Dennis Prager / Prager University / PragerU / PragerU International / Pragertopia - Neocon Propagandist, Married Three Times, Literal Boomer, Tried Suing Youtube for "Discrimination", Star of "No Safe Spaces" & his pretend University.

TheImportantFart

Breakin' Wind
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
I like Prager. And really doesn't fit the LOLCOW trope.

Alex Jones is a different chase along with No Bullshit
“I agree with this person so they’re not a lolcow!”

In all honesty, Prager isn’t a lolcow, which is why this thread is in Multimedia rather than Lolcows. As I said upthread, he’s a boring boomer windbag and PragerU is his sad attempt to make basic bitch conservatism hip. It worked for a while, but now PragerU’s just easy fodder for BreadTube channels and is too cringey for anyone on the right to defend. If you got your entire political ideology from binge watching PragerU, that’s pathetic.

I’m surprised no-one’s really discussed one of their worst videos yet - “What is the Alt-Right?”. It was mentioned in the OP and in that “15 worst PragerU videos” video, but it was so bad it pissed off literally everyone. Check out the comments section if you want a laugh:


The TL;DR is that Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles (owner of one of the most punchable face-voice combinations ever) gives a series of hot takes on how the alt-right is actually left-wing because they’re not religious (incorrect - while some of the alt-right is atheistic, large swathes of it aren’t and the broad consensus among them is that at the very least Christianity is a useful cultural tool) and they’re collectivist unlike us big brained individualists on the TRUE and HONEST right.

It’s one of the most embarrassingly out of touch videos I’ve ever seen and the fact it’s delivered by a young man rather than a crusty boomer makes it even worse. The only person dumb enough to buy this shit is Dave Rubin who’s since repeated the arguments from this video practically verbatim on his own show.
 

Oats12345

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
“I agree with this person so they’re not a lolcow!”

In all honesty, Prager isn’t a lolcow, which is why this thread is in Multimedia rather than Lolcows. As I said upthread, he’s a boring boomer windbag and PragerU is his sad attempt to make basic bitch conservatism hip. It worked for a while, but now PragerU’s just easy fodder for BreadTube channels and is too cringey for anyone on the right to defend. If you got your entire political ideology from binge watching PragerU, that’s pathetic.

I’m surprised no-one’s really discussed one of their worst videos yet - “What is the Alt-Right?”. It was mentioned in the OP and in that “15 worst PragerU videos” video, but it was so bad it pissed off literally everyone. Check out the comments section if you want a laugh:


The TL;DR is that Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles (owner of one of the most punchable face-voice combinations ever) gives a series of hot takes on how the alt-right is actually left-wing because they’re not religious (incorrect - while some of the alt-right is atheistic, large swathes of it aren’t and the broad consensus among them is that at the very least Christianity is a useful cultural tool) and they’re collectivist unlike us big brained individualists on the TRUE and HONEST right.

It’s one of the most embarrassingly out of touch videos I’ve ever seen and the fact it’s delivered by a young man rather than a crusty boomer makes it even worse. The only person dumb enough to buy this shit is Dave Rubin who’s since repeated the arguments from this video practically verbatim on his own show.


Well, to be honest I agree with most of what they say. But I do get some of your points. I don't know if the Alt-right are religious or not. Becuase I don't know any Alt-right people.

I never got they were saying the Alt-right were left wing. I always believed they were saying that the Alt-right are different from Conservatives (which is true). But hey we all have different opinions.

Becuase i identified as a Conservative political.

But I do get some of your points.

Well Michael may be annoying. Ben Shapiro and Jeremy are the more interesting of the Daily Wire crew to be honest.
 

Boss HM-2

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Of course it's done to fuck with people.

You make it sound like it was a one-off, like it was a one time thing. But it's not like this thing ever stopped. Go to the openings of any of your local art schools. Read the booklets. Talk with the students. Compare the works of first years to those who have graduated. Mostly students are being taught that beauty should not be the goal (and in practice, you'll get criticized if your work is beautiful). There are very few exceptions to this, though I certainly haven't visited every art school internationally, I'm fairly confident through talking with other students internationally that I'm more or less characterizing things accurately.

Here's a documentary where you see the same kind of thing taking place. The only thing that's changed is that the artist is no longer in on the joke. The art dealers are, mostly, but they're good bullshit artists. That's where most of the art takes place, now.


Just watch the three minutes from the timestamp (13:16 - 16:10)

(don't get too distracted by the echoey voice of the documentary maker; it's intentionally self-mocking if you watch the other videos)
The reason "beauty" (really, you mean old paintings of aristocrats they commissioned for themselves because photography and the colored pencil hadn't been invented yet) is discouraged is because any jackass on conceptart.net can draw up something on the same technical level as Rembrandt or Monet in a few hours via photoshop, or a Pop Art types like Warhol or Lichtenstein in a few minutes. The idea is to break your conventions and explore new ideas, but in reality it leads to a bunch of fart-sniffing crap that's way less shocking than the artists think they are (or if you're famous enough to meet the President, retarded boomers will think some dumb shit about liberating menstrual fluids is a sign of Satanic pedophilia. Looking at you, Abramovich)

Behold, true art:
 

Lemmingwise

Hands off my purse
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
The reason "beauty" (really, you mean old paintings of aristocrats they commissioned for themselves because photography and the colored pencil hadn't been invented yet) is discouraged is because any jackass on conceptart.net can draw up something on the same technical level as Rembrandt or Monet in a few hours via photoshop, or a Pop Art types like Warhol or Lichtenstein in a few minutes. The idea is to break your conventions and explore new ideas, but in reality it leads to a bunch of fart-sniffing crap that's way less shocking than the artists think they are (or if you're famous enough to meet the President, retarded boomers will think some dumb shit about liberating menstrual fluids is a sign of Satanic pedophilia. Looking at you, Abramovich)

Behold, true art:
No, I don't just mean old paintings.

I mean art in all forms. Architecture, sculpture, music and so on.

And no, I don't mean the goal is just beauty and nothing else. But the idea that art should not be beautiful is a kind of dogma that is the death of art.

Abramovich coincidently, is one that does not follow that convention and is sometimes involved with making things that are beautiful, in a sense. In any case there is a whole artistic dimension to what she makes. What does her work say? If you studied more of the occult, you'd realize it's not the boomers that are retarded for thinking it's satanic, but you, for thinking it can't possibly be.

Since analysis of the art she made is well beyond the scope of this discussion, I'll go for easy examples.

downloadfile-58.jpg


Here posing in front of "satan summons his host"

And here in a music video. What do you think this music video is saying?
 

Boss HM-2

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
No, I don't just mean old paintings.

I mean art in all forms. Architecture, sculpture, music and so on.

And no, I don't mean the goal is just beauty and nothing else. But the idea that art should not be beautiful is a kind of dogma that is the death of art.

Abramovich coincidently, is one that does not follow that convention and is sometimes involved with making things that are beautiful, in a sense. In any case there is a whole artistic dimension to what she makes. What does her work say? If you studied more of the occult, you'd realize it's not the boomers that are retarded for thinking it's satanic, but you, for thinking it can't possibly be.

Since analysis of the art she made is well beyond the scope of this discussion, I'll go for easy examples.

View attachment 1667970

Here posing in front of "satan summons his host"

And here in a music video. What do you think this music video is saying?
It's a painting by a british dude 300 years ago that's meant to be a reference to Paradise Lost.

The music video is a spoof on American Psycho where the women kill the yuppies as revenge. The guy in the beginning of the video is supposed to be Patrick Bateman.
 

Lemmingwise

Hands off my purse
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019

Boss HM-2

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
If that's all you've taken from it, you haven't taken much at all.
Have you even seen or read American Psycho at all besides the Huey Lewis scene due to "lol check em" or the card scene due to the sanic webm? The entire subtext of both is that the 80s yuppie subculture made a bunch of people amoral assholes.

Meanwhile you (and most of us really) never heard of the woman until Pizzagate came about because most people don't really give a shit what a bunch of fart sniffing pretentious assholes do. First impressions are everything, so virtually nothing I say will convince you otherwise because you heard about the spirit cooking video and it disgusted you so much that you and millions of other people automatically now think of her as a Molochian witch.
 

Lemmingwise

Hands off my purse
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Meanwhile you (and most of us really) never heard of the woman until Pizzagate
Wrong.

Maybe that's true for other people.

I suppose your perception of how I view it and why is as superficial as it is of these instances. I used to work in the art world and have been well aware of her work and status for over a decade, if not two.

Regardless of what american's psycho message may have been, I do not think that 80's yuppie culture is at the root of that amoral landscape, but rather one of the flowers of something rooted in something else. Considering you know about things like spirit cooking, yet think it's only some kind of occupational therapy for the rich, shows how little you've looked into it.

Here's a point. What's the point of putting Abramovic in the video in the first place? It's not a "lul, so random cameo". She serves a role in the video. How does her presence serve the "80's yuppie's are assholes" message?
 
Last edited:

Rupert Bear

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
What do you guys think of Gravel Institute? (The left's "response" to PragerU) I just watched two of their "short explainers" vids, and goddamn, it really is the embodiment of the whole "leftist memes are textwalls" thing. Even their 5 minute videos feel like stale cherrypicked audio textbooks and lack any of the brevity and directness that PU's 5 min vids have.
They have a few cringy animations as well.
Besides, just the fact that the lefties had to begin a polar opposite of PragerU when most people in the middle agreed that the concept was dumb just seems really desperate. Even calling it an "institute", for fucks sake.
The only things GI seems to have over PragerU is:
1. Actual animation, but in the globohomo flat style
2.Actually citing their FACTS & LOGIC(tm) in the description
 

Mr Metron666

Colourful Seashell Invader From The Planet Metron
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 10, 2020
What do you guys think of Gravel Institute? (The left's "response" to PragerU) I just watched two of their "short explainers" vids, and goddamn, it really is the embodiment of the whole "leftist memes are textwalls" thing. Even their 5 minute videos feel like stale cherrypicked audio textbooks and lack any of the brevity and directness that PU's 5 min vids have.
They have a few cringy animations as well.
Besides, just the fact that the lefties had to begin a polar opposite of PragerU when most people in the middle agreed that the concept was dumb just seems really desperate. Even calling it an "institute", for fucks sake.
The only things GI seems to have over PragerU is:
1. Actual animation, but in the globohomo flat style
2.Actually citing their FACTS & LOGIC(tm) in the description
I thought the left already had it’s own Prager-U in the form of Ian Danskin/Innuendo Studios & his shitty propaganda cartoons. Where the hell did these jokers come from?
 

TheImportantFart

Breakin' Wind
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
They released a video in defence of Robert E Lee which was so bad it was deleted:


I'm not even in favour of his statues coming down, but the arguments in this video are dumb as shit and can be boiled down to:
  • He was distantly related to Martha Washington
  • He had a nice house
  • He was buried near his horse (no, really)
  • He crushed a revolt by a "radical abolitionist" (because wanting to get rid of slavery is really radical amirite?)
  • He opposed freed slaves' right to vote
Watch the video if you don't believe me. They present all the above as arguments in favour of why his statues should stay up.

Like I said, I'm not in favour of the statues coming down, but if you're wanting to defend them staying up, maybe don't lead with such piss poor arguments.
 

The Last Stand

Honorary Harlow Hostess
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
They released a video in defence of Robert E Lee which was so bad it was deleted:


I'm not even in favour of his statues coming down, but the arguments in this video are dumb as shit and can be boiled down to:
  • He was distantly related to Martha Washington
  • He had a nice house
  • He was buried near his horse (no, really)
  • He crushed a revolt by a "radical abolitionist" (because wanting to get rid of slavery is really radical amirite?)
  • He opposed freed slaves' right to vote
Watch the video if you don't believe me. They present all the above as arguments in favour of why his statues should stay up.

Like I said, I'm not in favour of the statues coming down, but if you're wanting to defend them staying up, maybe don't lead with such piss poor arguments.
Nothing about Lee's commitment to defending his homeland? Or his defensive tactics unusual at the time?

Thanks for having me create a more compelling argument for a person that would've preferred to ship slaves back to Africa, PragerU.
 

Høppean Weeb

macOS is better than windows
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
What do you guys think of Gravel Institute? (The left's "response" to PragerU) I just watched two of their "short explainers" vids, and goddamn, it really is the embodiment of the whole "leftist memes are textwalls" thing. Even their 5 minute videos feel like stale cherrypicked audio textbooks and lack any of the brevity and directness that PU's 5 min vids have.
They have a few cringy animations as well.
Besides, just the fact that the lefties had to begin a polar opposite of PragerU when most people in the middle agreed that the concept was dumb just seems really desperate. Even calling it an "institute", for fucks sake.
The only things GI seems to have over PragerU is:
1. Actual animation, but in the globohomo flat style
2.Actually citing their FACTS & LOGIC(tm) in the description
The Gravel Institute is an irrelevant organization. Most if not all of their audience are people who follow them on twitter. Just look at their social blade numbers, not very popular...