I’m very upfront about my slant. I’m biased against war, and against those who profit off weapons of war. The site exists to advocate openly and honestly for the world that I (and my collaborators) want to live in, and that world just doesn’t include popular YouTubers making ads for companies worth billions of dollars that make death robots owned by billionaire ghouls, even if some of their products aren’t as bad as others.
I don’t remember Mark saying the drones were cooler than the Patriot, I remember him saying that they were significantly less expensive (though I didn’t go back and watch to confirm).
He has an animation about how they’re recoverable and talked about how they’re part of their program that use new technology like SpaceX and such. He definitely hyped it up.
This piece seems to be saying that there can be no good use of military systems, and we shouldn’t say anything positive about them, because some of them are being abused, which is nonsense.
“Because some of them are being abused” is a comical understatement when talking about the American drone program, or American militarism in general.
But more importantly, that’s just not what I said. There’s a huge difference between “there can be no good use of military systems” and criticizing one of the single most influential educational YouTubers with more followers than there are people in most countries for uncritically repeating American “war on terror” style propaganda towards children while fawning over an arms dealer.