Current Affairs The New Middle

[DanEFC92]

@DanEFC92 you're the perfect poster boy for leftist tribalism x



So you're saying I'd support Hitler? You're doing a childish version of what Cathy Newman did to Jordan Peterson in that infamous interview.




Such cherry-picking! He's also had the Weinstein brothers on (not the movie guys...), Lindsay Shepherd (liberal teaching assistant), Some Black Guy (that's his actual monikor), Scott Adams (Dilbert creator), Richard Dawkins, Mike Shellenberger (environmentalist), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (intellectual), Yanis Varoufakis (that cool Greek who The Guardian fell in love with), Margaret Cho (woke comedian), Gad Saad (behavioural scientist from Lebanon), Laura Kipnis (feminist)...etc

He's asked many who identify as hard left on the show but they keep refusing...




Dan lad, honestly try thinking for yourself a bit. Often what you do in the current-affairs forum is post opinions from random Twitter users without any comment from yourself. It's as if I would just keep posting someone else's post from The Guardian's comment pages.

It's not a good look. Anyway, I had a click and this is the post you link:


Do you expect me to log on Twitter to debate with this guy or why did you post it? Try posting your own thoughts, mate.




Well that started well: "There's nothing that gets under the goat...under...under the...gets his goat..."

Is this the kind of high-quality content you like to watch? And again you're posting someone else's opinion instead of thinking for yourself.

The New Middle scene is all about thinking for yourself: don't limit yourself to what you think your tribe would think. As Prev said earlier, it goes for me too: I disagree with about half of what I hear, but I enjoy hearing the thought that goes into their arguments all the same. Important is we understand someone else's point-of-view even if we don't agree.

That's debate, and that's how society can culturally progress.

Yes, I'm saying you'd support Hitler. Don't be so obtuse.

Said it was a wee look, and found a host of right wing talking heads. Mentioned Scott Adams in my post, he's a Trump supporter. Asking (hard?) left wing people onto the show, only for them to turn him down, doesn't give credence to the 'wow such diversity/range of guests' claim.

Dan lad, honestly try thinking for yourself a bit. Often what you do in the current-affairs forum is post opinions from random Twitter users without any comment from yourself. It's as if I would just keep posting someone else's post from The Guardian's comment pages.

It's not a good look. Anyway, I had a click and this is the post you link:


Do you expect me to log on Twitter to debate with this guy or why did you post it? Try posting your own thoughts, mate.

This is why I find you infuriating. You've come on here, regurgitating Jordan Peterson and others, then have the audacity to say 'try thinking for yourself.'

Anyway, the Twitter comment was responding to a video Ben Shapiro giving his daft opinion on climate change.

Many people post Twitter posts. Get over it.


'And again you're posting someone else's opinion instead of thinking for yourself.' And again. Infuriating.


Think you've inadvertently proved/supported mine and @ilikecheese points with that childish response to the video. Mocking the tone, or the way they came across. Excellent rebuttal, by the way. You've been ensnared by the 'interlectualism' of Peterson, Rubin, Shapiro and co.

 

[dholliday]

You've been ensnared by the 'interlectualism' of Peterson, Rubin, Shapiro and co.

*intellectualism

 

[DanEFC92]

*intellectualism

 

[dholliday]

Said it was a wee look, and found a host of right wing talking heads. Mentioned Scott Adams in my post, he's a Trump supporter. Asking (hard?) left wing people onto the show, only for them to turn him down, doesn't give credence to the 'wow such diversity/range of guests' claim.

So when I replied and showed you he had indeed a wide range of guests on his show what is your response to that? You focus on the bit where I said he'd also had hard-left people turn him down, as that better supports your initial argument.

Limited response (see earlier post about this).

This is why I find you infuriating. You've come on here, regurgitating Jordan Peterson and others, then have the audacity to say 'try thinking for yourself.'

Why is that 'audacity'? That's what Peterson himself says: "think for yourself". I'm not getting the link to "audacity".

Anyway, the Twitter comment was responding to a video Ben Shapiro giving his daft opinion on climate change.

It's not clear why you post these Twitter links. Do you want to debate Shapiro's point about climate change? Do you want to debate the actual comment you linked which was some random incoherent rant?

Better debate = better understanding. If you find that infuriating then maybe that's something to think about.

 

[tsubaki]

It's not clear why you post these Twitter links. Do you want to debate Shapiro's point about climate change? Do you want to debate the actual comment you linked which was some random incoherent rant?

Better debate = better understanding. If you find that infuriating then maybe that's something to think about.

That is a fallacy though.

Its like a debate between theologians and geologists over the creation of the earth - you can talk all you want, but at some point you have to acknowledge that one side knows nothing about the topic being discussed and is taking part only to protect their own position.

 

[dholliday]

That is a fallacy though.

Its like a debate between theologians and geologists over the creation of the earth - you can talk all you want, but at some point you have to acknowledge that one side knows nothing about the topic being discussed and is taking part only to protect their own position.

Are you saying those random Twitter rants know more about this thread's topic than we do?

Or are you saying Shapiro is clearly wrong in that linked video? He is in my book, anyway. We should react to such things pro-actively rather than re-actively. Doesn't make him wrong on other stuff.

 

[ilikecheese]

Who are the veiled racists? Name names, mate...your contribution is too vague.

Anyone who proliferates the narrative that white people in America are victims because they are white.

 

[dholliday]

Anyone who proliferates the narrative that white people in America are victims because they are white.

Ok. You said that in response to a Dave Rubin video. So I'm gonna assume you think Rubin is a racist but for some reason you don't wanna outright say it.

Veiled accusation to the veiled nazis...all very shady, isn't it?

 

[ilikecheese]

Ok. You said that in response to a Dave Rubin video. So I'm gonna assume you think Rubin is a racist but for some reason you don't wanna outright say it.

Veiled accusation to the veiled nazis...all very shady, isn't it?

Dancing around an MLK quote to insinuate that white people are victims is exactly what I am talking about.

I am not saying he is racist, but that bit is the veiled racism that some are trying to normalize in a pseudo intellectual package.

 

[dholliday]

Dancing around an MLK quote to insinuate that white people are victims is exactly what I am talking about.

I am not saying he is racist, but that bit is the veiled racism that some are trying to normalize in a pseudo intellectual package.

I agree with Rubin and have been saying similar for a while. I don't get how you interpret that as him revealing 'veiled racism' within his argument. Sam Seder comes across as frankly a little dim in his attempts to belittle Rubin's point.

It's not racist (veiled or otherwise) to say MLK's line about "not judging a person by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character" runs counter to contemporary identity politics. To even think that is just strange...as the meaning is right there in MLK's clear wording.

 

[ilikecheese]

I agree with Rubin and have been saying similar for a while. I don't get how you interpret that as him revealing 'veiled racism' within his argument. Sam Seder comes across as frankly a little dim in his attempts to belittle Rubin's point.

It's not racist (veiled or otherwise) to say MLK's line about "not judging a person by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character" runs counter to contemporary identity politics. To even think that is just strange...as the meaning is right there in MLK's clear wording.

*color

 

[dholliday]

*color

ha! i'll have to concede that one seen as it's American culture we're talking about x

 

[verreauxi]

One issue that creates problems with definining a "new middle" at least as it concerns the electorate in the USA and their elected officials is shown below. This is why some people talk about Jeb Bush as a moderate Republican now. I would say that sure, Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are not stark raving mad evangelical Christian show-me-the-birth certificate, UN=Satan, bless-my-AR-15 types (some of these types do inhabit state legislatures and city councils here in the USA...maybe even congress too), but Shapiro and Peterson still hold right-wing views, so I have trouble fitting them into a "new middle" unless you define "new middle" as center-right.

 

[toffy]

I agree with Rubin and have been saying similar for a while. I don't get how you interpret that as him revealing 'veiled racism' within his argument. Sam Seder comes across as frankly a little dim in his attempts to belittle Rubin's point.

It's not racist (veiled or otherwise) to say MLK's line about "not judging a person by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character" runs counter to contemporary identity politics. To even think that is just strange...as the meaning is right there in MLK's clear wording.

This is what I mentioned earlier.

Attack the person, throw a cheap shot of them being racist in order to shut down the conversation.

The word racist and racism has been lobbied about so much during such discussions it's actually lost its meaning amongst many I believe

 

[ilikecheese]

This is what I mentioned earlier.

Attack the person, throw a cheap shot of them being racist in order to shut down the conversation.

The word racist and racism has been lobbied about so much during such discussions it's actually lost its meaning amongst many I believe

The proliferation of the idea that somehow white Americans are somehow at a disadvantage in this country because of policies meant to give equal rights is the problem though.

It's not new or clever. It is regressive identity politics.