TYT vs. Jimmy Dore

[storyteller]

Just watched this video sticking up for Jimmy and basically dude is saying they are coming for Jimmy because he is popular and they want his viewers. lol
Also, he makes the point Jimmy is not only a vlogger progressive voice he is an activist on the front lines. Guys like Pakman and Seder aren't doing much besides commenting on shyt. Nico House is the guy's name and he is on some shyt saying guys like him, Jimmy and Tim Black our out here being activists and also they have other jobs. Jimmy being a comedian and he works in politics working on campaigns and such while this youtube thing is Seder and Pakman's main source of income. So they are playing for keeps regarding clicks, views and subscribers.
It's interesting but I think all this infighting is counterproductive.

The second he tried to laugh off any Russia connection and then called Sam and Pakman the biggest Russiagate guys because they have nothing else to talk about (then says "I don't HAVE to watch them any more), he exposed that he doesn't know about either of these guys or their shows to be commenting. Then his very next move is to claim that Pakman does the Progressive and Bernie support thing for views...again, that's just plain wrong.

In terms of activism, I didn't get that far but I'd peep the backgrounds of the MR staff. Michael Brooks' work with the American Iranian Council and Jamie Peck's consistent presence with the DSA is pretty obvious plus Sam's presence at conferences where he shines light on activist work from unions and in law (literally listen to yesterday's show) is at minimum worth noting...but I'll be honest, when this dude strawmanned them on Russia out the gate, I cut it off. I called Jordan Chariton out for the same thing "I don't know these guys or watch their show at all but this is who they are" ain't really the stance for these dudes to start with before they pretend to understand their points.

That's also kinda my problem with the entire Dore fandom. I've seen them call these guys (Seder, Pakman, Dixon, Fiorentini) neoliberals, centrists, cheerleaders for the establishment...none of which is remotely true if you watch even one episode of their podcasts/shows. This is literally the crux of twitter attacks and youtube commentary from Dore fans but since they have numbers, it drowns out most of the quality discussions (I've had plenty of good convos to be fair but an abundance of commenters aren't worth the time).

 

[AnonymityX1000]

The second he tried to laugh off any Russia connection and then called Sam and Pakman the biggest Russiagate guys because they have nothing else to talk about (then says "I don't HAVE to watch them any more), he exposed that he doesn't know about either of these guys or their shows to be commenting. Then his very next move is to claim that Pakman does the Progressive and Bernie support thing for views...again, that's just plain wrong.

In terms of activism, I didn't get that far but I'd peep the backgrounds of the MR staff. Michael Brooks' work with the American Iranian Council and Jamie Peck's consistent presence with the DSA is pretty obvious plus Sam's presence at conferences where he shines light on activist work from unions and in law (literally listen to yesterday's show) is at minimum worth noting...but I'll be honest, when this dude strawmanned them on Russia out the gate, I cut it off. I called Jordan Chariton out for the same thing "I don't know these guys or watch their show at all but this is who they are" ain't really the stance for these dudes to start with before they pretend to understand their points.

That's also kinda my problem with the entire Dore fandom. I've seen them call these guys (Seder, Pakman, Dixon, Fiorentini) neoliberals, centrists, cheerleaders for the establishment...none of which is remotely true if you watch even one episode of their podcasts/shows. This is literally the crux of twitter attacks and youtube commentary from Dore fans but since they have numbers, it drowns out most of the quality discussions (I've had plenty of good convos to be fair but an abundance of commenters aren't worth the time).

I don't understand the sanctity of Russiagate. The proof of its influence over the election is shaky and we the US have done way worse many, many times to other nations including Russia. Putting so much energy into it is couterproductive. Yes, root out corruption wherever you find it but there is an over importance put on it for some reason.
The name calling on both sides is counter-productive as well. Yes, his fans are wrong to be questioning Seder and Pakman's Progressive bonafides. But it is also not helping attacking Jimmy and calling him a useful idiot. And not only to the Progressive movement to themselves. Going at Jimmy isn't going to make him less popular it's going to make them less popular. Jimmy is now the 'it' Progressive YouTuber. And they kind of made him that by shytting on him all the time. Basically, "I knew if I ain't the nikka nikkas is hatin' I ain't doin' it right" and Jimmy is the one getting mentioned on multiple vlogs making fans of their show check out his show. Like I said previously, Jimmy has captured the emotion of the movement while some of these guys are smarter and more informed they don't have the hearts and minds of the Progressives like Jimmy does. And attacking him is going to make people not like them. Their best bet is to leave him alone and hope he says something that really turns people off.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

See what happens when you make videos shytting on Jimmy, other people make videos shytting on you for shytting on Jimmy and Jimmy goes about his business not talking about any other commentators like he is on the high road. lol

 

[storyteller]

I don't understand the sanctity of Russiagate. The proof of its influence over the election is shaky and we the US have done way worse many, many times to other nations including Russia. Putting so much energy into it is couterproductive. Yes, root out corruption wherever you find it but there is an over importance put on it for some reason.

Pretty simple honestly, did Russia engage in activity to enhance Trump's chances to win the election? Yes. And that's it. What's Sam Seder's stance on this? It happened, likely wasn't the biggest or a very big variable in why Trump won and to be fair the US has done a lot of messing with foreign campaigns too (Michael Brooks and Jamie point this out damn near every time). Here's the thing, neither Pakman nor Sam puts much energy into it. I'm scrolling through the titles of podcasts they have listed on their app, from episode 1917 to1941 there isn't a single Russia themed episode. That's almost a month of focus on OTHER issues. Ironically, the issue that Sam DID care about in his debates with Jimmy IS a major focus in recent episodes...the Supreme Court fight over Kavanaugh. Sam's main focus, and one that the Dore supporters still feel like they gloss over, was that Trump would get to pick at minimum one Supreme Court Justice and potentially more. That being a lifetime appointment, could have repercussions detrimental to progress for a generation. Again this gets me back to my main point, these people don't know the show and are making assumptions in order to attack.

The name calling on both sides is counter-productive as well. Yes, his fans are wrong to be questioning Seder and Pakman's Progressive bonafides. But it is also not helping attacking Jimmy and calling him a useful idiot.

Sure, but turning "he said toxic" or "useful idiot" into the crux of the issue seems backwards when anyone can acknowledge that Dore has called people he disagrees with "dumb," "coward," and "shill"

And not only to the Progressive movement to themselves. Going at Jimmy isn't going to make him less popular it's going to make them less popular. Jimmy is now the 'it' Progressive YouTuber. And they kind of made him that by shytting on him all the time. Basically, "I knew if I ain't the nikka nikkas is hatin' I ain't doin' it right" and Jimmy is the one getting mentioned on multiple vlogs making fans of their show check out his show.

The "You're just making me support him more because you're mean to him" argument is familiar and one that I don't really care for any time it's used. I'm looking for the best strategy to enact actual change. I'm watching a supreme court battle that could not only stagnate any progress but cause regression on women's and worker's rights unfold; I'll take the smug guy who was RIGHT that this was going to be a problem over the angry guy who poo-poo'ed the prospects of this occurring.

Like I said previously, Jimmy has captured the emotion of the movement while some of these guys are smarter and more informed they don't have the hearts and minds of the Progressives like Jimmy does. And attacking him is going to make people not like them. Their best bet is to leave him alone and hope he says something that really turns people off.

Again, I'll take the smarter and more informed person because his strategies are better. I could give a damn who has more support, otherwise I'd be a neoliberal by now (been into politics since before OWS).

See what happens when you make videos shytting on Jimmy, other people make videos shytting on you for shytting on Jimmy and Jimmy goes about his business not talking about any other commentators like he is on the high road. lol

Another commentator who categorizes Pakman as a liberal when he's a social democrat straight from the title. Again reinforcing my point that these people are creating strawman arguments whether they realize it or not.[/QUOTE]

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Pretty simple honestly, did Russia engage in activity to enhance Trump's chances to win the election? Yes. And that's it. What's Sam Seder's stance on this? It happened, likely wasn't the biggest or a very big variable in why Trump won and to be fair the US has done a lot of messing with foreign campaigns too (Michael Brooks and Jamie point this out damn near every time). Here's the thing, neither Pakman nor Sam puts much energy into it. I'm scrolling through the titles of podcasts they have listed on their app, from episode 1917 to1941 there isn't a single Russia themed episode. That's almost a month of focus on OTHER issues. Ironically, the issue that Sam DID care about in his debates with Jimmy IS a major focus in recent episodes...the Supreme Court fight over Kavanaugh. Sam's main focus, and one that the Dore supporters still feel like they gloss over, was that Trump would get to pick at minimum one Supreme Court Justice and potentially more. That being a lifetime appointment, could have repercussions detrimental to progress for a generation. Again this gets me back to my main point, these people don't know the show and are making assumptions in order to attack.



Sure, but turning "he said toxic" or "useful idiot" into the crux of the issue seems backwards when anyone can acknowledge that Dore has called people he disagrees with "dumb," "coward," and "shill"




The "You're just making me support him more because you're mean to him" argument is familiar and one that I don't really care for any time it's used. I'm looking for the best strategy to enact actual change. I'm watching a supreme court battle that could not only stagnate any progress but cause regression on women's and worker's rights unfold; I'll take the smug guy who was RIGHT that this was going to be a problem over the angry guy who poo-poo'ed the prospects of this occurring.



Again, I'll take the smarter and more informed person because his strategies are better. I could give a damn who has more support, otherwise I'd be a neoliberal by now (been into politics since before OWS).



Another commentator who categorizes Pakman as a liberal when he's a social democrat straight from the title. Again reinforcing my point that these people are creating strawman arguments whether they realize it or not.

Third party votes would not have made up the difference in the battleground states and it is a poor assumption that if you voted third party your second choice would be Hillary. Some people just aren't Democrats and really Hillary's/Dems problem is her constituents stayed home and Obama and the Dems didn't do enough to get his pick thru . So their entire point about Kavanaugh isn't a good one in relation to Jimmy.

As far as I know Jimmy doesn't talk about other commentators (if he has please link me) by name, therefore he could not call any of them dumb, coward or shill on his show.

And my point about making videos about Jimmy is it is a huge waste of time because he has captured the emotion of the Progressive movement while his critics haven't . So if you believe Jimmy's toxic just be aware guys like Sam and David are not doing much to help lower his toxic profile, they are increasing it.

And I guess Niko and Tim haven't checked the MR lately because they have moved on from Russiagate to making one video after another about Kavanaugh. lol They are like parroting MSM. Switch it up please.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Pakman and Seder are talking about this shyt today

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The second he tried to laugh off any Russia connection and then called Sam and Pakman the biggest Russiagate guys because they have nothing else to talk about (then says "I don't HAVE to watch them any more), he exposed that he doesn't know about either of these guys or their shows to be commenting. Then his very next move is to claim that Pakman does the Progressive and Bernie support thing for views...again, that's just plain wrong.

In terms of activism, I didn't get that far but I'd peep the backgrounds of the MR staff. Michael Brooks' work with the American Iranian Council and Jamie Peck's consistent presence with the DSA is pretty obvious plus Sam's presence at conferences where he shines light on activist work from unions and in law (literally listen to yesterday's show) is at minimum worth noting...but I'll be honest, when this dude strawmanned them on Russia out the gate, I cut it off. I called Jordan Chariton out for the same thing "I don't know these guys or watch their show at all but this is who they are" ain't really the stance for these dudes to start with before they pretend to understand their points.

That's also kinda my problem with the entire Dore fandom. I've seen them call these guys (Seder, Pakman, Dixon, Fiorentini) neoliberals, centrists, cheerleaders for the establishment...none of which is remotely true if you watch even one episode of their podcasts/shows. This is literally the crux of twitter attacks and youtube commentary from Dore fans but since they have numbers, it drowns out most of the quality discussions (I've had plenty of good convos to be fair but an abundance of commenters aren't worth the time).

whats also messed up is how Joe rogan sees jimmy dore or abby martin types as "legitimate" leftists and no reasonable people like Brooks, Seder, Pakman, etc

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Did everyone forget H.A. Goodman or something???????????

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Third party votes would not have made up the difference in the battleground states and it is a poor assumption that if you voted third party your second choice would be Hillary. Some people just aren't Democrats and really Hillary's/Dems problem is her constituents stayed home and Obama and the Dems didn't do enough to get his pick thru . So their entire point about Kavanaugh isn't a good one in relation to Jimmy.

As far as I know Jimmy doesn't talk about other commentators (if he has please link me) by name, therefore he could not call any of them dumb, coward or shill on his show.

And my point about making videos about Jimmy is it is a huge waste of time because he has captured the emotion of the Progressive movement while his critics haven't . So if you believe Jimmy's toxic just be aware guys like Sam and David are not doing much to help lower his toxic profile, they are increasing it.

And I guess Niko and Tim haven't checked the MR lately because they have moved on from Russiagate to making one video after another about Kavanaugh. lol They are like parroting MSM. Switch it up please.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Pakman and Seder are talking about this shyt today

Also, I do think Niko had a point Pakman's most viewed videos the last couple of weeks is when he talks about Dore. Otherwise, his views are stuck in the 10K rangr. lol
I guess it does help him short-term to talk about Dore.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

My bad, Still it is a bad assumption all those votes then go to Hillary.

 

[storyteller]

Third party votes would not have made up the difference in the battleground states and it is a poor assumption that if you voted third party your second choice would be Hillary. Some people just aren't Democrats and really Hillary's/Dems problem is her constituents stayed home and Obama and the Dems didn't do enough to get his pick thru . So their entire point about Kavanaugh isn't a good one in relation to Jimmy.

Two thoughts on this:
1. This is a bit of a redirect from how the beef actually started. Their disagreement was Sam's view that Trump would be able to do damage via the Supreme Court and Jimmy said "nah we can filibuster." So just going back to the point of disagreement, Jimmy was misinforming his audience and that was the crux of the argument. Running back the debate, they agree on a lot, but "we disagree 100%" on the Supreme Court according to Jimmy.


2. You're right that not every third party voter would have picked Hillary, but I'd argue there's potentially a collective that just didn't vote at all who aren't covered by the third party voter count. The reason I think Pakman calls Jimmy toxic, is that his recent takes on even good candidates (AOC, Bernie, Gillum) have been negative to the extent that it could potentially depress support or turnout for them. "There is no progressive takeover of the democratic party," "when Bernie said he was calling for a revolution he wasn't being truthful," "When he said, 'are you ready for a revolution' it doesn't sound intellectually honest." THAT approach is counterproductive imo and listeners who buy in are less likely to vote for progressives sporting the (D) imo.

As far as I know Jimmy doesn't talk about other commentators (if he has please link me) by name, therefore he could not call any of them dumb, coward or shill on his show.

If Jimmy Dore says anyone that thinks (insert political stance he disagrees with here) is a coward or dummy or shill; it's an insult to anyone that carries that opinion. It also frames them in a manner that can cause his listeners to tune out their takes before they add context. So no, I'm not giving him a pass because he doesn't name names when he trashes other commentators. That's a dodge to me.

And my point about making videos about Jimmy is it is a huge waste of time because he has captured the emotion of the Progressive movement while his critics haven't . So if you believe Jimmy's toxic just be aware guys like Sam and David are not doing much to help lower his toxic profile, they are increasing it.

And the point I'm making is that this is literally the argument I get from Sam harris, Jordan peterson and Trump supporters. It doesn't address the points that either side is making.

And I guess Niko and Tim haven't checked the MR lately because they have moved on from Russiagate to making one video after another about Kavanaugh. lol They are like parroting MSM. Switch it up please.

Parroting MSM!? Sam's broadcasting from the Mass Torts Conference this week...that's got literally nothing to do with anything the MSM is covering. Your guess is just flat out wrong. I mentioned his stance earlier, it's not some Maddow mess at all.

What's Sam Seder's stance on this? It happened, likely wasn't the biggest or a very big variable in why Trump won and to be fair the US has done a lot of messing with foreign campaigns too (Michael Brooks and Jamie point this out damn near every time).

Now if you want variety, he covers a multitude of topics daily. He has gone heavy on Kavanaugh, mainly because the supreme court will be setting legal precedents for the next generation, so it's possibly the most important fight for progressives that is going on right now. Bernie can be president with a progressive leaning congress and the supreme court can stagnate anything he'd hope to accomplish unless he was able to pack the courts. But even with that as a big topic they've still managed to cover; The opioid epidemic; the Lula mess in Brazil; Tony Blair's recent foolishness; Ted Cruz attacks on Beto; Gosar's family endorsing his Democrat opponent; and here's an interesting one (a centrist Dem who starts with insulting Jimmy Dore ends up getting slammed by Seder)

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Two thoughts on this:
1. This is a bit of a redirect from how the beef actually started. Their disagreement was Sam's view that Trump would be able to do damage via the Supreme Court and Jimmy said "nah we can filibuster." So just going back to the point of disagreement, Jimmy was misinforming his audience and that was the crux of the argument. Running back the debate, they agree on a lot, but "we disagree 100%" on the Supreme Court according to Jimmy.


2. You're right that not every third party voter would have picked Hillary, but I'd argue there's potentially a collective that just didn't vote at all who aren't covered by the third party voter count. The reason I think Pakman calls Jimmy toxic, is that his recent takes on even good candidates (AOC, Bernie, Gillum) have been negative to the extent that it could potentially depress support or turnout for them. "There is no progressive takeover of the democratic party," "when Bernie said he was calling for a revolution he wasn't being truthful," "When he said, 'are you ready for a revolution' it doesn't sound intellectually honest." THAT approach is counterproductive imo and listeners who buy in are less likely to vote for progressives sporting the (D) imo.






If Jimmy Dore says anyone that thinks (insert political stance he disagrees with here) is a coward or dummy or shill; it's an insult to anyone that carries that opinion. It also frames them in a manner that can cause his listeners to tune out their takes before they add context. So no, I'm not giving him a pass because he doesn't name names when he trashes other commentators. That's a dodge to me.



And the point I'm making is that this is literally the argument I get from Sam harris, Jordan peterson and Trump supporters. It doesn't address the points that either side is making.



Parroting MSM!? Sam's broadcasting from the Mass Torts Conference this week...that's got literally nothing to do with anything the MSM is covering. Your guess is just flat out wrong. I mentioned his stance earlier, it's not some Maddow mess at all.


Now if you want variety, he covers a multitude of topics daily. He has gone heavy on Kavanaugh, mainly because the supreme court will be setting legal precedents for the next generation, so it's possibly the most important fight for progressives that is going on right now. Bernie can be president with a progressive leaning congress and the supreme court can stagnate anything he'd hope to accomplish unless he was able to pack the courts. But even with that as a big topic they've still managed to cover; The opioid epidemic; the Lula mess in Brazil; Tony Blair's recent foolishness; Ted Cruz attacks on Beto; Gosar's family endorsing his Democrat opponent; and here's an interesting one (a centrist Dem who starts with insulting Jimmy Dore ends up getting slammed by Seder)

So Jimmy is saying things he believes regarding Progressives in the Democratic party that you and Seder and Pakman think are toxic. Strategically speaking, if you don't want his ideas to pick up steam with your viewing public should you highlight them on your show or ignore them? I would say ignore them. Unless something like their own personal clicks/views is more important to them.
I don't agree with that logic that if you call one person a name a biproduct of that is you call everyone that agrees with them that name. But let's say that's the case. Bringing up Jimmy and calling him useful idiot, dum dum etc. for promoting third parties and questioning people's Progressivism in the Democratic party you are insulting everyone who agrees with him. And let me remind you most people in the country are independent and not Democrats and it's not even close. So who really is being a useful idiot/counter productive?
I'm looking at Seder's YouTube page now. Dude has 6 videos where the main topic is Kavanaugh in the last 2 days, that's a lot. And it's things like, Kavanaugh Loves 2 things Beer and Lying, Meritocracy Is a Joke and Kavanaugh is the Punchline, The Banality of Brett Kavanaugh . . . Doesn't look like it is covering much of the importance of him being on the SC and are just shots for the sake of taking shots.

 

[storyteller]

So Jimmy is saying things he believes regarding Progressives in the Democratic party that you and Seder and Pakman think are toxic. Strategically speaking, if you don't want his ideas to pick up steam with your viewing public should you highlight them on your show or ignore them? I would say ignore them. Unless something like their own personal clicks/views is more important to them.

I would say that I don't think Jimmy or Sam or Jordan Peterson gain views from having Sam and others point out when they say some dumb ish. I'd say that they're gaining supporters regardless and that all Sam and co. do is provide a nice foundation to challenge their flawed arguments. For example, last week Sam played a clip of Ben Shapiro challenging Democratic Socialism and the use of Scandinavia to defend it but challenged or refuted each of Ben's claims. Some of his arguments were points that I had already known, but some of his points actually wound up giving me different perspectives to challenge my socialism fearing friends. I don't think Ben gained viewers or support because of this and I don't think ignoring him would have been better. My guess is his goal is to defend the ideas that Ben was attacking and help them to continue to gain steam. That applies to any time he addresses a Jimmy comment as well, but I figure it's better illustrated with someone we can both agree is pushing flawed views.

I don't agree with that logic that if you call one person a name a biproduct of that is you call everyone that agrees with them that name. But let's say that's the case. Bringing up Jimmy and calling him useful idiot, dum dum etc. for promoting third parties and questioning people's Progressivism in the Democratic party you are insulting everyone who agrees with him. And let me remind you most people in the country are independent and not Democrats and it's not even close. So who really is being a useful idiot/counter productive?

The problem is Jimmy isn't calling one person a name. He makes statements like, "you ever hear people say...how dumb can you be?" That's a blanket statement against everyone who makes the statement, not just one person. Calling Jimmy specifically a useful idiot is an insult to Jimmy, "people are still saying that with a straight face" is an attack at EVERYONE who carries the belief. But I do agree that the use of "dum dum left" is bad strategy and optics. I'd point out though that Sam has tried hard not to do that (Ben Dixon and Michael Brooks do use it a lot).
Here's the clip I'm pulling these quotes from,

I'm looking at Seder's YouTube page now. Dude has 6 videos where the main topic is Kavanaugh in the last 2 days, that's a lot. And it's things like, Kavanaugh Loves 2 things Beer and Lying, Meritocracy Is a Joke and Kavanaugh is the Punchline, The Banality of Brett Kavanaugh . . . Doesn't look like it is covering much of the importance of him being on the SC and are just shots for the sake of taking shots.

Yes, the past couple of days have included a lot of Kavanaugh talk...the investigation into Kavanaugh concluded yesterday, the vote to confirm Kavanaugh is tomorrow. The Supreme Court is the top of the Judicial Branch and the appointment will last his entire life he so chooses. He is likely to overturn Roe v Wade, sides with corporations over workers in court something like 80% of the time and he's also accused of sexual assault without a thorough investigation happening. Why wouldn't they provide extra coverage for a decision that will impact this country for a generation? But what other clips do you see and what were the topics? I see Tucker Carlson critique, Bernie vs Bezos, whether Bernie would bow out if Elizabeth Warren runs for president, ICE issues, Brazil's election, Republican attacks on the poor and clowning Stephen Crowder. All of that is listed as posted 1 day ago or sooner. So clearly, he's not only covering Kavanaugh and he's covered a good deal of important issues imho. Plus the interviews yesterday haven't been clipped but they covered important legal battles that are ongoing which I hadn't heard about (well 2 out of 3 the trafficking one is pretty well known but he got perspective from the side he and the crew don't agree with to be fair).

 

[storyteller]

That Tim Black dude debated Sam once too. Sam has an open invite to these cats to call in, so if they want to air him out they have the chance to challenge him directly.