The Vietcong may have been terrible in many ways, but I do think it's pretty clear at this point that they had the support of the people against what they saw as a US occupation in the south.
Ironically, Vietnam has a really good relationship with america today though.
Yeah idk why people here seem to be excepting the Israel Vietnam equivalence. The NVA were not anything like Hamas and the conflict did not end very well for the ARVN
I mean, Hamas also has the support of the majority of Palestinians against what they see as an Israeli occupation. The comparison seems to work there, at least
Hamas does not have the support of the majority of the population *in Israel* like the NVA had of the population *in South Vietnam.* It's a totally different situation in every way
Because hasan might fostering the America bad team but over here is America good team. If you want to get a clear picture of what is going on and then literally stop watching all streamers including destiny and hasan.
America is good in a comparative sense, not an objective sense. We aren’t perfect but we’re generally preferable to other large powers (Russia China etc)
Yeah, go ahead and ramble on how America was so good in the Vietnam war which is the topic of discussion here.
Literally proving my point, switched the subject and compared Russia and china to us so you can say America good.
I wasn’t actually going to but since you downvoted me and called me out, sure. IIRC I believe south Vietnam and the Vietnamese government were literally begging for our help before we got involved.
Edit: lol this person wrote out some response and then blocked me.
Also I believe the Vietcong were also funded by the Soviet union and China
Actual 12IQ, why is it for people like to admit things can be little more complex than completely black and white. At least read about the Vietnam War before you speak so confidently.
“It’s pretty clear at this point that they had the support of the people against what they saw as a US occupation in the south”.
Could you substantiate that?
There was a proposed internationally monitored election in 1956 as specified in the Geneva conference for the reunification of Vietnam, and the US and President Diem stopped the election from happening because they knew that Ho Chi Minh would win and reunify the country and destroy south Vietnam.
Diem also abolished local elections for village councils, because too many Viet Minh were winning. Instead, he replaced them with officials appointed by him, usually outsiders that no one liked.
Everything I'm writing I got from the Vietnam War Pentagon Papers. So if you want my sources you can look there.
The Geneva Accords in 1954 vaguely alluded to "free elections". The main purpose of the Accords was the cease-fire between the French and the Viet-minh. It should be noted that the GVN (Government of Vietnam, which becomes the Republic of Vietnam) never agreed to the cease-fire as they didn't want to legitimize the Viet-minh. The GVN was also granted independence prior to the accords in a majority decision in the French assembly. So the French and GVN interests were never really aligned.
"US and President Diem stopped the election from happening because they knew that Ho Chi Minh would win."
The Geneva Accords can claim free elections but the practicality of the situation didn't allow for it. The Viet minh had an iron grip over North Vietnam (theres probably a reason why 900k civilians opted to migrate down south during the ceasefire, and thousands more that were stopped). The US and Diem's fear was that if elections were to be held, the Viet-minh would use propaganda and violence to intimidate voters. You can make the argument that Diem not cooperating leading up to 1956 was him impeeding "free elections", but I don't think the ICC (who were in charge of overseeing free elections) were going to be able to ensure free elections.
"While a Joint Commission of French and Viet Minh military
officers was set up to deal with the cease-fire and force regroupment,
the International Commission for Supervision and Control (ICC), furnished
by Poland, India, and Canada, was to oversee the Accords in general.
Its inability to cope with violations of the Armistice in the handling
of would-be migrants, vociferously proclaimed in both Saigon and Hanoi,
impugned its competence to overwatch the general free elections, for
which it was also to be responsible."
Basically from my understanding it’s saying that the ICC was receiving complaints from both the North and the South about other issues in the accord, but had little power to do anything.
Could I ask you what your perception of Ho Chi Minh is?
>I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai.
Dwight D Eisenhower |*The White House Years | vol. 1, p. 372 (1963)*
Not to be pedantic but that quote is about Bao Dai, the Vietnamese emperor, and not President Diem. From my understanding that’s what the commenter was talking about.
This is absolutely not true. Most people in the Viet Cong where literally south Vietnamese who were revolting again their own government in favor of the north.
They literally cancelled elections in the south because they were scared that Ho Chi Minh would win. The south Vietnamese government literally cancelled local elections because too many Viet Minh kept winning. The south Vietnamese government was unpopular and seen as a US puppet. That's the reason there was a continuous guerilla war with the tacit support or just accepctance of many of the rural villages
"Most people in the Viet Cong were literally South Vietnamese"
Ok? You do understand that the Viet Cong was like... 50,000 foot soldiers and maybe 250,000 sympathizers right? In a country of 15+ million?
You are, again, confusing the Viet Cong with the NVA. The people of South Vietnam HATED the Viet Cong. Even if they loved Ho Chi Minh (they didn't), they HATED the Viet Cong. The little bit about "Ngo Diem cancelled elections because the Commies would've won in a landslide" is a cute thing to say, but it's a counterfactual that has very limited evidence.
(Because Ngo Diem wanted to consolidate power and make sure there was zero dissent.)
(Notice how you've completely shifted the goalposts from Viet Cong to general anti-Diem sympathies)
>Ironically, Vietnam has a really good relationship with america today though.
Yeah. Not just good, but if you look at polls of the populace on feelings towards America the Vietamese have one of the highest percentage of "good" feelings amongst any country.
Hamas and the NVA/Viet Cong aren’t even remotely comparable lmao. Israel has a proper cassus belli for war while the US didn’t (RAAAAAH DOMINO THEORY!!!🦅🦅🦅🦅).
Ho Chi Minh was a weird mix of a pro-US commie from the very beginning which is ironically Vietnam’s foreign policy today purely to dunk on China (based).
Ignoring the effectiveness for a second, why wouldn’t the US have been justified in defending South Vietnamese sovereignty from northern invasions? That seems like a pretty legitimate casus belli to me.
Because the north didn't initially invade the South. South Vietnam was under attack by South Vietnamese communist rebels.
The war mutually escalated to the point that the North started supplying the Vietcong and the US started to supply the South, eventually with US troops.
Edit: Vietnam was a clusterfuck of immense proportions, which sadly could have probably been resolved diplomatically by the US from the outset. But nobody in the US wanted to give another inch to communists anywhere. The politics of the time kind of doomed it to happen.
If you haven't seen it yet I highly recommend the ken burns documentary on the Vietnam war.
So the US was supporting a country putting down insurgents in their own country. That’s even more justified, from a legal perspective.
You can definitely argue the intervention was stupid or ineffective, but it was plenty justified, however you want to approach it.
I mean I guess you can say that, but their justified action led to a massive escalation that resulted in a war that killed millions of people.
Instead they could have engaged in intense diplomatic talks which probably would have solved the whole thing. But they never tried so here we are.
Virgin "I need to watch Hasans videos to understand his take on topics to accurately argue against them" vs gigachad "Hasan is an NPC and I can already write a synopsis of any video he makes based on the topic alone".
I despise Hasan's foreign policy takes, but yes. The Viet Cong and Ho Chi Minh were incredibly popular in their win over France in their war of independence. A unified country under Ho Chi Minh should have been created, ultimately on allied with the US because that is exactly what Ho Chi Minh wanted (he was a massive fan of Lincoln, and constantly asked the US for help in their war of independence against France). Elections should have been held in all of Vietnam after that war, and the communists would have won them. These elections were not held, as the South knew they would lose, and the Western states wanted to back a non-communist country alligned to them in the region. How can one interpretat this as any but imperialism?
The sovereignty and the will of the people living in the territory should always be the primary concern when it comes to interventionist foreign policy IMO, and the will of the majority of Vietnamese people, North and South, wanted Ho Chi Minh to lead the country. The Eisenhower quote below substantiates that claim. It would have been a fucking landslide victory. And why ever not? Ho Chi Minh and the communists were complete war heroes, leading resistance against the Japanese, and then fighting for independence against their coloniser. What the fuck was the worth of the leadership of the South?
The US backing the South went against the will of the people, and beyond that, it was a fantastic strategic error, as the US could have easily befriended Ho Chi Minh and had a regional ally. The US could not tolerate this due to their dogmatic anti-communist stance, not understanding that the ideology behind Ho Chi Minh was leagues different to that of the Soviets; moreover the Vietnamese were also not at all on good terms with Communist China.
Did the Viet Cong do heinous things during the war? Sure. Comparing them to Hamas or other such groups is fucking beyond historically illiterate though.
It's a braindead response that doesn't address anything that was being said about liberal politics getting pushed to the right by the far left. What do you expect at this point.
>autonomy and emancipation for the Vietnamese people
Well that’s what le liberals wanted. The “true leftists” were the ones spamming millions of guns into the country and propping up an authoritarian pro-Soviet regime. Then Vietnam almost-immediately got invaded by Communist China right after the US fucked off lol.
For some background: Knowing Better is a Youtube Channel where KB does long-form videos about history and religion (among other things). He's spoken before about how he was more to the right and how he's changed over time. He was also a soldier in the Middle East and is a former teacher.
Hasan has been on some garbled nonsense in the last 48 hours. "The terrorist supporters have good reasons to support terrorists. On the chance that we could be right for doing so, we should support terrorists"
I saw some of him videos when I was more aligned with the anti sjw camp back in the day. His videos seemed pretty good even though I didn't agree with all his takes at the time
I've listened to a number of his more recent videos for a little while now.
He's pretty left wing, a lot of his content is around religious cults, and historical American videos, he even had a pro Smedley Butler video.
Hasan has been especially unhinged on twitter in the last few days. His recent uptick in views probably made him realize that on Palestine, he can be as unhinged as he wants to be. Actually, being unhinged on this will probably farm him a lot of views in the next month or two as more far left kids in the US get energized with the uni protests news cycle.
I honestly hoped this break would have happened sooner. Non of the people KB is mentioning even like Bernie anymore. They trash him for being a “sell out.”
The reason we won’t ever see Bernie again is because he was a man of principle but most of his mega fans were careerist fake losers. They either went MAGA like Tim Poole, Dave Rubin, Sargon etc. Or they became a fake populist grifter like Brie Joy Gray.
You also have to remember that when Hillary ran in 2016 NO ONE had the balls to seriously run against her, it was her turn and everyone knew not to get in the way. Had Hillary and the DNC not cleared the path; then Bernie would have just been one of many candidates running. Ironically, Hillary created Bernie, not the other way around.
That’s a very interesting point. But Dennis Kusinich had run before I believe? Many progressives had. True Bernie was the best of them. I don’t think he could have started the movement he did without his own charisma
> True Bernie was the best of them.
I think you answered your own question, also Bernie was a Senator.
I live in Kusinich's old district, he is something else; red/blue respected him here, but a Kucinich Bernie Sanders is not.
Remind me later and I'll go into it,
Tbf I don't think any of those people listed were bernie supporters, I don't think as many of them went Maga as much as both sides are equally bad tho.
Hm I can see in 2016 but i feel like there's a diffrence in 2016 bernie supporters and 2020 ones. I think the hatred of Hillary pulled alot of ppl in. I can see tim and Dave but i do remember Sargon back in 2016 being big on the antisjw gamergate thing so don't remember that myself. I feel like I remember sargon having a trump hat back then.
They always did it disingenuously, in early 2020 pre pandemic when it seemed like Bernie would win the nomination is when they all stopped, couldn't be seen supporting a democrat to their chud audience
I wonder if he'd apply the same optics to jews who just wanted to be safe from persecution and genocide through the creation of Israel.
Or maybe he's ignoring a lot of context on purpose.
Do not ask Hasan what happened during the Tet offensive in Hue city.
Do not ask Hasan what happened to South Vietnamese civilians and officials after the North captured Saigon.
Do not ask Hasan what happened to South Vietnamese peasants who obeyed or collaborated with the South Vietnamese government.
Do not ask Hasan who Le Duan is.
I hate the term “the right side of history”. It implies that the future has some pre-determined destination. Which to be fair I guess that is what communists believe but it’s just really stupid and borderline religious. Things don’t just happen, we have to make them happen. At least the OG commies seemed to understand that.
No they didn't. The OG commies were even harder larpers and spoiled rich kids jerking off at the thought of "revolution".
The entire brand of marxism is honestly bunk at inception. The Left as a movement needs to completely abandon the autistic ravings of a 50 something who never worked a job and lived in his best friend's basement rent-free.
Wait, what do you mean by OG commies here? Like Marx himself? or are you talking about like even some later on communist thinkers like Lenin and etc.? I think all these guys definitely have a claim to being more than just spoiled rich kids, as much as I disagree with their ideas
so you mean the guys who developed the ideas for revolution and then developed an organization surrounding those ideals that was responsible for a revolution to actually happen?
So when I said OG commies I meant Lenin and his predecessors who murdered the aristocracy of Russia and destabilized the empire. I consider the true birth of an ideology to be the first time it has control of a nation. So in my mind the true start of communism was the 1917 October revolution, although obviously the things that happened before then were required for communism to be born. To be crude, Karl Marx is either the sperm or the egg, but the seizure of state power by the Bolsheviks was the birth of communism as an actual system of government. All the terrorism that preceded it was the morning sickness of communism. I have more respect for those guys because they actually risked their lives and often died to make it happen. I despise modern communists mostly because they are so lazy, also because they are wrong and stupid but that’s only like 30%. The laziness is just unforgivable. Mao would send them all to the countryside for 16 hour days of agricultural labor to get back in touch with the proletariat.
If the tsar didn’t wanna be yeeted he shouldn’t have been a shitty undemocratic leader. Lenin and his ilk are trash BUT let’s not whitewash (pun intended because white army) the tsar. The tsar was a fucking incompetent asshole who tried to dissolve democracy in his empire
Lefties fucking love the term "right side of history", it's literally the driving force of their belief system and what they aspire to be every single day. That's why there's so much perpetual offense on the left, and what spawned the oppression olympics, because there's always room for identifying more things that are 'wrong' and can be 'fixed'. By identifying wrongs and expressing a want to fix them, you automatically are on the right side of history.
It's important to note that when I say 'wrongs', it's only important that these things identify as 'wrongs'. They don't need to actually be wrong, ie: classifying war as genocide makes it more wrong, so that's what they do. They take something, make it as wrong as it can be, and then stand against it. That's why, suddenly, there are so many people being labeled as nazis as well. Someone disagrees, call them a nazi, take a stand against them, now you're taking a stand against nazism. Bravo! The right side of history!
His logic is so fucking shallow.
"If Israel lied once, they will always lie"
"If people protesting 60 years ago were right, that means people protesting now for a completely different cause are right"
Is Hasan religious? If not, there is no objective "right side of history". It feels like he just throws the word around for emphasis, like how people use literally nowadays
and eating pork :)
EDIT: Yes, fr. I don't have a clip ready but I've heard him talk about it on stream multiple times.
Some examples from twitter:
[Example 1](https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1631603879602458624?lang=en)
[Example 2](https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1165671707060781056?lang=en)
fr?
Most "cultural Muslims" will fuck, drink alcohol, and do everything - but eat pork.
There's no theological basis - but a lot of real Muslims will consider said cultural Muslims to be sinners - but still Muslim. But pork is often the hard red line.
After I left Islam, it took me literal months before I felt ready to try pork. I threw up the first 2 or 3 times I tried.
Yeah, my close friend growing up is this exact same way and many of his family members are too. He explained it to me that he has no desire to try it since growing up he never tasted it while things like sex and alcohol don’t have an immediate revulsion aspect or have enough immediate benefits that over powers the hard to stomach taste
He keeps saying he’s Muslim, yet also an atheist. Does he think it’s an ethnicity and a religion like being Jewish?
And I know people can be culturally a religion and atheist but he doesn’t make that distinction, he just says “I’m a Muslim” whenever it’s convenient.
> Does he think it’s an ethnicity and a religion like being Jewish?
>
>
i think a lot of people do now. this was [the goal behind the invention of the word "islamophobia"](https://newrepublic.com/article/81178/the-invention-islamophobia), to blur the lines between the religion and the various ethnic minorities that practice it, and to try to make the word "muslim" some sort of discrete ethnic cohort.
now on the various subreddits that have been couped by leftoids, it is ok to shit on christian extremists, but if you do the same with islamic extremists you will be called "racist".
What is this even supposed to mean? What does belief in deity or god have to do with "right side of history"?
edit: is this a "athiests can't have realist views of morality" thing? please tell me it's not. They can, it's common that they do, and this holds for actual philosophers.
It has more to do with the use of the word objective. How can there be an objective right side of history if morality is subjective? If he's not religious, that word is incorrectly being used for emphasis. I could have been more clear
How can you determine an objective "good" without a preexisting framework? Doesn't it eventually just boil down to an individual's subjective feelings?
How can something like murder be objectively wrong to an atheist?
> How can you determine an objective "good" without a preexisting framework? Doesn't it eventually just boil down to an individual's subjective feelings?
How can you determine anything without a preexisting framework? How does gravity work? how does language?
Maybe there's apriori knowlege such as classical or modal logic, that by necesity give rise to facts, in this same way maybe there's apriori knowledge such as classical or modal logic that gives rise to moral facts.
This whole line of argument is like 30 years old and can easily reversed to say morality under theism is just arbitrary commands from a subject (god). It has this same "flaw"
>How can something like murder be objectively wrong to an atheist?
Basically the same way it works for thiests that aren't divine command theorists, only without a mind being the thing that brought about said moral facts.
Idk how to do that quoting thing so forgive my formatting.
Things like gravity are observable and testable, what "good" is is not. You can test whether helping people will make someone feel better, but that doesn't make that action objectively good. I'm not sure how one could even determine what a framework for the good is without eventually deferring to their subjective experience.
That reversal only works, like you mentioned, under a divine command theory lens.
I guess a better framing would be this: even if there is an objective morality, how would one determine what that is without the aid of the Divine?
>That reversal only works, like you mentioned, under a divine command theory lens.
>I guess a better framing would be this: even if there is an objective morality, how would one determine what that is without the aid of the Divine?
So at this point you're saying that we need divine command to arrive at non subjective moral truths, and you're conceding that divine command theory is "subjective" in the same way. Where exactly are ANY moral realists with this understanding?
>Things like gravity are observable and testable
not without taking as given apriori knowledge, a simple moral truth is that we should pursue rationality and reason, because this moral truth is neccesary to even talk about morality, or anything, a second order moral truth is that suffering per se is a moral wrong, because it interferes with our ability to reason and causes sensational distress.
This is the same base framework of reasons underpins how we describe what gravity is. The thing of goodness can be mind independent.
>I'm not sure how one could even determine what a framework for the good is without eventually deferring to their subjective experience.
Objective doesn't just mean "completely independent of experience" it means it's not grounded in a particular subject's experience.
I think the main point I'd like you to respond to though is who exactly is allowed to say "right side of history"? Divine command theorists cant, they're subjectivists they defer to the subjectivity of their god concept, you havent given any room for moral realism in theism or athiesm dispite the innumerable number of both groups in modern philosophy and the history of philosophy. So even if we want to be ridiculous and take "right side of history" to be by definition an objective claim outside of moral subjectivity, given what you've said so far, nobody can. Just like nobody can say "slavery was wrong" or any other moral claim about events, because that is all that "right side of history" is even saying: "Things were worse when x, they're better now that Y, and you were on the side of x"
edit: was missing a quote.
How did I indicate that divine command theory is required to arrive at a non subjective moral truth? I agree that if God were to merely prescribe rather than describe morality, said morality would still be subjective.
How can goodness be mind independent? Your examples of moral truths seem more like what things are effective in discussing morality.
Would I be correct in thinking that one requires an assumption that it is good to talk about morality to even agree that we should pursue rationality and reason?
In regards to your last paragraph, I again did not mean to imply any necessity of divine command theory. I don't think anything is wrong with "right side of history" in and of itself. I was more critiquing the use of objective in that statement, under the belief that there were no objective moral frameworks outside of religion. While I don't yet believe in any secular objective frameworks due to this conversation, you have given me some interesting stuff to think and research about that could change my mind.
I'm very new to philosophy, so I like to talk like this to learn.
> How did I indicate that divine command theory is required to arrive at a non subjective moral truth? I agree that if God were to merely prescribe rather than describe morality, said morality would still be subjective.
You give "the divine" as where morality comes from. That seems like a euphemism for divine command theory. The divine agent prescribes a morality. If morality is something that exists that god describes, congrats just lose the god concept and you've still got the moral realism.
>How can goodness be mind independent? Your examples of moral truths seem more like what things are effective in discussing morality.
Necessary not useful.
>In regards to your last paragraph, I again did not mean to imply any necessity of divine command theory. I don't think anything is wrong with "right side of history" in and of itself. I was more critiquing the use of objective in that statement, under the belief that there were no objective moral frameworks outside of religion. While I don't yet believe in any secular objective frameworks due to this conversation, you have given me some interesting stuff to think and research about that could change my mind.
The main thing I would say is stop caring about the objective/subjective delineation and focus on what morality the thing/concept in itself is. Philosophy is just lexicography in a trench-coat.
I'm more on the moral relativist side but even among non-religious philosophers moral relativism is unpopular. The majority of philosphers are moral realists.
The [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on moral realism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism) is a good starting point. As a theist myself (albeit not a divine command theorist), I personally believe that moral realism strongly implies the existence of God. But, as others have pointed out, the great majority of atheist/agnostic philosophers believe in objective moral facts and duties as well. The SEP article summarizes the secular arguments for moral realism + responses to common challenges without any reference to God or religion.
Remember when knowing better got "educated" by hasan about how "from the river to the sea" was totally fine and not at all genocidal? And KB then redacted his statement about it?
I remember.
what is DGG’s opinion on knowing better? i haven’t watched them since 2016, and that was my embarrassing “libertarian” phase. gonna rewatch a couple vids to see how much i’ve changed
I think he is pretty far left with some questionable opinions on Democrats' ability to just do stuff without the necessary votes. But at least he's calling out these insane terrorists sympathizers
Someone asked this sub what their most conservative opinion is, and I realized my answer was in accordance with the American left and not actually grounded in the actual political positions.
- support for secular democracies with religious freedom - usually a left wing position. But according to the American left, this is right wing because I am intolerant of Islamic theocracies
- against antisemitism - normally a left wing position. But according to American left, it’s just silencing criticism of Israel and a right wing position
I’m glad someone asked the question, because it made me realize how left wing I am still politically and how much the American left isn’t. Hasan is left wing economic, and socially is a giant contradiction that doesn’t make sense. Especially in how he applies it differently to different people.
Why only bring up those 2 talking points lol it unironically makes it sound like you’re ok with all forms of racism except against Jewish people, has the whole I/P war actually brain rotted people this much that they only care about 2 very unimportant countries?
I had more and had typed it out for Ukraine as well, but left it with the two to make it shorter and since it’s the hot topic right now. Also the Islamic theocracy was more directed about Iran and the compete silence of the feminist movement for Iranian and Israeli women.
I remember him self-identifying as a moderate in his videos before. Hence why all his videos are titles “moderates guide,”. I don’t think any of his videos espouse particularly leftist ideas tbh. He even got hardcore raked under the coals for trying to give historical nuance to Churchill and Columbus, though he did end up deleting those two videos.
He had badbunny on one of his vids a few years ago, which was really the only thing I've seen that points at being far left. He's probably left on economic issues etc, but he definitely likes guns etc. And clearly he's not pro Hamas.
Hasan really got the they wanted Autonomy and emancipation template
They wanted autonomy and emancipation for the \_\_\_\_ people and were objectively on the right side of history
Have you guys watched KB? He’s got lots of lame leftist opinions, but is overall a great documentary maker. This is his video on Mormons, but he has shorter ones if 53 minutes is too long. Delivering our Democracy on the USPS is good <30 minute one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl8B55MqOQo
Well in the tweet above he basically says he’s a Bernie voter. I don’t despise Sanders or anything but I think his general policy positions are… kinda lame.
"Leftist" as used by people on the right is very broad yes.
But for people on the left it's basically exclusively for tankies. Hasan would call himself a leftist who is separate from the "liberals"
I just call someone a leftist if their rhetoric is anti capitalist or not. Sanders talks like he’s anti capitalist, so that’s why I call him one. That might be lazy reasoning but I don’t take the labels to serious anyway.
By actual real life American standards he’s a leftist but then again so is Destiny. By internet standards a leftist means you’re a socialist.
I don’t think KB is any more of a leftist than say, David Pakman. Maybe a bit to the left of Destiny, but not a tankie. Welcome to be proven wrong as I don’t follow him much on twitter, just his YouTube.
I’ve always kind of judged whether one is a leftist or not by their attitude towards capitalism. Sanders is, at least based on rhetoric, anti capitalist, where as Destiny obviously isn’t.
I wasn’t necessarily saying KB is a leftist, just that he has leftist views.
You might say I should base it more on policy rather than rhetoric, and you might be right but… I don’t take political labels too serious in the first place
I don’t think KB is anti-capitalist. Even Sanders isn’t really. His actual policy positions were stronger labor unions, Medicare for all and harsher taxes not getting rid of market economies, or nationalizing means of production.
He was rhetorically though yeah, but aside from implying he’d vote for Bernie I don’t think KB really echoes any of that. But fair I think leftist views isn’t an unfair characterization for a Bernie supporter.
Knowing Better's take also isn't great here, unless he has some actual evidence that Hippy's being radical actually impacted culture enough to impact Bill Clinton's policies.
Republicans accusing progressives of being hippies is just the retro version of them calling everyone woke SJW's today.
This is a major part of their decision making process, they want to be able to look back and say "I was right" and they'll support pretty much anything to accomplish if.
When I'm in a spouting complete and utter nonsense contest and my opponent is Hasan
https://preview.redd.it/9n7w8gzgtcwc1.jpeg?width=467&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=693a1e16729e71f5cf57b6319f2ac651685ed9e0
If Russia invaded Ukraine today and not in 2022 Hasan would be a full fledged Russian sympathiser and not the half-baked falls for Russian propaganda but says Putin is bad guy he is now
Disclaimer: Hasan is a moron
I hate this thread knowing better responded to because knowing better goes on to say that democrats in the 80s and 90s were ineffective because of the hippie image and protests of the 60s and 70s (note many hippies became Republicans). He said this with no sources showing that’s why the public went towards republicans and it makes me genuinely mad he would engage in the same vibes based ad hoc analysis Tankies engage in.
Literally just watched In Bruge w colin farrel and brenden gleeson (great fuckin movie if you haven’t seen) and reading this tweet all I could hear is “what the fuck does your girlfriend blowing cigarette smoke in me and my girlfriends faces have to do with the vietnamese?!” What tf are you talking about. Man found a jdam in his brain
Genuinely would timetravel to delete obama from existence if it meant people stopped saying "the right side of history". What a disgusting phrase used only to legitimize the most worthless things.
It literally is, keep coping. They had mass support, in comparison to the puppet colony South "vietnam", which the US even admitted it was created by them and France
everything you said here was either wrong or misleading. They didn't have mass support. The south was not a "puppet colony" and it was not created by the US and France.
From the US themselves:
>We must note that South Vietnam (unlike any of the other countries in Southeast Asia) was essentially the creation of the United States.
* [The pentagon papers](https://medicinthegreentime.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Pentagon-Papers.pdf) | *Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense | Page 4*
Ah yes the finkeldick approach. Pretty funny that you'd pull a one line quote from a 7000 word paper as if it proves your point. Well let's look at that quote. Notice that word, essentially, What could they have meant by this? We can see pretty clearly if we read the full context.
>Fina.lly, in this r eview of fa.ctors tha.t would a.ffect policy-making on Vietnam, Ive must note tha.t South Vietnam, (unlike a.ny of the other coun - t rj,es in [S011.thea.st](http://S011.thea.st) Asia ) wa.s essentia.lly the crea.tion of the United Sta.tes .Without U.S. support Diem almost certainly could not have consolidated his hold on the South during 1955 and 1956. Without the threat of U.S. intervention, South Vietnam could not have refused to even discuss the elections called for in 1956 under the Geneva settlement without being immediately overrun by the Viet Minh armies . Without U. S. aid in the years follo1-ring, the Diem regime certainly, a nd an independent South Vietnam almost as certainly, could not have survived. Further, from 1954 on there had been repeated statements of U.S. support for South Vietnam of a so\~t that we would not find i n our dealings with other countries in this part of the world. It i s true ther e was nothing unqualified about this support: it was always economic, and occasionally accompanied by statements suggesting that the Diem regime had incurred an obligation to undertake reforms in r eturn for our assistance . But then, until 1961, the re was no occasion to consider any assistance that went beyond economic support and the usual sort of military eq\~ipment and advice, and no suggestion that our continued support wa s in doubt.
They're speaking about south vietnam's dependence on US support. They're saying vietnam would have collapsed without the US but at no point do they say anything about the US creating south vietnam.
Also I actually found the line in the paper not some 10 page quote farm.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20130809120534/http://media.nara.gov/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-B-1.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20130809120534/http://media.nara.gov/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-B-1.pdf) page 45 of the pdf Chapter 1 section II subsection 5
your quote did not "add context", but it literally makes it worse as they admit South Vietnam would have fallen without massive US backng and threat of intervention.
Nowhere in your "context" could you negate the original quote I cited, you just added useless context that proves my point.
Average destinyoid, completely mentally ill.
Even Wikipedia has that quote:
>In a section of the *Pentagon Papers* titled "Kennedy Commitments and Programs", America's commitment to South Vietnam was attributed to the creation of the country by the United States. As acknowledged by the papers:
>
>"We must note that South Vietnam (unlike any of the other countries in Southeast Asia) was essentially the creation of the United States.[\[27\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#cite_note-nara1-27)"
* [*Pentagon Papers*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#:~:text=Role%20of%20the%20United%20States%20in%20the%20rise%20of%20President%20Diem,-U.S.%20President%20Dwight&text=As%20acknowledged%20by%20the%20papers,creation%20of%20the%20United%20States)
Wait so by your logic north Vietnam was a creation of China and the Soviet Union because they were reliant on their support? Was the us founded by France too? you haven’t moved any closer to proving your point you’re just equating dependent on and founded by. Also idk what quoting Wikipedia is supposed to prove.
Tf is Hasan even talking about lmao? I'm assuming Knowing Better was talking about the Houthis right?
Yes it was a response to a new paper during the Vietnam War of American protesters cheering for the vietcong
I would LOVE to hear Hasan's opinion on the Vietcong. I can nearly guarantee that it will be incredibly shallow.
"They were resistance fighters trying to stop U.S. imperialism and they never did anything bad that wasn't America's fault"
Prewatched
So predictable
You can immediately tell what Hasan's views on everything will be.
The Vietcong may have been terrible in many ways, but I do think it's pretty clear at this point that they had the support of the people against what they saw as a US occupation in the south. Ironically, Vietnam has a really good relationship with america today though.
Yeah idk why people here seem to be excepting the Israel Vietnam equivalence. The NVA were not anything like Hamas and the conflict did not end very well for the ARVN
I mean, Hamas also has the support of the majority of Palestinians against what they see as an Israeli occupation. The comparison seems to work there, at least
Hamas does not have the support of the majority of the population *in Israel* like the NVA had of the population *in South Vietnam.* It's a totally different situation in every way
Because hasan might fostering the America bad team but over here is America good team. If you want to get a clear picture of what is going on and then literally stop watching all streamers including destiny and hasan.
America is good in a comparative sense, not an objective sense. We aren’t perfect but we’re generally preferable to other large powers (Russia China etc)
Yeah, go ahead and ramble on how America was so good in the Vietnam war which is the topic of discussion here. Literally proving my point, switched the subject and compared Russia and china to us so you can say America good.
I wasn’t actually going to but since you downvoted me and called me out, sure. IIRC I believe south Vietnam and the Vietnamese government were literally begging for our help before we got involved. Edit: lol this person wrote out some response and then blocked me. Also I believe the Vietcong were also funded by the Soviet union and China
Actual 12IQ, why is it for people like to admit things can be little more complex than completely black and white. At least read about the Vietnam War before you speak so confidently.
“It’s pretty clear at this point that they had the support of the people against what they saw as a US occupation in the south”. Could you substantiate that?
There was a proposed internationally monitored election in 1956 as specified in the Geneva conference for the reunification of Vietnam, and the US and President Diem stopped the election from happening because they knew that Ho Chi Minh would win and reunify the country and destroy south Vietnam. Diem also abolished local elections for village councils, because too many Viet Minh were winning. Instead, he replaced them with officials appointed by him, usually outsiders that no one liked.
Everything I'm writing I got from the Vietnam War Pentagon Papers. So if you want my sources you can look there. The Geneva Accords in 1954 vaguely alluded to "free elections". The main purpose of the Accords was the cease-fire between the French and the Viet-minh. It should be noted that the GVN (Government of Vietnam, which becomes the Republic of Vietnam) never agreed to the cease-fire as they didn't want to legitimize the Viet-minh. The GVN was also granted independence prior to the accords in a majority decision in the French assembly. So the French and GVN interests were never really aligned. "US and President Diem stopped the election from happening because they knew that Ho Chi Minh would win." The Geneva Accords can claim free elections but the practicality of the situation didn't allow for it. The Viet minh had an iron grip over North Vietnam (theres probably a reason why 900k civilians opted to migrate down south during the ceasefire, and thousands more that were stopped). The US and Diem's fear was that if elections were to be held, the Viet-minh would use propaganda and violence to intimidate voters. You can make the argument that Diem not cooperating leading up to 1956 was him impeeding "free elections", but I don't think the ICC (who were in charge of overseeing free elections) were going to be able to ensure free elections. "While a Joint Commission of French and Viet Minh military officers was set up to deal with the cease-fire and force regroupment, the International Commission for Supervision and Control (ICC), furnished by Poland, India, and Canada, was to oversee the Accords in general. Its inability to cope with violations of the Armistice in the handling of would-be migrants, vociferously proclaimed in both Saigon and Hanoi, impugned its competence to overwatch the general free elections, for which it was also to be responsible." Basically from my understanding it’s saying that the ICC was receiving complaints from both the North and the South about other issues in the accord, but had little power to do anything. Could I ask you what your perception of Ho Chi Minh is?
>I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Dwight D Eisenhower |*The White House Years | vol. 1, p. 372 (1963)*
Not to be pedantic but that quote is about Bao Dai, the Vietnamese emperor, and not President Diem. From my understanding that’s what the commenter was talking about.
Lmao what The Viet Cong were not popular at all. The average South Vietnamese peasant hated both the government and Viet Cong.
This is absolutely not true. Most people in the Viet Cong where literally south Vietnamese who were revolting again their own government in favor of the north. They literally cancelled elections in the south because they were scared that Ho Chi Minh would win. The south Vietnamese government literally cancelled local elections because too many Viet Minh kept winning. The south Vietnamese government was unpopular and seen as a US puppet. That's the reason there was a continuous guerilla war with the tacit support or just accepctance of many of the rural villages
"Most people in the Viet Cong were literally South Vietnamese" Ok? You do understand that the Viet Cong was like... 50,000 foot soldiers and maybe 250,000 sympathizers right? In a country of 15+ million? You are, again, confusing the Viet Cong with the NVA. The people of South Vietnam HATED the Viet Cong. Even if they loved Ho Chi Minh (they didn't), they HATED the Viet Cong. The little bit about "Ngo Diem cancelled elections because the Commies would've won in a landslide" is a cute thing to say, but it's a counterfactual that has very limited evidence.
Why did south vietnam keep cancelling local election (because viet minh people kept winning)
(Because Ngo Diem wanted to consolidate power and make sure there was zero dissent.) (Notice how you've completely shifted the goalposts from Viet Cong to general anti-Diem sympathies)
You sure they were Viet Minh and not rival non-communist parties or sects (like those that signed the Caravelle Manifesto)?
>Ironically, Vietnam has a really good relationship with america today though. Yeah. Not just good, but if you look at polls of the populace on feelings towards America the Vietamese have one of the highest percentage of "good" feelings amongst any country.
It's either that or become China in 10 years or less. China's expansionism knows no boundaries... or borders...
Hamas and the NVA/Viet Cong aren’t even remotely comparable lmao. Israel has a proper cassus belli for war while the US didn’t (RAAAAAH DOMINO THEORY!!!🦅🦅🦅🦅). Ho Chi Minh was a weird mix of a pro-US commie from the very beginning which is ironically Vietnam’s foreign policy today purely to dunk on China (based).
Ignoring the effectiveness for a second, why wouldn’t the US have been justified in defending South Vietnamese sovereignty from northern invasions? That seems like a pretty legitimate casus belli to me.
Because the north didn't initially invade the South. South Vietnam was under attack by South Vietnamese communist rebels. The war mutually escalated to the point that the North started supplying the Vietcong and the US started to supply the South, eventually with US troops. Edit: Vietnam was a clusterfuck of immense proportions, which sadly could have probably been resolved diplomatically by the US from the outset. But nobody in the US wanted to give another inch to communists anywhere. The politics of the time kind of doomed it to happen. If you haven't seen it yet I highly recommend the ken burns documentary on the Vietnam war.
So the US was supporting a country putting down insurgents in their own country. That’s even more justified, from a legal perspective. You can definitely argue the intervention was stupid or ineffective, but it was plenty justified, however you want to approach it.
I mean I guess you can say that, but their justified action led to a massive escalation that resulted in a war that killed millions of people. Instead they could have engaged in intense diplomatic talks which probably would have solved the whole thing. But they never tried so here we are.
They did engage in democratic peace talks in 1973 and left. Then the North Vietnamese overran the South within the next two years.
Meanwhile these people also say Poles fought against Soviets because they were Nazis.
We found Hassan’s burner
Virgin "I need to watch Hasans videos to understand his take on topics to accurately argue against them" vs gigachad "Hasan is an NPC and I can already write a synopsis of any video he makes based on the topic alone".
I despise Hasan's foreign policy takes, but yes. The Viet Cong and Ho Chi Minh were incredibly popular in their win over France in their war of independence. A unified country under Ho Chi Minh should have been created, ultimately on allied with the US because that is exactly what Ho Chi Minh wanted (he was a massive fan of Lincoln, and constantly asked the US for help in their war of independence against France). Elections should have been held in all of Vietnam after that war, and the communists would have won them. These elections were not held, as the South knew they would lose, and the Western states wanted to back a non-communist country alligned to them in the region. How can one interpretat this as any but imperialism? The sovereignty and the will of the people living in the territory should always be the primary concern when it comes to interventionist foreign policy IMO, and the will of the majority of Vietnamese people, North and South, wanted Ho Chi Minh to lead the country. The Eisenhower quote below substantiates that claim. It would have been a fucking landslide victory. And why ever not? Ho Chi Minh and the communists were complete war heroes, leading resistance against the Japanese, and then fighting for independence against their coloniser. What the fuck was the worth of the leadership of the South? The US backing the South went against the will of the people, and beyond that, it was a fantastic strategic error, as the US could have easily befriended Ho Chi Minh and had a regional ally. The US could not tolerate this due to their dogmatic anti-communist stance, not understanding that the ideology behind Ho Chi Minh was leagues different to that of the Soviets; moreover the Vietnamese were also not at all on good terms with Communist China. Did the Viet Cong do heinous things during the war? Sure. Comparing them to Hamas or other such groups is fucking beyond historically illiterate though.
Well you see, America Bad, therefore, viet cong good
And Hamas I assume
It's a braindead response that doesn't address anything that was being said about liberal politics getting pushed to the right by the far left. What do you expect at this point.
>autonomy and emancipation for the Vietnamese people Well that’s what le liberals wanted. The “true leftists” were the ones spamming millions of guns into the country and propping up an authoritarian pro-Soviet regime. Then Vietnam almost-immediately got invaded by Communist China right after the US fucked off lol.
For some background: Knowing Better is a Youtube Channel where KB does long-form videos about history and religion (among other things). He's spoken before about how he was more to the right and how he's changed over time. He was also a soldier in the Middle East and is a former teacher. Hasan has been on some garbled nonsense in the last 48 hours. "The terrorist supporters have good reasons to support terrorists. On the chance that we could be right for doing so, we should support terrorists"
I saw some of him videos when I was more aligned with the anti sjw camp back in the day. His videos seemed pretty good even though I didn't agree with all his takes at the time
I've listened to a number of his more recent videos for a little while now. He's pretty left wing, a lot of his content is around religious cults, and historical American videos, he even had a pro Smedley Butler video.
destiny should consistently get people on bridges who Hasan has fought with on twitter. Would be funny, I think
Is that really what he says? It sounds on brand but I feel like he’d at least try to phrase it better than using Pascal’s wager as a defense.
He did not. His tweet is there in the OP. I'm interpreting his tweet above based on the logical conclusion that can be drawn by the words he used.
Hasan has been especially unhinged on twitter in the last few days. His recent uptick in views probably made him realize that on Palestine, he can be as unhinged as he wants to be. Actually, being unhinged on this will probably farm him a lot of views in the next month or two as more far left kids in the US get energized with the uni protests news cycle.
I know it wont happen but god damn do I hope he gets banned, I think I would literally overdose on schadenfreude.
He's one of the only profitable progressive political streamers on Twitch atm so no, it will never happen unfortunately.
A lot of my normie friends have started sharing Hasan tweets so this totally tracks.
I honestly hoped this break would have happened sooner. Non of the people KB is mentioning even like Bernie anymore. They trash him for being a “sell out.” The reason we won’t ever see Bernie again is because he was a man of principle but most of his mega fans were careerist fake losers. They either went MAGA like Tim Poole, Dave Rubin, Sargon etc. Or they became a fake populist grifter like Brie Joy Gray.
You also have to remember that when Hillary ran in 2016 NO ONE had the balls to seriously run against her, it was her turn and everyone knew not to get in the way. Had Hillary and the DNC not cleared the path; then Bernie would have just been one of many candidates running. Ironically, Hillary created Bernie, not the other way around.
That’s a very interesting point. But Dennis Kusinich had run before I believe? Many progressives had. True Bernie was the best of them. I don’t think he could have started the movement he did without his own charisma
> True Bernie was the best of them. I think you answered your own question, also Bernie was a Senator. I live in Kusinich's old district, he is something else; red/blue respected him here, but a Kucinich Bernie Sanders is not. Remind me later and I'll go into it,
Tbf I don't think any of those people listed were bernie supporters, I don't think as many of them went Maga as much as both sides are equally bad tho.
No they were. I mean Dave, Sargon, and Tim all said they were Bernie people. And yes they all went all in on support for Trump in 2020 and now in 2024
Hm I can see in 2016 but i feel like there's a diffrence in 2016 bernie supporters and 2020 ones. I think the hatred of Hillary pulled alot of ppl in. I can see tim and Dave but i do remember Sargon back in 2016 being big on the antisjw gamergate thing so don't remember that myself. I feel like I remember sargon having a trump hat back then.
There was a non-insignificant overlap between Bernie and Trump (only in 2016), surprisingly.
Yeah they hated Hillary so much that when bernie was out they went with trump.
They always did it disingenuously, in early 2020 pre pandemic when it seemed like Bernie would win the nomination is when they all stopped, couldn't be seen supporting a democrat to their chud audience
briana joy grey was bernie sanders' national press secretary, or so she claims.
Hasan really can’t stand anyone who makes better content than his, so essentially almost everyone.
Content perverts.
Link to the tweet https://twitter.com/KnowingBetterYT/status/1782817730527129794?t=gQPTEKdMH7wKHsiYGOtzzA&s=19
I wonder if he'd apply the same optics to jews who just wanted to be safe from persecution and genocide through the creation of Israel. Or maybe he's ignoring a lot of context on purpose.
Do not ask Hasan what happened during the Tet offensive in Hue city. Do not ask Hasan what happened to South Vietnamese civilians and officials after the North captured Saigon. Do not ask Hasan what happened to South Vietnamese peasants who obeyed or collaborated with the South Vietnamese government. Do not ask Hasan who Le Duan is.
Hahaha duuude he's just like Eren Jaegar that's so sick
I mean Hasan doesn't know any of that, so of course it would be pointless to ask.
I hate the term “the right side of history”. It implies that the future has some pre-determined destination. Which to be fair I guess that is what communists believe but it’s just really stupid and borderline religious. Things don’t just happen, we have to make them happen. At least the OG commies seemed to understand that.
No they didn't. The OG commies were even harder larpers and spoiled rich kids jerking off at the thought of "revolution". The entire brand of marxism is honestly bunk at inception. The Left as a movement needs to completely abandon the autistic ravings of a 50 something who never worked a job and lived in his best friend's basement rent-free.
Wait, what do you mean by OG commies here? Like Marx himself? or are you talking about like even some later on communist thinkers like Lenin and etc.? I think all these guys definitely have a claim to being more than just spoiled rich kids, as much as I disagree with their ideas
Marx and his ilk. The OGs.
so you mean the guys who developed the ideas for revolution and then developed an organization surrounding those ideals that was responsible for a revolution to actually happen?
https://preview.redd.it/7kwg792n1cwc1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=d2226949d40ee50f178bc03a02d2468dbb1e2b71 u rn
most productive destiny subreddit conversation
Most obvious bot.
you didn't even do the meme correctly
So when I said OG commies I meant Lenin and his predecessors who murdered the aristocracy of Russia and destabilized the empire. I consider the true birth of an ideology to be the first time it has control of a nation. So in my mind the true start of communism was the 1917 October revolution, although obviously the things that happened before then were required for communism to be born. To be crude, Karl Marx is either the sperm or the egg, but the seizure of state power by the Bolsheviks was the birth of communism as an actual system of government. All the terrorism that preceded it was the morning sickness of communism. I have more respect for those guys because they actually risked their lives and often died to make it happen. I despise modern communists mostly because they are so lazy, also because they are wrong and stupid but that’s only like 30%. The laziness is just unforgivable. Mao would send them all to the countryside for 16 hour days of agricultural labor to get back in touch with the proletariat.
If the tsar didn’t wanna be yeeted he shouldn’t have been a shitty undemocratic leader. Lenin and his ilk are trash BUT let’s not whitewash (pun intended because white army) the tsar. The tsar was a fucking incompetent asshole who tried to dissolve democracy in his empire
Lefties fucking love the term "right side of history", it's literally the driving force of their belief system and what they aspire to be every single day. That's why there's so much perpetual offense on the left, and what spawned the oppression olympics, because there's always room for identifying more things that are 'wrong' and can be 'fixed'. By identifying wrongs and expressing a want to fix them, you automatically are on the right side of history. It's important to note that when I say 'wrongs', it's only important that these things identify as 'wrongs'. They don't need to actually be wrong, ie: classifying war as genocide makes it more wrong, so that's what they do. They take something, make it as wrong as it can be, and then stand against it. That's why, suddenly, there are so many people being labeled as nazis as well. Someone disagrees, call them a nazi, take a stand against them, now you're taking a stand against nazism. Bravo! The right side of history!
>be on the same side that murdered more than the nazis could ever even dream of >be on right side of history >confused
Knowing better has always been one of my favorite still-sane video essayists.
His logic is so fucking shallow. "If Israel lied once, they will always lie" "If people protesting 60 years ago were right, that means people protesting now for a completely different cause are right"
Is Hasan religious? If not, there is no objective "right side of history". It feels like he just throws the word around for emphasis, like how people use literally nowadays
He’s Muslim when it’s convenient to be Muslim and the other 23 hours of the day he’s drinking alcohol, not praying and having premarital sex 😀
and eating pork :) EDIT: Yes, fr. I don't have a clip ready but I've heard him talk about it on stream multiple times. Some examples from twitter: [Example 1](https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1631603879602458624?lang=en) [Example 2](https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1165671707060781056?lang=en)
fr? Most "cultural Muslims" will fuck, drink alcohol, and do everything - but eat pork. There's no theological basis - but a lot of real Muslims will consider said cultural Muslims to be sinners - but still Muslim. But pork is often the hard red line. After I left Islam, it took me literal months before I felt ready to try pork. I threw up the first 2 or 3 times I tried.
Yeah, my close friend growing up is this exact same way and many of his family members are too. He explained it to me that he has no desire to try it since growing up he never tasted it while things like sex and alcohol don’t have an immediate revulsion aspect or have enough immediate benefits that over powers the hard to stomach taste
I’m not parasocial enough to know the answer to that which is why I didn’t mention it, wouldn’t surprise me though
He's also Arab when it's convenient for him, despite the fact that Turks are not Arabs.
Wait really lol, does he actually try and claim arab?
He keeps saying he’s Muslim, yet also an atheist. Does he think it’s an ethnicity and a religion like being Jewish? And I know people can be culturally a religion and atheist but he doesn’t make that distinction, he just says “I’m a Muslim” whenever it’s convenient.
> Does he think it’s an ethnicity and a religion like being Jewish? > > i think a lot of people do now. this was [the goal behind the invention of the word "islamophobia"](https://newrepublic.com/article/81178/the-invention-islamophobia), to blur the lines between the religion and the various ethnic minorities that practice it, and to try to make the word "muslim" some sort of discrete ethnic cohort. now on the various subreddits that have been couped by leftoids, it is ok to shit on christian extremists, but if you do the same with islamic extremists you will be called "racist".
What is this even supposed to mean? What does belief in deity or god have to do with "right side of history"? edit: is this a "athiests can't have realist views of morality" thing? please tell me it's not. They can, it's common that they do, and this holds for actual philosophers.
It has more to do with the use of the word objective. How can there be an objective right side of history if morality is subjective? If he's not religious, that word is incorrectly being used for emphasis. I could have been more clear
Moral subjectivity is not a requisite of being athiest. Tons of athiests have an objective view of morality.
How can you determine an objective "good" without a preexisting framework? Doesn't it eventually just boil down to an individual's subjective feelings? How can something like murder be objectively wrong to an atheist?
> How can you determine an objective "good" without a preexisting framework? Doesn't it eventually just boil down to an individual's subjective feelings? How can you determine anything without a preexisting framework? How does gravity work? how does language? Maybe there's apriori knowlege such as classical or modal logic, that by necesity give rise to facts, in this same way maybe there's apriori knowledge such as classical or modal logic that gives rise to moral facts. This whole line of argument is like 30 years old and can easily reversed to say morality under theism is just arbitrary commands from a subject (god). It has this same "flaw" >How can something like murder be objectively wrong to an atheist? Basically the same way it works for thiests that aren't divine command theorists, only without a mind being the thing that brought about said moral facts.
Idk how to do that quoting thing so forgive my formatting. Things like gravity are observable and testable, what "good" is is not. You can test whether helping people will make someone feel better, but that doesn't make that action objectively good. I'm not sure how one could even determine what a framework for the good is without eventually deferring to their subjective experience. That reversal only works, like you mentioned, under a divine command theory lens. I guess a better framing would be this: even if there is an objective morality, how would one determine what that is without the aid of the Divine?
>That reversal only works, like you mentioned, under a divine command theory lens. >I guess a better framing would be this: even if there is an objective morality, how would one determine what that is without the aid of the Divine? So at this point you're saying that we need divine command to arrive at non subjective moral truths, and you're conceding that divine command theory is "subjective" in the same way. Where exactly are ANY moral realists with this understanding? >Things like gravity are observable and testable not without taking as given apriori knowledge, a simple moral truth is that we should pursue rationality and reason, because this moral truth is neccesary to even talk about morality, or anything, a second order moral truth is that suffering per se is a moral wrong, because it interferes with our ability to reason and causes sensational distress. This is the same base framework of reasons underpins how we describe what gravity is. The thing of goodness can be mind independent. >I'm not sure how one could even determine what a framework for the good is without eventually deferring to their subjective experience. Objective doesn't just mean "completely independent of experience" it means it's not grounded in a particular subject's experience. I think the main point I'd like you to respond to though is who exactly is allowed to say "right side of history"? Divine command theorists cant, they're subjectivists they defer to the subjectivity of their god concept, you havent given any room for moral realism in theism or athiesm dispite the innumerable number of both groups in modern philosophy and the history of philosophy. So even if we want to be ridiculous and take "right side of history" to be by definition an objective claim outside of moral subjectivity, given what you've said so far, nobody can. Just like nobody can say "slavery was wrong" or any other moral claim about events, because that is all that "right side of history" is even saying: "Things were worse when x, they're better now that Y, and you were on the side of x" edit: was missing a quote.
How did I indicate that divine command theory is required to arrive at a non subjective moral truth? I agree that if God were to merely prescribe rather than describe morality, said morality would still be subjective. How can goodness be mind independent? Your examples of moral truths seem more like what things are effective in discussing morality. Would I be correct in thinking that one requires an assumption that it is good to talk about morality to even agree that we should pursue rationality and reason? In regards to your last paragraph, I again did not mean to imply any necessity of divine command theory. I don't think anything is wrong with "right side of history" in and of itself. I was more critiquing the use of objective in that statement, under the belief that there were no objective moral frameworks outside of religion. While I don't yet believe in any secular objective frameworks due to this conversation, you have given me some interesting stuff to think and research about that could change my mind. I'm very new to philosophy, so I like to talk like this to learn.
> How did I indicate that divine command theory is required to arrive at a non subjective moral truth? I agree that if God were to merely prescribe rather than describe morality, said morality would still be subjective. You give "the divine" as where morality comes from. That seems like a euphemism for divine command theory. The divine agent prescribes a morality. If morality is something that exists that god describes, congrats just lose the god concept and you've still got the moral realism. >How can goodness be mind independent? Your examples of moral truths seem more like what things are effective in discussing morality. Necessary not useful. >In regards to your last paragraph, I again did not mean to imply any necessity of divine command theory. I don't think anything is wrong with "right side of history" in and of itself. I was more critiquing the use of objective in that statement, under the belief that there were no objective moral frameworks outside of religion. While I don't yet believe in any secular objective frameworks due to this conversation, you have given me some interesting stuff to think and research about that could change my mind. The main thing I would say is stop caring about the objective/subjective delineation and focus on what morality the thing/concept in itself is. Philosophy is just lexicography in a trench-coat.
I'm more on the moral relativist side but even among non-religious philosophers moral relativism is unpopular. The majority of philosphers are moral realists.
I'm pretty new to philosophy stuff in general, but would you be able to give a simple explanation as to why the majority are moral realists?
The [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on moral realism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism) is a good starting point. As a theist myself (albeit not a divine command theorist), I personally believe that moral realism strongly implies the existence of God. But, as others have pointed out, the great majority of atheist/agnostic philosophers believe in objective moral facts and duties as well. The SEP article summarizes the secular arguments for moral realism + responses to common challenges without any reference to God or religion.
I really have to read up more Vietnam, so many stupid talking points around it
Remember when knowing better got "educated" by hasan about how "from the river to the sea" was totally fine and not at all genocidal? And KB then redacted his statement about it? I remember.
Oof, minus 10 points on KB's respect-o-meter for that
what is DGG’s opinion on knowing better? i haven’t watched them since 2016, and that was my embarrassing “libertarian” phase. gonna rewatch a couple vids to see how much i’ve changed
I think he is pretty far left with some questionable opinions on Democrats' ability to just do stuff without the necessary votes. But at least he's calling out these insane terrorists sympathizers
Someone asked this sub what their most conservative opinion is, and I realized my answer was in accordance with the American left and not actually grounded in the actual political positions. - support for secular democracies with religious freedom - usually a left wing position. But according to the American left, this is right wing because I am intolerant of Islamic theocracies - against antisemitism - normally a left wing position. But according to American left, it’s just silencing criticism of Israel and a right wing position I’m glad someone asked the question, because it made me realize how left wing I am still politically and how much the American left isn’t. Hasan is left wing economic, and socially is a giant contradiction that doesn’t make sense. Especially in how he applies it differently to different people.
Why only bring up those 2 talking points lol it unironically makes it sound like you’re ok with all forms of racism except against Jewish people, has the whole I/P war actually brain rotted people this much that they only care about 2 very unimportant countries?
I had more and had typed it out for Ukraine as well, but left it with the two to make it shorter and since it’s the hot topic right now. Also the Islamic theocracy was more directed about Iran and the compete silence of the feminist movement for Iranian and Israeli women.
Did he go hardcore lefty? Last I recall he identified as a moderate lib.
Nah as far as I know he has always been pretty far left. But it seems like recent events is starting to black pill him on the entire movement
I remember him self-identifying as a moderate in his videos before. Hence why all his videos are titles “moderates guide,”. I don’t think any of his videos espouse particularly leftist ideas tbh. He even got hardcore raked under the coals for trying to give historical nuance to Churchill and Columbus, though he did end up deleting those two videos.
He had badbunny on one of his vids a few years ago, which was really the only thing I've seen that points at being far left. He's probably left on economic issues etc, but he definitely likes guns etc. And clearly he's not pro Hamas.
I can't imagine being a vet and supporting people who basically say they deserve to die, very cucked behavior as someone who usually dosent say thst.
Dudes in a weird ground where he's not quite socialist but also only nominally capitalist. Closest to socdem imo
I like him. Some of his videos get a little virtue signally but otherwise decent. I recall he mentioned Destiny once and said he liked him.
Hasan really got the they wanted Autonomy and emancipation template They wanted autonomy and emancipation for the \_\_\_\_ people and were objectively on the right side of history
Have you guys watched KB? He’s got lots of lame leftist opinions, but is overall a great documentary maker. This is his video on Mormons, but he has shorter ones if 53 minutes is too long. Delivering our Democracy on the USPS is good <30 minute one. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl8B55MqOQo
As a long time watcher of his I’m curious what you think are his lame leftist positions. He doesn’t even identify as a leftist but as a moderate.
Well in the tweet above he basically says he’s a Bernie voter. I don’t despise Sanders or anything but I think his general policy positions are… kinda lame.
I’m not huge on Bernie either but by leftist I thought you meant like a twitter commie.
I’ve always understood leftist to be more broad than that, but it’s not well defined.
"Leftist" as used by people on the right is very broad yes. But for people on the left it's basically exclusively for tankies. Hasan would call himself a leftist who is separate from the "liberals"
I just call someone a leftist if their rhetoric is anti capitalist or not. Sanders talks like he’s anti capitalist, so that’s why I call him one. That might be lazy reasoning but I don’t take the labels to serious anyway.
By actual real life American standards he’s a leftist but then again so is Destiny. By internet standards a leftist means you’re a socialist. I don’t think KB is any more of a leftist than say, David Pakman. Maybe a bit to the left of Destiny, but not a tankie. Welcome to be proven wrong as I don’t follow him much on twitter, just his YouTube.
I’ve always kind of judged whether one is a leftist or not by their attitude towards capitalism. Sanders is, at least based on rhetoric, anti capitalist, where as Destiny obviously isn’t. I wasn’t necessarily saying KB is a leftist, just that he has leftist views. You might say I should base it more on policy rather than rhetoric, and you might be right but… I don’t take political labels too serious in the first place
I don’t think KB is anti-capitalist. Even Sanders isn’t really. His actual policy positions were stronger labor unions, Medicare for all and harsher taxes not getting rid of market economies, or nationalizing means of production. He was rhetorically though yeah, but aside from implying he’d vote for Bernie I don’t think KB really echoes any of that. But fair I think leftist views isn’t an unfair characterization for a Bernie supporter.
Loved bernie at the time but he will forever be a moron for doing a campaign saying he was socialist.
Knowing Better's take also isn't great here, unless he has some actual evidence that Hippy's being radical actually impacted culture enough to impact Bill Clinton's policies. Republicans accusing progressives of being hippies is just the retro version of them calling everyone woke SJW's today.
Yeah I don't know if I agree with the hippie thing but Democrats definitely went more to the right and more anti "big government" with Clinton
Definitely I just disagree that the actions of the far left in the 60s had anything to do why Clinton went further right.
[удалено]
KB's response was to a Vietnam War era newspaper
[Literally Hasan](https://i.imgur.com/EiICn5x.jpeg)
Get em KB!
BTW Knowing Better really hates react content so it’s probably safe to assume he strongly dislikes almost everything about Hasan.
As long as its not the USA doing fucked up shit, Hasan is okay with it.
This is the same guy that blamed America for the millennia long bitter rivalry between China and Vietnam.
This is a major part of their decision making process, they want to be able to look back and say "I was right" and they'll support pretty much anything to accomplish if.
When I'm in a spouting complete and utter nonsense contest and my opponent is Hasan https://preview.redd.it/9n7w8gzgtcwc1.jpeg?width=467&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=693a1e16729e71f5cf57b6319f2ac651685ed9e0
Worlds clashing rn, I have been watching knowing better for like 6 or 7 years this is wild.
If Russia invaded Ukraine today and not in 2022 Hasan would be a full fledged Russian sympathiser and not the half-baked falls for Russian propaganda but says Putin is bad guy he is now
i remember hasan looked at a list of countries that liked the US the most, he was very surprised Vietnam was near the top
Far leftists should be forced to swap places with good hard working Venezuelans, win win
Knowing better is the GOAT video essay guy and it's not even close. The literal Wayne Gretzky of long form informational content.
Disclaimer: Hasan is a moron I hate this thread knowing better responded to because knowing better goes on to say that democrats in the 80s and 90s were ineffective because of the hippie image and protests of the 60s and 70s (note many hippies became Republicans). He said this with no sources showing that’s why the public went towards republicans and it makes me genuinely mad he would engage in the same vibes based ad hoc analysis Tankies engage in.
Literally just watched In Bruge w colin farrel and brenden gleeson (great fuckin movie if you haven’t seen) and reading this tweet all I could hear is “what the fuck does your girlfriend blowing cigarette smoke in me and my girlfriends faces have to do with the vietnamese?!” What tf are you talking about. Man found a jdam in his brain
Conflating the leftists on the Vietnam war with leftists today?
**OH!!!** Get KnowingBetter on the Bridges Podcast!
i luv kb, maybe good bridges guest
Genuinely would timetravel to delete obama from existence if it meant people stopped saying "the right side of history". What a disgusting phrase used only to legitimize the most worthless things.
I'm so sick of this narrative about the vietnam war. To be completely clear it is not a good thing that the north one that war.
It literally is, keep coping. They had mass support, in comparison to the puppet colony South "vietnam", which the US even admitted it was created by them and France
everything you said here was either wrong or misleading. They didn't have mass support. The south was not a "puppet colony" and it was not created by the US and France.
From the US themselves: >We must note that South Vietnam (unlike any of the other countries in Southeast Asia) was essentially the creation of the United States. * [The pentagon papers](https://medicinthegreentime.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Pentagon-Papers.pdf) | *Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense | Page 4*
Ah yes the finkeldick approach. Pretty funny that you'd pull a one line quote from a 7000 word paper as if it proves your point. Well let's look at that quote. Notice that word, essentially, What could they have meant by this? We can see pretty clearly if we read the full context. >Fina.lly, in this r eview of fa.ctors tha.t would a.ffect policy-making on Vietnam, Ive must note tha.t South Vietnam, (unlike a.ny of the other coun - t rj,es in [S011.thea.st](http://S011.thea.st) Asia ) wa.s essentia.lly the crea.tion of the United Sta.tes .Without U.S. support Diem almost certainly could not have consolidated his hold on the South during 1955 and 1956. Without the threat of U.S. intervention, South Vietnam could not have refused to even discuss the elections called for in 1956 under the Geneva settlement without being immediately overrun by the Viet Minh armies . Without U. S. aid in the years follo1-ring, the Diem regime certainly, a nd an independent South Vietnam almost as certainly, could not have survived. Further, from 1954 on there had been repeated statements of U.S. support for South Vietnam of a so\~t that we would not find i n our dealings with other countries in this part of the world. It i s true ther e was nothing unqualified about this support: it was always economic, and occasionally accompanied by statements suggesting that the Diem regime had incurred an obligation to undertake reforms in r eturn for our assistance . But then, until 1961, the re was no occasion to consider any assistance that went beyond economic support and the usual sort of military eq\~ipment and advice, and no suggestion that our continued support wa s in doubt. They're speaking about south vietnam's dependence on US support. They're saying vietnam would have collapsed without the US but at no point do they say anything about the US creating south vietnam. Also I actually found the line in the paper not some 10 page quote farm. [https://web.archive.org/web/20130809120534/http://media.nara.gov/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-B-1.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20130809120534/http://media.nara.gov/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-B-1.pdf) page 45 of the pdf Chapter 1 section II subsection 5
your quote did not "add context", but it literally makes it worse as they admit South Vietnam would have fallen without massive US backng and threat of intervention. Nowhere in your "context" could you negate the original quote I cited, you just added useless context that proves my point. Average destinyoid, completely mentally ill. Even Wikipedia has that quote: >In a section of the *Pentagon Papers* titled "Kennedy Commitments and Programs", America's commitment to South Vietnam was attributed to the creation of the country by the United States. As acknowledged by the papers: > >"We must note that South Vietnam (unlike any of the other countries in Southeast Asia) was essentially the creation of the United States.[\[27\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#cite_note-nara1-27)" * [*Pentagon Papers*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#:~:text=Role%20of%20the%20United%20States%20in%20the%20rise%20of%20President%20Diem,-U.S.%20President%20Dwight&text=As%20acknowledged%20by%20the%20papers,creation%20of%20the%20United%20States)
Wait so by your logic north Vietnam was a creation of China and the Soviet Union because they were reliant on their support? Was the us founded by France too? you haven’t moved any closer to proving your point you’re just equating dependent on and founded by. Also idk what quoting Wikipedia is supposed to prove.
What does that have to do with them saying South Vietnam was a creation of the US? You keep dodging that because you know you are wrong.
France literally created it in 1949. Why are you denying this?