Am I interpreting it wrong? While they're all shitting on PragerU (which I'll rarely fault anyone for doing), I don't see what's so dunkworthy with the statement about the Left (at least the part of it which holds opinions resembling shoe or Vaush) and society. It doesn't seem to me like an attack on the Left in that they're implying that they want harm upon people, but rather explaining that the Left (in this broad sense) sees it as the duty of the political class/the state to fix society (in my opinion, how they see fit) while PragerU is saying that it's more the duty or in the best interest of the individual to seek self-improvement; which if enough people do will improve the society around them. In other words PragerU is taking the very standard centrist or perhaps Libertarian view of valuing autonomy over external influence (to the degree in which its possible.) It's not a "hurr durr so no government at all to do anything ever, wow you hate roads" thing, it's that they shouldn't be what dictates such change/progress.
Maybe I'm missing it completely and injecting my own shit into it, I don't know.
The phrasing of "politics inevitably becomes the vehicle for societal improvement" is probably poorly done, but I can't tell if these people replying are being obtuse about that (or again, it very well may be who is on this one) especially when a lot of comments are saying things like "See, they're straight out saying that we want societal improvement and they (PragerU) don't!"
