The Problem of the "Gang of Four"

Hmbomberguy, most famous for obnoxiously debunking PJW's video on soy in half-an-hour chunks, in that stupid self-depricating, ironic humour. I couldn't care less about him.

For me, it was difficult watching Contra call herself "genderqueer" and a "pervert" for so long, so much self-denial and hatred, I'm glad she finally confronted who she is, best thing about her content though is the set design and lighting, I think that she is trying to go for a punk anti-capitalist stance without any marxist education, that's why she comes off as immature or amateur in her commentary.

Shaun is just kinda bland, can't say too much.

Xexizy is a stubborn cunt who just needs to grow up, like you said, a naive child, who got BTFO by Jason.

"thousands of dollars", really? who is paying these people money to make content?

I think that OP's gripe and mine is that these people attempt to make themselves representatives of the left, when they are just reactions to alt-right and conservative content.

show us your flag, bitch

You said a little bit more than just "they get marx wrong" comrade.
Hbomberguy: (If i recall correctly, doesn't call himself a marxist)
Contra Points (doesn't call herself a Marxist)
Shaun: (Doesn't call himself a marxist)

OP's gripe is that they misrepresent Marx and Marxist. Only muke calls himself a Marxist.
Sure you can not like that they represent the left thats a valid gripe(then again it's difficult to argue that contras, shauns and hbomberguys responses to the alt right are not not good debuking) . But as OP said, bad mouse and mexie do a good job of representing the left. You can always use their content in debate.

Thanks for your support! Here are the Patreon accounts of these guys, only shown has the amount of money set on public, but Contra and hbomberguy have significantly more Patreons and feel like they have to hide how much they make. All of them have also separate donation accounts so add a few hundred there too. Shaun earns the least, but remember he also makes a literal podcast with no editing whatsoever

Attached: _20180506_173407.JPG (720x829 68.52 KB, 81.85K)

read Marx before judging others' interpretations of him
I also don't recall any of them calling themselves anything more than "anti-capitalist" in their videos.

Don't forget he supports a literal invasion of the DPRK.

Can't believe there are people who take this fucker seriously.
youtube.com/watch?v=XCkEdB87yGA

It's an imageboard. Shitting on e-celebs should not be an issue. It's not like these guys bother smearing their political opponents any less. Which is my main gripe: I wrote
I don't have visceral hate for anybody who doesn't share my ideology or even adheres to some radlib shit. It's the fact that this circlejerk in particular wallows in throwing shit at "problematic communists" who dare to ciritique their IdPol or don't think Solzhenitsyn is the best source about the USSR - while simultaneously thinking "we" make the left look bad when they engage in all this bullshit and the whole "Socialism has never been tried also Assad is Hitler" thing.

Just try to show any of them to a regular person, maybe even your relatives, and see how unappealing they come over. They are all kind of whacky, to be honest about it.

:^)
youtube.com/watch?v=gbbhOjdXvv4

take that flag off, liberal.

I don't think any serious leftist (especially people on Zig Forums) think that. I personally never considered them to be more than salt factories for dumb reactionary youtbe brainlets and their fans like molememe and Paul Joseph Soyboy. There is decent actual leftist conent on youtube, like FinBol, Cockshott or even Pierre. Maybe you should be making threads promoting them, instead making one of these (need I remind you, there were 5 threads like this this year already).

I prefer to appeal to communists actually, not edgy revisionist retards.

Good that you remind me! He recently reaffirmed his stance that he wants the DPRK being invaded.

Attached: _20180506_174239.JPG (720x869, 149.66K)

I think you should consider target audience(these videos arn't aimed at people older than 18), also the fact that the are clearly vanilla anticaps and vanilla anticaps tend to dislike past socialist states.

I would defend the soviet union till the day I die and I have gotten into family disputes for defending the dprk against slander.
But somehow I'm a liberal for thinking that these people that don't call themselves marxists are an issue to the socialist cause.

what a piece of shit. Out of all the retarded talking points, gay prosecution infuriates me the most.
Not only is not true, but the west wasn't any different.

They call themself rappresentatives of the left. They are bad

arn't an issue*

Attached: proofs.png (860x650, 148.14K)

I don't think they've ever claimed to represent the left as a whole. Even the OP mentions plenty of other (actually marxist) youtubers that represents our points much better

I just think that calling for them to be lined up and shot doesn't really do much. Shouldn't we be putting our effort in promoting yotubers that actually represnt us like bad mouse and mexie.

I don't really care for which target audience this is aimed at. That's considerably even worse since it pushes young leftists in this directions.

Again, you are kinda ignoring my argument here: I don't have a problem with people with different tendencies. The difference is that these people unload heaps of dump of real leftism and don't just say "I kinda don't like the USSR" which is TOTALLY OKAY, but they say that it's "fascists". So you have no problem with people calling you a homophobic fascist? Again, Mexie and BadMouse never do this shit. Tons of other leftist don't do this.

go fucking beat them at their own game, make a response video. The USSR being fascist is such an easily debunkable claim.

Like, I would unironically defend Trotskysm against this shit.

Attached: _20180506_175254.JPG (720x427, 44.78K)

Of course I have a problem with them calling me a homophobic fascist. Yet I still don't see how telling them that they're going to the gulag doesnt just reaffirm their shitty talking points. At this point there's no way to reduce their sub count all we can do is promote youtubers that do represent our points

My problem is that when people criticize them in good faith, they tend to ignore it or brush it off. Muke has completely discarded FinnBol's 2-hour-response as "Stalinist hogwash" without addressing argument. They always go for people like Jason Unruhe who is a much softer target.

muke is a fucking liberal lol

The "Gang of Four" is a breakaway centre-left party that earns 25% of the vote in 1983 for making outdated, left-liberal appeals to moderate social democracy before merging with the Lib-Dems and promptly forgetting being anything other than the descendants of the Liberal party. It consists of the following individuals:

Roy Jenkins aka "Woy"

Complete social liberal and noted Europhile that Blair milked to write up a report on voting reform which delivered a system nobody liked that wasn't really PR and wasn't really FPTP and wasn't implemented in any case. Stopped Heath's government falling in the early 1970s by leading pro-Europe Labour rebels to vote to ratify UK membership of the EEC so that anti-EEC Conservatives couldn't block entry. Wrote a lot of biographies including one about noted Liberal William Ewart Gladstone. Not really a bad guy but definitely a Liberal which is uncomfortable.

Shirley Williams aka "Why weren't you the first female prime minister you were cool"

She appeared in that party political broadcast talking about how prices were going up too fast which was kind of amusing in a 1970s sexism kind of way. Despite being a Lib-Dem Grandee she is one of the most tolerable people on the modern UK political stage and I will fight you if you disagree. She showed up at Grunwick's picket line which was also quite nice and cool. Definitely one of the better ones and I would tenuously say she would still fit in with the Social Democrats.

David Owen aka "Dr. Smug"

He was Foreign Secretary for a while and had a very big ego which has lead him on an amusing merry-go-round. He refused to join the merged Liberal Democrats, becoming leader of a rump Social Democratic Party, which came behind the monster raving loonies in a by-election and then gave up out of embarrassment (seriously I'm not making this up lol), then endorsed John Major for Prime Minister in 1992. That would make him seem like a Tory, but he has also endorsed Jeremy Corbyn and created a medical diagnosis of "Prime Minister's Syndrome" where one has delusions about their abilities and for whom Tony Blair is the model he used to describe it. Overall, quite a #Lad and would be welcome

Bill Rodgers aka "Who?"

Nobody knows who he is or what he did with his life. His biography was titled "fourth among equals" for a reason. I looked it up and apparently he was minister of state for defence from 1974-6. Overall I cannot say whether he was a true social democrat or a dirty Liberal because he really is only notable for not being notable. He was an enthusiastic proponent of a merger, so to have two Liberals and two Social Democrats I'm going to say he is a Liberal.

Honorable mentions: Charles "Chatshow Charlie" Kennedy, Christopher "The only Tory defector" Brocklebank-Fowler, David "The two Davids" Steel.

Btw, you don't have to be a ☭BENNITE☭ not be in that circle. Kinnock, Shore, etc are still basically social democrats and manage pretty well.

Hon

Attached: image-20160324-17840-4q7st7.jpg (1356x668, 120.42K)

True thats a valid point. That would have been a much better central criticism in your OP, because as it stands the OP is kinda centered on the fact that theyre milquetoast redliberals(which is a fact that everyone around here already knows)

Someone really should make a response vido to Harris' claim. Watching him try to prove "Stalinism" is fascism would be interesting.
TERFs are love, TERFs are life. Fuck contra.
Yeah, Shaun needs better visual quality on his videos.
Xexizy is Sargon's T-Rex.

I've seen you on the daily news thread and I just wanted to say that your posting style is unclear as fuck. Could you maybe greentext the subject you're replying to.

Are you the guy that in the last thread we had about Hbomber guy said something on the lines of "I'll gulag him myself if he says something bad about daddy stalin"?
Well? Happy now?

I've heard TERFs claim that transwomen are just mysoginistic men trying to capitalise on the very aspect of feminity as a form of masculine conquest, and that legitimising transwomen is the most anti-feminist thing you can do. TERFs are even more irrelevant and attention-seeking than SJWs, they are all salty beta females who actively congregate with conservative reactionaries to be transphobic.

this
stop defending terfs

Attached: this.png (255x130, 5.45K)

I think not all radfems are this much of low hanging fruits, I think most of the time the critcizm of radfems for trans politics is that most transwoman tend be full-on lipstick feminism/gender essentialism and that there are women-only lists in leftist orgs that talk about reproductive organs and similar things where transwoman can enlist without having undergone gender reassignment.

Obviously the type you described exists as well, but usually all of them are smeared as TERFs, Blanchard is being smeared as a TERF despite that he's for trans rights and science has backed up most of his stuff.

who

He's some psychologist that says that some transwoman basically enjoy sexual arrousal by thinking of themselves as a woman. That got to Contra so hard that she made a one hour video how that's totally bullshit and how the guy is secretely a pervert. Despite research actually showing that this is true:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987404/

I said I would unsub if he said it. I think. Hmmmm, I wouldn't say I'm happy with it. I'll just do as I said hehe.

Some are, some aren't.
I can definitely see their point. They're proud of being women, but they also fear that their safe spaces will be invaded by men who can simply have the same sexual privileges as them. The later is at least rational.
Yes, they lack numbers. Please, don't use the term SJW unironically, else I'll have to ask you if you're a burger. I don't think most of them are beta-females, no. Liberal feminism has more of those. I don't think they congregate with reactinaries, it just so happens that they also hate trannies, but for different reasons. I haven't met a single TERF who is pro capitaism, anyways.

Gotcha.

Except there's literally nothing wrong with soy milk.

Which would be a perfectly fine concept and all, save he fucked it up. As a trans typology, or particularly an MtF on F description, it is stupid and is rightfully observed as such.

hbomberguy used to be a troll himself from SomethingAwful. He was in a troll group called METOKUR and wrote articles bashing kids' DeviantArt drawings.

nice

interest ended in mistermetokur
now hbomberguy is my new youtube friend

What did he mean by this?

Seeing this I have to agree with OP’s assessment that Shaun is the most honest and tolerable one.

A FRIENDLY REMINDER
Zig Forumsyps like to LARP as tanks to sow discord on Zig Forums, this has been confirmed by a mod.

Attached: fuck_outta_here.jpg (480x542, 22.47K)

You ARE fucking retarded. How could you possibly miss that line that was right under what you highlighted?

Jeez, the OP reeks of Zig Forums faggotry. Who the fuck complains about someone's looks or their manner of speech when the main gripe is their "infidelity" to the immortal science of Marxism-Leninsm? I'll tell you who, dumb fucks that are grasping at straws to discredit whoever is threatening them. It's clear now that the OP is just a Zig Forumsyp playing up to the aggressiveness of a typical ☭TANKIE☭ poster, you wouldn't ever see a rose or a black flag this outraged over youtubers, in fact you would hardly even see a ☭TANKIE☭ do that. Kys retard, next time try to conceal your intentions by actually bringing up arguments against them, but you clearly can't control your autism. The lack of reading comprehension and personal attacks give it away.

Hey Muke, are you ever going to respond to FinnBol?

Attached: rage2345.png (370x320, 145.81K)

He never did this though. He made fun of Ian Miles Cheong for claiming that others were saying that.

Attached: ian miles cheong.png (1901x999, 2.68M)

it's almost like the thread is bullshit

Shaun just needs some re-educaton. Atleast he once made a video critiquing the privatization of public transport, you won't see any of the other left-libs talk about any economic issues.

This is class collaborstionism you liberals

i was going to say "at least he made a video about the CAD webcomic and animated series" but whatever floats your boat

Very interesting, these SA goons and their factions plague the bourgeois internet like flies on shit.

"Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront. "
They are socdems, meaning they are supporters of fascism.

NSFW that fucking pic you prick

something awful > 4chan

I never said they were comrades and they could be liberals to the core for all I care, but they literally debunk reactionaries.
Why would you even complain about that like it's a bad thing. Seriously, are you stupid?

Attached: smug09581234.png (1600x900, 874.8K)

What a surprise.

They "debunk reactionaries" to bring people into social-democratic crypto-fascism.

>and I used to think the dprk should be invaded before it got nukes before having my mind changed by people actually approaching me in good faith with convincing arguments
AKA nukes

So you think they don't manage to? Did I hit a spot?
Zig Forums, you gotta be more subtle.

Attached: 1459369152199.png (1456x1108, 66.94K)

cost amortisation tbh

(you) love me really
this is your reminder that i have never posted on something awful, never registered on something awful, and some third thing lists always have three things

I don't think they really BTFO anybody because they are not funny/charismatic enough to do so.

But nice trying to gaslight this hard

Attached: thats-just-like-your-opinion-man_1_.jpg (800x450, 76.29K)

Yeah I think this is kind of a sleazy practice. Why hide how much money your making from your audience? Are they ashamed of it?

welcome to the real world user.

Most of them are already in that echo chamber. Try out what I suggested before, show any of them to an apolitical friend, see how they react.

Autism Inbound

What is the relevance of his skin color?

necessary information to stop the greenscreen tool malfunctioning

...

Attached: f5753870a40ccef114a6cb88e7f48531.jpg (680x680, 82.5K)

Sometimes adding modifiers in a sentence really spices up the conversation.

I was asking your actual point against them. Let me rephrase that then: If they were presentable up to your standards, would you still whine because of some inane reason or would you actually address the problems with their arguments?

That's not even wrong. How convincing your videos will be does certainly hinge on it, even if being right in the abstract doesn't. Unless you are dealing with a mature, patient and cerebral audience who can look past superficial things like that, you will not change many minds being an uncharismatic, slouching, low-t voiced faggot. Since the vids are supposedly aimed at the youngsters, who have less attention span than a goldfish, it's pretty damn important.

Attached: dca79e99d62849d8d5501fab735683856ee0a9fe8d4943deffe9b21a200a6b2d.jpg (983x796, 60.07K)

then the "gang of three, muke is indeed a faggot" are doing a good job.

muke is the nick clegg of youtube

I'm a bit autistic on an imageboard, so of course I'm less focused on their appearance, but obviously it would help them if they would be well-dressed, well-groomed and had a good posture. That and not trying to be "in-your-face" with their extremist SJW talking points that often amount to passive aggressiveness and dishonesty.

I'm not saying the right-wing cunts are in any way better. However, I will say this: I'd probably hang out more likely with a classical liberal than with any of these fags because it would only be a question of time until I'd say something "problematic".

On the left? The left needs them ASAP. If I had to choose, I'd have to nominate Mexie and Pierre and Matt Florence for that. Far from perfect, but so much better than the aforementioned.

she is good but she makes videos too often about shit no one cares about.
He's good. Good meme appeal, which makes me wonder what your standards are.
Never heard of the guy.

Which is my point. If they are the force to be reckoned with, then the "gang of three" is already ahead of them. And if they manage to attract such an audience by being obnoxious and dishonest then the Shaun and Harry will too, according to your logic.

That's why I say she needs to be more confrontational. Maybe a video response, maybe more populism.

I never gave a fuck about him when he was a memelord, I only started to respect him once he started doing serious response videos some months ago.

Check him out. He's part of the old-school radical left on YouTube, which was him, Jim Profit and Jason.

Attached: provemewrong.png (789x434, 362.24K)

Fair observation. Contrapoints for example, leaving a discussion of idpol aside, does have a kind of charisma and can make a good video. I can't stand the other two though in so far that I remember them, can't put my finger on why. Likely their voices and speech affectations. To contrast, Finbol for example is fairly uncharismatic and lacks the humor to soften his stolid autism, but he does have a voice and presentation that are eminently listenable.

But, and this is more of a structural criticism, I think the use of the medium itself is necessarily limited. Jimmy Dore hammers a lot on this point: youtube's algorithms of recommending channels and so on, is being very much geared towards pushing a certain kind of corporate dreck. To really be guided into these kind of videos as a normie you basically already have to go look for it and know it exists. Right now youtube seems to be suited to allowing a moderately successful content creator to earn a living as a freelancer in essence working for them, by catering to a self-selecting audience. Much like this imageboard here, it's really only suited to being a tool for entertainment and self-teaching.

Attached: confused sankara.png (500x340, 256.51K)

Space, you have posted that thing several times now. This meme attempt(?) hasn't caught on and posting that repeatedly makes you look like jelly gay boomer.

If Sargoy is useful to Zig Forums, then even succ-dems, nutsaccs and Twitter larpers are useful to us. Truth is irrelevant, if we have to deny some aspects of the agenda or leave them out when discoursing with new-friends then so be it.
Fuck, I know for a fact I would have had a hard time getting into leftism if I had been introduced with Stalin apologia, this is coming from an ML btw.

Take it from someone who actually used to be a goon: it's not.

take it from someone who used to be a channer: it is.
there's a message here.

I've posted on both places my man, it most definitely is not.

I'm subbed to all four. All four have called themselves some form of socialist or another at some point, and I'm fairly certain all four don't mean "socdem" when they've said it. Shaun seems to be the most hesitant to call himself one though and has said he's more willing to just call himself anti-capitalist.
Sage because I don't think this group is net-harmful, it's better than what's dominant on YouTube right now.

why would i trust the judgement of someone who paid $10 to post

Exactly. Glad we agree.