The NYT radicalization piece is an excellent example of the problems of the main stream media, and how they will smear their competitors, both in
business and in ideology. For such sensationalist smears to be put in the paper of record shows just how low the msm has sunk
1. The initial collage of pictures as has been discussed shows such a variety of people, from left to centrists to right wing, all of which has only
in common that they are usually for free speech, and are prominent on Youtube.
2. This was a purposeful attempt to attack the NYT ideological competition, those advocating debate and free speech, and their business competition,,
online creators in general and youtube specifically.
3. Notice how the article then starts by discussing a gun being put on the table. This is sensationalist, and leads readers to assume this radical
right winger, who was taken there by all of the people pictured, must have used a gun for some sort of violence.
4. Ironically, the gun was bought by the now left wing youtuber as defense.
It turns out that the person focused on in this piece, that the NYT warns us is an example of how radical youtube can make people, never became a
racist or bigot, and never used or endorsed violence
5. His radical behavior ends up being a traditional conservative who believed gender norms, dated a Christian girl, and argued with his liberal
This shows the NYT finds being a traditional conservative and dating a Christian to be radical and worth worrying about.
6. Ironically, the piece ignores that Cain arguing with liberal friends is a two way street. His liberal freidns also apparently argued with him.
Are they also radicals? What videos do they watch?
7. The truth is all groups have extremists, and the NYT could have chosen a radical from any group and smeared the creators of the videos they
If the man who shot Steve Scalise read the NYT, does that show the NYT leads to radicalism?
8. The parts about the algorithm comes down to implying right wing creators did something shady to become more successful. In reality, they show
things like being funny or entertaining, provocative, and being longer form led to increased views.
9. This is absurd seeing as how the msm, NYT included, take a similar model, using sensationalism and being provocative to get more readers. They
are worse though because they are supposed to be journalists, and should have a higher goal of reporting truth
10. Long form interviews, that they seem to criticize, is a far superior method of having meaningful conversations. The shorter form that this is
opposed to is again what the NYT msm allies such as CNN do, have 11 panelists shout 30 second blips
11. This ironically leads to more sensationalism, which is what the NYT claims to be against. This again shows almost all of the criticisms in this
piece are actually done by the NYT and other msm outlets.
12. This hypocrisy is also shown when the piece takes a relieved tone at this former right wing radical now watches left wing videos, named after a
19th century anarchist book. Yet somehow that is not considered extremist.
13. The piece says the left wing youtubers are better because they debate ideas and use citations. So do many of the creators youtube calls right
wing This attempts to give the impression the left wants debate and the right doesn't, when many times the opposite is true
14. The piece often times acts as discussing some topics by default makes a person a bigot. They don't show proof of this most time, and instead
seek to censor debate, which they claim to celebrate, by making many of these discussions taboo.
15. This article actually shows why that is a bad idea, as it drives people to more extreme people who are the only ones that will discuss these
topics, thus leading to an alluring effect of it being "forbidden knowledge".
16. This will become even more likely seeing as how the NYT is smearing anyone who has discussions with alt right people, even those that disagree
such as RubinReport or joerogan
17. The attack on the intellectual dark web, which are free speech advocates online, though most are centrists or left wing. This shows the NYT is
not only about attacking the right but going after who they see as competitors, those endorsing free speech and independent voices.
18. This also shows that as the left moves further to the left, even centrists and left wing people who don't follow will be smeared as far right
19. I remember when it was a left wing position to denounce the gatekeepers of information for holding all the pwoer, and wanting more voices. Now
the NYT is calling for a return to power for those gatekeepers; more power for them
20. Here is an hour and a half video I did going through the piece line by line
Another excellent post Grambler, and right on the money.
The time and effort you put into these is appreciated.
Hopefully someone at the NY times is taking notes.
Thanks for the compliment
I know most people won’t watch an hour and a half video (I don’t blame them) but I thought the issue of the msm trying to smear everyone they
disagree with as bigots and far right is so important that I wanted to do a step by step rebuttal
That's the trouble -the people who support censorship never think it will occur to them. Or if they are silenced, that it's different some how since
they're on the side of 'the oppressed'. I know a few. They always bandy about words like 'genocide' or 'hate' when calling for speech to be censored.
They border on histrionic when it comes to attacking opponents, convinced of their righteousness as much as any fiery bible thumper.
Ohhhh man this is legitimately terrifying for any student of history.
White people, particularly (but not limited to) the straight male ones are the modern equivalent of the bourgeoisie in Bolshevik Russia.
I'm not sure as of yet what to make of the censorship of any mention of Nazi's. To what end?
I am acutely aware of "their" ability to destroy careers and reputations if you don't adhere to the group think. For example, I am in B2B tech sales
and use LinkedIN to a huge extent. I have to ensure that I do not post any personal opinions on politics etc. on there for fear of damage not only
myself but to my company by way of our moral superiors not wanting to do business with me/us based on those beliefs.
Diversity & Inclusion officers are the new Commissarrs.
CNET did a hitpiece on gaming YouTubers that echoes the #VoxAdPocalypse purge. They've managed to hit several names across the political spectrum
whose main crime is consumer advocacy and a tendency to criticize the mainstream gaming press. This lends creedence to the idea that this is about
removing independent competition in the face of declining reader/viewership when challenged by independent content creators who are not afraid to
challenge the mainstream.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.