Yeah it's hard to say completely where he lands as Cons have a hard time understanding that gay people or transgendered are human beings, detecting the same rights as other humans beings, to where it's now become a liberal/conservative issue. Issues regarding race are harder to classify as America is really the only country to really deal with past issues of racism.
Then I'm curious as to how you explain Rubin's own comments about how he receives standing ovations from conservatives when he speaks at conservative organized events (Turning Point USA). Or in a slightly broader context how many of the liberals part of the IDW have expressed similar experiences of being generally accepted and treated civilly by those from the Right? And these aren't the kind of people who sanitize or tone down their beliefs for the audience.
It just seems like such a stark contrast from the claim that Cons don't see certain people as human.
As for Rubin, I like the guy, I think he's really good at what he does. For as much as he claims to be a Classical Liberal (he does come down on the side of not baking cakes), I noticed he keeps dipping his toes in the extreme Libertarian model of things where "The market will sort it out" is the singular answer to all societal ills. He went round and round with Rogan about the need for regulations in the construction industry. Rubin kept saying the markets would purge the bad actor, and Rogan kept trying to explain to him that even with current regulations, you still have a problem with bad actors in construction.
For as much as I believe free markets with minimal regulation is the cure all (As a rough construct of an idea I believe that economic empowerment is the fastest way to achieve equality), the singular "the markets will sort it out" answer to everything shows me someone who is not a particularly serious person, at least politically.
Well, that's entirely my point. Standing up for transgendered people and gay people is somehow a "liberal" position in today's world. Why is this today? Because "liberals" thought that trans people should exist and that gay people can marry. Or maybe it's because the Right has allowed corporations to practice their own religion, and start banning gay customers. Again, there is nothing left or right about thinking gay people should have equal rights. But here we are, making this a left vs. right issue. As a result, my comment was a complete joke about how sexual identity or sexual attraction is somehow a leftist issue, even though it has nothing to do with the economics or philosophy of socialists or communists.
Word on the street is that the IDW chases left wingers off of youtube. They flag their videos as hate speech and allows the youtube algorithm to ban their content. They did it to Three Arrows the other month. While I don't think that's primarily why the left doesn't have a good youtube market, it's part of the reason why.
I think we'd all be better if we read some Adam Smith, especially Conservatives who call themselves classical liberals.
I agree that those issues shouldn't be viewed as a right/left type of issue. But it's gotten that way as over the last 20yrs (at least) social issues had been pushed in to the realm of politics in order to seek resolution. Part of it is because in theory you can effect change much more rapidly than trying to build a social consensus and with the weight of Law behind you, you also have the threat of Force in order to gain compliance. The other part is there's a lot of political power to be gained via the exploitation of disenfranchised groups. One of the criticisms of the Trump era and I'll even add the warhawks post 9/11 was that they continually played up this spectre of danger, a boogey man that could gt us at any time. Basically using fear as a political tool.
Well, when you peel back just a little bit, pick any "social justice" related issue, you'll see the rhetoric of fear aimed at the people they claim to protect.
Unfortunately making anything and everything a political issue is automatic.
As far as the IDW chasing left wingers off, I'm not familiar with what you are referencing to be honest. The IDW to my knowledge is made up of particular personalities, not the actual movement, r following for lack of a better term. For example I've been hitting the IDW podcasts fairly regularly, but I wouldn't consider myself a member of the IDW (at least not until I end up on Rubin or Rogan and stumble on to saying something seemingly profound lol).
YouTube is simply a mess. I know last year or so Conservative content creators were running in to the same issues. I think it may have been the what ultimately led up to all this demonetizing that's running rampant. T be honest I'm not too familiar with the whole concept of demonetization, but I do know it's bled over in to some of the non-political content I follow.
Oh yeah, politically it's gone further back than 20+ years. I still think of Oscar Wilde being put in a hard labor camp at the age of 50 because he was gay. This is a cultural war that's been going on for centuries, for it to get caught up in the left vs. right debate is dumb as history has shown us. Shep Smith, Milo, Rubin and others are wildly accepted and celebrated in the right wing community. I hope that we're finally getting over the hump of the majority of it. It seems like the Trans community is pretty much the last thing to get past.
I also think they aren't getting involved in politics, but have been entrenched in politics for their entire life. Their life has become politicized, their actions have been punishable by crime, or not protected under the law. I do not think sodomy laws were the worst thing to come from the legislation for gay people. I think not offering them marriage, and the benefits of marriage, was completely abhorrent. You used to hear stories of a gay couple being together for 60+ years, who were never allowed to wed, and when one of them died the other could not continue to receive their benefits. When you saw their eventual pushback, politically, I don't believe it was because they wanted to persecute others, but because they were seeking liberation from persecution. Similar to black people in the 1800's, whether or not they were political, their existence was political.
I'm not exactly sure what SJWs or concepts your referring to, but I don't doubt it. I think my biggest problem with SJWs is how quick they want to ban and restrict things like speech. That's the biggest red flag in my mind.
Well, my problem with not knowing how to classify the IDW, because as much as I don't want to say it, part of it, I don't know how much, which is why I'm reluctant to say, is the alt-right. I don't know where those boundaries are. I don't want to call their entire audience alt-right, because I know they aren't. I even get the draw of these guys for modern man.
Yeah, youtube took the axe to everyone in terms of ad revenue. It was funny to watch them freak out that it was a political thing, when Gen Z youtube stars, were freaking out about if they could still afford LA. The Youtube shooter shot up the office because of the demonetization, she was a vegan leftist.
Great post! I'm sorry it took me so long to get to it.
One of the challenging things about the IDW is in order to understand it, you really have to invest the time and immerse yourself in it. You can't rely on anther person's interpretation of it, or just short 2 minute blurbs. You really do have to sit down and invest the 1 to 3 hours and follow the whole long form interview.
What I'm very reluctant to do is to attack or defend the positions of the various people like Peterson. I feel like getting in to that mode of "discussion" takes all the attention away from the discussion of ideas and becomes another name calling fest.
I will say this about Peterson, it can be very difficult to discern when he is taking a hard stance on something (say his opposition to Canadian Bill C16 and his concern over gov't forced compelled speech) and when he is making an objective observation and when he is simply putting forth an idea or concept for the purpose of discussion, and not necessarily promoting a belief.
As for the alt-right thing... I think that term is fast joining the ranks of the whole racist/bigot/homophobe name calling: labels whose definitions have become more ill defined and often irresponsibly thrown out there.
Yeah, it seems to have caught on with a plurality of white men, but to hear Rubin tell it, the audiences he's been seeing on tour with Peterson are a 60/40 men/women split. And while it appears to be mostly white folks (who knows the actual demographics of the people listening to the podcasts and following on Twitter, etc), I'm very reluctant to consider that indicative of anything for a couple of reasons:
1) I'd say that majority of those who make up the IDW are on or lean more "left"... Brett and Eric Weinstein, Sam Harris, Rubin (was in the past) and I'd throw Joe Rogan over there. You don't see the same numbers of those who represent the "right".
2) Out of the core group of personalities that make up the IDW, not a one of them is trying to push a message of superiority, racial, sexual, or otherwise. Shapiro is by far the most political of the bunch, but even he expresses a strong libertarian strain in his conservative views.
I guess the only advice I would give is unless YOU are seeing things that illustrate the Alt-right, I wouldn't let it deter you from digging in deeper or trying to get on Rubin's show lol. Much of what all these guys are saying and doing is taken out of context and purposefully misrepresented.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
Great post! I'm sorry it took me so long to get to it.
One of the challenging things about the IDW is in order to understand it, you really have to invest the time and immerse yourself in it. You can't rely on anther person's interpretation of it, or just short 2 minute blurbs. You really do have to sit down and invest the 1 to 3 hours and follow the whole long form interview.
What I'm very reluctant to do is to attack or defend the positions of the various people like Peterson. I feel like getting in to that mode of "discussion" takes all the attention away from the discussion of ideas and becomes another name calling fest.
I will say this about Peterson, it can be very difficult to discern when he is taking a hard stance on something (say his opposition to Canadian Bill C16 and his concern over gov't forced compelled speech) and when he is making an objective observation and when he is simply putting forth an idea or concept for the purpose of discussion, and not necessarily promoting a belief.
As for the alt-right thing... I think that term is fast joining the ranks of the whole racist/bigot/homophobe name calling: labels whose definitions have become more ill defined and often irresponsibly thrown out there.
Yeah, it seems to have caught on with a plurality of white men, but to hear Rubin tell it, the audiences he's been seeing on tour with Peterson are a 60/40 men/women split. And while it appears to be mostly white folks (who knows the actual demographics of the people listening to the podcasts and following on Twitter, etc), I'm very reluctant to consider that indicative of anything for a couple of reasons:
1) I'd say that majority of those who make up the IDW are on or lean more "left"... Brett and Eric Weinstein, Sam Harris, Rubin (was in the past) and I'd throw Joe Rogan over there. You don't see the same numbers of those who represent the "right".
2) Out of the core group of personalities that make up the IDW, not a one of them is trying to push a message of superiority, racial, sexual, or otherwise. Shapiro is by far the most political of the bunch, but even he expresses a strong libertarian strain in his conservative views.
I guess the only advice I would give is unless YOU are seeing things that illustrate the Alt-right, I wouldn't let it deter you from digging in deeper or trying to get on Rubin's show lol. Much of what all these guys are saying and doing is taken out of context and purposefully misrepresented.
No problem.
Yes, it is hard to get a grasp on the IDW, based on blurbs. Which is why I've been watching some videos here and there. And I would love to talk specifics about their specific policies, politics or philosophy.
One of the problems with classifying the IDW as part of the alt-right is how many thinkers there are and their dynamics within the group. It's very easy for them to lend credence on alt-right ideas and people, because they do not push back at all in their interviews. Multiple IDW members have had Charles Murray and Stefan Molyneux and given them platforms without challenging them at all. Or they have had Richard Spencer, Milo or Gavin McInnes on, who in turn, have guys like Mike Enoch on their shows or vice versa. The degrees of separation between white nationalists and IDW can be extremely small. Especially when you go out to the secondary members of the IDW.
Peterson is a very good orator. He is how I imagine Cato the Younger must have been. I've seen some of his monologues, but I like him more in professional settings. He has an interview with Bari Weiss at some intellectual conference, and you really see him spin. He highlights his speech with so many caveats and requirements, that it is hard to get an answer out of him.
1. I'm not sure any of those guys are even remotely liberal. In fact, they remind me of the classical liberals who became monarchists after the French Revolution. Especially the British classical liberals like Edmund Burke. This is the inherent problems with referencing your political philosophy in 1700's history. The political philosophy only came as a response to controlling monarchies. It's basic tenants, everyone is equal and free are bland axioms that are pretty much in every political philosophy now, besides those based on nationalistic policies.
Now I do think one, Bret Weinstein, can be considered as a liberal. I think I recently saw him advocate for UBI, which has kinda turned into a Silicon Valley thought experiment as of the past 5 years. Y Combinator started a project on it a few years ago IIRC.
I don't think that Eric Weinstein, a venture capitalist who works for Peter Thiel (who is a major investor in Y Combinator), can be classified as a leftist. I also think Joe Rogan is just a political doormat who doesn't challenge any of his guests in any way. Even Abby Martin interview was platonic at worst.
2. I agree. Out of the core group, none of them are. Although Sam Harris blurs the line pretty well. It's the guys outside the inner circle of the IDW that make the distinction between alt-right and a moderate watching youtube very blurry.
As far as the demographics go, yes, it's impossible to truly tell. However, from some of the self-reported polls I've seen on the subject, it seems the majority of viewers are white males. Most tribute videos or social media posts I've seen are pretty much white males. I think the allure of Peterson, specifically, is his talks about the male gender. I would be curious of any college tour numbers, as people do go their to cause crap or challenge them on their views. Not exactly the same people who are fanboying on reddit or other forums.
Owens added that she would “love to discuss” the topic with Hill on “The Rubin Report,” which bills itself as the largest talk show about free speech and big ideas on YouTube. Owens sent a follow-up tweet, telling Hill she meant the challenge respectfully.
The irony is too thick to cut even with a reciprocating saw.
"What if we end up with the short straw and get treated like garbage despite us being the superior ones?" is the underlying impetus for all of the hooting MAGA crowd.
plz let my white friend moderate our debate on racism facing the aa community. he and I need the money.
The Breitbart grandpa meme guy is here with race card accusations.
comicallyincorrect dot com
What's even funnier is that this is from 2011, when Trump was calling into "FOX & Friends" every morning going on rants about how he sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to prove Obama was born in Africa. There were no investigators, he made it up, but he would always call in and say stuff like "you wouldn't believe what they're finding".
Funny stuff. Almost as funny as losing the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court. I don't like to pile on, but he gave the Republicans a bunch of state Governorships and legislators as well. What a guy.
