I'd like to preface this video by saying that I apologize for the bad audio quality. My mic isn't very good
So I'm just working with what I got.
Oh boy, do we have a good one here for you folks today!
none other than InfoWars' resident Paul Joseph Watson
is here yet again to wreck some feminazis with facts and logic!
For those of you who may not know there's been a recent trend of far-right
Politicians having milkshakes thrown at them in England, such as Tommy Robinson, Carl Benjamin, AKA Sargon of Akkad,
And Nigel Farage. Naturally this has outraged the right wing, claiming that the left is condoning political violence and that they're all the same
brand of society ruining degenerate.
It may come as a shock to you to learn that the recent video Paul Joseph Watson published about it may not be
completely accurate or well structured.
I'm also going to show as much of it as I can but I would happily encourage the folks in the audience to watch just
So you know I'm not taking him out of context. Let's get started.
"Now I'm not trying to be mean."
(HAHAHA)
Dude that's exactly what you're doing
This whole video is just you making low-brow jabs. Just admit that you're here to crack some dumb jokes and move forward.
"But why do they always look the same?"
Paul then proceeds to show a montage of the varying left-wing protesters and viral video stars who he's gladly
lampooned for their behavior and, more to the theme of this video, their appearance.
He also makes some references to this beloved soy face meme,
despite how that was proven to be false on multiple occasions.
And that he didn't exactly take being refuted very well.
"LET ME DEMONSTRATE THIS IN AN OBNOXIOUS 30 MINUTE YOUTUBE RESPONSE VIDEO!"
Editor at large of infowars.com there.
Clearly behaving like someone who definitely isn't mad that they got owned online,
and just wants to have a reasonable conversation about the facts.
"They've all got that... look!"
I'm just gonna warn you all right now, I'm gonna be using this point of mine a lot,
since most of Paul's video is recycling the same "argument", so I'll get it out of the way now.
How exactly does this credit your discussion? If you want to whine about how the leftists are wrong,
then it'd be one thing but, ad hominem attacks are literal fallacy.
Mocking someone's appearance and virtually nothing else does nothing except cheapen your own point.
Not to mention ignoring some blatant double standards that some folks on the right...
...ain't exactly models themselves.
"Is it just that weirdos on any political fringe are generally speaking,
scruffy losers who have no regard for their physical health or their appearance or is there something more
specific about lefties that gives them that
passive-aggressive, open-mouthed, smiley yet terrified,
beta nu-male presence?"
Now, on top of once again not really being a logical point,
Paul also contradicts himself in the same sentence by starting off saying that "these bad appearances and health could be(long) to ANY fringe,"
only to immediately backpedal and say or "is there something about those lefties?"
"But because at least in the case of the men they've got such low energy as a result of deficient
testosterone levels, combined with an inherent revulsion to any kind of personal responsibility,
it's like their NPC hipster coding has failed and they've had to settle for some kind of neckbeard
mongrel-like halfway house. Also, I don't want to revive a dead meme."
Ohhhh yes you do.
in fact, that's literally what you spend the remainder of this video doing.
Not only once again trying to regurgitate a point that even the people you tried to cite for it think you're wrong about,
"it's a lie peddled to an undiscerning audience based on bad science
based on bad science that he got from someone who went on to say that they think he's wrong."
But also you're completely weaseling by trying to say "I don't want to talk about it, but it just keeps coming up!"
Paul.
Buddy.
You very clearly want to talk about it, so just talk about it.
PJW: "So this antifa supporter who owns a brewery in the UK
Tweeted that he'd like to see his customers smash bricks over people's heads for having a different opinion!"
Paul misconstrues the point right away by saying that this brewery owner wanted to attack only people that
they disagree with, when it's literally right in the tweet that they wanted to attack fascists,
something that has a definition you can pull up. I sincerely doubt that this person thinks ONLY
People they disagree with are fascists. Also, whose article are you citing there?
Ah.
Don't break an arm jerking yourself off there Paul.
PJW: " in the process completely ruining his business's reputation"
Well, yeah? any company that gets involved in political matters is always gonna have backlash of some kind.
That's not new. You pitched a fit over Gillette positioning themselves on the topic of masculinity and manliness.
Meanwhile, folks such as myself still don't need a Chick-Fil-A because of their anti-LGBT positions.
"After openly inciting violence,  the idiot then whined about getting a mean email. Boohoo."
At this point, I need to start keeping count of how many double standards you have Paul, because
they may cancel each other out if I actually want to do the math on them. Why is it that a brewery owner
who called for violence against fascists gets a "boohoo" for getting backlash for that,
But you're ready to rush to the defense of Tommy Robinson,
someone who has an actual history of literal violence?
Paul then proceeds to rant about the soy thing once again,
though at least one thing is of note here.
PJW: "Soy consumption, soy face"
"Soy consumption, soy face."
"Soy consumption, soy face."
Huh. So taking a random photo you found of someone eating or drinking and making a face
is enough to pass off as an argument now?
I wonder if there's anyone I could apply that to?
Soy consumption, soy face.
"Why do they always choose soy? It's like it's some kind of signalling device to other soy boys."
Literally no one gave two shits about any of this soy crap until you tried to start and pass off this "soy boy" stuff.
I'm a leftist, sure, that doesn't mean Kikkoman is how I communicate with my fellow leftists.
I'd also like to remind everyone here that Paul totally,
DEFINITELY, didn't want to mention all this soy stuff again.
You know, the soy stuff he's been ranting about since the halfway mark on this video? That soy stuff.
"I don't want to revive a dead meme."
(Price is Right loss horn)
"And I'm not saying that every man has to conform to some idealized muscle-bound
hyper-masculine stereotype, but when mainstream culture rushes to the defense of
nu-males who weep over shitty Star Wars trailers,
Something's gone drastically wrong."
Oh dear, people enjoying things. It's the downfall of society.
Those men who watch a science fiction movie will doom us all, I say.
Dooooooooom.
Side note:  a very valid critique of Paul's point that's been around since he tried to peddle this soy lie in the first place is
how he thinks that masculinity and political beliefs are threatened by a fucking plant, but somehow we're the beta males?
Paul says men don't have to be some masculine stereotype, which I actually agree with,
the only difference is I actually believe that, whereas Paul dodges around that by saying men don't HAVE to
be hyper-masculine, they just can't do something as simple as consume products made from a legume.
Paul then goes on a brief rant about how men with low testosterone smile more,
which is debatable at the scientific level, and just a null and void argument on the political level.
Just remember boys you don't have to be hyper masculine, you just can't smile or consume a plant.
"The chimp-like gesture of asexual submission to more dominant males."
(Wii menu music)
Ohohoho, Anthony Fantano made that short little montage of soy face dudes.
Would Paul have any reason to be mad at the Internet's busiest music nerd?
Possibly that Fantano made a video daring to call out the infallible, wise, PJW for being misleading and incorrect?
Nah, we've seen what Paul's actually like what he's pissed off.
(TRIGGERING INTENSIFIES)
"It's a conspiracy man!"
What? An employee of InfoWars who peddles lies and scientifically unproven supplements making up a conspiracy?
That's unheard of!
"there's a clear correlation between being ugly and being left-wing."
I mean, even The Guardian admitted to this.
A study published in the Journal of public economics found that more attractive
individuals are more likely to identify as Conservative.
Previous research found that those who are good-looking are generally treated better, achieve higher social status, and earn more money."
Well, I'll be damned. He actually did cite a source.
I wonder if I can find a link to it so I can read it in its entirety. Huh. No links in the description, that's weird.
Thankfully I was able to Google it, and...
...just clicking on the page shows why Paul didn't exactly want his audience to see the whole thing.
Such as how it's somewhat outdated, and that the image used for the headline isn't the best example.
But beyond that, it doesn't imply the correlation in the way Paul wants it to,
since the article states that people become right-wing because their good looks and not the other way around.
Specifically stating that people who are more conveniently attractive are treated better and thus might have a more optimistic worldview.
Given that a long-standing left-wing argument is that right-wingers sit in their own little world, blissfully unaware
of the issues marginalized groups face,
This doesn't exactly help Paul's point.
Paul then goes on another unsupported claim that leftists have no sense of personal responsibility,
And that leftists are just kids who were bullied in high school who are now out for revenge.
Though one particular point he tried to make is worth mentioning and deconstructing
"The problem is, culture and society's giving them power to run our lives. And nothing could be more dangerous than that."
Yeah man, it's totally the left-wing people who have power like over here in the US,
what with that left-wing President of ours, or that Left-wing Supreme Court,
or those left-wing states who are hellbent on throwing the US back into the 1920s.
And what about Paul's home in England? What with that left-wing Prime Minister,
MEPs, and MEP candidates, the right must be shaking in their boots
from how much excessive power the left has.
"We've given whiny, privileged, passive-aggressive-"
Oh Paul, I'm not passive-aggressive, I'm aggressive-aggressive.
I'm not going to dance around or try to weasel my way around my point, unlike... some people.
"Now I'm not trying to be mean."
"I don't want to revive a dead meme."
I'll gladly give it straightforward:
you are dumb.
Your entire video is based on ad hominem attacks with no proper substance, poor sources, or sources
you took out of context and a focal point that you tried to weasel your way around so that when someone like
me inevitably criticizes you, you can try to fall back on plausible deniability.
Furthermore, this only shows the absolute band of hypocrites the alt-right and most of the modern right wing in general
has become. When a right-wing person commits an act of violence, people like you
will try to say that it's not politically motivated, or that it's not fair to judge
all right-wing people based on the actions of their extremists.
But are quick to rope in leftists with all left-wing extremists and only scrape for the lowest-brow content
you can produce. Because the moment that you'd actually have to refute a proper argument
instead of a person you find unattractive throwing a tantrum in public,
is the moment you get exposed for the complete fraud you are.
You are not an intellectual who wants discussion.
You are a reactionary who wants to pander to the lowest common denominator.
That'll do it for this video.
This will be the first and last time I'll ever really want to address Paul as his video was so painfully stupid
I hate myself for sitting through it again and again to counter his shitty arguments.
Thanks for watching folks, I'm gonna go try to scrub this idiot from my mind now.
