Roger Waters - Comfortably Numb, Bad Empanada - Confident and Dumb
Roger Waters is very dumb but dumb people tend to like him because he says some things they like. So what happens when he 'debates' an even dumber liberal on CNN?
Waters is at least as smart and informed as the average political YouTuber/streamer, if not more so (it's not a very high bar). The difference is that his comments here were made off-the-cuff during a real conversation, and not a scripted twenty minute video where he could inject tons of nuance and hedge all of his statements to be as precise and factually bulletproof as possible. He also had to couch all of his statements to not be too aggressive to the interviewer, because part of Waters' job is literally doing interviews and if he gets a reputation for being a huge asshole that could jeopardize it.
Like imagine if an argument you had with a lib family member got posted online and everyone started picking every little thing you said apart. Of course you're not making your best arguments in the heat of the moment, and of course you're not going to go completely for broke and potentially burn your bridge with that person forever. But now everyone thinks your dumb because instead of carefully explaining your points all the way through every single time, you just said the most important parts and then stopped to let the other person speak for a bit.
Anyway I watched the video and I'm not impressed. Generally I like BE but he's definitely got ultra tendencies and drama tendencies, neither of which I'm a fan of.
Saying that you don't like a particular person's tendencies is not sectarian.
using the word ultra is in fact sectarian, that’s the whole point of the word
It's actually "nonsectarian" as in "nine sects" are allowed. 8 of them ML offshoots and one is anarcho-communism.
I stopped paying attention to badempanada in 2018 after one too many China Bad takes
Post anything even slightly pro-Russia to out yourself and be permanently shadowbanned. You aren't welcome here.
lmao is badempanada a ukraine flag emoji guy or something now
No, he just isn't stanning Russia just because their interests are running counter to the US', which is a completely reasonable stance to take.
Banning anyone who is even “slightly pro-Russia” (the vast majority of this site by almost all lib definitions) is Lib shit and he is being a chauvinist ultra
Not sectarian: shitting on China all the time and saying they aren’t socialist
Sectarian: that guy sucks
CW hostile, I'm sorry
using ultra is the same as just saying anarkiddy it’s not allowed on this site, you’re not pleasant to be around
Defending BadEmpanada is the same as shitting on the PRC and should not be allowed on this site
That’s just like your opinion. Plenty of people enjoy my slop
The issue is that most of the lib internet considers stating facts like "Russia probably isn't shelling the nuclear power plant in Russian-held territory with American HIMARS rockets from the Ukrainian held direction" to be "pro-Russia", that's why it's notable.
Right...on it's face, banning 'anyone with pro Russia views' seems to not be terribly awful, seeing as Russia is it's own autocratic shithole.
Until you consider that being against NATO for the role they have played in this conflict (and many others too numerous to list) and espousing views such as 'maybe Russia didn't bomb their own prison' are considered 'pro Russia' takes by every lib
Yeah, having watched the video (and other videos of BE) i wouldn't think he would consider that pro-russian.
If no one is, than there's no need to get defensive about him banning russia stans, right? :)
Except that libs like him consider any anti-NATO argument as pro-Russia. You aren’t actually this naive are you? During the Iraq War would you go around banning anyone who is “Pro-Saddam”? Guess what, by fascist American definitions that’s everyone who isn’t marching in lockstep
Except that libs like him consider any anti-NATO argument as pro-Russia.
He literally says in the video that waters is right when he says NATO broke their promise of not expanding eastward. It's very telling you never watched a single video by them lol (not like i could blame you, i have better things to do usually as well)
Tell me he wouldn’t ban SeventyTwoTrillion or Granit or Z Poster or myself. He would in an instant just for saying what we do on the news thread
If his bar for what he bans includes anti-imperialist principled communists then it’s a bad bar
I don't know about Granit, i highly doubt he would ban SeventyTwo, Z Poster literally supported Russia and were very open about it. You are somewhere there i think as well.
I don't think myself it's principled antiimperialism when we are sincerely hoping one bloc with imperial ambitions (no, putin won't conquer Europe but they are clearly in Ukraine for their own political interest, which are purely capitalistic) triumphs over another but that's a different story and everyone here knows i'm an anarkiddie/trot/ultra anyway :shrug-outta-hecks:
Z-Poster was definitely something of an actual Russia stan. The name is a giveaway.
I do miss their non-harassment contributions to the site, though.
No, it's not. What? The opposite of stanning something would be hating it. In what world is the opposite of uncritically supporting something just supporting it a little? That's not how that works.
I don't know comrade this is ultimately a semantic argument about the situational meaning of "opposite", which isn't that interesting. The opposite of having a highly dogmatic view of a topic is having a nuanced view where you are able to acknowledge both good and bad things about the topic :shrug-outta-hecks:
well, yeah, but the point of my comment wasn't actually about the word. It's that you seemed to be presenting the only alternative to "stanning" Russia as just liking it but less.
I don't think there are any valid reasons from a socialist viewpoint to like Russia at all. You should obviously criticize Ukraine and the US, but there's nothing to gain from Russia.
It’s a very common westoid chauvinist lib take to have, that’s for sure
CW hostile, I'm sorry
do you currently live in the west yes or no, you sound like a westerner
A lot of Maupin types show up in his comments, I assume that's why he has that stance
BadEmpanada doesn't know how to do 'critical support'. I support him as a Comrade, but he puts way too much value in being PRECISELY RIGHT along a moral axis.
i hate this youtuber even when he post 'good' its like half hour long annoying streaming videos with the actual content of like, three paragraphs of text.
fucking lazy dreck stop giving money to people to dispense their lukewarm takes as a job
no it isn't. it's not like every single useful person to leftism is necessarily an on-the-ground organiser but this particular type of providing very low-quality and unorganized """education""" is not helpful.
i think adam johnson and nima shirazi probably do better work on the pod than as two PSL door-knockers, but i struggle to find the good in some dude streaming and talking 'leftist' for entertainment bucks.
Holy shit every time I watch a YouTuber or Twitch steamer I feel like I just took a section of my life and threw it in the trash. What a god-damned waste of time.
Hot take: Many Western leftists have secret anxiety about the diminishing influence and the impending collapse of the imperial core, especially those who come from an academic/affluent upper middle class background.
Eh; I have anxieties about the ill-preparedness of the American Left in the event of that situation. I'm less actually concerned about the US not being "in charge" of things, because we're already a net exporter of most the shit that keeps the lights on & people fed; and it would be far from impossible for us to maintain a domestic industrial base if we weren't run by fuckin' ghouls in human skin suits.
It's the problem of getting them out of power that I'm actually worried about.
I agree that Waters is sometimes not making the best arguments, Biden fanning the flames in Ukraine isn't what makes him a war criminal, but badempanada is also putting words in his mouth that he then argues against without waters actually having said it.
That's the reason why I put the video here in the first place. He just assumes so much about Waters based on nothing, while also being smug as hell. Also for his passionate defense of Biden. He paints him here as someone who is basically blameless for the situation in Ukraine. In my eyes, Biden is definitely a war criminal for not telling Zelenski to make peace with Putin. He is getting people killed because he wants to bleed Russia. He chose to fan the flames, and not to talk. America is partially responsible for all Ukrainian war crimes in my book.
his passionate defense of Biden. He paints him here as someone who is basically blameless for the situation in Ukraine.
He explicitly says that Biden fanned the flames already before the war, he just thinks the ultimate blame is on Russia for pulling the trigger please watch the video.
Too lazy to watch the video, but I know his Latam takes and I just can't imagine him saying that Biden/America is blameless lol.
How many more videos do they need to make to really sell the narrative that this "irrelevant" old rockstar lost this debate?
"I'm not owned, I'm not owned!" I yell into YouTube as I turn into a lemon.
The narrative isn't that he lost the debate, literally read the description.
In this site we produce our takes according to the title of the post and according with how much we like the people involved
"Roger Waters is very dumb but dumb people tend to like him because he says some things they like"
So what happens when he 'debates' an even dumber liberal on CNN?
What happens is that the same short clip of a slightly heated Roger pushing back on the status quo narrative gets played everywhere on the internet like these takes are from outer space, which alludes to my first comment.
Oh, but your boy here concedes some minor points while digging on the lib reporter too. Totally unique! I can't believe I didn't invest time to listen more from someone who introduces their argument with "Roger Waters is dumb, and if you think him doing this has any value whatsoever, you are dumb too."
:very-intelligent:
"Oh, but your boy here concedes some minor points while digging on the lib reporter too." = 90% of the video is shitting on the lib reporter. you would really do yourself a favor by not trying to get worked up over the video's description but watch it, but you do you.
Nearly a quarter of the comments on this post are you trying to defend this video, but you're right, it's us that are angry and worked up over it.
For all of BE's edginess and pretensions, he doesn't really stray that far from what your average Anglo leftist believes. Palestine good, Cuba good, Vietnam good, China lesser evil, US bad, NATO bad. He has slightly better than NATO simps and cruise missile socialists, but that is undone by his general unhinged personality.
Like all Anglo leftists, he defaults to the position that multipolarity isn't better but merely different from unipolarity even though virtually everyone living in the Global South knows this to be completely untrue and a self-serving statement made by people living within the imperial core.
At the end of the day, he's just some Aussie living in a Latin American country where all the Nazis fled to, and that will affect his politics.
You would hope the average us "leftist" believes that China is the lesser evil and that NATO bad unequivocally but
Y'all are being very angry because of a video which 90% shits on the reporter.
