Old YT

Yo what are some oldfag leftist youtubers operating before the rise of "left/bread tube" and the whole gamergate and culture war shit?

Pls no 1917 LARPers they can die drowned in their cum from USSR revival mansturbation

Attached: cv8unqm3dsk21.png (875x779, 999.84K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Stfu, nobody here cares about breadtube libtards

Dick Coughlan is probably the oldest Leftist YouTuber. He's been going since New Atheism phase. He was never particularly popular though, probably due to his main source of comedic material simply him being grotesquely vulgar. He did a LiveStream interview with ContraPoints a couple of years ago when she was really starting to pick up and it's quite evident part way through the video she regretted interviewing him.

Oh dear.

Oh dear

Libertarian Socialist Rants
Jason Unruhe

Outside of nobodies, its lib stuff like Lacy Green, Rebecca Watson, Zinnia Jones, Steve Shives and such which are hard to suggest to anyone.

like, Jason-kun have been active for longer than those 3 combined

Attached: 0709ed89a2031d0fe23c5988dadbbccf871565fb7949b1e8e9cac438ee6c6b2b.jpg (1280x720, 70.56K)

Most cringe image I’ve ever seen

Top kek



30-year old here.

The ones I remember from 10-12 years ago (Golden Age of YouTube BTW) were mr1001nights, buddhagem, and napalmtube, plus all the Chomsky and Parenti lecture vids. NapalmTube ended up becoming a born-again Christfag and thereby rejected anarchism. mr1001 became an MRA after a bad relationship and then some kind of human extinctionist. Buddhagem is still a principled anarchist but I have no clue what he's up to today.

Forgot laughingman0x who went from an an-syn to a market socialist to "an"-cap to white supremacist neoliberal. His fall out saddened me the most TBH.

This. Jesus if you have to be 30 to remember this era of YT i really must be a fucking boomer

the era this anons talking about is about from 2008 -> 2011. Also brendanmcooney started around 08. the ROO was also there, but he was basically even more of a LARPer dressing up in soviet/Chinese military uniforms and camo. Wolff was making videos around 2010 onwards as well.

Mr1001nights is still anarchist, but hes a weird combination of anti-sjw/MRA/evolutionary psychology guy who still somehow believes in left-anarchism.

BTW you also forgot Chomskyan, the third part of the triumvirate along with mr1001nights and buddhagem, he was an asian-american guy who posted alot of chomsky vids

I forgot Brendan, you're right. His videos were very informative. I think he's in the Platypus Society now or something, he's basically a Hegelian Trot or some shit.

I actually know someone who knows Chomskyan. They said he was going through a lot of shit. He and Buddhagem were feuding for a while which is why the whole working together thing fell apart.

I remember watching Roo from that time too. All he did was read WSWS articles verbatim and dress up in a Canadian army uniform, which everyone thought was a Castro cosplay. At least he made decent content then, not the asinine "grrrr I hate SWJs, support Iran" crap he makes today.

Along the same line, I remember RedNickD. He was the one who got Roo started on YT.

Buddhagem and mr1001night also had a huge falling out when 1001 turned MRA/pua

it was a canadian uniform which he hoped to pass off as a castro cosplay because he was a minimal wage security guard who didnt have the money to buy a real thing not from the surplus store.

Now hes got that PRESSTV money

didnt she turn right wing after getting dicked by her le rational skeptic boyfriend?

Yes, I remember this very well. They had a radio show which they did together until everyone started hating each other. I think mr1001 and Chomskyan are still friends though.

And how old are you?


Rebecca Watson is big brain SkeptiChad.

One more thing I'd like to say: one thing which I miss so much about LeftTube from 2008-2011 was how lefty YouTubers actually took the time to educate normies. Most of what BuddhaGem, mr1001, RedNickD, etc. were doing was addressing common anti-communist/anti-anarchist points made by the right, hence why they debated "an"-caps so much (keep in mind, YouTube allowed video responses back then, so there was a whole conversational aspect of YT).

Nowadays when I look at "BreadTube" I can't help but think how boring most of it is. Rather than educating people about anarchism or communism (i.e. "how would XYZ work in an anarcho-syndicalist society?"), a lot of it focuses way too much on situations among leftists and most of the arguments are flat-out emotional. Shit like cancel culture or what's the point of being vegan in capitalism aren't things anyone except your inner circle cares about. Even when I watch vids by people like Muke a lot of it seems like he's preaching to the choir.

I wasn't watching left videos back in 2008 to 2011. I was kinda a libertarian shithead until like 2017 anyway so I wasn't politically conscious like that
I do however remember liking some riot porn and fuck cop videos back in the day. Enjoy this song comrades

Another thing that came to mind. I remember watching the Ukrainian riots back in 2014 and being shocked but supportive of it until the nazi shit took over. Back then 4/int/ and Zig Forums were discussing the Euromaiden protests like no other protest that I've other than a few Occupy videos I remember watching back in the day. The involvement of nazis/nationalists were a hot topic and a very divisive issue on the 4chan, compared to now where 4/pol/ has an overt hard-on for nationalism. Man, how things have changed

Youtube kinda felt like a wasteland back in the day where certain communities felt like an oasis in the sea of cat videos and shitty camrips. I also remember game reviews were a big thing back then. Now Youtube is filled with normalfags and vlog/blogs/social meda shit so the uncharted feeling of old youtube is no more.
sage for db

YouTube went downhill when certain YouTubers started turning their channels into businesses. Notice too that's when Roo started getting worse, when he got the partnership and began substituting YT for his actual job. Getting rid of video responses was the nail in the coffin.

What a fucking idiot, jesus. Youtubers are raging narcissists

I think this is where the term "toxic masculinity" actually applies. Like if you're a woman and you get divorced (and you're probably the one initiating it), then you can more easily cry your heart out to your support network of friends and family. Healthier that way and women feel a lot better after dumping their man. Men often don't have that and the only socially acceptable emotion you can show around your male friends is anger in a lot of cases, or anger to your YouTube audience in this case. It's like "don't be a pussy." A relationship ends for them and they feel anger and loneliness which turns inwards into depression. Not good.

So in Greece we had an anarchist artfag that wears a weird mask
youtube.com/watch?v=eyDAmmGyiVo(english vid)
He had beef with a well known rightard politician than actually became our health minister
They actually debated a couple of times

None of that is contradictory. SJWs and leftoids are cancerous liberals appropriating socialist terminology and symbols. MRAs were almost entirely left wing feminists (who got kicked out when they started talking about men's issues too) until opportunists with websites started marketing the MRA label toward reactionaries in the early 2010s. Evolutionary psychology very strongly supports communism if you don't just have a shallow conservatard reading of it (book related).

Most "manarchists" tend to be highly insecure. It's just like how in that music thread people were talking about how much misogyny is in leftist hip hop: the same shit which drives a young male into recognizing the world under capitalism is an inherently unjust place is the same shit which drives him into thinking he needs to dominate women and keep them "in their place". Most of these guys feel like failures when they see women doing their own stuff independent from men, not realizing that women fought and still fight in order to obtain that independence.

BTW I'm female and have experienced this with lefty dudes more than a few times myself.

I'm a gay guy so I feel somewhat alienated from the "gender wars" or whatever, but I'm thinking of how the biggest strike actions in the U.S. recently have been the public school teachers unions, which are largely women because teaching at the primary sector level has been traditionally considered a woman's job. Women have liberated themselves from patriarchy (to an extent) and can collaborate with each other in ways that men are having a lot of difficulty with because they're still trapped in that mindset, but the economic "base" of society no longer has much use for that mindset. Basically, in order to seize the means, men need to break out of that mindset – they have become enslaved to an antiquated social categorization.

Also maybe perceptions of relative power. Like, women are paid less than men in many cases, but women are making more money now they used to, so women have grown confident and are wielding that power while men feel they're in relative decline. Makes a lot of men into natural recruits for alt-right ideology, but the tragedy of the situation is that alt-right ideology will not help them.

That's exactly why patriarchy is full of paradoxes: men assume women are the ones with all the power because women are confined to certain spaces and thus have more motivation to push.

I'd almost equate it to the typical right-wing scare tactics of brown immigrants "taking over" white countries. When you're a working-class white guy in a country or region that isn't all too prosperous, but see immigrant families getting all sorts of accommodations you just assume these immigrants are getting "special treatment" or have some kind of unseen influence over the government, even though said immigrants are in reality doing much worse than you are.

Likewise, when men see independent women, they grow envious despite the fact that men have always had the opportunity to go about things alone. The kid with 10 toys throws a temper tantrum when he sees the neighbour's kid has one shiny new toy, that kind of thing.

Your right I don't know why OP wants to talk about breadtubers when ☭TANKIE☭s are so omnipresent and dominant on the platform.

Most people are insecure both emotionally and financially. Capitalism favors insecurity because it's a good motivator to buy shit to distract you and because it lowers your bargaining power. Seeing male insecurity as a personal flaw to the exclusions of the environment (in contrast with women) is an example of seeing people through a gendered lens.
That's something that really needs to be substantiated because I don't see how it follows at all.
Independence means something different to women and men, because independence has been and is a requirement for men and an option for women. Men who don't or can't support themselves are made to feel inadequate because of the expectations placed on them via the male gender role. Late capitalism makes younger generations less independent overall, especially men (more women than men graduate college now, and millennial women out-earn millennial men). It really shouldn't surprise anybody if men feel embittered by a socioeconomic system that is leaving them behind and even shitting on them to focus on women's needs while women are starting to pull ahead. Instead of having any kind of socialist take on the subject, you're casting aspersions about men's emotional state like a liberal. And shit, isn't feminism supposed to be supportive of men expressing their emotions?

Cool, maybe act like a socialist and apply some material analysis to your experiences instead of ignoring that to make presumptions about ideology.

No it doesn't. The alt-right only manages to recruit so many because everyone else wants nothing to do with young men. Liberals and the "left" in particular throws around words like manarchist or brocialist to problematize male-identifying language and create a hostile environment. This kind of shit is straight out of workplace sexual harassment policy (which apparently nobody is old enough to remember any more) creating a hostile environment. Contrast that with the alt-right which isn't pro-men in any meaningful sense but will enthusiastically champion masculinity and provide validation that other camps are pointedly withholding as if being male makes you a bad boy who needs to be corrected.

Well, which emotions are we talking about? What we're saying is that patriarchy inhibits men from expressing emotions other than anger. Anger can be productive, but it inhibits collective action which needs collaboration, shutting up and listening, etc.
Well, my impression is that you get a bunch of people in a group together, and the women sense hostility from *some* men, so they group up to protect themselves. The men, sensing the women grouping up, then fear a female plot against men, and then start grouping up themselves.

In a kinda similar way to what says about immigrants. The immigrants sense hostility from *some* of the natives, so they group up as a protective mechanism. The natives then see the immigrants all cliquing up in a bloc, and then go "uh oh the immigrants are going to take over."

This is exactly what I mean when I say men experience patriarchy as matriarchy. Men assume women hold all the power because women's roles are limited and thus they don't face as much "danger" or responsibility. What they don't see is the psychological toll being kept in a proverbial cage does to women. Yeah men commit suicide more but women attempt suicide more.

Feminists have been saying this shit for decades m8.

Maybe because women have a more difficult time finding work out of high school, and need a university education in order to make something of themselves?

Again, this is exactly akin to the immigrant analogy: immigrants get accommodations in order to help them assimilate into a new culture when natives receive none, hence the natives assume immigrants are secretly pulling the strings. No different than Faith Goldy claiming Muslims secretly rule Canada.

A socialist take on the subject would absolutely include gender since gender is a division of labour.

This is a materialist analysis, it's just not coming to the conclusions you desire.

Like I said, it's a huge paradox of any hierarchical system. People with some kind of societal power *feel* powerless. There's a reason why the middle class is often the most drawn into conspiracy theories about vaccines causing autism or juiceboxes making the frogs gay, for comparison, as if *they* are the ones being targeted by the evils of the system (rather than, say, the working classes).

Also, the "progressive stack" gets shit on, and I thought it was some lib idpol shit, but when I actually got involved in a socialist group we implemented it because some guys would not. shut. the. fuck. up during meetings and they would talk over women.

One female member of our group came up to me and complained about it afterwards. When women would speak there would be guys who'd listen but then be interjecting constantly with "uh huh / yeah / sure / YEP" – all the time. And then interrupt the woman mid-sentence and go on blah blah blah'ing some more. But they would not do this with other men. And see: it's an unconscious thing. Anyways, it was driving the women in the group up the wall. But what can you do? If she just blurts out "shut the fuck up!" while he's interjecting in this friendly way, it would hurt his feelings or whatever. It'd be a disaster.

I think it also has to do with the distribution of gendered labor within the working class. Like, the main male-dominated industry today that requires an advanced education is software engineering. But that is not very many jobs, and it requires some particular skills, while you're seeing women moving in large numbers into nursing and various healthcare aide jobs, education (getting a bachelor's for this), and the service sector generally, while the skilled trades for men have been hit very hard by changes in the productive forces. These are the middle and upper sections of the working class. But patriarchial mindsets are inhibiting men from becoming nurses or teachers, to name two examples.

The lower section is agriculture, retail and food processing, less unionized sections of light industry, and many temp workers – this area is actually disproportionately women and members of oppressed nationalities.

psychoanalyzing people doesn't make your take materialist

You're also saying that feeling a need for validation isn't allowed either (for men specifically).
And the men are doing something wrong in this scenario because…? If forming a clique to protect common interests is kosher for women, why not for men?
BTW you were just saying how men have trouble collectivising because of emotional restrictions but then you go right and contradict that.
Nativism is almost always seeded by elites trying to divide poor people. It's not an organic phenomenon.

If women experience sexism as patriarchy and men experience sexism as matriarchy, then maybe what we have isn't a system of men dominating women but of gender roles dominating people and dividing them against each other.
No we don't lol. The assertion is that women and men have different drawbacks to their respective gender roles.
And wage slavery is somehow not a cage? I never denied women's issues. Both genders have issues. You are the one stuck on some grass is greener shit.

Funny how it only amounts to token acknowledgement as a way to deflect this particular criticism of feminism.
Girls and women do better in school across the board and continue to be favored in college admissions despite now making up almost 60% of college students.
No it isn't. (Millennial) women are not just receiving particular accommodations, they are out-performing men in success metrics like college admission, college graduation, and average income. It's not some paranoid perception that women are doing better. It's hard facts. Why is gender discourse dominated by concern for women and negligent toward men when men are measurably doing worse? Why is the question of men's issues reflexively maligned as right-wing while men are simultaneously shamed for (a minority of them) embracing the only ideology that validates them?

"Include gender" is not a synonym for "be concerned with women's issues specifically to the exclusion of men's issues."
Bullshit. Your posts are driven by analyzing motivations and has scant mention of material conditions.

Liberal detected.

Tell people to stop interrupting when they interrupt and take further action if they cannot control themselves. There's no need for a progressive stack to fix that, indeed it wouldn't do anything since they'd just interrupt whoever is speaking.
Or any of you could stop being autistic and respond to annoying behavior with any lesser degree of hostility than shouting at someone. If they don't realize they're annoying you they aren't going to stop on their own. Christ, it's like some of you never fucking socialized at all. You can politely point out that interjections are rude and unwanted. You can pull the person aside and discuss this with them. There are a myriad of ways to handle the situation besides waiting for the annoyance to be so great you can't help but blurt out expletives at someone. Everyone in this scenario is acting like a child.

Feeling it, no. I think men often have a hard time expressing this, yes.
I'm trying to avoid making moral claims here.
I'm describing factionalization along gender lines. This isn't a healthy thing to have happen to any group.
Certainly, but it's an improvement for women over domestic servitude, which is why the introduction of women into the workforce is progressive.

No, it was pretty simple, and this only happened once. We just implemented a rule that says people should take turns talking: that's the stack. We have someone in the group lead the stack and regulate the flow of conversation. It works pretty well, and it solved the problem.

Well it takes two to communicate, and nobody but the right seems willing in general to hear men expressing a need to be validated rather than maligned as men.
But it's a problem when men do it but not women? Feeling hostility from *some* men results in forming a clique/faction, but why is that taken as a reasonable response?
No, having a choice between the two is an improvement over having only one option.
Introducing women into the workforce is progressive because it's the removal of an identity-based restriction.
That's not what a "progressive stack" is. A progressive stack is a stack plus sorting rules that are "progressive." Stacks, queues, and other ways of scheduling speaking time have always been part of organizing.

Well I don't really know what to say. I'm a gay dude so I'm trying to look at it somewhat objectively – but I just see (some) straight guys flipping out and acting weird in groups that are otherwise cooperative. It's a weird phenomenon.

I don't think he means literal "middle class" as opposed to "working class"

Lol, you are all soooooo spooked by feminism.

Who's the top and left corner?

This, the beta uprising can't come soon enough.

He should've become an uwu christian anarcho-pacifist. No masters, no kings, one God!

hapa mongrel cis str8 male here guess ill throw my 2 cents in

I'm curious about this. How exactly is this implemented? Its called a progressive stack but isnt it realy a 'priority queue'?

I guess i always assumed that someones priority was a vector/list of their identities and the dot product of that with the weight vector representing the quantity of oppression that identity faces. Like black = 3 oppression and woman = 2 oppression. From that you get the oppression scalar. Or assuming every identity is equally weighted (excepting straight, white, cis, male etc.) then its just a straight sum of the number of marginalized identities the individual is a part of.

The problem is, you are talking on Zig Forums where the majority of people regardless of political views are incel dudes who would view being a NEET that occasionally has to fuck their spouse and do housework as basically a dream job. And actually tbh statistics/polls theyve done have shown, conservatively that about 1/3 of women would prefer being supported by their husband than being a wageslave.

The problem i see with feminisms messaging is that the idea of the patriarchy doesnt land with the base of male internet users.

The idea is that men are privileged and rule over society, is actually true in general. Obviously looking at the governments of any country, boardrooms, and heads of most institutions, etc. are all MEN.

Feminists see this and conclude that men rule society. The problem is that lots of the people in these reactionary circles are YOUNG men (and boys), and the rulers of society are largely older and middle aged well-off men. Some are teens, or even younger than that. The young adult and even early middle aged guys are living at home in their moms basement.

How can you think that men rule over women in society, if your mom still comes in to tell you to clean your room and stop playing video games.

How can feminists call men aggressive rape-cultureists when youre too shy to even ask a girl out and they all hypocritically want chad anyway?

How can men be so privileged when they are still drowning in student debts, no good job, career prospects, downwardly mobile from their white boomer parents who got unionized factory jobs paying good wages out of high school back in the day, meanwhile they are still working at the gas station part time and spending their remaining hours and money on weed, video games, and crypto-currencies?

Life hasnt worked out for them and they don't feel privileged and i guess its adding insult to injury to be told they are privileged on top that.

Yeah, that's not how we practice it – like on ethnicity or anything. Just if you haven't spoken before (or much). I actually went to another socialist meeting with a different group and they had more involved method, and I was bumped to the front and I'm a white man. But this is because I was new so they wanted to prioritize me. Go figure.

To be honest I heard a lot about "progressive stack" online from angry you-know-whats but I've found the IRL thing to be very different.

"Progressive stack" only seems to be a problem when it's focused on identity.
You know, the same way that identity focus ruins everything.

Lad, they're all fuckable

Like clockwork

Sudo progressives punching down on the socio economic ladder.

That's what "progressive stack" means. Having a system for organizing speakers isn't a "progressive stack" unless it has rules that sort people according to perceived privilege. These terms have specific concrete meanings.

Having a queue or a stack or whatever to organize speaking time has been around since classical antiquity and is not what people are talking about when they criticize the progressive stack, which refers more to the privilege-based sorting than the actual type of list (which may instead be a queue using first in first out rather than a stack using last in first out). Socialist orgs have had speaking queues since forever. The problem isn't organizing speakers. It's prioritizing people according to "privilege" which inevitably prioritizes the people who spend the most time self-absorbed in thinking about their identity who can check off the most boxes in the privilege checklist.

To be honest it was before that (when people started talking about how former lefties drifted away from the mainstream left) and nobody really brought up identity again except for the gay guy saying it a couple times. BTW we had polls over a year ago (before the reddit influx) and most of the users here were bisexual so it's not like that shit makes anybody special.