Who Funds And Controls The Online Right?
funeralxempire
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,541
Location: Right over your left shoulder
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
funeralxempire
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,541
Location: Right over your left shoulder

Yes, everyone who presents an opinion wants to do your thinking for you.
Remember kids, don't let Fnord do your thinking for you.
A thought-terminating cliché and nothing to actually say, you're getting predictable.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
funeralxempire
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,541
Location: Right over your left shoulder



_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
DuckHairback
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2021
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,484
Location: Durotriges Territory
Some other titles by YUGOPNIK:
• Capitalism is ruining your love life. | The Commodification of Love, Romance, and the Family.
• Capitalism makes sh!t products | Planned obsolescence and the inadequacy of market incentives.
• How Capitalism Helped Ruin The Family
• How Capitalism sells poverty as modesty & why equality isn't a practical goal.
• How Jake Paul is Late Capitalism Personified
• Privatization [Pt.1] - A Weapon Against Democracy w/@BalkanOdyssey_
• Capitalist Philanthropy and Charity - why it doesn't work
• The Socialist guide to surviving in Capitalism.
• The Trap of Decommunization. Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and war.
• The end of Late-Stage Capitalism.
• Toxic Positivity: The Dangers of Positive Thinking in a Capitalist Society
• Who Funds and Controls the Online Right?
• Why Capitalism can't handle crises.
• Why Gamers Should be against Capitalism
It is obvious the man favors Communism and hates Democracy-- he is an avowed Communist.
Marxism and Communism do not work.
funeralxempire
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,541
Location: Right over your left shoulder
• Capitalism is ruining your love life. | The Commodification of Love, Romance, and the Family.
• Capitalism makes sh!t products | Planned obsolescence and the inadequacy of market incentives.
• How Capitalism Helped Ruin The Family
• How Capitalism sells poverty as modesty & why equality isn't a practical goal.
• How Jake Paul is Late Capitalism Personified
• Privatization [Pt.1] - A Weapon Against Democracy w/@BalkanOdyssey_
• Capitalist Philanthropy and Charity - why it doesn't work
• The Socialist guide to surviving in Capitalism.
• The Trap of Decommunization. Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and war.
• The end of Late-Stage Capitalism.
• Toxic Positivity: The Dangers of Positive Thinking in a Capitalist Society
• Who Funds and Controls the Online Right?
• Why Capitalism can't handle crises.
• Why Gamers Should be against Capitalism
It is obvious the man favors Communism and hates Democracy-- he is an avowed Communist.
Marxism and Communism do not work.
You're triggered by titles but don't even understand the argument and you're relying on applying a label as though it represents some sort of rebuttal.
You're the slightly more progressive version of the other snarky blowhards who treat their own one-liners as self-evident truths that immediately trump the entire argument they've just failed to understand or address.
He's a Marxist isn't mutually exclusive with him being correct. He can be wrong about many things and still correct about some things. He can also offer perspectives that might be worth examining even if only to inform critiques. You don't offer critiques, you stomp your foot and declare him wrong with nothing really to substantiate your opinion.
For example; it's not like you use any online dating tools, you have zero worthwhile insights to offer on how those apps work so how can you offer an informed opinion regarding the cultural impacts related to them?

Another example; are you actually denying the concept of planned obsolescent, or just being contrarian because he's a scary Marxist on YouTube?
Another example; are you rely denying the role of right-wing donor networks or is it another expression of the previous? In this case he provides his sources and they're all relatively mainstream news outlets known for investigative journalism (Vice, Media Matters, Axios). It's not a discussion of theory and opinions, it's a breakdown of objective facts - it doesn't matter what his ideology is if what he's presenting is just a compilation of facts that have already been reported on else where.
I'd like to take you seriously but you've done nothing to make yourself credible. I've seen thought terminating clichés, I've seen attempts at poisoning the well and you've moved the goalposts so far they're missing; but I've seen nothing that makes what you're saying amount to an informed response to what you're seeking to respond to.
One can't reasonably address an argument one refuses to read/listen to. So long as you fail to understand what you're attempting to respond to you can't help but be not even wrong; wrong would be an improvement.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
funeralxempire
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,541
Location: Right over your left shoulder
The general idea behind the video is that people focus on Charles Koch, but overlook the roles the Wilks brothers, Jeremy Boreing and Peter Thiel play in funding online right-wing media.
It isn't grassroots, it's all astroturf bought and paid for by a handful of billionaires and it is used to manipulate people with dishonest narratives and bad faith reporting.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
I think it's fair to point out that the video has a particularly strong bias - I haven't even got to the point of the video and it's already complaining about how liberalism is bouregoise - but that doesn't seem particularly relevant to the claims the video makes.
I only got halfway through because it was really dull, but I'm struggling to see why anyone would want to discredit this video (as opposed to the creator). It seems to just be publicly available information that other outlets have been talking about for years.
RetroGamer87
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,160
Location: Adelaide, Australia
funeralxempire
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,541
Location: Right over your left shoulder
More so, it's a Marxist pointing out how most of the right is funded by a very small handful of donors.
It's not really an argument; the claims have all been reported on by more mainstream outlets, he provides links to them.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
AngelRho
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
• Capitalism is ruining your love life. | The Commodification of Love, Romance, and the Family.
• Capitalism makes sh!t products | Planned obsolescence and the inadequacy of market incentives.
• How Capitalism Helped Ruin The Family
• How Capitalism sells poverty as modesty & why equality isn't a practical goal.
• How Jake Paul is Late Capitalism Personified
• Privatization [Pt.1] - A Weapon Against Democracy w/@BalkanOdyssey_
• Capitalist Philanthropy and Charity - why it doesn't work
• The Socialist guide to surviving in Capitalism.
• The Trap of Decommunization. Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and war.
• The end of Late-Stage Capitalism.
• Toxic Positivity: The Dangers of Positive Thinking in a Capitalist Society
• Who Funds and Controls the Online Right?
• Why Capitalism can't handle crises.
• Why Gamers Should be against Capitalism
It is obvious the man favors Communism and hates Democracy-- he is an avowed Communist.
Marxism and Communism do not work.
You're triggered by titles but don't even understand the argument and you're relying on applying a label as though it represents some sort of rebuttal.
You're the slightly more progressive version of the other snarky blowhards who treat their own one-liners as self-evident truths that immediately trump the entire argument they've just failed to understand or address.
He's a Marxist isn't mutually exclusive with him being correct. He can be wrong about many things and still correct about some things. He can also offer perspectives that might be worth examining even if only to inform critiques. You don't offer critiques, you stomp your foot and declare him wrong with nothing really to substantiate your opinion.
For example; it's not like you use any online dating tools, you have zero worthwhile insights to offer on how those apps work so how can you offer an informed opinion regarding the cultural impacts related to them?

Another example; are you actually denying the concept of planned obsolescent, or just being contrarian because he's a scary Marxist on YouTube?
Another example; are you rely denying the role of right-wing donor networks or is it another expression of the previous? In this case he provides his sources and they're all relatively mainstream news outlets known for investigative journalism (Vice, Media Matters, Axios). It's not a discussion of theory and opinions, it's a breakdown of objective facts - it doesn't matter what his ideology is if what he's presenting is just a compilation of facts that have already been reported on else where.
I'd like to take you seriously but you've done nothing to make yourself credible. I've seen thought terminating clichés, I've seen attempts at poisoning the well and you've moved the goalposts so far they're missing; but I've seen nothing that makes what you're saying amount to an informed response to what you're seeking to respond to.
One can't reasonably address an argument one refuses to read/listen to. So long as you fail to understand what you're attempting to respond to you can't help but be not even wrong; wrong would be an improvement.
With all due respect to Fnord, and I agree with Fnord on a number of things, I think your response took way more time and energy than was deserved.
Dittos on this:
When time is on my side, I generally enjoy responding to people who disagree with me. But the moving goalposts on WP has often been a frustration for me and why I don't respond nearly as much as I used to.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Online Behaviour - Pet Peeves |
18 Jun 2025, 7:03 am |
Teaser Trailer For 2025's "The Running Man" Now Online! |
03 Jul 2025, 1:54 am |