So the Tutsis are one of three ethnic groups of Rwanda, and Radio Genocide (real name Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM)) was a government-endorsed opinionated radio station in Rwanda. The broadcaster spread influential hate propaganda and was a major factor in leveraging the public opinion and causing a 1994 genocide against the Tutsis.
By listening to this broadcast, it’s likely that Tutsi folk were able to know when the destruction was on their doorstep, and when to run/hide/fight. Although my opinion is that fight is necessary long before the aggressors start to mass murder.
As a knowledge fight fan, I feel like I should say that it’s more than a ‘fact check’ - it started out more like that, but it functions as a deconstruction of the methods, motives and aims of a right-wing idealogue and by extension, others in that sphere (tucker carlson, rogan etc)
It’s a good way to keep up with and have an understanding of what’s going on in that horrific but impactful space without having to wade in yourself
My first few episodes were a little shocking (like the comic above), but yeah it’s actually very analytical (yet humorous) and I like that a lot.
Knowledge Fight is actually pretty cool.
The main guy has some very interesting thoughts and analyses that go way beyond just Alex Jones. He’s also funny, incl. the never unfriendly dismissal of his screeching sidekicks brainless remarks. They even spent a few episodes researching one of the “forefathers” of rightwing BS radio but came to the conclusion that he’s just stealing content and presenting it as his own which is ultimately dumb and boring…
Apparently they’ve been doing it for a long time but I only started listening recently.
Also reminds me of one Poker Face episode that features a fascist dog that only stops barking when he listens to right-wing radio which turns out to be made by a left-wing person for lulz. He ends up owning the dog.
They’ve been on Behind the Bastards a few times and I really value how they can balance between thought provoking and zany. Is their podcast more of the same?
Yes, for the most part. Obviously there are heavier topics and moments that require more sensitivity but their dynamic is pretty good reflected in the BtB episodes. I can’t recommend them enough but I must advise some moderation, if you take too much of that stuff in at once it becomes quite a mental load.
They have episodes titled ‘Formulaic objections’ which are commented versions of depositions, mainly from the sandy hook cases, but also others against characters from that universe and they are awesome. I sometimes take those as a sort of palette cleanser, because it is quite relieving to see those characters in a court setting, stripped of their usual ability to just deflect and ramble on.
it is quite relieving to see those characters in a court setting, stripped of their usual ability to just deflect and ramble on.
Interesting, I’ll have to check their backlog. Although I really like the analyses of the main guy; they are very sharp when Jones is rambling & deflecting.
Although I really like the analyses of the main guy; they are very sharp when Jones is rambling & deflecting.
Adding to that: yes those moments are very enjoyable, but if you listen for longer you’ll notice they are around a lot and the replies of dan and Jordan are in a vacuum, they have no impact on what is being rambled about. In those depositions there is actually a professional in the room, that either stops the rambling (there is a moment where one lawyer actually does a “bapbapbap I’m talking, not you” to Alex Jones), or they just deflate all the nonsense with a short remark like “in what way was this an answer to my question” or " do you know what question you are answering right now?". Oh and one of my favorites “that’s a nice opinion to have, but not an answer to my question”.
I think it’s formulaic objections #18 where Steven Crowders is questioned and he tries his “debate me bro” techniques a couple of times and just runs into a wall with his face first. Like, why would you try something like this with a lawyer that has been working your case for months and generally does that shit for a living, do you think there will be a “gotcha” moment, because there.will absolutely be not.
And just for entertainment formulaic objections #3 is Roger Stone being deposed by a lawyer he has been aquatinted with for decades and they absolutely HATE each other, it’s just perfect. Both of them are terrible people and it’s just a delight listen to them being at each other’s throats, but in a legal setting. One highlight is “did you just call me a little bitch?” - “well you certainly act like one”. I laughed out loud more than once during this episode.
Ha ha ha ha ha I’ll definitely be looking for that Roger Stone one 😁
Oh yeah, Dans analyses is what carries this show. He is at his best when he is angrily swinging his Analysis like the sword of righteousness, those moments are just perfect.
And there’s always several of them in every episode.
Absolutely, and that’s where they make a good team (maybe I was shitting a bit too much on the sidekick, but he really does screech and it’s unbearable).
One of the hosts of knowledge fight also worked on the Sandyhook Defamation case which cost Alex Jones a lot of money. So can’t really fault them.
