hell is those peoplePeterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
hell is those peopleBunch of fcuking weirdos I swear. Harris has really gone down in my estimation from this frequent association with this lot. Even if it's just for money.
Last edited:
Harris has gone from Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett in 2007 to Rubin, Rogan, and Shapiro in 2018
This is the issue with Shapiro. He rarely gets the better or sounds more sensible/wise than people who aren't even that good at debating (Maher). The fact Cenk managed to nullify him at that event should tell people he aint all that fcuking bright.
This Maher interview is a great example of what happens when someone doesn't let you roll off a bunch of nonsense in quick-fire fashion without stopping you to clarify what you're talking about.
Shapiro is just not made for these canned 10 minute segments which is why he is rarely effective on TV. He's better at longer YouTube style debates either on Rubin's or similar shows or live Q&A with audiences.
You mean when he doesn't get properly challenged or he's arguing against dopey university students?
It's possible that Hitchens would roll with that crew if he was still around.
He does well even when he is challenged. Trouble is he is generally on the wrong side of the issues which makes lesser opposition debaters (like Cenk) seem smart.
Last edited:
Definitely, although I doubt he would spend much time with the likes of Rubin and Rogan. Hitch was already an established player on national tv for decades and would probably fall somewhere between Fry and Harris in terms of his involvement.
Replying to yourself now?
Replying to yourself now?
Dafaq. Thought i was replying to Minimalist.
I mean it does make sense you would agree with that post.
How did Harris get roped in with these clowns? Because he’s their anti-Islam champion or something?
I think they are all using one another as a network to advance their various shows and writings. Ordinarily, Harris would be dealing with the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins but for obvious reasons, he has now been forced to a few echelons down.
Oh my god, they're having drinks
It's interesting to see how obsessed some people seem to be with this group, to the point that a mundane picture of them having drinks triggers several instant reponses from people who hate them. The thread has evolved from a discussion about Shapiro to a couple of posters bumping it every once in a while to tell us all how stupid he, Peterson and the rest of them are. It's like reverse fanboyism.
It's interesting to see how obsessed some people seem to be with this group, to the point that a mundane picture of them having drinks triggers several instant reponses from people who hate them. The thread has evolved from a discussion about Shapiro to a couple of posters bumping it every once in a while to tell us all how stupid he, Peterson and the rest of them are. It's like reverse fanboyism.
Last edited:
Why does Harris always look like he wants to feck me?
We're just haters, Borden.Oh my god, they're having drinks
It's interesting to see how obsessed some people seem to be with this group, to the point that a mundane picture of them having drinks triggers several instant reponses to this thread. It's like reverse fanboyism.
It's certainly interesting to see the level of intense dislike/hatred they seem to inspire in some people. I can't recall any of them ever saying anything that controversial either, with the exception of Harris. Is it their success/fame combined with the fact that they don't subscribe to all things left that does it?
It stems from a concern that the ideas these guys espouse (particularly Peterson and Harris) may take flight among broader, more contemporary audiences. Otherwise no one would pay any attention to them.
Some of them come across as complete clowns, like Shapiro. But they often take stances that appear on the face of it to be sexist or racist or discriminatory. This will spark ire, understandably. The media also portrays them in a particularly biased light (on both sides), which doesn't help discourse. When you dig a bit deeper you find that these guys are often misrepresented and that like most human beings they have their strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately discussion becomes binary and you are either a fanboy or a hater.
I'm still wondering why the heck they managed to become so famous.
Of course it is. One of them goes round claiming the entirety of the left are post modern neo-marxists determined to destroy Western civilisation. If you're progressive you're not gonna be happy that young men are listening to this nonsense.
The more I listen to Shapiro, the more I think he's just a professional arguer. I've never heard him admit he is wrong, he excels at whataboutism, and if he doesn't like a question he'll change it and answer a different question with surprising conviction.
Oh man, I literally wrote just that (well almost, I wrote professional 'debater'), but then edited my post and made it about why these guys are so hated instead. That's exactly my impression of him. And precisely why I think he's so profoundly uninteresting.
That seems overly hysterical.
I've no idea whether that's a fair representation of Peterson, but young men have listened to loads of shite throughout the ages. Like Ayn Rand. Most of them grow out of it.
They have and often it's been harmful for society.
Yes, think of the children.
Peterson isn't Hitler. I have friends who like him, and I've seen no evidence of a complete moral decay.
Do people on the left hate Rogan as well then? I like him, and I've definitely warmed to Harris over the years. I wouldn't put those two in the same bracket as the rest as they seem fairly agnostic on the whole left/right axis. Petersen is going in the other direction for me, can't stand him now but previously thought he had some interesting ideas.
Rogan seems to generally fly below the radar. He is after all a comedian, podcast host, UFC announcer, and hunter. He shouldn't be lumped together with the rest of them, but then again none of them should be lumped together since they are from disparate backgrounds and generally push ideas and activities that have little to do with one another.
Good for them. Complete moral decay isn't required for considerable negative consequences though and however unaffected your friends are by his drivel that does not mean many others are not affected.
They're lumping themselves together. There's a big lump in the picture up there.
Or because most of the ideas they espouse are disgusting to people with a bit of conscience.
They don't espouse the same ideas. As mentioned, Rogan is completely different to Harris, who is completely different to Peterson, etc. Only people who know nothing about them attempt to brand their views them with the same brush.
Progressives aren't the arbiters of what's positive and negative for society, however much they themselves like to think so.
Its a mistake for them to do that. I get the impression Rubin is the ring leader of all of this since he seems to repeat the term most on his show.
Ah, Eboue with his trademark tweet-reply, I'm done for.
What?
Progressive or conservative we all believe some things are positive for society and others aren't and we advocate for the positive. Should we never suggest anything's better than the other because that's believing we're the arbiter of what's positive for society?
i assume this means you dont see "anything that controversial" in the tweet
That's why I say most.
I don't need to live in fear of their ideas spreading to find Peterson a cnut for saying women should be submissive to men, or likewise Shapiro for saying Arab people are subhuman.
Cherry pick away then.
Yeah, I agree. There's not much balance, optically. You'd need Maher or John Oliver or some 'progressive leftists' (for lack of a better description) there to balance it out. Otherwise it looks like a homogenous crew. Maybe that's the direction they're heading, deliberately. That would be a shame.