How PragerU Lies to You

[Kooky]

This is how PragerU lies to you:

Fun fact 1: PragerU gets most of its money from oil businessmen.
Fun fact 2: Of that money, PragerU spends over 10 million $ on marketing its "learning videos".
Fun fact 3: PragerU once called itself "Prager University". They no longer do so, because that would be illegal, since they are neither a university, nor a learning institution of any kind.
Fun fact 4: They still lie in many other ways.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Thanks for posting the video, Kooky. I was wondering why some members say PragerU isn't a reliable source. FYI, I found this info, PragerU - Media Bias/Fact Check, when I searched online for an answer. It seems like a reasonable and concise criticism of PragerU.

 

[F1fan]

I've watched PU (as in, "boy, what stinks") videos over the years, mostly by people posting links to support their claims. They are well crafted misinformation. They have obviously hired professional services to created polished and official looking videos. They appear to be credible, but well educated people will be the only one's who recognize the bad faith production.

i think disinformation this well produced is deliberate fraud. They know enough of what is credible knowledge and fact to create disinformation.

 

[SomeRandom]

Funnily enough I encountered PragerU somewhat incidentally in my high school social studies class. It and other similar sites were used as examples of how misinformation can be spread and what rhetorical techniques are used to mask it. And even compared to similar sites here in Aus.
Though we had to be given a lot of context as we didn’t really understand (and I still don’t) understand US politics in general.

For some reason it didn’t fully “click” with me that that example from high school was the exact same website I’ve seen some reference over the years. Don’t know why.

Since then I’ve only ever seen it “exposed” by online lefties.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that each person has the right to express their own opinions.
It is called freedom of speech.
In that social platform, opinions exclusively are presented. Not absolute truths.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I think that each person has the right to express their own opinions.
It is called freedom of speech.
In that social platform, opinions exclusively are presented. Not absolute truths.

Yes. However, they teach their lies and propaganda AS IF it is the truth. Like Rush Limbaugh did, like Tucker Carlson does, etc…etc….
They never say this is opinion, they never apologize when they’re shown to be wrong. Just like Fox News.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes. However, they teach their lies and propaganda AS IF it is the truth. Like Rush Limbaugh did, like Tucker Carlson does, etc…etc….
They never say this is opinion, they never apologize when they’re shown to be wrong. Just like Fox News.

I think the audience is intelligent enough to have a critical mind, without being influenced.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I think the audience is intelligent enough to have a critical mind, without being influenced.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think the audience is intelligent enough to have a critical mind, without being influenced.

You have way more faith in our fellow man than I do lol
(And I’m talking about folks from any and all political persuasions.)

 

[Kooky]

I've watched PU (as in, "boy, what stinks") videos over the years, mostly by people posting links to support their claims. They are well crafted misinformation. They have obviously hired professional services to created polished and official looking videos. They appear to be credible, but well educated people will be the only one's who recognize the bad faith production.

I feel they rely mostly on the effects of gaining information via video in that they are able to present their points to appear sensible on a surface level for exactly as long as it takes to get through a video, at best. If one actually gets down to break down their arguments and look at them in detail like the video I posed in the OP does, they will frequently turn into barely coherent nonsense arguments.

i think disinformation this well produced is deliberate fraud. They know enough of what is credible knowledge and fact to create disinformation.

IMO it's propaganda, pure and simple.

 

[Kooky]

Funnily enough I encountered PragerU somewhat incidentally in my high school social studies class. It and other similar sites were used as examples of how misinformation can be spread and what rhetorical techniques are used to mask it. And even compared to similar sites here in Aus.
Though we had to be given a lot of context as we didn’t really understand (and I still don’t) understand US politics in general.

For some reason it didn’t fully “click” with me that that example from high school was the exact same website I’ve seen some reference over the years. Don’t know why.

Since then I’ve only ever seen it “exposed” by online lefties.

I actually first came across them during that time when they were still calling themselves "Prager University" and marketing their fake courses and fake certificates. I don't quite remember what my first impression of them was, but they contributed to the deep subjective distrust I have since developed for using Youtube videos (and, to some degree, video in general) as a source of credible information.

 

[Kooky]

I think that each person has the right to express their own opinions.
It is called freedom of speech.

Of course! In the capitalist landscape, everyone with money is free to sell their lies to anyone who will buy them.

In that social platform, opinions exclusively are presented. Not absolute truths.

And yet people, including you, continue to post Youtube video of somebody's opinion as if they were credible sources of information, as if any random idiot with a webcam couldn't have come to the same facts free conclusion.

I think the audience is intelligent enough to have a critical mind, without being influenced.

If I question scientific facts because I dislike them (say, I disagree that the world is a globe) I'm a "critical mind" and "skeptic" who "questions established narratives" but none of that renders my opinions any good, sensible, rational, or factual.

 

[Kooky]

You have way more faith in our fellow man than I do lol
(And I’m talking about folks from any and all political persuasions.)

It's easy to be "critical". You just have to distrust somebody and have to have a different opinion than them.

That is literally all it takes to be a "critical mind".

 

[Estro Felino]

Of course! In the capitalist landscape, everyone with money is free to sell their lies to anyone who will buy them.


And yet people, including you, continue to post Youtube video of somebody's opinion as if they were credible sources of information, as if any random idiot with a webcam couldn't have come to the same facts free conclusion.


If I question scientific facts because I dislike them (say, I disagree that the world is a globe) I'm a "critical mind" and "skeptic" who "questions established narratives" but none of that renders my opinions any good, sensible, rational, or factual.

If Soros can spend millions of dollars to spread some narrative via internet (which I call horrible narrative), so can Dennis Prager.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's easy to be "critical". You just have to distrust somebody and have to have a different opinion than them.

That is literally all it takes to be a "critical mind".

I…don’t disagree.
I think it also takes a certain level of cynicism, innate curiosity and I’d argue humility to be (for lack of a better word) “better” at critical thinking. Because any teenage idiot can be against authority. That’s just part of growing up. You want to figure out your own identity so you distrust authority almost by default. But that doesn’t do anything other than forcing you to seek out other options/opinions. And those options might not be great, but they can be convincing nonetheless. Depending on their techniques.

If you rebel and nothing else, all you’re left with is a mere veneer. But if you actually take time to look into the claims, examine them against something (hopefully prevailing evidence to confirm or disprove said claims) and take the time to be curious enough to invest effort into disproving your own claims/ideas. Then I think you can claim to be “true critical thinker.”
Not only are you against authority, you’ve enough curiosity to actually seek out the nuances of both sides of the argument, enough cynicism to see the faults in your side honestly and enough humility to admit that you’re wrong (if the evidence points to the opposite conclusion you’ve arrived at.)

And again I stress this is something I think can be applied to any political affiliation a person may have. I’ll admit to failing this “litmus test” numerous times. I’m an idiot.
But I do think it’s the best strategy a human being has when trying to achieve critical
Thinking.

 

[F1fan]

IMO it's propaganda, pure and simple.

I remember the video I watched that was linked to an argument against abiogenesis and it was just like Tucker Carlson's type of misleading rhetorical questions. The first part was casting doubt about the natural explanation and the second part sells the propaganda of how there being a Creator makes all this easier to swallow (plus validates religious conditioning). Garbage.

 

[F1fan]

If Soros can spend millions of dollars to spread some narrative via internet (which I call horrible narrative), so can Dennis Prager.

It's not about the spending of money, it's about who has an ethical intent.

Soros spreading a narrative about the value of democracy is vastly better than a company selling disinformation about science.

Some don't like democracy any more than others don't like science. Both are threats to progress and the future. So what Soros might be investing is vastly better value to the future. Frankly I'm not sure Soros does anything, as we see many misleading claims about his actions. But since it is anti-democracy people complaining about Soros if he's doing anything is it probably doing good.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's not about the spending of money, it's about who has an ethical intent.

Soros spreading a narrative about the value of democracy is vastly better than a company selling disinformation about science.

Some don't like democracy any more than others don't like science. Both are threats to progress and the future. So what Soros might be investing is vastly better value to the future. Frankly I'm not sure Soros does anything, as we see many misleading claims about his actions. But since it is anti-democracy people complaining about Soros if he's doing anything is it probably doing good.

According to many economists (it is just opinions, not facts) Soros wants to weaken the Constitutions of the European countries in order to enable speculators like him to take advantage of the economic crisis, to gain more and more billions through financial, currency and trade speculations.

He said: (and this is fact, not opinion)

I am basically there to make money. I cannot and will not look at the social consequences of my own actions. I do amoral things, but try to be "moral" most of the times

 

[Wandering Monk]

Prager routinely pilloried the Multiverse Hypotheses as if scientists were teaching that they were a fact. It was clear he didn't know anything about it the various hypotheses.

 

[Kooky]

According to many economists (it is just opinions, not facts) Soros wants to weaken the Constitutions of the European countries in order to enable speculators like him to take advantage of the economic crisis, to gain more and more billions through financial, currency and trade speculations.

He said: (and this is fact, not opinion)

I remember you chastizing people for making off topic posts in your threads.
How about you show the same courtesy to other people?