Is PragerU good praxis?

Idealist drivel. The production and diffusion of lies and flawed ideas is much more difficult than the production of rebuttals.
Let's use a contrived analogy of nuclear missile interception, because that piece of history is far more interesting than liberal nonsense. Initially, it was believed that creating an anti-ballistic-missile system would be relatively easy and cost effective: For every long-range, expensive nuclear missile the enemy builds, you just have to build a small and cheap missile that goes a few miles straight up and intercepts theirs as it falls towards you. You've got the cost advantage. Let's say for every long range missile, you get two short range ones. This is how liberals perceive truth in the marketplace of ideas, as the short-range missile.

But then things changed. Nuclear warheads were made smaller, allowing more than one to be put in the same long range missile. Now, for every 1 long range missile you could have 3, 4, 5 nuclear warheads dropping towards you, and the cost advantage flips the other way: You would need 5 short range missiles to intercept the payload of a single long range one, and on top of that they started inserting decoys. Suddenly, ballistic missile defense became ruinously expensive and shortly thereafter the USSR and USA signed a treaty limiting the number of defense sites allowed. The single missile spewing out 5 lines of deadly attack alongside decoys and chaff is much more analogous to the bad argument than to the good. While your truth missiles are busy chasing down a pile of scrap metal, a barn door and "The Nazis were Socialist" before it hits Riga, "Capitalism is just trade" is about to destroy Moscow. "Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money" is about to annihilate Kiev, "Communism killed 100 billion people" is detonating over Leningrad, and "What about Venezuela?" is about to knock out your short range VERRIT class missile site for good.

If you think this is how real life functions, you are incredibly delusional.

b-but i thought we are 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧rational actors🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 and we should trust the people in power to tell us the truth??

Heavy handed authoritarianism will not lead to social change for the better.

It will only lead to tyranny .

People must be allowed to choose the right path rather than have it chosen for them against their wishes.

If you can convince someone that doing something is the right thing to do with reasoned arguments and logic then you gain an ally.

If you have to stand over them and force them to do it with violence and the threat of violence then all you gain is a slave.

Heavy handed authoritarianism will not lead to social change for the better.

It will only lead to tyranny .

People must be allowed to choose the right path rather than have it chosen for them against their wishes.

If you can convince someone that doing something is the right thing to do with reasoned arguments and logic then you gain an ally.

If you have to stand over them and force them to do it with violence and the threat of violence then all you gain is a slave.

Sir, are you aware how liberal you were going?

Attached: 110093.jpg (439x477, 73.63K)

who wrote this?

get the feeling you don't believe any of this and you're just quoting it from either some liberal thinker or /r/neoliberal.
the missing piece in the puzzle here is that while people aren't convinced of things by pointing a gun at them, they are convinced of things by having it dripfed into the public discourse, without any critical thinking on their part.
you apply far too much agency to "choice". Coca Cola is not the most popular drink because people sat down and made an informed choice, but because everyone already knows Coke is it! and they know this despite it not actually being a factual position at all.

And let's say that the only alternative is authoritarianism? Indeed, let's even say it's right-wing authoritarianism at that. In those circumstances: Better to live on your knees a slave at gunpoint than walk tall a slave to lies and manipulation. Better to have your conditions spelled out to you by the gun at your head, than to be tortuously reminded of your own freedom to do anything, to own that car, that house, that skyscraper, as you lie there starving in the streets, ignored by all, abandoned by society, but the guns that hold you down are safely locked up in the armoury rather than waved openly so that makes it okay.

Unironically incredible turn of phrase

Yes it's a difficult issue. But we just had a discussion here , that conservative ideas are much easier to digest. It's much easier to read a 100-page introductory text on based basic economics and then troll libruls epic style, thinking that you are very very smart because you can graph two fucking curves and calculate the area between them (been there, done that), than to read three volumes of Kapital, or Accumulation of Capital, or whatever.

Probably we don't have to force any ideas on others. But as you mentioned in , it's very important to know both sides' arguments. So what we probably do have to force is studying opposing sides' literature.

Here's an example how "marketplace of ideas" works. When I studied economics at my university, the graph in the pic related is all exposure I ever got to leftist ideas. Professor said something like: "lel u see how bad they have it in North Korea? :DD No need to study marxian egonomics, gommunism doesn't work, case closed :DDDD". Notice how I wasn't forced to believe it, nobody prohibited me to read marxist literature or anything. But I believed my professor, why wouldn't I, he's smart, got his PhD and shiet, right? Of course some may argue that it wasn't a perfect market of ideas, and we need to deregulate it and so on…

Attached: Institutions Matter Real Per Capita GDP in North and South Korea.JPG (553x405, 36.18K)

Umm for the time being we need bourgeois liberal values like free speech to operate. The morons cheering on Google, Twitter, and YouTube for banning TEH FASH are going to look even dumber when the capitalist class moves to ban speech that actually threatens their status quo (ours).

stupid stupid stupid.
Google censored WSWS and nobody cried. People only play devils advocate for fascists and lolbertarian crypto fascists. Nobody is going to defend an outspoken Stalinist, moderate ⛏️rotskyist or Labour party hack from censorship because in the eyes of the populist-right (including here vulgar rags like the Daily Mail) they are already the establishment, despite also being lunatic outsiders.

Only a fantasist, a child or a fiction author could believe that there's a scenario that begins
First they came for the fascists…
And ends
So I, the ☭TANKIE☭, spoke up, and then they didn't come for anyone, and the fascist saw the error of his way through reading Karl Marx on my suggestion, and then we overthrew the they in the initial sentence.

Stop buying the marketing hype on Bourgeois free speech. You wouldn't believe these people if they told you a laptop wasn't a heap of shit, yet you're willing to believe that they honestly want a balanced platform where every opinion is given an equal ability to be heard and considered, without fear or favor on anyone's behalf? Risible.

Dumb dumb dumb. Your Hillary sticker is showing. We absolutely need it to operate. For example they're probably going to come for Unruhe because he defends "fascist" regimes like Syria and DPRK. At the moment ironically Republicans are better for free speech than Democrats. Watch the Democrat after Trump crack down on leftists who dared say a good word about Assad or Maduro.

not going to engage further with an idealist child.

That's what I thought. Take a hike, Democrat.

How did fascism rise in Germany if it wasn't the best idea for the situation?

Never burn a bridge you may need to cross again.

The only people who do this are counter revolutionary traitors who white-ant the revolution.

Attached: world burn.jpg (480x357, 26.22K)

if preferring to see PJW made to eat wood pulp in the gulag to seeing him speak on television is something that makes me a democrat, then I'm Fur Her.