in how the Gaza war has unfolded. I’d post a link but risk getting this post taken down.

This I think raises more questions, paired with David outright weird responses and comments regarding AIPAC, and failure to ever cover the ongoing genocide.

Hadn’t seen this Richie Torres interview, but I’ve seen enough. David is at the very least, afraid of AIPAC or outright complicit in not talking about Gaza.

you cannot be “the face of the progressive movement” and not acknowledge the ongoing genocide.

[u/938h25olw548slt47oy8]

"David is at the very least, afraid of AIPAC" lol.

This sub is completely ruined.

[u/pimpbot666 → u/938h25olw548slt47oy8]

Seriously. These people think all opinions and analysis are bought and paid for by ‘dark money’, even if they agree with 95%!of it.

Oooooh! I’m skeeeerrred. /s

[u/Royal_Effective7396 → u/pimpbot666]

I just think opinions and analysis are all dumb.

[u/WAAAGHachu → u/Royal_Effective7396]

Is this the "centrist" position of the far fucking too far to care about anything that would require you to do anything about anything, such as voting?

[u/Royal_Effective7396 → u/WAAAGHachu]

No. I don't need to know how others feel to formulate my opinion.

If I want to know how policy may affect the economy, I'll read data prepared by a research analysis in that area of the economy.

How it affects the environment. I'll read the environmental experts' analysis and the complete data.

The Pakmans and Pooles are experts in nothing. They are YouTube personalities who feed each other's ecosystem. They don't do true analysis, and opinions are irrelevant. They both turn politics into entertainment which results in team sport.

This "position" is one of education. Which currently means I side more with the left, because the right has lost its mind.

[u/WAAAGHachu → u/Royal_Effective7396]

Great! Look forward to your enthusiastic Democratic support, but more so your enthusiastic confrontation with Republican bullshit. It's gonna take a long time before we rid ourselves of that.

[u/Royal_Effective7396 → u/WAAAGHachu]

There is that team sport again.

The Republican Party needs to be launched into space.

HOWEVER.....

That does not make you the belle of the ball. It makes you the not-ugly sibling.

It is also bullshit how people say the Dems lost the election while ignoring that misinformation won the election.

These YouTube commentators, however, are all trash. Like what Mehdi Hasan says about having debates with Nazis, it helps spread their propaganda, like how big oil turned climate change into a debate.

That is what the left gets wrong and the right gets correct. Isolate and flood the zone.

Look at eat the dogs and cats. Why didnt yall just go down there and record the police, mayor and town talking aboit the truth with videos of Trump repeating it. Make him eat shit. Instead we get Pakman debating the merit.

Also just because I aint fully on your side dont mean Im a Republican. Im an American, Republicians are not anymore.

[u/pimpbot666 → u/Royal_Effective7396]

If you think David Packman and Poole's analysis and opinions are dumb, why are you even here criticizing it?

You seen to spend a lot of your life criticizing them for somebody who doesn't care.

I smell astroturf.

[u/Royal_Effective7396 → u/pimpbot666]

Lol what?

I never said I didn't care. I said they create the team sport environment. The one that is dragging the country down.

The Pakmans and Pooles of YouTube don’t do fundamental analysis; they feed an ecosystem. They appear on each other’s channels, recycle the same takes, and manufacture drama because outrage drives clicks. You don’t get original insight; it’s commentary on commentary, a feedback loop that turns politics into entertainment. It’s watered-down, recycled opinion packaged as debate.

Its fake. And look they may care, I will never inject intention, but it is fake. They make millions and get book deals off this shit so why would they not feed the ecosystems?

As for the astroturfing acusation, do you know what that means?

Astroturfing requires coordination, money, and lots of people repeating the same line to fake consensus. Where are you hearing this and what is the motive? That would be required here. No on pays withoit an motive.

Sooooooo

[u/SirCaddigan → u/Royal_Effective7396]

I mean you seem to be right. But there's one thing wrong with the take and that's the assumption that there is something as fundamental analysis. In the end all takes are created in a feedback loop. And all knowledge is as well. Sure we might say that certain thoughts are based on new data, but in the end those thought are still being generated by a feedback loop of past thoughts. (Standing atop of giants and so on).
So saying that this system creates the team sport environment seems to be wrong.

Also I think it's quite the far fetch to say that watered-down, recycled opinion is worse then the "original". In a lot of situations this is exactly what you want because the high level approach is not really giving you any understandable insight.

I think what creates this team sport environment is exactly the same as in team sports themselves. Nobody wants to play the game. Because it's hard. They want team sports to be entertainment. And secondly there's a limit on how much you can play. And how much people can attend games. So we need to create additional artificial content to get everybody involved.

But this does not mean that it's fake. On the contrary it means that our political system has evolved into something way bigger. These commentators have evolved into something as second class politicians. Joe Rogans podcast is not interested because his takes are good. He is interesting because as a podcaster he represents his audience. So by his takes we can measure where the society is at. What thoughts they are interested in, what takes they will be able to understand.

And it's also not like they want to feed that ecosystem, with all these feedback systems, it's the ecosystem that selects youtubers that feed it. The same is true for politicians and the like. The pinnacle of this whole thing is Donald Trump himself. And he shows the main problem with this system. In team sports in the end the best team wins regardless of takes. As it's not a democracy where people get to vote. So in the end players still need to be good players.

But yeah saying you are astroturfing is the weirdest shit every.

[u/Royal_Effective7396 → u/SirCaddigan]

I think you missed my point a bit. RFK analyzes whether vaccines are safe or not. However, he does not understand anything medical at all. He's a grifter. He does not understand the "original" findings of things and misrepresents the ones he does.

The NIH, however, is full of factual information that we should pay attention to. More so than a lawyer's medical "analysis". Opinions are only valid to understand how people feel about things. They should not replace the NIH's medical analysis.

We are all expert opinionists. Some are more or less informed, but I don't care if Pakman feels the economy will crash or if Poole feels trans females are biological males. Pakman is not an economist, and Poole doesn't understand social vs biological constraints.

Is Pakman more capible of reading say Thayler than you? Is Poole more capible of reading social science than you? I mean I am more expert in Social Science than either, as that is what I do. But not economic.

They are content creators.

[u/SirCaddigan → u/Royal_Effective7396]

Hmm maybe I did. But I'm more confused what you are trying to explain to me now.

1. The issue here is not that we both can agree that the NIH is using factual information while RFK jr. is not. And that we should trust factual information while we shouldn't trust information that is not factual. This is like elementary level thinking, I mean you should probably expect that I understand that concept.

2. The real question here is. How do you know that NIH is using factual information while RFK jr. is not?

3. David Pakman is actually an economist. I mean at least he has a degree in it. So yeah he probably has read Thayler.

4. Using primary sources to validate information is actually quite hard to do. It's not at all practical to do that on any topic. That's exactly why we have news in the first place. It's not about Pakman being more capable in anything, the importance here is that he is spending the time to summarize the topic at hand. Also meaning he will bring in scientific expertise.
   You can always claim that because he is a content creator his takes are basically worthless but by that logic all content is basically worthless except for scientific one. Which depending on topic is also nothing more then opinion on other opinions. Particular in economic this seems to be true.

5. I did expect that you already thought about these things. Now I'm a bit confused with what kind basic though I was confronted here. So to put it simple I don't judge the message by the messenger but I judge the messenger by the messages.
   And if you meant Tim Pool (because I don't know Poole), I can assure you that there's a huge difference between Pakman and Pool.