Tldr (go watch Angela Collier’s video on him for the full story), Richard Feynmann was a really good physicist and educator, but his most popular stuff is usually him being a misogynistic asshole [going a strip club and playing bongos, speaking gibberish and saying he was simply speaking a “regional dialect” to foreigners, forcing waitresses to earn their tip by making them answer physics questions in the middle of their shift, etc.].
That really how I feel with Bad Empanada. Because his main channel is good, well sourced and does a good job at educating people on anti imperialist causes.
But I never hear about that really. All I hear from people who like him are all of his really bad takes and his constant brain rot on Twitter and bluesky.
I would much rather hear about his really well researched videos on the Iraq War and Israel’s genocide. I don’t want to hear about some tirade he made on twitter/Bsky about something or other.
Like, 90% of his videos on his main channel are good, and the ones I criticize are at the very least still professional. But I don’t see content from those, I only constantly see content from his live channel and his Twitter. And I’m like…why? Why emphasize this part so much? Sure you can’t separate the two, but there’s the really, really good part of the person, and then the part where he’s an abrasive asshole. Why are you emphasizing on the second part?
Sorry, this isn’t some in depth debunking of him on anything. Like I said, I do like what he does and I think he is mostly correct. But for some reason people [who support him and all his views] love emphasizing the bits where he’s wrong for some reason. So I just wanted to vent that out.
Edit: There’s also the flipside of this, which is Hasan. I think Hasan is very friendly, pretty mature, and someone who is all round respectable. At the same time, I think his actual work is pretty meh at best, detrimental at worst. To go back to my Feynmann analogy, I might think that Neil Degrasse Tyson seems like a pretty okay guy who I would like to have a conversation with, and not as much of an ass as Feynmann. But Feynmann was definitely a much, much better physicist and educator than Tyson
Yes because your argument literally boils down to “he’s an arsehole” (which, 99% of the time, is warranted). When he’s an arsehole to supposed “left-wingers”, it’s usually because they aren’t actually acting like left-wingers (e.g. operating within the framework of Jewish exceptionalism or attacking anyone who does anything to meaningfully oppose imperialism) or they’re spreading defamatory lies about him (e.g. that he’s a bigot or a paedophile)
I tolerate him because, in the grand scheme of things, he is an overwhelmingly positive influence. He’s done more to actually educate people about colonialism and imperialism and to put Zionists in their place than the rest of the online left combined. I don’t care if you personally find him harsh or rude or dismissive of other people’s feelings. Sometimes we have to work with people who we don’t like. That’s just the way the world works. Not everyone is going to want to be a part of your little hugbox
What did he say about first world unions that was wrong?
he literally tweeted something about how trans people aren’t real like two weeks ago
he’s australian
That’s not what he said. He acknowledges that trans men are men, trans women are women, and nonbinary people are valid. He just doesn’t believe in “faunagender” identities like “puppygender” because you literally cannot be a dog, and he’s suggested (without pointing to anyone in particular) that a lot of First Worlders pretend to be part of the trans community or some other marginalised group because of the perceived social cred, using their status as a bludgeon against anyone who criticises them
He condemns First Worlders because they (by-and-large) support imperialism. He does not support imperialism. There is no contradiction here. It’s telling that, rather than actually engaging with his beliefs about First Worlders, the best response y’all can come up with is the playground insult of “I know you are but what am I”
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/8993295
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9033141
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9016334
come on. you’re talking about him like conservatives used to talk about donald trump back when anyone cared about his transgressions. you could just say “oh i didn’t know he was like that” or even “he has some stupid, idiotic, reactionary takes but some of his stuff is still good”. you don’t need to make excuses for every time he says something reactionary
None of those are reactionary statements.
The claim he makes in the first image (that some people falsely claim to be part of a marginalised group for the perceived social cred and then use said marginalised status as a cudgel whenever they’re attacked) is objectively true. Have you ever heard of a Pretendian?
In the second image, BadEmpanada was talking about “POCD”, or “paedophilic obsessive-compulsive disorder”, which one of his detractors claimed to have. It is not a real diagnosis, nor should we allow would-be child rapists to portray their subhumanity as a simple mental disorder which they don’t have any responsibility over. The only treatment for paedophilia is a bullet to the head; and I am genuinely horrified that people in the comments of that post are actually running defence for those lowlives.
And the argument he makes about First World trade unions supporting imperialism is likewise correct. All one needs to do to prove this is look at the history of the labour movement in the West during World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.
The difference is that, in BadEmpanada’s case, it’s actually true. When you actually examine the essence of what he is saying as I have done instead of just looking at a thumbnail, soyfacing, and parading around as if what he is saying is self-evidently wrong like a thoughtless imbecile; it is progressive.
of course first world trade unions can act in support of imperialism. saying “don’t join a union” is a reactionary response to a very real fact. as for your first and second responses, just because you’re the same type of reactionary as badempanada doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t understand what he’s saying. communists can read and understand subtext just as well as whatever it is you are
In the context of 21st-century imperialist countries, it really isn’t. In Lenin’s time when only a minority of workers in the first world were labour aristocrats, you’d have a point, but that’s not the case anymore. It’s no longer the case where the leadership of the unions were reactionary but the membership by-and-large weren’t. Also, BadEmpanada explicitly says in his video (which has since been renamed to “DON’T Just Join a Union” to clarify the fact that he’s arguing that unions aren’t an end in and of themselves and that the primary focus must be on fighting imperialism):
Of course, you didn’t watch the video, did you?
Exactly. You read between the lines and then you ignore the lines.
well it makes me feel better he’s changed the thumbnail. i still don’t see why you have to defend his other reactionary takes. is homosexuality bourgeois decadence too? or is it just the Current Thing?
As Marxists we uphold the truth, and the truth is that the evidence you provided doesn’t even remotely indicate that BE is a reactionary. Now, your turn. Do you want to explain to everybody why you think that “paedophilic obsessive-compulsive disorder” is a real condition and anyone who disagrees with you is ableist? Do you want to explain why acknowledging the existence of pretendians is bigoted? Or do you recognise that he was correct and you’ll apologise for slander of a public figure?