How PragerU Lies to You

How PragerU Lies to You

Hello everyone. Now then, what would you say if I told you,
that I knew of a very generous Nigerian prince, who needed your help, to move his vast riches out of his country? Or what if I told you, I could sell you a magic brain pill, that will make you smarter? Or, how about this one: What if I told you, that I could teach you an entire college course, in just five minutes? [Dennis Prager]
How would you like to learn a lot,
in a short amount of time? A major infusion of knowledge in, say, five minutes? And what if those five minutes distilled the best ideas,
from some of the best minds in the world? Just as a shot of espresso boosts your energy,
shot of Prager University boosts your brain. Because not only will you have more knowledge,
you will have more wisdom. You think I’m exaggerating?
There’s an easy way to find out! Just watch a course. [Shaun] That is Dennis Prager there,
in a video titled “Welcome: Prager University”. That’s right – Prager University, is an online… “university”. Now, I know it looks like just a YouTube channel, and not a university. But it is, it is a university. And I know the, quote, “courses” look like YouTube videos, but they’re not. They’re real university courses, taught by some of the, quote “best minds in the world.” You can tell this, because they come with study guides. For example, here’s the study guide
for the video “Feminism 2.0”, which has sections to be filled in, during and after watching the video, discussion and review questions; and a quiz with questions, like:
“It is easy for feminists to forget that men: a. Gave women the right to vote.
b. Gave up their monopoly on political power. c. Invented birth control.
and d. All of the above.” Their answer, of course, being “all of the above”. Now, the horrible reality suggested by these study guides, is that there is someone, somewhere in the world, homeschooling their children, using these videos,
and like, quizzing them on them afterwards. Which, you know, doesn’t even bear thinking about really, does it. So, okay, Prager University is not a university.
It’s not an academic institution of any kind, actually. It is a YouTube channel, created by conservative talk-show host Dennis Prager, and funded by the billionaire businessmen, the Wilks brothers – Who got rich by creating a hydraulic fracking company, called Frac Tech. Seriously. So when you see PragerU videos, with titles like
“Why You Should Love Fossil Fuel”… well, that’s why. Now, the Wilks brothers also donate huge amounts of money to conservative politicians. Such as, when they gave fifteen million dollars to a super PAC, backing Ted Cruz in 2015. So, when you see PragerU videos with titles like
“Money in Politics: What’s the Problem?” Well, that’s why. Now, I feel like I’ve came out a little harshly here. It would be unfair at this point,
to just dismiss the whole channel as a biased, conservative fantasy project,
funded by two oil billionaires. So, let’s back up a bit.
Why am I talking about PragerU today? Well, you – like me – may have noticed PragerU’s videos, being promoted all over YouTube including sometimes on videos of mine, and my lefty pals. Now, that’s because PragerU has an enormous annual budget, and spends a large proportion of that on advertising itself. Anyway, I had mostly ignored these advertisements, until fairly recently, when via a series of tragic misclicks, I ended up on this video: “Who Needs Feminism?”, featuring speaker Andrew Clavin, which begins with Andrew Clavin,
stating “I am an anti-feminist.” And let me show you what I saw after that. [Andrew Clavin] Feminism denigrates masculinity in men, by relentlessly calling us toxic for our flaws, rather than appreciating our natural qualities,
of energy, risk-taking and leadership. But it also denigrates femininity in women, working to replace most women’s commitment to relationship and child-rearing, with male obsessions, such as career status and strength. What’s the result? Take a look at the quintessential feminist icon,
Rosie The Riveter, flexing her muscle. The truth is, any man of the same size and fitness,
can make a bigger, stronger muscle than Rosie can.” [Shaun]
Now, I feel, like I could write a whole dissertation,
on the problems with these two paragraphs here. But I’ll just read through them now quickly,
and try to give you the short version. So, here we go. “Feminism denigrates masculinity in men.” Now, hold on. Here’s the first problem. No, it doesn’t. “Feminism” doesn’t do anything independently. It’s not a monster, that lives in a cave somewhere, plotting against men. You know, one person calling themselves a feminist might do that, but other people calling themselves feminists will not. Feminism is an idea, with different interpretations.
It has no individual agency of its own. And there’s no “supreme leader” of feminism,
who sets the Official Feminism Agenda™. Anyway… sorry. Short version, right? “Feminism denigrates masculinity in men,
by relentlessly calling us “toxic” for our flaws, rather than appreciating our natural qualities,
of energy, risk-taking and leadership.” So, you know: “Woe is me! People are saying men are bad, instead of saying they’re good.” How unfair. “But it also denigrates femininity in women, working to replace most women’s commitment to relationship and child-rearing with male obsessions, such as career status and strength.” Now, again: feminism doesn’t actually do either of those things. What most feminists would probably take issue with, in these two sentences, is Andrew Clavin claiming [that] abstract concepts,
like energy, are a natural quality of just one sex. Which doesn’t really make any sense,
but whatever. Let’s get to the fun bit here. Now then, what’s all this about? “What’s the result?”
Of what, feminism? Feminism’s denigration of the sexes, I guess. So okay, the result of that is… Rosie the Riveter, flexing her muscle there. But the truth is… the truth is, men have bigger muscles than the cartoon lady, and could beat her at an arm wrestling competition,
should one happen to break out, I suppose. So the consequence of this malicious,
sentient form of feminism, is that women today can be misled by
World War II-era, inspirational work posters; into falsely believing, that they could beat men in an arm wrestling competition. Is that right, there? Have I got that? So anyway, since PragerU brought it up,
let’s talk about Rosie the Riveter. Now, Rosie the Riveter was a World War II cultural icon. Not designed, you might be surprised to hear,
to convey women’s muscular superiority to men. But as one of many government morale-boosting campaigns, aimed at encouraging women in the workforce, particularly, women working in what were traditionally considered male roles. Now, “why” you might ask, “did the government want to encourage women to join the workforce? Was it as part of some evil feminist campaign,
to attack masculinity and erode femininity?” Well, no. You see, during World War II there was a labor shortage, because a lot of the men had been conscripted into the Armed Forces. And so increasingly, job openings in factories and the likes, were filled by women. Women were encouraged to join the work force, to aid the war efforts. That’s why that was happening. You know,
“we can do it”, as in “win the War”! Not like, “overthrow men with our superior biceps”, or something. And I would have liked to see Andrew Clavin,
try to defend his ideas during World War II. “You know, women shouldn’t be working in factories. That’s a male job! They should be home, looking after the kids, and being all feminine.” And it’s like… stop whining, Andrew! We’ve gotta beat the Nazis here. There’s no time for all your gender rubbish. So anyway. I was sufficiently blown away by this particular video, that I decided to watch a few more. And here’s my first impression of the channel. Eh… PragerU’s boast, of “only needing five minutes to convey its ideas to you”, is actually being a little too generous there. I can tell you basically everything PragerU has to offer,
in a fraction of that time. So here goes. Firstly, feminism and other social justice causes are completely unnecessary, right up until the point, at which we all agree they did something necessary, in which case – the credit should go instead
to Christian white men, for allowing it to happen. Secondly, capitalism is great,
and has absolutely no downsides. (Except for all the downsides, which are actually
the result of us not doing capitalism hard enough). Thirdly… no, that’s about it, really.
What did that take? 30 seconds? Now, to be fair: a few videos do fall outside those parameters there, but those two things are their bread and butter: Christian white men and capitalism are always good, anyone who questions either of those things, is always bad. And what I’m gonna do now, is take a look at how PragerU expresses those ideas, and see, how fairly they represent any counter arguments. And, not to give the game away here, but I did title my video “How PragerU Lies to You”. So okay, first up is: how PragerU lies to you about feminism. And we’ll stick with Andrew Clavin’s video
“Who Needs Feminism?” here for a little while. And let’s read a little of the script. “Now, perhaps you’ll protest: isn’t feminism simply the idea that women have the same human rights as men? No, it isn’t. That philosophy is called “classical liberalism”,
which holds that we are all equally endowed by God with the inalienable rights to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Now, this is just basic misrepresentation. Clavin anticipates the fact, that he’ll be called out on his biased definition of feminism. And his answer to a hypothetical person,
presenting an alternative interpretation, is: “No. No, you’re wrong. I’m right, only my definition is right. Not yours.” So there… which is not exactly
advanced debate tactics, is it? Clavin’s only offered evidence, to feminism not being about equality of the sexes, is that he claims, that philosophy is called classical liberalism. Which is silly all on its own.
But implicit here, is that a single idea, cannot be shared between two political philosophies. Which is ridiculous, obviously. Feminism could be about equality, and also,
classical liberalism could be about equality. Because equality is not an idea, that is singular
to any one particular political movement. Later in his video, Clavin states:
“feminism has developed the historical mythology, that men have oppressed women, and now must
be suppressed in their turn to even things out.” Um, more misrepresentation here. I’d just like to point out, that not once in this video
does Andrew Clavin quote a feminist, or cite any particular feminist theory or literature. And this should be a red flag. Speaking personally here: I have never met any feminist, who claims, “feminism is about suppressing men to even things out”. Mainly, I’ve met feminists, who say feminism is about equality. But apparently, they were all secretly classical liberalists, or something. Andrew Clavin here, is arguing against a strawman version of feminism, that only exists within the confines of his own imagination. He doesn’t name who he’s talking about – either because they don’t exist, and he’s just making it up, or because he’s scared he’ll get a response from an actual, real person, with realistic ideas. And they’re a lot harder to argue with, than cartoon characters. Speaking of arguing with cartoon characters:
in their video, “Who Killed the Liberal Arts?” (which is one of many PragerU videos,
complaining about modern university campuses), we can see the following. There’s some little cartoon professors there, saying: “We repudiate the great humanist tradition, on which much of Western civilization,
and the Western university, has been built”. What a foolishly self-defeating quote there,
from Anonymous Cartoon Professor #2. And later in the video, the Cartoon Professor
really gives the game away, when they say: “I seek only to confirm my own worldview.” It’s quite a candid confession there. And it’s handy, these cartoon professors
are so forward with their hypocrisies, isn’t it? You know, given we’ve only got five minutes to argue against them. Uh, returning to feminism here, I’d like to use two PragerU videos now, to highlight a favorite little conservative contradiction of mine. And we’re gonna look first at a video about the employment system, and then a video about the education system. And pay particular attention, to how gendered differences are described and accounted for. So, first up is the video “There Is No Gender Wage Gap”,
narrated by Christina Hoff Sommers. Which comes to the conclusion,
that there IS a gender wage gap. Let’s take a look. [Christina Hoff Sommers] Even a study by the
American Association of University Women, a feminist organization, shows that the actual wage gap shrinks to only 6.6 cents, when you factor in
different choices men and women make. And the key word here is “choice”. The small wage gap that does exist, has nothing to do with paying women less, let alone with sexism! It has to do with differences in individual career choices, that men and women make. [Shaun] So okay, there is a gender wage gap, despite the title of the video. But it’s okay, because the gap is accounted for,
by the different choices that men and women make. Men and women are just fundamentally different, and choose different careers, and the result of the some of those individual choices, is that men get paid more. Changing the system to enforce equality here, is entirely unnecessary. The system itself is neutral, and the discrepancy
in outcomes is only down to individual choice. Right, so on to video two, titled “War on Boys”,
also narrated by Christina Hoff Sommers. And let’s take a look at that. [Christina Hoff Sommers]
Being a normal boy is a serious liability in today’s classroom. Compared with girls, boys earn lower grades. They win fewer honors. They’re far less likely to go to college. Boys are languishing academically,
while girls are prospering! In an ever more knowledge-based economy,
his is not a recipe for a successful society. We need to start thinking about how we can make
our grade school classrooms more boy friendly. We need to reverse the boy-averse trends. Male underachievement is everyone’s concern. Now, I’m not sure I need to go through
the second half of this argument here. I assume most of you have probably got it already. But, for the one of you who missed it, here’s the contradiction: When women are lagging behind men,
for example, in the wages they get paid, this is no problem whatsoever, it’s just a natural result of men and women’s biological differences. But when men are lagging behind women,
such as receiving lower grades in school, well, that’s everyone’s concern. And we need to institute system-wide reforms, in order to reverse the trend. And I like how biology is used here: it’s presented as both the reason to preserve a system, when men are ahead, and also as the reverse, to reform a system, when men are behind. The message seems to be, that any societal system should cater to male biological traits, or at least, conservatives’ estimation
of what male biological traits are. And we can have some fun here, by reversing the arguments in favor of girls. And maybe come up with some of our own,
flimsy, evolutionary psychology too. So okay: girls do better in schools, but that’s fine. Whatever gap there is between boys and girls, is entirely accounted for by the different choices they make. Girls are good listeners, good communicators.
They’re better at multitasking. This is just natural! If boys choose to spend their time playing outside, instead of studying, then they’re free to do that, but it would be unfair to expect equal grades for it. Anyway, let’s move on now, and examine
PragerU’s presentation of capitalism, which is a frequent topic, in videos like: “If You Hate Poverty, You Should Love Capitalism”,
“Why You Love Capitalism”, “Is Capitalism Moral?”,
“Why Capitalism Works”, and so on. Now, in these videos and others, PragerU presents a… Well, literally cartoonishly simple version of capitalism. Let’s take a look at the video “Why Capitalism Works”, which seeks to explain the basics, of how businesses operate under capitalism. Now, they use the example of a flower shop. A newly opened flower shop can be run in different ways, you see. A selfish shop owner will put their needs, before that of the customer, and thus will not make any profits. Only businesses that satisfy their customers will succeed. Under capitalism, a business prospers, only
if customers voluntarily trade for its output. Now, the majority of the time, this is how PragerU talks about capitalism. It’s little cartoon people, bumbling around,
making cute, mutually beneficial transactions. You know, “I have a quantity of money, a store has a product I desire, we trade those things, and both profit”. Hurrah. So, what do we think about this? Well, first off I’d like to highlight, that they chose a flower store for their example, rather than, say… a weapons developer,
or a predatory loan lender. Or a fracking company, say. But since they picked a flower store, let’s talk about that. So, some flower stores are good and successful,
and some flower stores are selfish and unsuccessful. They each make a series of mutually beneficial trades with customers, and naturally, the successful stores
do better than the unsuccessful ones, and… what, “The End”? You know,
we restart the simulation tomorrow? Uh- no, in actual reality, things continue happening after that. So let’s carry on with the example. The successful flower store, after all their transactions, has built up some wealth. And if they build up enough wealth,
they can start to influence the market, outside of those simple, customer-level transactions. Let’s say, they purchase the unsuccessful flower store and several others, and unite them all under the same brand. So, now you’ve got Flower Corp. Now, Flower Corp. being a big business,
will be sought after for big contracts. There will be competition to be the supplier of… seeds, say, to Flower Corp. Flower Corp. will be able to use its large market share,
as leverage to make beneficial deals with its suppliers. Which will then mean, they can cut costs on the consumer end, perhaps lower, than it’s possible for any startup business to compete with. This is one reason why big box stores kill off small,
local businesses as well as, you know, convenience. They can afford to sell for less, because they buy for less, because they buy in bulk. So, Flower Corp. starts pricing flower start-ups out of the market, and, just to be sure, maybe they open a Flower Corp. store nearby any new flower businesses, to divide their sales. Now, let’s see, how far this metaphor can be stretched here. Let’s say Flower Corp. starts lobbying politicians,
to relax flower industry regulations, and cut flower industry taxes – and pretty soon,
half the Senators are in the pockets of Big Flower. Let’s say Flower Corp. becomes so powerful,
that they’re able to insert their executives into the staff of many of the country’s most powerful politicians. Let’s imagine their CEO becomes Vice President, even. And starts pushing for a war with the Netherlands,
in order to install a puppet government, that will give their country cheap deals
on all those fancy tulips they’ve got. Let’s say a whole speculative flower market opens up, massively inflating the price of flowers,
until they cost more than a house. And a quick editorial note here:
This one has actually happened in reality. And let’s say, that Flower Corp. becomes so large,
that it becomes “too big to fail”. So that when the flower bubble finally bursts, the government will step in, and bail them out with public money. The government is staffed with their executives,
and funded by their lobbyists, after all. And finally, let’s say that public opinion starts turning
against Flower Corp., and its various shady dealings. And more generally, against the flawed system,
that allowed Flower Corp. to cause so much damage. So, Flower Corp. decides to fund a YouTube channel, hosting videos, that explain how they’re actually great, and can do no wrong! And… there we are, there. We’ve caught back up to the present day. So, that’s the saga of Flower Corp. there. Now, in reality, all of those actions were carried out by the defense, oil and financial industries, not the flower industry. “But how does PragerU”, you might be wondering,
“account for all of those terrible happenings?” They were all a result of capitalist institutions,
acting in their own self-interest, trying to increase their own profits, which is
supposed to be beneficial for everyone, right? So let’s introduce the conservative cop-out answer,
for explaining away all the problems of capitalism. [Jay Cost]
Crony capitalism. What is it? Why is it so bad? To answer these questions, let’s think
about good old-fashioned capitalism. It is premised on the free exchange of goods or services, between independent agents. Capitalism is moral, because it is premised on a voluntary exchange between independent parties. Who agree to the deal, only because it creates value for everybody. Crony capitalism is immoral, because one of the parties – the government – has been bought off. [Shaun] Now, here I’d just like to remind you,
of this video I showed earlier. “Money in Politics: What’s the Problem?” Well here you go, PragerU, you’ve discovered it. So, crony capitalism then. This is a concept PragerU talks about a few times,
and always in a particularly biased way. As you’ll see, the government is always to blame. So, crony capitalism is unfair and immoral,
because the government has been bought off. “But, by who though?” you might be wondering. Well, privates interests!
Should they share any of the blame? Well, let’s watch a brief clip from their video
“The Speech Every 2015 College Grad Needs To Hear”. [George Will]
Washington has produced a bubble in higher education,
just the way it produced the bubble in housing! Some government planners decided,
that too few people owned homes. So the planners decided to force
an increase in home ownership. They lowered lending standards,
for people seeking a mortgage. This produced a glut of sub-prime loans,
and sub-prime borrowers – and then a crash. [Shaun] So, that was the housing market crash, according to PragerU there. And let’s just read through that one more time. “Washington has produced a bubble in higher education,
just the way it produced the bubble in housing. Some government planners decided,
that too few people owned homes. So the planners decided to force
an increase in home ownership.” Now, absent here is any mention of lobbying, naturally. Just silly government officials,
doing silly nonsense things, for no reason. “They lowered lending standards
for people seeking a mortgage.” And side note: we call that “deregulation”.
Which we’re not allowed to say is a bad thing. So we have to call it something else,
like “lowered lending standards”, instead. “This produced a glut of sub-prime loans,
and sub-prime borrowers. And then a crash.” So: “this produced a glut of subprime loans”. From who though? Did they spring forth from the Earth? No, it was private institutions.
Who were, again, being presented as blameless here. Only the government is at fault, for not preventing
the ill effects of the greed of the private sector. Greed which is excusable, because working
in your own self-interest is always good. Unless you’re a politician, approached by a lobbyist
with a suitcase full of money, of course. In which case, you’re expected to ignore your own
self-interest, and only consider the public good. This is a racket! Capitalism is always perfect, except for when it isn’t; in which case, it was the government’s fault for not stopping it. And PragerU’s solution to this problem, is equally nonsensical. You see: according to them, the private sector
only lobbies and influences the government into doing bad things, because the government is so big and powerful. If we limit the government, then they won’t want to control it as much, apparently. Which is a bit like saying: “If we just let the foxes into the henhouse, think of the money we’ll save on fencing”. Now, I’m gonna close out soon,
but I can’t go without giving a special mention to PragerU’s use of graphs, to illustrate their points. We’ve already seen this one, from the video “Why Capitalism Works”, uh, which is almost nonsense, if you look at it for more than 5 seconds. Here’s another good one, from their video
“Make Men Masculine Again”, showing the ‘masculine’ turning into the ‘feminine’, over… Time? Distance? Temperature? Who knows! Uh, this one’s from their video
“Blacks In Power Don’t Empower Blacks”. (Ugh…) Which apparently, shows labor participation rates, but… doesn’t. You know, these are just two orange rectangles. There’s no values on them. This one is from their video “Why Is Modern Art So Bad?”
showing the “decline of artistic standards”. Now, the vertical axis is at least labeled here, with “standards”. Which are measurable, apparently. And they peaked just after 1850,
and then declined until about 1970 there, until there were no more standards.
There are no artistic standards anymore, whatsoever. There’s this one, from their video
“Hoover and the Great Depression”, which shows industry, with the economy lurking in the background there. And this one has two labels:
wage rates, which are going down, as layoffs are going up, and getting dangerously close to that dark cloud there. I don’t know, what that’s meant to signify, but it can’t be good. Earlier in that video, we see this graph:
“Prices for industrial goods”, which started out in 1929, at nearly three dollar signs there, then prices fell to just two dollar signs throughout 1930, holding steady just long enough, to underline the words “economy-wide deflation”, which is handy. After that, there’s more bad news, I’m afraid,
with the prices falling yet again, threatening to reach just one dollar sign – which,
as we know, is the lowest possible price. Now… anyone can make rubbish like this. I mean, look, here’s one I made for instance: What does this show?? Happiness increasing,
as number of feminists increases, I guess. Now, does this prove anything, this graph? And, I’d just like to reiterate to any fans of PragerU, who might be watching now: This is made up. Remember, I made this!
Don’t go around citing this. Now, you might say: “Shaun, picking on PragerU’s graphs is unfair. They’re not supposed to be real, academic graphs. They’re just little visual aids, to compliment,
what the speaker is talking about. They’re not peer-reviewed, or anything.” And I would say to that: Exactly!
They’re NOT real academic graphs. Because this isn’t a real, academic institution.
It’s a YouTube channel. It can call itself whatever it likes – but a university, it is not. Thanks a lot for watching, everyone. I might come back to PragerU at some point. A few of their videos seem possibly worthy of a more in-depth look. So, we’ll see about that. Let me know in the comments. Just kidding, I never read the comments. I’m not a masochist. I do read my Curious Cat questions, though,
if you’d like to ask me a question on there. Now, before I go, I should mention here a couple of things, that PragerU got right. Their video “Was The Civil War About Slavery?” is actually not bad. They do not come to the conclusion,
that you would expect them to come to. Also, PragerU get points from me, for arguing against bailing out failing financial institutions, which I saw them do in a couple of videos. A lot of the time conservatives will go on,
about the brilliant competition of the free market, and then defend propping up failing banks with public money, or something. It’s highly hypocritical there.
So, credit to PragerU for avoiding doing that. Thanks as always to all my Patreon backers,
for supporting me in making videos like this. A link to my Patreon page is below,
if you’d like to check that out. Right. Thanks folks, I’ll see you next time.

100 thoughts on “How PragerU Lies to You

  1. Shaun, I'm arrived at this video pretty late, but I think that instead of the Flower Corp example as a stand-in for the Tulip Mania to explain a potential fault line in the Capitalist system, perhaps the activities of the VOC in the East Indies spice market would be better. One: overt, savage violence was done by a heartless and selfish Megacorporation; and Two, the Tulip Mania almost seems like a fiction made by anti-Dutch and anti-merchant propagandists that neglect the reality of the Tulip market crash.
    Here's a couple links. I'm still doing research on the Tulip Mania and other such free market failures.
    Tulip Mania:

    One of many "Spice Wars" of the VOC (I need a better source on this one):

  2. So I guess "Khan Academy" isn't really an academy. No shit sherlock, "Khan Academy", "Prager University" are just names of organizations. Criticise all you want but do some research first, or if you are just being sarcastic, do it in a less cheesy way.

  3. The Republicans were the majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate and held the presidency from 2001 until 2008. Hence the deregulation and the housing bubble.

  4. Prager lies about scientific facts particularly about your genders which are more than two according to scientific studies of our collective lived experiences.

  5. Dude your really don't know what your talking about praguru stands to teach people to not get tricked bye people and even say how they got this information

  6. they are NOT a university. They're not even an accredited institution. They're a propaganda channel funded by billionaire oil magnates.

  7. The likes/dislikes are at 54,000+ / 12,000+… and I can see that both arguments are worthy. "Feminism" is not a well-delineated term. Therefore, the arguments stray. Great for women to be allowed to do what they can. Great for men to be encouraged to do what they can…. only if men and women want to do these things. Everybody play nice, play fair and have fun.

    How about "Women wrested the right to vote from reluctant men who were shamed and badgered into doing it." This is a sad victory, because it forebodes that something in men is lacking; by nature, most are not fair; some are. I wish I had faith that men are changing, but they are not and neither are women. This guarantees that whatever equality women enjoy must be guarded and fought for forever.

    When a person has a choice between two items, they will take the larger of the two. They never "guess" that the smaller one might be of better quality. All other things not known, they choose the larger. This is the advantage men have. It's very simple. No matter what the job, "bigger is better".

  8. I feel like the Rosie thing was taken out of context. It would have been better if you had shown maybe a minute of the footage after the Rosie bicep thing, it wouldn’t seem as absurd. I haven’t seen the whole video myself so I maybe I’m wrong

  9. 😆😆😆😆😆 They wasted 15 million on a Blob Fish. 😆😆😆😆😆😆
    I’m a girl and believe in equality. I have never called a man toxic. They are lying right from the start.

  10. The worst thing is that I see people with the age of 13 to 15 commenting on his vids that they just got into politics, a'd it is obvious which party is evil etc.

  11. Great video (i am a preguer u fan), but the part of capitalism being blame for the housing market crash of 2008 is ludicrous. Capitalism does not promotes greed nor corruption, this last one being iligal. Capitalism promotes self growth with the minimum government intervention possible. Again, capitalism does not promotes greed, it promotes ambition…which is a great thing.

    I disagree with you, but Great video Nevertheless. Just like the preguer u chanel, yours is an opinion based chanel. Keep it up. Is good for the discussion and democracy.
    Plus by you saying that pregue u does not support bailing out failing private finacial institutions, contradicts your entire argument since it demonstrates that preguer u nor capitalism promotes greed or corruption. I thank you for that

    I gave you a like BTW

  12. I don’t always agree with Prager but their videos are well presented, clearly explained and always reasonable. Watching their videos has made me a better person

  13. I'm a Prager U fan. and i just want to thank you for your difference of opinion. Thank you for opening my eye to how PragerU contradicts itself. But i must say about the corruption you discussed in our capitalist society, corruption exist in allsystems all over the world. And corruption is often much worse in communist or socialist governments. Just looked at what happened to communist Russia. They fell mostly from corruption. Or, look at socialist Venezeula. But I always knew PragerU's graphs are crap, and I always knew they're not a real university.

  14. Rosie the Riveter could kick the crap out of any of the "men" representing Prager "U". Energy and leadership are natural male qualities? The only natural male quality these guys exhibit is erectile dysfunction. And those graphs at the end – next, PragerU will present just a picture of an apple pie as a pie chart, with absolutely no data or citations. Universities are supposed to make you smarter – spending five minutes at PragerU will erase five years of actual education if you take it seriously.

  15. Those PragerU graphs had me. Can't believe someone approved to show these to the public thinking it's brilliant. At what point in the 1960s did artistic standards plummet? Was it The Beatles, or was it Motown? I need answers PragerU!

  16. Nothing but Anti conservative bull shit, you can't beat PragerU for conservitive ideals and knowledge, if you didn't realize it's not really a university then shame on you. PragerU is conservative, Anti Liberal. So there you have it.

  17. So here is the thing with prageru's lawsuit is not valid a companies service has the right to refuse service in this case youtube can refuse service to them

  18. 10:12 Though there were people who used his definition of "classical liberalism" to defend eg. slavery. That black people were not "everyone". Or that women were not "everyone".

  19. Government workers make like 50 thousand a year. Private ceos makes like 50 million a year. Who is really to blame here? Government workers obviously. Thanks for the logic overload PragerU.

  20. Of course a man of the same size and fitness will beat Rosie the riveter in an arm wrestling match. That’s basic sexual dimorphism. Plus, there’s no proof if you would win since, well, she isn’t real

  21. I'm confused as to why you think ideas don't have agendas?
    Would you say that liberalism and conservatism are simply ideas without an agenda, no you wouldn't.
    To say women are just as good as men are in any regard, is the fundamental idea of third wave feminism. How does that not lead one to say that men are toxic for not agreeing with this idea.

  22. Maybe you should follow your own words and debate someone at PragerU on this issue. I would like to see how both sides handle a live debate.

  23. Yes, soft spoken man with accent, we know it's not an actual university. It's a university of thought, of common sense. Something that is sorely missing in the world today.

  24. So the female minimum wage is how much less than the male minimum wage? And here's another one to consider… big business likes big government and big regulation. They can afford the higher cost of complying with regulations where smaller companies cant. Regarding lending money to people who cant afford the houses they want to buy, would you lend me a few million dollars?… What if the government compelled you to lend to me? If i cant pay you back are you to blame?

  25. I was entertained but on the fence about subscribing; that run-through of Prager's charts and graphs got me though. Cheers.

  26. It doesn't matter who or what the source of information is. What matters in only whether the information can be cross-checked as fact.

  27. 4:56 Quit playing semantics. They're referring to modern-day feminist agenda as an average, which I think we can agree as having a general aim in society.

  28. PragerU, old corporate shills trying to "reach the kidz"
    Flustered, so flustered – at Shaun, for getting under their skin.
    Hey Google, hey Youtube, hey Algorithms: This video is about PragerU! Old corporate hacks – trying to reach them kidz!

  29. PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization that creates videos on various political, economic and philosophical topics from a conservative or right-wing perspective. … PragerU is not a university, nor is it an academic institution.

  30. I was interested in this video but was bored to tears in minutes. This is simply the standard liberal bunk destroyed by Pinker's new book.

  31. i am a prageru fan and i respect your opinion, just some critism though:
    – in a true capitalist system, there is no bailout. if your business fails it dies.
    – the housing bubble was the government's fault, they broke the link between risk and reward, it took all the risk while allowed the businesses to have infinite reward. so just like any person who isnt stupid, the private banks loaned out as much as they could, because they didnt see any consequences to their actions. if the government never had gotten involved it the first place, no private bank would mindlessly loan out money to risky borrowers

    edit: check out the channel called "learn liberty" , it explains alot of stuff

  32. We've put up with enough of your brand of nonsense. Every liberal source of mainstream news could be called lies.

    They're nothing but a group of bullies pushing the Democratic party talking points. Why didn't you mention that? Probably because it's far more embarrassing than a conservative outlet being honest about being conservative.

    I can't even make it all the way through your worthless attacks on conservatives. By the way, where do you get your money?

    That's right, you like all the other hide it because the truth is well, embarrassing.

  33. I sent this to my dad today. This was his reply:

    "Honey, these people are full of crap. Every liberal source of mainstream news could be called lies by their assertions.

    Don't join hands with bullies pushing the Democratic party talking points. Where did he get funding, does he support the truth or is he just mimicking the democratic party like all the rest?

    The truth is far more embarrassing than a conservative outlet being honest about being a conservative outlet. At least they aren't pretending to be fair and balanced.

    I can't even make it all the way through his attacks on conservatives. By the way, I myself have contributed to PragerU and Dennis Prager myself for years, long before he received any money.

    The mainstream media is the biggest perpetrator of the biggest lies of all. They hide their biases and fail to speak honestly. PragerU has real experts sharing their honest information unfiltered through democratic talking points. Some day all these people will look like fools for going along with the Democrat Party stranglehold on America, and most of the free world.
    We have a set of rules we have used for hundreds if not thousands of years called logical fallacies. Once you have learned to spot these you can more easily pick apart these baseless accusations."

  34. Now I’m a libertarian so not exactly conservative but definitely not a leftist or liberal. For instance I don’t believe in fossil fuels but I also don’t believe in gun control or certain drug laws like marijuana restrictions. I think both sexism and feminism are stupid. The original idea of feminism is good but what it’s become is a terrible completely ironic thing. It started at equality and went straight to woman and made up genders supremacy. Even when certain men try to join their side they deny them because of their gender. That’s the reason they were mad at the sexist (or now all men) in the first place. Sexism is pretty ridiculous in its ways, sexism started through basic tradition in the roles of the sex’s. Men work and women clean and make food. Obviously a ridiculous thing. This video I agree with to a degree. I’m very happy to find a moderate leftist with actual facts to support their argument and not just a bunch of false arguments distracting the opponent from the main point. In the argument of the wage gap: not every person will have the same wage and here’s why, though men are at an decline for education that doesn’t mean their decline for work ethic. There is no way to properly measure a wage gap because obviously some people work harder than others and get raises for it. Honestly I don’t think the government should be involved with anything that has to do with the “free market” including wages and work hours. If someone does a good job they can ask for more money through a promotion that shouldn’t be restricted because of the sex of the person. Sorry for babbling

  35. So, the bottom line is PragerU doesn't lie, but has conservative opinions.

    Conservative: The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was wrong.

    Liberal: You obviously are lying because you aren't woke enough to understand the nuanced racism that denied the Japanese a seat at the table post WW1 making the attack on Pearl Harbor, which is not its Hawaiian name, but a toxic masculine imperialist bastardization of it, deserved … (drones on)

    Moderate: Yeah. We could have shown Japan more respect, but Japan dropping bombs on our ships was definitely wrong.

    Male student: Japanese girls are hot.

    Feminist student: Patriarchy! I'm going to die my hair blue.

  36. I think it's funny that prageru act like critical theory is devaluing the idea of higher education while also blatantly calling some random conservative pundit ranting for 5 minutes with no citations a "university course"

  37. Seriously though, why do you have so much of a problem with Prager U? No matter if its a youtube channel, an online university, or otherwise. Is it because they don't think like you or because they are conservative? If you'd like to dicuss agenda's, please do a follow up video on what the majority of the "brick and mortar" universities across the United States are teaching our kids.

  38. I think you missed the point. It’s not about Rosie the riveter.

    And they are actually confronting third wave feminism.

    Maybe you should watch more of the videos before you form an opinion. Because that’s what this is this is your misinformed opinion.

  39. So you do not agree with a lot of their videos, but where do you stand when they claim that they should not be censored by Youtube (whether they are censored or not) ? Would you say that they are outright lyers and should be banned, or that they have an opinion with which you don't agree but they should have a place in public forums?

  40. What is nonsensical. Is thinking greedy banks would borrow money to people who can't pay them back. Sure, they will end up with the house. But, how is that house going to house on the market before it gets sold.

  41. Choices boys and girls make when they are adults in the workplace should not be equalified to how we treat and support them whilst they're in primary schooling.

    If boys are having a harder time in school than girls, that should be met and adressed to help overcome that. If they continue to do so later on in the workplace, then that is their own adult choice.

    It is a fearsome thing to equate children to adults… and leads to some darker avenues if this mindset perpetuates.

  42. Look, I agree with you the degree to which Prager University[sic] is utter bullshit, and it's delight to see somebody take them to task so carefully, but I have to take issue with your blatantly speciesist fox metaphor at 25:15

  43. I don't know u man and I stumbled upon your video by chance. And I luckily decided to watch just the first couple of minutes, because it is clear that u r the one who s lying. Infact, the Prager speaker in the first video analyzed is careful to state, before going into any of the subjects u are criticizing, that what he is about to say is to be taken as a forced generalization for the sake of the discourse and that he well knows that every kind of exception to his generalization exists, but that generalities remain generally valid nonetheless. And this is the founding principle of every general discussion on every general subjecy, otherwise it would be impossible to talk briefly about anything in the world. And this invalidates right at the start what u say about the video, criticizing it on the basis of generalities which the speaker has already clearly excused. And man… The woman's bicep statement is just plain irony… Even a 9 yo kid would notice it. You are the one lying. Good ad for PragerU.

  44. after watching this I did a little dive into the comments to see if i could locate the ever elusive "PragerU Supporter". alas my search was happily in vain.

  45. The videos they produce have created the material for some brilliant YTP videos, such as "Good old P. U." by the Citizen Brain.

  46. 2:55 "I feel like I've came out a little harshly…"
    I had to stop listening there. Your lack of education is reflected in your poor use of English grammar. There's no telling what other ignorant things you'll say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *