gildings in this subreddit have paid for 7.07 days of server time

Subverting the Narrative | Holocaust Denial and the Lost Cause [20:27] by madbadcoyote in mealtimevideos

[–]kl0 120 points121 points  (0 children)

I don't know if the poster of this video is also the creator, but if so, while I appreciate the time put into this video and while there are some good points, I would contend there is an [almost] equal danger in the assertions made.

I've paused the video after the comments about Ethan to make this point (though there were some previous points that led me to think the same thing).

There are no doubt people like Alex Jones who push false and twisted narratives for their own purpose. This is fucked up, but makes him an absolute fortune, so I think the root of his desire should be pretty simple to understand.

Then there are people like Jordan Peterson who, while inflammatory in many regards, doesn't strike me as one trying to deny anything. As a clinical psychologist and now the center of media attention, I think he mostly just places academic spins on events in history to gain a different perspective. It's also worth noting that, at least initially, his foray into the spotlight came with him defending a noteworthy cause - the idea that speech shouldn't be hindered at the risk of offending someone, something we generally hold pretty dearly.

And then there is Ethan. He himself is Jewish, his wife is Jewish (from Israel), and they met AT the holocaust museum. I could certainly be mistaken, but I don't think there is a bone in this family's body that is anti-Jewish. They certainly don't deny any part of the holocaust. So his facts might be wrong, and that can be corrected.

Which leads me to this: my problem with this video is the inherent implication that just because somebody has facts wrong or states a position (academically or at least with evidence to support a claim) doesn't make them an arm of a propaganda machine. It's true that SOME people who do this absolutely ARE an arm of that very machine (Alex Jones certainly being a top contender there). But in my opinion, this video does the very thing that is leading to the rise of people like Jordan Peterson. It's suggesting that just because one presents incorrect information (again, which should certainly be corrected) or one presents an "unpopular" opinion, that they are immediately on a team of people who denies history and supports some kind of racial, sexual, or other supremacy. This in turn leads to a resistance of thought from certain groups (antifa for example) which leads to more Petersons, which leads to... It's a nasty cycle.

To continue the rant, history is probably never 100% accurate and the motivations behind impactful historical events are probably a roll of the dice at best. Perhaps slightly weighed die to continue the analogy. But being able to explore those topics under a different light doesn't inherently mean that a person or a group is denying the outcome that resulted.

The holocaust was one of the worst things imaginable and one of the sickest things humans have ever done. ...sort of . Until you consider that there have been similar genocides all over the world that barely even register on people's minds. So the obvious question people ask: why are they so marginalized while this one particular genocide is a central theme of western civilization? I don't have an answer, but considering that idea and postulating reasons behind it certainly doesn't make me a purveyor of propaganda. And if we get to a point in our culture where it DOES make me that, then I might go so far as to concede that some of the craziest people shouting in the streets might not be entirely wrong to be fearful in the first place.

Anyway, you do a great job with presentation, but I really think there are some points in the video that are WAY too conclusive and almost imply that people shouldn't think differently, or else...

In short, there is a HUGE difference between Alex Jones and Jordan Peterson and Ethan Klein. To suggest that they're all contributing to the same problem (however subtly they may be doing so) is just incorrect.

*edit: some grammar

The Rise of the Crisis Actor Conspiracy Movement [25:00] by miraoister in mealtimevideos

[–]UltraMegaMegaMan 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Everything you're saying here is wrong.

You're attempting to minimize, distract, and distance yourself and people in your political camp from your association with this. You're engaging in exactly the same behaviour as the "truthers" in this video, albeit to a lesser degree.

Almost no one (fraction of a fraction) in the Trump camp actually believes the CIA has actors ready to respond to shootings.

These people aren't alleging the CIA has actors respond to the shootings. They're saying the victims are actors. You really have the nerve to refer to this as an "apparent" alignment?

It's not an "apparent" alignment, it is an alignment. Just so we're clear here the Venn diagram of people who think mass shootings are crisis actors and the right-wing is a circle. They are the same thing. There are no left-wing people hounding victims and making facebook groups about crisis actors staging mass shootings. This is a syndrome of the right-wing. That is where it comes from, that is who does it, and the_donald, infowars, and others create and promote it. Own up to the actions of the group you participate in.

And this... my god, this.

What does cause this apparent alignment with the Trump camp is the sort of "real conspiracy". These kids aren't actors but they are puppets in a sense. This anti gun protest movement went national in record time, a matter of days after the shooting. This was obviously not organic.

This was "obviously not organic"? There is nothing, literally nothing to support this statement. 17 kids were gunned down in a school, mass shootings have been going on for 20+ years, and you think it's impossible that people would finally get sick of it and demand that something be done? There's no way people would empathize and speak out after this many tragedies? Over the course of decades? And you want to act like it happened overnight, or in a few hours? Do you know that Columbine happened?

Do you really think it's impossible that people in America would have enough sympathy for the families and victims of mass shootings that they would want to prevent them? The ONLY way that could happen is if these kids are "puppets" who are being "manipulated" by "left leaning groups"? Are you kidding? Because you have to be kidding.

You need to sit down and have a hard think about things, because if you actually think that the most likely scenario for people showing support for the victims of mass shootings is that they are "brainwashed puppets" being "manipulated by leftist groups" then you aren't similar to the conspiracy theorists in this video, you are the conspiracy theorists in this video.

I appreciate you're trying to soft-peddle the same thing these crisis actors believe and disavow the culpability of things like The_Donald from it but the truth is that is exactly where the blame lies. If I need to I can pop over to the_donald and dig up a hundred posts and comments supporting and creating this and things just like it and we both know it.

It's astounding that someone would consider what you've written, or say it publicly. I'm hoping you actually don't believe this and you're just trying to save face, but I'm afraid that's not the case at all.

Digital Hygiene: How We Might've Fucked Our Attention Spans [5:26] by MindOfNailsAndGears in mealtimevideos

[–]Ernigrad-zo 63 points64 points x2 (0 children)

i'm going to watch this but before i do i just want to guess at the things it's wrong about;

i predict it's going to totally ignore the fact people now often binge watch things getting hyper into a series for days at a time. That mircocultural groups are more common than ever and many people are deeply involved in hugely complex projects like editing wikipedia, programming open source software and collecting every possible pornographic act ever captured on film... the starwars encyclopedia is larger than the 1990 Britannica so the idea we're all unable to concentrate for more than fifteen min is ridiculous.

-ah edit, he's too young to remember what life was actually like before the internet, he thinks everyone was Goethe because the only people who left records are the people like Goethe, no sonny the rest of us just pissed our lives away being feckless divots, we didn't need fancy phones to amuse us we could jerk off just by looking at the underwear section of the catalogues. and everything took so much longer then, you think people are feckless now it's because ordering a lightbulb takes thirty seconds on amazon back in the day it was a weekends work just to get into town and find a fucking shop that had some b-type bayonets.

honesty kid do you know how many times we had to watch the same shitty VHS recordings of bad films from telly? and if you got a good film fucking hell would you watch the shit out of it, and it was all shitty tv - yeah we didn't get it on demand but we'd watch Tarrent on TV and he'd show clips of foreigners being sexy or foolish, we just had to waste 90% of our lives waiting for it to come on or doing bullshit like tuning the telly. tuning the telly, if you wanted to watch something you had to know when it was on and you had to tune the fucking telly to try and get a signal, that's why so many people just watched itv all day and became stupid daily mail readers... but of course before that they were drunken farmhands [i.e. 1900] so progress does happen.

yes a lot of people are feckless morons, however if you're not reading Goethe then it's not the phones fault or the internet, you just need to sort yourself out and make an effort, people have always needed to make an effort and very few ever have. life has always been rubbish.

-also positive effects, oh my god people! is this really so complex, you noticed you weren't the sort of person you are and took steps to change them, of course you started making more effort in everything and doing better at things you were trying harder, that's what trying is! jesus christ. sometimes i wonder about humanity i really do, i mean you see the same on no-fap all the time 'i was just wasting my life wanking then i thought why don't i stop wanking and do something with my life!' and that proves no one sohuld ever wank again, no you idiot it proves you were in feckless funk and needed to pull yourself together, you'd feel exactly the same if you'd never jerked off ans started doing it as part of a program to improve your life -- it's not jerking off or going on the internet that matters it's your personal drive, effort = effort = result, it really is simple.

What Writers Should Learn From Dan Harmon [7:47] by [deleted] in mealtimevideos

[–]thosch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Saying that D&D is fundamentally a power fantasy is to fundamentally misunderstand what D&D is to a huge number of people who play it, and to misunderstand what it was designed to be.

I also like to play the way you describe it, but it would be an overstatement to say that this is how D&D was designed to be played.

In "Hamlet's Hit Points" in the chapter "Surprised by Story" Robin Laws describes the original intent of the D&D designers:

"When Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax entered into the collaboration that led to Dungeons & Dragons, and hence what we now call the tabletop roleplaying game, they weren’t trying to invent a new story form. They set out to create a new variant of the war games they both loved, in which the basic unit of play would not be a military platoon, vehicle, or squadron, but an imaginary individual."

"Gary, who, in one of his occasional excursions into controversy, used his Dragon magazine column to decry the growing influence of play-acting on the game he had cocreated and popularized."

The EVOLUTION of Call Of Duty [16:06] by evanvolm in mealtimevideos

[–]slappymcnutface 8 points9 points  (0 children)

why did i watch this.

there's really no insight here, it's just a recap.

How to Land the Space Shuttle... from Space [17:48] by Metalbird2014 in mealtimevideos

[–]jaredcheeda 12 points13 points  (0 children)


but seriously, he left so much out, like how the banking isn't just to slow down the ship, but also to maneuver around space sharks!

I Drunkenly Paid For 17 Federal Programs - Nerdwriter [6:04] by Rolanddh in mealtimevideos

[–]ebilgenius 58 points59 points  (0 children)

That article's source link is a 404. Luckily they give the article name which we can source back to a Truthout article.

Also it's $36/year, not $42.

Truthout's source for the $36 towards social safety net programs is this post in a Democrat discussion forum, which further links to a forum post on ThomHartmann.com. Their number is $36.82, and only includes food stamps and the school lunch program. This is based on an article in the Examiner which no longer exists. Luckily we can find an archive of it here. In this article the assumption is a married person with one child making $50,000 a year. They will pay $3,820 in federal taxes, of that $2,100 goes to Social Security and $725 to Medicare which leaves $995 to other federal programs, and of that $995 only $36.82 of that goes towards "Food and nutrition assistance" which includes food stamps and the School Lunch Program and a food program for women, infants, and children. Not that that is only for the Food and nutrition assistance programs, the actual "social safety net" comprises more than 19% of the total, or $190.05 of the $3,820.

Also all of that data from the Examiner was from 2011, not 2012.


Your second point about the $3,000 is... weird. According to your source they say it's actually $6,000, and the first point assumes a married person with one child making $50,000/year, however the second point, according to the Truthout source, is the average American family, which makes comparing the two misleading.

So Truthout is sourcing this article in Common Dreams which is basically just a progressive blog. In the blog they again make it clear this is an average for all American families, not just $50,000/year married couples.

Let's go through their costs:

$870 for Direct Subsidies and Grants to Companies

This is a guess based on a vague estimate from this page on the CATO institute website, and then divided by the "number of families in the US".

$696 for Business Incentives at the State, County, and City Levels

This is not entirely a cost, the majority of these are tax incentives and most of these are at the state level, not at the federal level.

$722 for Interest Rate Subsidies for Banks

They base this off an article by the Huffington Post sigh who's article claims "U.S. Government Essentially Gives The Banks 3 Cents Of Every Tax Dollar". Note the "Essentially". Because the U.S. Government isn't giving shit. It's an assumption that a .8% lower cost that big banks can borrow is an "implicit subsidy", when in reality it's just that they're a big bank and they appear safe, meaning it's safer to lend to them at a lower cost. They somehow take 0.8 difference and multiply by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets (why only 10?), it amounts to a taxpayer "implicit subsidy" of $83 billion a year, or 3% of every tax dollar. Divide that by the number of families and we arrive at a hilariously bogus $722.

$350 for Retirement Fund Bank Fees

What the fuck? They don't even try with this one. Not all Americans have a retirement fund, and the $350 comes from an assumed annual fee of 1% of the "average amount of the retirement fund". This is a fucking management fee, not a tax fee.

$1,268 for Overpriced Medications

Something about free market prices and patent monopolies? Their source has no data so I can't take it seriously.

I don't know where they get their fucking numbers for the second source, I searched all over. You find it.

$870 for Corporate Tax Subsidies

Again, not a direct cost, but an estimation of how much businesses avoided with tax regulations divided by the number of families. Their source link is broken also.

$1,231 for Revenue Losses from Corporate Tax Havens

Their source is a liberal grassroots advocacy group, so I don't think these numbers will be unbiased. And looking at their source it looks like they got their numbers from "we asked tax professors what they thought and then threw their numbers together and called it good.".


4/6 are subsidies which we don't actively pay for. 1 is too vague to answer and I'm lazy and 1 is from extremely questionable sources. Actually they're all from extremely questionable sources.

TL;DR: This is a load of horseshit.