I’ll never watch a video essayist who pays more attention to aesthetics than content. It’s the red flag that has consistently remained true since 2015. If you’re showing me some silly little skit, you aren’t showing me an argument. If you’re spending time on costuming that’s time you didn’t spend on research or sourcing footage that could replace the look-at-cartoon-me bullshit. If a serious person wants to wear a costume during their video essay, it stays consistent from start to finish without ever being mentioned.
It’s never steered me wrong. The channels I was immediately wary of because of that have all turned out to be weird social fascists.
Type 56: white guy dressed in a rotating series of Chinese military uniforms. He never mentions them. The 30+ minute videos are Chinese history with translated Chinese from primary sources, maps with primary research, and historical footage. Solidly communist across all of it, no more doubt about his background than I have for any generic hexbear poster.
Beau of the 5th Column: white guy dressed as a whiter guy. Can’t get through a ten minute video without saying “ y’all i reckon i’d ding dang dun fuck mah banjo iffin it was my cousin” as hay falls out of his mouth. Social fascist who turned out to be a human trafficking mercenary.
I’m absolutely certain of it. He got off so lightly on such serious criminal charges. That is a federal informant [at the very least] doing COINTELPRO, 100%, not a single doubt in my mind.
he got clapped for human trafficking (labor violations and visa fraud not sex stuff afaik) and got off shockingly easy, and then later came the channel
These videos have convinced youtube I love Chinese history so now I get shit about like men’s hairstyles in the Ming dynasty with a thousand views. Might have clocked me tbh
I’m not saying you can’t watch it, just be especially critical of it. If 20% of a 10 minute video is silly time, did they actually do 8 minutes-worth of research on the topic or did they skim a few sources to frame their idea for silly time? Is their audience there for the ideas or silly time? Some creators will pass that bar, most of them won’t because they’ve self-selected for an audience that doesn’t want to listen to a detailed lecture or read the primary sources themselves. When there’s no silly time, a channel like Red Pen where it’s just a static screen and a lecture, they self-select for an audience that knows the material will enough to engage with it directly and critique all of the little details in their commentary on it. There’s no parasocial celebrity factor to it.
There are like two exceptions I can think of, but usually when there’s a lot of sugar there’s no medicine, it’s just a sugar pill that you’re told is medicine.
There is no other response to anything she says, across her entire lifetime, than linking a picture of her and the Clintons.
Iran-contra points
Lmao God dammit I can’t believe I never thought of that
kelly self-insert
How can you even smile and talk in the presence of a devil. “We came, we saw, he died” with her demonic laugh will never leave me
Truly a demonic people
I’ll never watch a video essayist who pays more attention to aesthetics than content. It’s the red flag that has consistently remained true since 2015. If you’re showing me some silly little skit, you aren’t showing me an argument. If you’re spending time on costuming that’s time you didn’t spend on research or sourcing footage that could replace the look-at-cartoon-me bullshit. If a serious person wants to wear a costume during their video essay, it stays consistent from start to finish without ever being mentioned.
It’s never steered me wrong. The channels I was immediately wary of because of that have all turned out to be weird social fascists.
Hakim stays winning
Type 56: white guy dressed in a rotating series of Chinese military uniforms. He never mentions them. The 30+ minute videos are Chinese history with translated Chinese from primary sources, maps with primary research, and historical footage. Solidly communist across all of it, no more doubt about his background than I have for any generic hexbear poster.
Beau of the 5th Column: white guy dressed as a whiter guy. Can’t get through a ten minute video without saying “
y’all i reckon i’d ding dang dun fuck mah banjo iffin it was my cousin” as hay falls out of his mouth. Social fascist who turned out to be a human trafficking mercenary.
Scientifically proven.
Beau is the one dude I am totally certain was an Op. Like straight up, I think he was an intelligence guy.
I’m absolutely certain of it. He got off so lightly on such serious criminal charges. That is a federal informant [at the very least] doing COINTELPRO, 100%, not a single doubt in my mind.
he got clapped for human trafficking (labor violations and visa fraud not sex stuff afaik) and got off shockingly easy, and then later came the channel
These videos have convinced youtube I love Chinese history so now I get shit about like men’s hairstyles in the Ming dynasty with a thousand views. Might have clocked me tbh
The Lenin Head is sufficient, all other visuals are bourgeois.
“Have these gentlemen ever considered deez nuts?” -
i read that in his voice
With all three of them laughing and then talking over each other lmao.
The thing is, her “aesthetic” has always been fuckin bad. She throws up some red and blue lights and people thought she’s a fucking cinematographer
This too
I am a child so Sometimes a spoonful of sugar makes the theory medicine go down, you know? But yeah bad when such creators overdo it
I’m not saying you can’t watch it, just be especially critical of it. If 20% of a 10 minute video is silly time, did they actually do 8 minutes-worth of research on the topic or did they skim a few sources to frame their idea for silly time? Is their audience there for the ideas or silly time? Some creators will pass that bar, most of them won’t because they’ve self-selected for an audience that doesn’t want to listen to a detailed lecture or read the primary sources themselves. When there’s no silly time, a channel like Red Pen where it’s just a static screen and a lecture, they self-select for an audience that knows the material will enough to engage with it directly and critique all of the little details in their commentary on it. There’s no parasocial celebrity factor to it.
taking notes:
-Red Pen
-Type 56
Getting good channel recommendations from comrade happybadger in this thread.
Yeah I’m cool with style so long as the substance is there
There are like two exceptions I can think of, but usually when there’s a lot of sugar there’s no medicine, it’s just a sugar pill that you’re told is medicine.
Hit me
I was thinking of PhiTube and Tom Nicholas
CW: suicide
IMO Suicide and Mental Health, Steve Bannon and Philosophy/White Guys were all bangers. Several others made good points
I won’t defend the whole catalog but I sure as hell couldn’t pump out quality vids for 12 years
I’ll check out Tom Nicolas
The correct take
she really wanted to say we conquered but couldnt help herself, she had to lib filter it