• DarraignTheSane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand PragerU… they put out all of this fascist propaganda, but they still have this video up on their YouTube channel that spells out in no uncertain terms that the cause of the civil war was slavery and the south’s want to defend a “morally repugnant institution”:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

      Is this just the one thing they keep out there to point at and say that they’re “fair and balanced”?

      • gramathy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        67
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the video they point at when they say the Democratic Party was the party of slavery.

        They’re just hypocrites.

          • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean yes its a technicality but its also a pointless argument seeing as most political parties aren’t the same after 100+ years. Hell even in a span of 20 years, it is quite crazy to see progress since for a while the democrats basically avoided the whole lgbt topic entirely but now is one of its “pillars” for party ideals.

            • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly, just as conservatism has changed and gotten more extreme in the last 40ish years. My point though is that far too many people treat the political parties as constant throughout their history, and it’s worth pointing out that modern iterations of a given party are a stretch from even 20 years ago, almost to the point that they’re different parties entirely today.

          • aidan@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The ideologies did not switch. The Republican party was more appealing to Protestants, was largely anti-union, etc many other things, but largely was the party of “individualism”. The Democratic Party has always been more interventionist- but started to ideologically evolve after FDR. Barry Goldwater and certain other Republicans opposed the 1964 Civil Rights because they argued it was federal overreach. This attracted some Democrats who just went with what ever party they saw as letting them keep being racist, as for actual politicians who switch IIRC Strom Thurmond was the only one(but I may be wrong). But a big part of the “switch”(Carter won in the south the first time, Bill Clinton won a few states in the South, Reagan won traditionally blue areas) is that anti-government interventionism(especially after Reagan) switched from being a more urban thing to a more rural thing. Thats not to suggest that a lot of Republicans didn’t pitch their policies in a way to appeal to voters(who may be racist), they did. But the ideologies of the parties didn’t swap. Republicans stayed more or less the same, Democrats evolved.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly Youtube sucks. I get flagged for “supporting criminal gang activity” because I had a video about Randy Stair that didn’t even paint him in a positive light, most youtubers have to say “unalive” because mentioning death gets them demonetized yet PragerU can just straight up say we need to re-enslave black people and the response is “aww shucks”

        • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is that social media companies have completely capitulated to fascists, with absolutely zero attempt to put up a fight.

          Everyone knows, and I mean literally everyone, that if the rules were enforces fairly on social media then something like 60% of conservatives would have to be banned. They regularly say things that are openly racist, sexist, and incite violence on the reg.

          But social media companies only care about money, and to make money they want as many people as possible to show up. So while they know these cesspools exist on their platforms where people say the most heinous shit imagineable, they tolerate it because it makes them money and avoids the big fascist rage party if they fairly enforced their rules.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fucked up part is, I have been banned or suspended from a few social media platforms for completely innocuous reasons. Which is just frustrating when I get a 3-month band on Facebook for racism for making a self-deprecating joke about being white, but white supremacist groups are allowed to just openly operate and the people who gave me death threats for being transgender “were found not to be in violation of policies”

            • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right before the API changes I got a 1 week ban from reddit for “report abuse.”

              I reported a post on r/Ukraine that SHOWED A BEHEADING. When I reported that shit it was a full on, uncensored beheading video.

              Apparently that’s “report abuse” for some fucking reason. But the antisemites who sent me blatant racism? Not enough to bet them banned.

      • Glide@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        They just sell content to education institutions, nothing more, nothing less. They don’t care what that content is for or against, only that someone finds it valuable. It’s not about being “fair and balanced”; it’s about playing both sides to make as much money as possible.

        • 4am@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean their founder guy or whoever did a rant about how it’s ok for siblings to fuck and that inbreeding isn’t real, just to give you an idea of what kind of people they actually are…

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      I fucking knew it… Read the headline and came to the comments thinking “it’s definitely that shithole PragerU isn’t it…”

      Conservatives LOVE projection and they use their victim complex as ammunition. “Libz own the colleges and indoctrinate our youth so it’s totally fine now to have our own propaganda university teaching real history!”

      I hate PragerU so much…

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah - they don’t seem to understand that there is a massive difference between “having biases” and “being biased.” It’s how they’ve excused the purposeful slant of FoxNews all these years.

      • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Would simply changing conservative university to PragerU not be more context/more descriptive? I can’t even see it being called editorializing if it’s more accurate.

    • icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Shouldnt it be illegal for them to call themselves a university? Its kinda like if i would call my hypotetical tea shop a hospital