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
Edit 2: nvm this bit about Hasan was kinda stupid. I haven't changed my opinion really, but the analogy is dumb and forced
Why? Because he doesn't coddle the feelings of First Worlders who, with very little exception, support, participate in, and directly benefit from imperialism?
he's a petite-bourgois white settler who has been overtly ableist and transphobic on multiple occasions
No he isn't. He is a YouTuber who makes all of his content by himself. That's not petite bourgeois, nor would him being petite bourgeois or white or a settler invalidate a single thing he has ever said
When?
yes it is. the proletariat sell their labor power, he sells the product of his labor which is the petite-bourgeois relation.
if there's no extraction of surplus labour involved, he's not petit bourgeois, he's an artisan (although successful artisans often do become bourgeois)
No it isn't. You fundamentally misunderstand what the term "petite bourgeois" means. Peasants and artisans also sell the product of their labour rather than their labour power, yet they're not considered petite bourgeois. You know why? Because petite bourgeoisie literally means "small capitalists". The petite bourgeoisie are wealthy enough to extract surplus value from others (thus making them bourgeois); but not wealthy enough to subsist entirely off of that surplus (separating them from the haute bourgeoisie, or the big capitalists). BadEmpanada does not hire anyone, so he is not bourgeois. If he's not bourgeois, then he cannot be petite bourgeois.
Both peasants and artisans are petit bourgeois.
No they aren't for the reasons I explained above. They by and large don't extract surplus value, so can't be bourgeois. Peasants and artisans literally pre-date the bourgeoisie by thousands of years.
I'm so tired of people yelling about his supposedly 'transphobic' behaviors. He attacked Viki1999 and Contrapoints for their support of Israel, and was proven right on both counts. They just happen to both be white trans women.
Viki1999 literally said that she supports Israel because supposedly, she believes she would be "thrown off a roof by Hamas in Gaza". BadEmpanada pointed this out, causing others to apply enough backlash for her to quit YouTube. BadEmpanada never supported the dog piling, just pointed out her fucked up beliefs.
I love how this is the immediate reaction of anyone whenever I or someone else criticizes Badempanada. This is going to be insulting, I'm sorry, but this is the same tactic of those rightist conservatives who just complain that "you're a snowflake who gets offended by everything. Why do you need to be coddled you sissy?" Based off of nothing else but just me complaining he's an insufferable douche (at best) to everyone, not just first worlders and not just rightists.
And you also engage in the same behavior that I'm complaining about in the post. You revel in how his abrasive personality makes westerners sooooo uncomfortable, ignoring how that same personality has led to him making extreme errors in his otherwise good analysis, and hurting genuine comrades.
I'm not complaining about how he makes westerners feel bad, I'm complaining that people put up with him for metaphysical reasons relating to that. Like Feynmann, he does stuff we wouldn't put up with normally, but since he does it tow be quirky and different compared to his colleagues in the space, it's alright.
And I'm genuinely trying to be extremely charitable. I'm comparing him to a Nobel award winning physicist for crying out loud. And I'm not dissecting him and his behavior (although I very well could, if I had the time or was terminally online enough), I'm really just complaining that is how we have to interact with him and his influence. I would much rather have a mature discussion about anti-imperialism, but every week or so he says something else that sounds super cool and unlimited genocide on the first world or whatever, but that people who have actually read theory have to take time deconstructing or responding to(his recent thing on unions is just one in a long string of issues). So in the end I just get sick of him and his entire persona.
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?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28822003/
https://iocdf.org/expert-opinions/am-i-a-monster-an-overview-of-common-features-typical-course-shame-and-treatment-of-pedophilia-ocd-pocd/
https://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/articles/pocd-fear-of-being-a-paedophile
lmao i don't think i should have to explain to a "marxist" why ocd doesn't make someone "subhuman". even if they get unpleasant intrusive thoughts, which is a symptom of ocd. actually, i think you should explain why you feel it's acceptable to use that sort of strasserist thinking
i also don't think it's even a little bit permissible to misgender someone or accuse them of being "fake trans" just because they happen to be a little hitler, as most americans are. it doesn't help anyone, trans or palestinian, to do that sort of bigotry. i don't think i should have to explain to a self-described "marxist" that trans people are human beings, with all the good and bad that entails
Paedophilia is not a symptom of OCD. You are equating having OCD to being a paedophile. THAT is ableist, and it also makes you a defender of paedophilia. And being a paedophile (or a defender thereof) does in fact make you a subhuman.
"Unpleasant intrusive thoughts" like wanting to rape children? YOU CALL THAT "UNPLEASANT INTRUSIVE THOUGHTS"?!
Paedophilia is one of the most vile crimes there is. If you do something that inhumane, you cease to be a person. If you aren't a person, you don't have rights. And when a non-person's mere existence is a threat to the safety of others, it must be exterminated. When a dog intentionally hurts a child, we put it down. And a dog isn't even particularly intelligent. What do you think should happen to a far more sentient being guilty of an even more heinous crime?
I agree, and BadEmpanada likely does too. He wasn't accusing anyone in particular. On the rare occasion that he does misgender somebody, he corrects himself
"non-human" "exterminated" okay bro. no one said ocd makes you want to touch children. that is, in fact, not one of the symptoms. intrusive thoughts, however, are. don't try to turn this around on me man
I said that POCD is not a real condition and that paedophiles are subhumans. Your response to that was to falsely equate having OCD to being a paedophile ("i don't think i should have to explain to a 'marxist' why ocd doesn't make someone 'subhuman'") and claim that "getting unpleasant intrusive thoughts" (i.e. wanting to rape children) was "a symptom of ocd." That is ableism and paedophilia apologia. You are a paedophile ally, and I'm going to make that fact known to everybody.
One commenter has already linked to scientific literature about POCD. It is also described as a subtype in OCD's Wikipedia article with multiple citations. Please read about them rather than arguing for the sake of arguing and getting emotional.
that's not what happened at all lmao. you're talking in the context of a post that said that mental illness is western decadence. are intrusive thoughts only part of a valid mental illness if their content is socially acceptable enough for you? should mentally ill people present themselves to you so you can decide if they're valid or subhuman, mein führer?