2 ms·

Like many things in this vein you have to look past Curry and Dvorak's own speculative editorialization from time to time, but the actual analysis of the media

Like many things in this vein you have to look past Curry and Dvorak's own speculative editorialization from time to time, but the actual analysis of the media is very enlightening. You can make your own reactions to the clips they highlight; that's the key thing, to develop the mindset of having a critical eye for what you're being told - and in what format, and with what narrative tricks. Some people think that this means they're "alt right", but all that means is that they don't know what "alt right" actually is at all. Both Curry and Dvorak are very classically liberal people, American individualists or perhaps libertarians, which is a totally different political theory than fascism. Of course, most people have no idea what "fascism" is, which is why they feel comfortable calling Totalitarian Liberalism fascism as though there were no differences.

leahey 6y ago
You made a little feint there in your second sentence of the second paragraph -- who said anything about fascism? I suspect it might be you that doesn't know what alt-right means in your confusion between the two. That would also explain your waving away the reality that classical liberalism underpins much of the alt-right movement. You might notice many folks espousing the views of one Ayn Rand, for example. Beyond that, and returning to the actual subject at hand, there is very little "deconstruction" -- to the extent that is a thing, in the show. Perhaps in the early days. It has long since devolved in to a Trump apologist show, regurgitating Fox News and Breitbart talking points. You need only look to see where else Curry has appeared.
- core-questions 6y ago
  > who said anything about fascism The alt-right is basically fascism, no? I don't mean in the normal online accusatory fashion, I mean in the "literally fans of Mussolini" fashion. Or maybe we mean two different groups of people? I'm thinking of the folks involved with Charlottesville, etc. as opposed to the "alt lite" which is Ben Shapiro / Sargon / Cernovich and their ilk, who are distinct in the sense that they ostensibly disavow racism etc. and are more classical liberalists. > , there is very little "deconstruction" -- to the extent that is a thing, in the show That's a matter of opinion, I guess? I agree it has devolved since 2016, but there's still the occasional gem in there.
7952 6y ago
That's a lot of semantics. It doesn't really make any difference how they are categorised. And it's perfectly possible for someone with liberal sensibilities to be corrupted. In fact that seems to be the theme of the show. No Agenda does encourage you to think about the news in a more nuanced way. But it deliberately supresses nuance in how it discusses the people in the news. Most of the people they discuss are not given any benefit of the doubt ever. That is not enlightening at all. Ultimately I think there style has far more to do with feeding the community and generating donations than anything political.

leahey 6y ago

You made a little feint there in your second sentence of the second paragraph -- who said anything about fascism? I suspect it might be you that doesn't know what alt-right means in your confusion between the two. That would also explain your waving away the reality that classical liberalism underpins much of the alt-right movement. You might notice many folks espousing the views of one Ayn Rand, for example. Beyond that, and returning to the actual subject at hand, there is very little "deconstruction" -- to the extent that is a thing, in the show. Perhaps in the early days. It has long since devolved in to a Trump apologist show, regurgitating Fox News and Breitbart talking points. You need only look to see where else Curry has appeared.

core-questions 6y ago
> who said anything about fascism The alt-right is basically fascism, no? I don't mean in the normal online accusatory fashion, I mean in the "literally fans of Mussolini" fashion. Or maybe we mean two different groups of people? I'm thinking of the folks involved with Charlottesville, etc. as opposed to the "alt lite" which is Ben Shapiro / Sargon / Cernovich and their ilk, who are distinct in the sense that they ostensibly disavow racism etc. and are more classical liberalists. > , there is very little "deconstruction" -- to the extent that is a thing, in the show That's a matter of opinion, I guess? I agree it has devolved since 2016, but there's still the occasional gem in there.

7952 6y ago

That's a lot of semantics. It doesn't really make any difference how they are categorised. And it's perfectly possible for someone with liberal sensibilities to be corrupted. In fact that seems to be the theme of the show. No Agenda does encourage you to think about the news in a more nuanced way. But it deliberately supresses nuance in how it discusses the people in the news. Most of the people they discuss are not given any benefit of the doubt ever. That is not enlightening at all. Ultimately I think there style has far more to do with feeding the community and generating donations than anything political.