> Because if someone has mostly bad opinions, you have to wonder if he managed to have just one good one or if this is a bad opinion too.

You are arguing for ignoring the content of an opinion, and only evaluating it only by the association of people who agree or don't agree with it?

So, tribalism as the only acceptable form of reasoning?

My assumption when I write comments on HN is that readers can make opinions for themselves. Perhaps that's a bad assumption? I don't have to agree with an article to post it on HN, why should I have to agree with everything a youtube channel produces to post one of their videos? I doubt I would be able to post almost anything as I have opinions about a variety of subjects, it's very unlikely I will align with anyone on all of them.

How about you watch the video and let me know what's objectionable about it specifically?

What's objectionable?

After 5 seconds, it does the exact thing which I expected it to after only looking at the titles of his other videos. Grossly misrepresenting positions to make them look similar enough to "both sides" the issue so he can present himself as an "enlightened centrist" but really is looking to quiet people who would call him out on his problematic opinions.

It's a lot like your "assumption". You're trying to present your position as a "gee golly jeez, I'm just asking questions" being sort of overly, even comically naive about content you wish others to consume.

You're also asking people to be able to refute the entire video or not voice their objections. To ignore the context of the channel. Blah blah blah. The entire "foot in the door" approach to radicalization.

I personally don't believe your claim that you don't watch the channel. Otherwise, why even post a disclaimer? The only reason to post a disclaimer is because you kind of know what to expect from his channel. Either because the video itself is telling (it is) or you know what the rest of the content of the video would show (not great).

So please, stop with the disingenuous positions. A good number of people here are savvy enough to see through it.

I've watched a lot of his stuff and even seen him perform stand up. He has made a career in calling out the hypocrisies of the left, usually in an absurd way. Behind the ridiculous presentations are usually fairly well thought out points.

Occasionally he takes on the far right as well. The problem being that it's just too easy and boring to do that.

Except it doesnt even resemble what the left believes

this is a good breakdown https://youtu.be/m0ZDHgD9084?t=950

Thanks for the reasoned alternative perspective. He misses the whole point of the video though, which is:

Emphasizing race as the most important determinant of an individual is regressive, not progressive.

It's possible for a reactionary agenda to fall prey to the errors of its foe, and that's exactly what's happening with anti-racism today.

The only way to move forward is to tackle racism with explicitly non-racist policies, not anti-racist ones.

Thats true, which is why most of the left has adopted intersectionality, which says an individual is the sum total of their experiences, rather than this or that identity

This guy just plays further into the tropes that the original video was mocking.

In what way?

Doubling down on the idea that both racists and wokists center everything around race and are unable to think about people as individuals outside of shallow racial generalizations.