Sure it’s sarcasm but its sarcasm used as a strawman.

Nobody is saying the shooter isn’t responsible. The argument is that if you don’t destroy the system it will keep producing individuals who do this sort of thing.

This argument does nothing to advance the discussion. He is just making rage bait noise to get engagement because that is his job.

Fuck BE and his stupid hot takes.

I hate to defend BE but in this case it is pretty clear what point he is trying to make: he is deliberately using the same arguments and the exact same phrasing that many leftists use when defending people who join the US military. BE has had a long standing beef with leftists who defend US veterans.

He has made it very clear that he doesn’t agree with making excuses for people who, for whatever reason, choose to become soldiers for the US empire, and he is drawing a parallel between them and ICE, pointing out that if you think working for ICE is indefensible you should also think being in the US military is just as irredeemable.

Whether he is right about that is debatable but clearly that is the point he is making here.

I don’t think he could make this satire any more obvious without adding /s

So, additional thoughts, doing it as a general comment cause I don’t want to single anyone out and there are a number who are defending it as satire:

Problem is, it’s terrible at being satire because it’s not a fair representation of what people tend to say when they point at system level causes of things. The common point about systems isn’t “nobody who does wrong holds any responsibility for wrongdoing.” The point is more like that if you focus your energy more on hating a particular agent of imperialism than you do the imperialist organization they work for and the imperialist institutions that create and maintain it, then you are missing the point of where the problems come from and so will be unequipped to challenge power and will be easily led around from one controversy to the next. You will be able to rage at symptoms, without ever determining cause.

It’s also worth noting that narratives focusing on individual blame get used for racism and part of where focus on systemic problems comes from, is as a means of pushing back against racist narratives. It doesn’t always translate 1:1 in reverse, so you have to be careful of framing it too much as general principle. Emphasizing the oppressor as victim in their own way may come out sounding stupid if you’re trying to challenge power, but emphasizing the oppressed as victim is critical to recognizing their plight. OTOH, some people who act as oppressor at one point in their lives could go down a rung and end up more in the oppressed camp at another point. Whether because of a change in power or because they served their usefulness to the oppressor camp and are no longer needed.

Beware of universal principle thinking in general. Much of what western-influenced-thought takes as universal principle is simply an expression of the dominant ideology.

This is beyond obvious sarcasm. The tone is completely opposite of BE and, unless he had a stroke and got fettermanned, this is him making a point about using such language to defend veterans and people who join the armed forces in general.

The number of people who are gonna miss the sarcasm will be amazing.

Context: It is a reference to Pro-Graham Platner and pro-Veteran liberals and leftists.

He made a video making fun of the person who said: hate systems not people. It’s clearly a joke

I’m starting to realize my problem with BE is that he desperately wants to be taken seriously but simultaneously treats basically no topic or person with sincerity or seriousness

If you have a problem with this but not people making the same arguments to defend the IDF or US armed forces, it can only be because you don’t see non-American lives as equal in value.

Not that BE is good of course, he’s a radlib who happens to uphold the correct political line occasionally.

Nah he’s taking the piss (ie sardonic/ironic) given his whole angle (see below).

Doesn’t mean he’s always right (though his irony here in this is example is just generally correct) or even a scientific socialist given his anti-russian and anti-chinese rhetoric echoing imperial talking points (even anti-maduro stuff in the past regarding elections, from what I recall).

But he is otherwise quite anti-west including holding most westerners (especially USAmericans) accountable for the crimes of their countries. Which is why he sometimes comes off sounding correct because even if you don’t know a thing about socialism or imperialism, being anti-western can sometimes be not too bad an heuristic on politics given how awful the West is and the commanding heights of imperialism being the US.

He openly admits that his viewers have a parasocial relationship with youtubers, that his channel isn’t some revolutionary avenue, and that he is happy to make money making easy dunks such as on pro-zionists. Some of the videos on his main channel can be educational (such as on Nazi Germany’s inspiration from the US with manifest Destiny and Lebensraum).

But he is also a good example that if one wants to extend their political educstion beyond BE level of anti-western imperialism then self claimed marxists better get to grips of prodhounism, dialectical materialism and start reading broadly beyond Settlers*.

*= has no real grounded theory of political economy on why the global labour aristocracy / bourgoisie proleteriat also includes people of colour, especially in the West. It’s great book to introduce someone how bad the history of white western proleteriat is but then hits its limitations quickly.

It’s only a matter of time until the irony poisoning is fatal and he becomes one of those “I left the left because they were mean to me” people.

There’s no mutual exclusivity here. He’s a victim, yes. Same as how many advocates of corporal punishment are also victims of it. If we think deterministically enough, we’re all victims of circumstance. But you can be a victim and an oppressor, and he is not as much a victim as Good was. Being ruthless to the system requires neutralizing these people whatever their circumstances are.