TYT vs. Jimmy Dore

[AnonymityX1000]

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.



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,




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).

I would say when you talk about another commentator they definitely gain views. Look at Pakman's videos. His 2 videos about Dore are the most viewed in the last 5 days. I'm pretty sure there is a correlation to other commentators commenting on him commenting on Jimmy Dore. Or do you think Pakman's viewers are just really interested in Jimmy Dore compared to his other topics?
When Trump won we all knew he would appoint someone terrible to the SC. Knowing all these particulars and hearing insults about them is not interesting or helpful to me at least.
And yes they cover many different topics but the excessive talk about Kavanaugh is unnecessary. You can get that from MSM.

 

[storyteller]

I would say when you talk about another commentator they definitely gain views. Look at Pakman's videos. His 2 videos about Dore are the most viewed in the last 5 days. I'm pretty sure there is a correlation to other commentators commenting on him commenting on Jimmy Dore. Or do you think Pakman's viewers are just really interested in Jimmy Dore compared to his other topics?
When Trump won we all knew he would appoint someone terrible to the SC. Knowing all these particulars and hearing insults about them is not interesting or helpful to me at least.
And yes they cover many different topics but the excessive talk about Kavanaugh is unnecessary. You can get that from MSM.

Pakman's first video was literally a random question from a caller fam. The second video was about him losing subscribers (who are a lot more valuable than Youtube views flatout). 2 videos that got a lot of views from angry Jimmy Dore fans who flooded his comments aren't helping him grow. Sam's big growth came from the Cernovich attacks, not his beef with Jimmy.

Fam, knowing the particulars of the Kavanaugh situation is why it's the most important news story to cover in depth. And "we knew Trump would appoint someone terrible" but apparently Jimmy thinks we would have had Gorsuch regardless of who won.


In terms of too much Kavanaugh, what important topics are we missing out on from the MR team and Pakman that Jimmy has covered?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Pakman's first video was literally a random question from a caller fam. The second video was about him losing subscribers (who are a lot more valuable than Youtube views flatout). 2 videos that got a lot of views from angry Jimmy Dore fans who flooded his comments aren't helping him grow. Sam's big growth came from the Cernovich attacks, not his beef with Jimmy.

Fam, knowing the particulars of the Kavanaugh situation is why it's the most important news story to cover in depth. And "we knew Trump would appoint someone terrible" but apparently Jimmy thinks we would have had Gorsuch regardless of who won.


In terms of too much Kavanaugh, what important topics are we missing out on from the MR team and Pakman that Jimmy has covered?

Why does it have to be "Angry Jimmy Dore Fans"? It couldn't be fans of Tim Black, Jordan Chariton, Jamarl Thomas etc. who covered the beef and their viewers want more context? I completely disagree.
Yeah, a Dem nominated Gorsuch who isn't some Progressive judge man, why would Jimmy or any Progressive like him? He was very center and if anything Center Right. So yeah he's right.
How about the US sponsored genocide in Yemen. or threatened sanctions on India or US protecting Al Queda in Syria. How about something NOT covered by MSM, offer an alternative to that.

 

[storyteller]

Why does it have to be "Angry Jimmy Dore Fans"? It couldn't be fans of Tim Black, Jordan Chariton, Jamarl Thomas etc. who covered the beef and their viewers want more context? I completely disagree.

You're right, it can be any one of those viewers but the angry viewer factor remains (which is the only way it could be empowering to Jimmy Dore and his platform). That means they're not going to bring consistent views or clicks. Subscribers are giving consistent money and much more likely consistent clicks and views. So you can disagree about which sort of "angry fan" is providing the additional views on those two clips and I'm cool with that; but that's not addressing the core points

1. losing subscribers is more painful than the profit of a temporary views boost.
2. Pakman didn't plan to go at Jimmy, he was responding to a caller asking a question.

Yeah, a Dem nominated Gorsuch who isn't some Progressive judge man, why would Jimmy or any Progressive like him? He was very center and if anything Center Right. So yeah he's right.

Are you really saying that Garland would not be a significantly better justice than Gorsuch? I sincerely disagree with that. Was Garland a great pick? Hell no. But it's false equivalence to pretend there aren't serious differences between the two.

How about the US sponsored genocide in Yemen. or threatened sanctions on India or US protecting Al Queda in Syria. How about something NOT covered by MSM, offer an alternative to that.

Look, I'm not trying to tell you that you have to be a fan. I'm just saying that you're acting like they don't provide coverage of topics that they offer in depth, detailed takes on. You can disagree with them on Jimmy without misrepresenting their stances or coverage. If you do take the time to watch these videos, they've gone in on Yemen and I bet their view overlaps nicely with Jimmy's, but Syria is where there's a difference of opinion except. It's not because the MR crew is pushing an establishment agenda or are war hawks.
Here are links to in depth coverage on to help you better get the MR team's perspectives on topics you mention
Here's some recent discussion of Yemen:




Syria - Here are a couple of clips that flesh out their stance and may help explain some of the disagreement with Jimmy on the topic:

This one's a bit older, but it addresses the "they're helping Al Queda" point head on. Basically saying that yes, the US did do that, but they no longer are. The clip after this one explains who actually needs US protection over there because they face a genocide.


One more summary because I realize this is a lot of footage, but these really are important issues so this is good informative coverage for everybody to check out. Two-fifths of Syria under control of the Democratic Confederation of North Syria and it's really worth attention. They're trying to create "bottom up direct Democracy." That's the group that needs protection (and also this guy was in Syria so while Sam wasn't on the ground he is bringing the perspective of someone who was there).



And as far as something NOT covered by the MSM, I'm back at Thursday's episode from the Las Vegas Mass Torts conference. These are legal fights from the left that can shape activist strategies to enact lasting positive changes for the country. This episode has multiple interviews with the lawyers behind these fights. It should start at the first interview.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

You're right, it can be any one of those viewers but the angry viewer factor remains (which is the only way it could be empowering to Jimmy Dore and his platform). That means they're not going to bring consistent views or clicks. Subscribers are giving consistent money and much more likely consistent clicks and views. So you can disagree about which sort of "angry fan" is providing the additional views on those two clips and I'm cool with that; but that's not addressing the core points

1. losing subscribers is more painful than the profit of a temporary views boost.
2. Pakman didn't plan to go at Jimmy, he was responding to a caller asking a question.




Are you really saying that Garland would not be a significantly better justice than Gorsuch? I sincerely disagree with that. Was Garland a great pick? Hell no. But it's false equivalence to pretend there aren't serious differences between the two.



Look, I'm not trying to tell you that you have to be a fan. I'm just saying that you're acting like they don't provide coverage of topics that they offer in depth, detailed takes on. You can disagree with them on Jimmy without misrepresenting their stances or coverage. If you do take the time to watch these videos, they've gone in on Yemen and I bet their view overlaps nicely with Jimmy's, but Syria is where there's a difference of opinion except. It's not because the MR crew is pushing an establishment agenda or are war hawks.
Here are links to in depth coverage on to help you better get the MR team's perspectives on topics you mention
Here's some recent discussion of Yemen:




Syria - Here are a couple of clips that flesh out their stance and may help explain some of the disagreement with Jimmy on the topic:

This one's a bit older, but it addresses the "they're helping Al Queda" point head on. Basically saying that yes, the US did do that, but they no longer are. The clip after this one explains who actually needs US protection over there because they face a genocide.


One more summary because I realize this is a lot of footage, but these really are important issues so this is good informative coverage for everybody to check out. Two-fifths of Syria under control of the Democratic Confederation of North Syria and it's really worth attention. They're trying to create "bottom up direct Democracy." That's the group that needs protection (and also this guy was in Syria so while Sam wasn't on the ground he is bringing the perspective of someone who was there).



And as far as something NOT covered by the MSM, I'm back at Thursday's episode from the Las Vegas Mass Torts conference. These are legal fights from the left that can shape activist strategies to enact lasting positive changes for the country. This episode has multiple interviews with the lawyers behind these fights. It should start at the first interview.

I don't understand why any of them have to be 'angry'? Why can't they just be observing of what is going on amongst progressive pundits? And the video calling Jimmy Dore toxic was edited and published. It's not like a live video and this is one call amongst many. Maybe it once was but then he edited that call and curated it to be a stand alone video.
Still just the lesser of two evils, but you know still evil. lol Not going to get any right minded Progressive talking about these choices in a positive manner.
And that last video is the main reason I watch the MR sparingly, 2 hours and 20 some odd minutes?! I just don't have time like that. My top Progressive channels are:

1. The Rational National
2. TYT
3. Jimmy Dore
4. Kyle Kulinski
5. Tim Black, Ron Placone, The Humanist Report, The MR, The Progressive Voice

I don't watch David Pakman at all.

 

[newworldafro]

Hate to say I told yall so like a prick............................................................
butcotdamnitItoldyouso.......

Everything is being censored across the political/ideological spectrum, that does not agree with these companies....right, left, independent..if it doesn't agree with establishment talking points and cronies it is being attacked.

What part of Russian Collusion Delusion is all a ploy to censor the web, are yall not understanding...a fake event is being used as justification to censor the web.

 

[storyteller]

I feel like the Sam/Jimmy debate had a lot more to it than weird government facts. The crux of it came down to strategic voting and Sam was focused on SCOTUS picks (which has come to fruition as a serious problem).

Someone took time out to look at the actual debate points



And this one to just point out, I don't think he's purposefully wrong on a lot of these issues. I just think he needs to look more deeply into ish before he promotes groups or strategies.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Someone took time out to look at the actual debate points



And this one to just point out, I don't think he's purposefully wrong on a lot of these issues. I just think he needs to look more deeply into ish before he promotes groups or strategies.

Or maybe he just disagrees with Michael Brooks. lol
Does any other YouTube Progressive words get more examined than Jimmy? I wonder why?!

 

[storyteller]

Or maybe he just disagrees with Michael Brooks. lol
Does any other YouTube Progressive words get more examined than Jimmy? I wonder why?!

He gets examined because he gets so much wrong

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Or maybe he just disagrees with Michael Brooks. lol
Does any other YouTube Progressive words get more examined than Jimmy? I wonder why?!

He gets examined because he gets so much wrong

He must be the only one getting stuff wrong then. I mean probably not but he gets all the attention for some reason.
Oh and low and behold, Brooks can't break 3K views on his videos unless he talks about another pundit. What a waste of time.

 

[storyteller]

He must be the only one getting stuff wrong then. I mean probably not but he gets all the attention for some reason.
Oh and low and behold, Brooks can't break 3K views on his videos unless he talks about another pundit. What a waste of time.

Notice how you ain't said a damned thing to refute Michael Brooks or Sam Seder on the actual important information about these issues. He was wrong in the debate, he was woefully uninformed on who he was showing love to in Brazil and you're mad that he got called out on that?

But let's explore the misdirection anyway. Kyle Kulinsky has more subscribers and is also critical of the Russia stuff...he gets push back on that from time to time. He also defended Alex Jones like Jimmy did and lo and behold...Benjamin Dixon identified a tweet and addressed him. But otherwise, no one's come at his neck...why? Because he's not wrong all the time. If it was just about views, he'd be the better target. Pakman was critical of AOC before, but kept it reasonable; he also has more subscribers than Dore. He was left alone. So this point doesn't address any of the actual critiques and seems like a neat way to avoid actually attempting to.

What did Brooks get wrong about Brazil that Jimmy got right?
What are they pointing out in the Sam/Jimmy debate that isn't clearly and objectively flat out wrong by Jimmy?

If you can't refute their critiques, then maybe they have a better reason to call him out then give consideration to the fact that maybe they have point...

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Notice how you ain't said a damned thing to refute Michael Brooks or Sam Seder on the actual important information about these issues. He was wrong in the debate, he was woefully uninformed on who he was showing love to in Brazil and you're mad that he got called out on that?

But let's explore the misdirection anyway. Kyle Kulinsky has more subscribers and is also critical of the Russia stuff...he gets push back on that from time to time. He also defended Alex Jones like Jimmy did and lo and behold...Benjamin Dixon identified a tweet and addressed him. But otherwise, no one's come at his neck...why? Because he's not wrong all the time. If it was just about views, he'd be the better target. Pakman was critical of AOC before, but kept it reasonable; he also has more subscribers than Dore. He was left alone. So this point doesn't address any of the actual critiques and seems like a neat way to avoid actually attempting to.

What did Brooks get wrong about Brazil that Jimmy got right?
What are they pointing out in the Sam/Jimmy debate that isn't clearly and objectively flat out wrong by Jimmy?

If you can't refute their critiques, then maybe they have a better reason to call him out then give consideration to the fact that maybe they have point...

I didn't watch the video you posted. I watched a lot of videos about who does and doesn't like Jimmy last week and while I was watching I had an epiphany and decided I'm no longer interested in him as a topic.
It's like reading articles about what jokes Trevor Noah said last night. It's barely interesting and definitely not news.
But hey if you like wasting time hearing about how wrong someone is do you.

 

[storyteller]

I didn't watch the video you posted. I watched a lot of videos about who does and doesn't like Jimmy last week and while I was watching I had an epiphany and decided I'm no longer interested in him as a topic.
It's like reading articles about what jokes Trevor Noah said last night. It's barely interesting and definitely not news.
But hey if you like wasting time hearing about how wrong someone is do you.

That's the problem. You're more worried about Jimmy than the issues at the heart of these disagreements. So when he gets called out, you're concerned about the "him" instead of SCOTUS or a judicial coup to get fascists into power in Brazil (that Jimmy co-signed!) or electoral strategy which is what everyone on the other side is trying to talk about. These aren't attacks on Jimmy for being Jimmy, they're attacks on dumbed down of politics that misinform viewers who can't be bothered to actually look deeper into the actual issues being discussed.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

That's the problem. You're more worried about Jimmy than the issues at the heart of these disagreements. So when he gets called out, you're concerned about the "him" instead of SCOTUS or a judicial coup to get fascists into power in Brazil (that Jimmy co-signed!) or electoral strategy which is what everyone on the other side is trying to talk about. These aren't attacks on Jimmy for being Jimmy, they're attacks on dumbed down of politics that misinform viewers who can't be bothered to actually look deeper into the actual issues being discussed.

These issues can't be covered without talking about Jimmy? I respectfully disagree.
And it's not a disagreement that would take two sides. They are critiquing him while he ignores them. lol

 

[storyteller]

These issues can't be covered without talking about Jimmy? I respectfully disagree.
And it's not a disagreement that would take two sides. They are critiquing him while he ignores them. lol

Oh for sure. You don't watch or pay attention to know that Michael Brooks has covered Brazil at length for months. He's pointing out that Jimmy is on the wrong side of an issue HE CARES ABOUT and that Jimmy is misleading people. If that has you butt hurt, you should see how hard he went at John Oliver for doing the SAME EXACT THING. It's almost as if Michael Brooks cares about this issue and is fighting to make sure progressives are accurately informed about it instead of doing damage to their own cause.

And Jimmy doesn't ignore them, he shoots subliminals. The SCOTUS fight, he PICKED that fight and got his ass kicked and looked like a moron to anyone that actually pays attention to the issue.

"You insulting my guy just made me support him even more without looking at the issue or your critique" ...whose supporters does that sound like?