the source is in the tweet
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
I disagree with him on 90% of things but I respect his intelligence.
In my experience Harris knows what he's talking about, and when he doesn't he admits it readily.
Christopher Hitchens only had an undergrad degree. Should his views on the topics about which he speaks be null and void because he isn't an 'expert' in anything?
Russel Brand is a comedian. Should he not be allowed to hold an opinion? Stephen Fry... same question.
A lot of the time, these people facilitate debate and exploration of interesting and relevant topics of our times.
Discourse is a good thing.
Russel Brand is a comedian. Should he not be allowed to hold an opinion? Stephen Fry... same question.
A lot of the time, these people facilitate debate and exploration of interesting and relevant topics of our times.
Discourse is a good thing.
Yes and Hitchens had a third class undergrad degree. However you slice it they are more qualified academically
I don't rate him particularly highly, but I do sort of find that he's amusing to listen to purely because of some of his bizarre opinions. And in expressing those opinions he does tend to be critical of all sides, to a certain extent. Which is at least refreshing insofar as plenty of supposed experts will really just be advocating for a certain political party relentlessly.
I certainly dont think you have to have a masters to qualify as having anything worthwhile to say.
The quality of an argument should be judged on the basis of the argument itself, not the qualification of the person making it.
A qualification implies a certain level of expertise in something. But it does not prove it, and not having it doesnt prove its absence either.
The quality of an argument should be judged on the basis of the argument itself, not the qualification of the person making it.
A qualification implies a certain level of expertise in something. But it does not prove it, and not having it doesnt prove its absence either.
They do, and they certainly shouldn't be discouraged, but I do think it points to a wider idea as to how we should consider such people, and as to whether or not they should be considered experts. Brand is a comedian who talks a lot about politics, but then most people know that's what he is, and I don't think Brand himself has really ever paraded himself as an out-and-out expert as opposed to a loud leftie who has a lot of opinions, some well thought-out and others perhaps not so much.
Hitchens, however, is much more commonly thought of as an 'expert' of sorts, and while there'd be no need to exclude him from discourse if you disagree, I do think @oneniltothearsenal highlights an important issue in how people like him should be considered. You could argue that however eloquent you may find Hitchens, he was essentially just a guy with a lot of opinions. Like anyone else. With the main difference being that he managed to become quite famous.
Fair enough. And Samatha was handled poorly, based on what I read in the Canada land article.
His professional conduct is being reviewed based on the complaint, there has been no action for him to face disciplinary hearings, and so I'm not sure that this 1 case out of 10,000+ is enough to tarnish one's expertise in a chosen field.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...erson-agrees-to-plan-for-clinical-improvement
100%, and I say this as someone currently doing a PHD - academia is full of mediocrity.
Good points @Cheesy and agreed.
My problem with Hitchens is that in my experience, he didn't contribute positively to public discourse.
For example, this is a basic scenario I witnessed a few times during my time at Uni in the early 2000s. A diverse group of students (Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Deist, Native American, Confucian, etc) would be having a nuanced discussion on religion and spirituality and then a Hitchens fan would join in and start parroting some favorite Hitchens lines like Mother Theresa is a whore and other aggressive non-sequiturs of militant anti-theism for which Hitchens was the pioneer and biggest proponent. This would usually completely derail the mutually beneficial nuanced discussion that was going on and drag it down into the gutter of insults, hyperbole and misunderstanding.
Usually I don't blame a public figure for their fan's behavior but in this case they were mimicking Hitchens' blind agressiveness a lot of time and it was just really off putting. Its why I really grew to dislike him as a public speaker because he seemed to relish the attention he got from pushing the boundaries on insults. It just wasn't good for discourse the way his fans would parrot his aggressive lines.
It's not the only complaint. He's spoken in one of his tour dates about having 3 sexual misconduct complaints. And it's extremely unlikely he's had 10,000 patients unless they all leave him after a few sessions which wouldn't be a great stat for him.
Fair enough.
Which one of you posted the Kermit voice video the other day. Can't get it out of my mind new when I'm watching Peterson videos.
it's perfect
Fair enough. I suppose that is an objective call. I haven't heard him for many years but I remember finding his talks interesting.
I find some people generally do not contribute positively to public discourse. For example, Ben Shapiro. Divisive, arrogant, and disingenuous. But that's my opinion based on only 1 hour of listening to him.
Others, even if I disagree, I learn something from insofar as it encourages me to explore certain topics more deeply.
What are people's thoughts on Joe Rogan?
Great UFC commentator and podcast host, somewhat decent jiujitsu practitioner and recreational hunter.
Good stand-up comedian, too.
Forgot about his primary profession. Yeah he's pretty decent at stand up as well.
I like the way my son put it. Rogan is basically the evolution of the late night talk show. But instead of only having on guests for 10 minutes to just promote their newest movie, music, book, Rogan can have guests on for 2 hours to talk about a wider range of topics or delve deeper into whatever personal issue interests them. It generally makes for more interesting discussions because there is no corporate network trying to sanitize content for sponsors, etc.
Personally my only critique is that he has on a few people I don't really see any discourse value in like Ben Shapiro. There are dozens of people I could recommend that would be better than Shapiro. I'd rather Rogan have on a selection of Redcafe posters than Shapiro.
But for the most part his guests are a fairly wide ranging and interesting group. For instance he had on Michael Pollan recently who has always inspired some interesting off-beat discussions.
Yeah his podcast is actually pretty good and I do actually learn quite a bit when I watch - especially when he has guests like Peter Attia on. The longer two hour type format definitely works well for this sort of thing.
Exactly. I haven't heard that episode myself, but that's the type of guest I mean. There are so many interesting researchers and others that simply don't get attention from the normal news networks that podcasts like this can bring out into the open.
I personally like listening to a selection of podcasts like Rogan, Radiolab, etc more than listening to the news or listening to talk radio as the topics are usually much more thought provoking
I sense a beef growing between Dawkins and Peterson
10:20
Last edited:
Very interesting perspective. His quality will vary based on the quality of guest he hosts (So the show will obviously suffer when he hosts people like Shapiro).
A friend recommended him to me because apparently he keeps his guests honest, whether they tend towards the 'right' or the 'left'. He guides discussion fairly and likes exploring ideas. Actually when I searched for him I initially found his stand-up comedy and that's what I've been listening to... he's very funny. I haven't delved into his non-comedy podcasts yet.
His podcasts are very good, generally, the length really allows him to explore topics with his guests. He has done a few with JBP, and one with Peterson AND Weinstein.
His Jamie Foxx one was excellent, I laughed a lot, and I really like the Kyle Kulinski one.
His mate Callan is insufferable though! And that Eddie Bravo guy is funny but a conspiracy theory idiot.
One of the things YouTube is great for is the long formats where guests can speak for as long as they want and viewers can jump around to weed through the boring material. Hard to get that from TV or radio. Rogan's podcast is one of the better ones.
Especially on Rogan's podcast
I saw an interview with Kevin Lee on Rogan's podcast a few weeks back. Unlike his usual UFC appearances, he came across as mature and thoughtful on weed and other topics. Amazing what happens when guests can talk at length.
Has anyone seen much of Bret Weinstein? He talks as if he is the misunderstood scientist at the start of 'The Day After Tomorrow' or a 'Jurassic Park' movie who predicts the doom everyone else is failing to spot but now he has been chosen as the oracle of truth. The way he presents his theories and commentaries and the melodramatics really makes my skin crawl. He even refers to himself as being 'a member of the intellectual dark web' in a room full of actual people in his latest video (testifying to congress). Sickening.
I've seen a bit of his story with Evergreen College. Not particularly impressive.
Gah! That way he side-stepped the question of Jesus' divinity at the end... he always does that.
Full video....
36:00 - Rubin attempting to draw parallels between Trump's thousands of lies and Obama's "if you like your Dr. you can keep your Dr, and the Syrian red line.
Harris rightfully pushes back.
Last edited:
You either die an intellectual dark web hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a fully blown right wing loon.