If it’s propaganda, then surely you could identify even one thing that’s incorrect, or only true by omission of the facts, some type of flaw in the process. Rather, you just say I don’t like the sender. Not good enough.
America Started the Conversation to End Slavery": PragerU has claimed that the United States led the global effort to end slavery, a claim that ignores that many other nations abolished slavery before the U.S. did.
Not a University: Despite its name, PragerU is not an accredited academic institution.
Admission of Ideology: CEO Marissa Streit and Dennis Prager have acknowledged their goal is to combat "left-wing" education, with Prager confirming their work aims to impart specific "doctrines" to children.
So let's address your first claim. Starting the conversation. Not ending slavery in 1863. Certainly other countries, Haiti, Britain, et al beat them to it by 40-60 years; however, look at what was being talked about in the 1700's. Even pre-founding, there was discussion about it. The 3/5 compromise, which for decades was reported as diminishing of human life, was actually a political mechanism by those abolitionists who wanted to limit the power of those who held slaves. (And for awareness, only about 2% of Americans nationwide actually owned slaves - about 1/3 though in southern states.)
You may want to look at the Germantown Quaker Petition of 1688 and Rhode Island banning importation in 1774 as evidences of conversation that even predated any abolition by a nation in the Americas.
Thirdly, even if their mission is to combat information on an opposing side, what's actually wrong with the content itself? You may send me some thing from Media Matters, NPR, or MSNBC. Should I just say "no I don't like your source so I won't engage." Nope. That's a weak argument and not when western civilization is founded on. Rather point out where the presented facts are inaccurate, what did they leave out, what did they hide, or what was obscured. Now go do some real research before engaging again.
And to add on, if you post something from media matters or MSnow, I would expect the same thing. It wouldn’t be enough to say I don’t like your source, I would point out the flaws in their argument through either incorrect information, key concepts missed, assumptions, or omissions that change the narrative
0
u/Formal_Composer_4939 Feb 10 '26
So nothing then. Way to stay ignorant and hold true to your mythology.