Can I get a quick rundown on Phil Greaves?

I’m new to lefty twitter and I’ve been seeing this guy pop up a lot. Apparently he’s some kind of a meme, but he sounds completely serious.

What are his beliefs?, he seems to be either a contrarian or so pure in ideology he disagrees with everyone. In the last few days I’ve seen him call other ML’s out for having a friend in the military, for liking Sci-Fi and associating with the D S A. Is he just trolling or what?

Other urls found in this thread:

He's usually right, and he causes libs, socdems, trots, etc. to fly into a blind rage. If you ignore him or mock him as stupid/crazy it's your loss, you're doomed to engage in frenzied and failed opportunism over and over again.

He is the most intelligent man online.

He is Mr. Everything is fascism Man. He's funny, but ultimately pointless.

You manchildren are so angry that he criticized your Hollywood children's movies, it's hilarious. SHOCK, a Marxist says that the bourgeois-owned media is going to promote fascism and imperialism!

He says that but unironically watches Family Guy.

Does he?
A lot of his posts seem like jokes imo. I mean, as far as I know he's serious, but his style and image just seems patently hilarious.


Think about what you just said slowly, that's not even remotely equivalent.

Yeah actually it is equivalent.

I mean…isn’t it? I think perhaps Phil underestimates the sheer amount of liberalism and pseudo-leftist critique in modern media but he obviously is recognizing something important. It’s not like you can’t say that Hollywood promotes fascism while watching some Hollywood films; the argument that he watches family guy is a lot like the ethical consumption under capitalism belief.

He’s only a meme to chapo cultists and the new anti-tankie bandwagoners.
If the fbi-left hates him he’s doing something right.

eceleb garbage belongs in /leftytrash/

But how are they fascist to begin with, and if saying they are is so important then why watch them? I mean, I don't really watch TV now and I don't make the claim that all media products of capitalism are necessarily fascist.

Common Argument:

Ergo by using [blank] you are not living in an ideologically sound way and therefore a hypocrite.

Your false equivalence:

By equating both to be the same you are positing that playing golf and watching Family Guy are indispensable to modern life, and thus are unavoidable consequences of living in a capitalist society.

Now, Phil partaking in bourgeois media wouldn't be a great sin, in of itself; we are all human beings after all that value recreation and escapism. But to chastise and berate others for consuming *different* bourgeois media, such as Star Trek, while doing the same is hypocritical and undermines his character.

The USA is fascist/imperialist. Therefore its ideological apparatus will reinforce fascism and imperialism. Million dollar Hollywood Disney movies are the highest expression of the USA ideological apparatus. Therefore, on that basis alone, the vast majority of Hollywood movies are either overtly or covertly fascist and imperialist. If they weren't, porkies wouldn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars on them.

Who cares, we are talking about whether or not these Hollywood films are fascist. It is totally irrelevant whether Phil watches some shitty American cartoon.

Porkies spend millions on them because they make a roi money for porky. Calling Star Trek fascist makes about as much sense as calling restaurants fascist.

No. I pointed out Phil's hypocrisy, here

You responded with a false equivalence, here

I asked you to think carefully about the statement you made, giving you time to correct your error in logic, here

You stood your ground, asserting your statement to be logically sound and equivalent, here

I dismantled your original false equivalence step by step, outlining your error in logic, here

Here you deny the previous discussion, in its entirety, pretending it never happened, then go on to assert that you were instead talking about the ideology of Hollywood films. Which is a patently false remark. As my citations show

He's a mentally ill nobody that thinks posting is warfare. Phily Greavsteak isn't relevant to the left outside of twitter drama.

Cell phones were invented by communists tho.

No they don't, Hollywood movies are terrible investments with no guarantee of success.

lmao shut up nerd

Are you saying you see fascism and imperialism as inherently the same thing or that the specific conditions of the USA can be suitably described as both?

I agree with one description of the USA, but not really the other.

A lot of very rich people play the stock market.

Yes they do, the films you claimed were fascist usually have a large roi and make money. One flop like that King Arthur movie doesn't negate that Star Wars makes 5 times its budget in less than a month. Porky wouldn't spend money if porky didn't think he would profit. It's far more convincing to argue that Star Wars is cheap entertainment made by committee in order to bring in money that to argue that it's fascist propaganda financed regardless of money being made.

No, the USA is both fascist and imperialist.

They have better guarantees than Hollywood movies.

he's just a hardline anti-revisionist ML
he's abrasive and ridiculous sometimes but he's pretty accurate when it comes to geopolitics tbh

Porky profits from promoting fascism and imperialism, that's why they dump so much money into the CIA, FBI, police, etc. How are you this stupid?

I love how much he irritates and triggers the libtards, but most of what he has to say contains nothing substantive and I haven't seen him successfully trigger right wing-wongers very much.

he has a decent right wing following, frogtwitter loves him

You could probably say this about a lot of industries - when you're that rich you don't really have to worry that much about absolute certainty. And if shit like Gnomeo and Juliet can be a hit, they can't have it that bad.

so you're just going to handwave and move goalposts. the fact is, the vast majority of Hollywood output is propaganda.

What exactly was the point of saying they had better guarantees than Hollywood movies? I'm not sure how you think I'm moving goalposts. The primary motivation to make these movies is profit - it doesn't matter that they could potentially make a more reliable profit doing something else when they can afford large losses from the tremendous returns that blockbusters give them.

But here's what was said a few posts back:

The incentive for spending that money is profit. I can agree that most of what's put out is some form of propaganda - but arguing that it's propaganda because the only real reason to produce any Hollywood movie is to brainwash the populace makes little sense when there clearly are a lot of people who stand to make a lot of money. And they don't so much need to insert propaganda overall as, perhaps, largely avoid other propaganda that wouldn't suit them - once they make their money, they can just continue to buy that influence anyway.

Another proof that he's shit.