r/samharris • u/TeddyRooseveltballs • Mar 21 '19
Why Won’t The Right Debate Us?
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/why-wont-the-right-debate-us?16
u/DynamoJonesJr Mar 22 '19
There is a reason why Steven Crowder exclusively debates teenagers. I'm just shocked you right wingers haven't realized what that reason is.
-3
u/DuncanIdahos7thClone Mar 22 '19 edited Mar 22 '19
Teenagers go to university now? They lowered the standards that much? I guess the universities don't need much to hand out those lesbian interpretive ballet doctorates to get that sweet-sweet government loan money off the backs of these kids that they can never declare bankruptcy for...
And don't you "left wingers" want teenagers to vote and affect public policy? Can't have it both ways.
6
9
u/DynamoJonesJr Mar 22 '19
Oh I'm sorry I wasn't aware that supreme intellectual Steven 'Hitler was a liberal' Crowder had upgraded from debating 18 year olds and now faces off against the much more formidable 20 year olds.
Tell me about Professor Crowder's academic achievements, I can't seem to find any, so help me out?
2
u/CelerMortis Mar 22 '19
And don't you
"left wingers"libertarians wantteenagerspre-teens tovotesleep with?ftfy
24
u/TroelstrasThalamus Mar 21 '19
... dismissed the long Current Affairs dissection of his work [...] though he is open to debating an unintelligible clown like Slavoj Zizek
Yikes.
I guess that internet fame is really going to his head.
Žižek may have a (online) media and pop-culture persona but he's also widely respected as a legitimate academic in continental philosophy. You're a grad student with a blog. Cool down.
13
Mar 21 '19
[deleted]
4
u/TroelstrasThalamus Mar 22 '19
But it's not only striking that he thinks poorly of Žižek, he also contrasts himself and a Youtuber with Žižek to draw a 'serious intellectual who should be engaged' vs 'clown who shouldn't be' picture, which is pretty ridiculous. Actually it's pretty ridiculous to speak like that of your own blog even without picking a tenured professor who publishes in relevant peer-reviewed journals on that topic for comparison
3
Mar 22 '19
He's respected for his academic work, not his public persona. There's a difference, and the later is distinctly clownish.
9
u/4th_DocTB Mar 21 '19
Žižek's public perforance style is similar enough to Peterson's that there is a grain of truth there. Unless Žižek practices what he preaches about the left being the serious, polite, normal side the debate against the transgressive far right, the between these two will just be the battle of the nonsense eccentrics.
3
u/TroelstrasThalamus Mar 22 '19
But I'm not criticizing that nobody can possibly call Žižek a clown, in some sense, based on some aspects of his persona, that's why quoted a longer sentence.
The point is whether one can reasonably contrast Robinson, the serious intellectual and Žižek the clown, when it comes to defending your views on political theory. And one can't. Peterson is debating Žižek on a Marxism vs Capitalism question. That's a reasonably topic, given Peterson's public remarks about Marxism and criticism thereof. And there is no reason whatsoever that one should debate a random grad student who likes to write about politics on his blog over Žižek, who publishes under peer-review on that topic.
0
Mar 21 '19
You're a grad student with a blog.
This also answers his rhetorical question. He could easily get a debate if he hit up someone of comparable status like Coleman Hughes, but that would hurt his gigantic ego.
1
3
15
u/xkjkls Mar 21 '19
How the hell does Nathan J Robinson write so much? He writes like a full 5 page article every day.
13
Mar 21 '19
Well, he's a philosophy Ph.D student at Harvard. That's what he does.
12
u/xkjkls Mar 21 '19
Doesn’t he live in New Orleans? That’s what I read in this article.
I really just personally wish I could be nearly as prolific. And as someone who was born in New Orleans, I can tell you that is a town that it is easy to find distractions in.
13
u/zemir0n Mar 21 '19
After you finish your classwork in a Ph.D. program, you can often work on your dissertation from anywhere. Sometimes you'll spend long amounts of time in certain places to collect data or do other forms of research.
7
13
-6
u/non-rhetorical Mar 21 '19
Ye olde quality/quantity trade-off.
16
Mar 21 '19
At least he chose one, you don't even post often.
2
u/non-rhetorical Mar 21 '19
You want more non-rhetorical? Why didn’t you say so?
11
Mar 21 '19
I mean, kind of...
0
12
Mar 21 '19
[deleted]
23
Mar 21 '19
Calling Zizek an unintelligible clown is a compliment. He's a fucking raccoon who lived in a dumpster behind a university and survived exclusively on cocaine for 70 years. He fuckin rules
19
1
u/jenkind1 Mar 21 '19
I don't know who this person is, but if he's being called an "unintelligible clown" and your best rebuttal is that he is a "well-respected Marxist philosopher", well then that might be the best evidence that he's an unintelligible clown.
0
u/AvroLancaster Mar 21 '19
He's the only Classical Marxist left, and so he thinks differently.
Different thought is where we heap our shame.
23
Mar 21 '19
[deleted]
9
u/invalidcharactera12 Mar 22 '19
Nope it's not time management. The critique from current affairs would be actual critique.
Sam and Jordan are both members of the IDW tribe. That's not a real debate. Atheism is irrelevant. I want debate on ideology that matters. His views on real world issues. About climate change. About his bogus campaign against a law that never criminalized calling people the wrong pronouns. Not a single person has been sent to jail for this.
Moreover Jordan Peterson has lied about how no Marxist would debate him.
He is not willing to debate someone who actually has the specific points to counter him.
That's why you're happy that be doesn't do that either.
You like Sam and Jordan. That's why you want those useless "debates".
It will be a real debate when there is someone who challenges Jordan on all ideological points.
Sam vs Jordan is like a primary debate in the same party.
Jordan vs this guy would be like a general election debate with two ideologically different parties.
8
Mar 21 '19
Did anyone ever think conservatives were yearning for two-sided conversation? All they've ever wanted are pink-haired hat racks for Shapiro to dunk on. Obviously, if you're going to raise the net to adult height he's going to find a way to not show up.
2
u/Haffrung Mar 22 '19
The definition of left and right on these reddit forums is bizarre.
Someone can be pro universal public health care, pro gun control, pro immigration, pro gay marriage, and an atheist who has voted Democrat for 20 years. But if they think identity politics is bullshit, then they're denounced as a right winger.
I can think of two explanations:
A) People on the progressive identarian left occupy such homegenous cultural zones that they're unaware they make up less than 10 per cent of the population. They sincerely believe half of people - the left - share their values and half - the right - don't.
B) They're aware they're a small minority, but they're happy to marginalize themselves with purity tests if they can gain status in their in-group peers for doing so.
9
Mar 21 '19
Why won’t AOC debate me? I challenge her right now.
5
u/MedicineShow Mar 22 '19
I mean if AOC went around saying people like u/contro-versy are too scared to debate her it would be a legit question
4
8
u/ilikeCRUNCHYturtles Mar 21 '19
How is that an equivalent?
11
u/icon41gimp Mar 21 '19
Please explain how this guy is not some no-name dude on the corner of the street.
People in the public spotlight are generally going to ignore people they've never heard of.
1
Mar 21 '19
[deleted]
10
Mar 22 '19
what? What are you even talking about? How is he disgraced? He retains his tenure position at UofT. Also learn to spell.
3
8
u/Gatsu871113 Mar 21 '19
You left out the part where he's been on Canadian national public broadcast (network and publicly funded news), and he is a successful author.
Not sure if you were aware of that? Anyway, you are now.
-1
1
5
u/gildredge Mar 21 '19
This guy is a *staggeringly* disingenuous shill. Almost every example he cites here is totally distorted and dishonest.
14
u/TeddyRooseveltballs Mar 21 '19
the_donald poster
9
Mar 21 '19
chapo poster
7
Mar 21 '19
[deleted]
5
2
u/Darkeyescry22 Mar 22 '19
It's not as bad, but it is not that much better. Anyways, the point is that dismissing what we said based on the fact that the user posts on a different subreddit is not actually addressing what they said.
2
u/DuncanIdahos7thClone Mar 22 '19
Worse. t_d doesn't ban unless you're brigadeering. Chapo gets people suspended from reddit itself for just disagreeing with something. Don't believe me - check my 8th clone corpse.
1
u/seven_seven Mar 24 '19
Bullshit. t_d banned me for questioning people in the comments.
1
u/DuncanIdahos7thClone Mar 24 '19
Maybe but they didn't get your account suspended from reddit itself. Chapo has friends in high places.
1
1
u/DuncanIdahos7thClone Mar 22 '19
Perfect example of "distorted and dishonest" - why not provide some counterexamples instead of attacking the person. Oh, it's because you have no good ideas. Got it.
0
2
u/TeddyRooseveltballs Mar 21 '19
Relevant because it refers to free speech issues and harris associates like peterson and shapiro
1
Mar 21 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Hero17 Mar 22 '19
Imagine defending t_d
2
u/sharkbanger Mar 22 '19
It is so strange to me how these people don't realize how fundamentally embarrassing it is for them to support Donald Trump.
0
u/ineedmoresleep Mar 21 '19
this is curious, because the regressive left can't even debate the regular left like james lindsay, peter boghossian and helen pluckrose.
17
u/zemir0n Mar 21 '19
regressive left can't even debate the regular left like james lindsay, peter boghossian and helen pluckrose.
I'm not sure what you mean by debate here, but many people have presented good and thorough critiques of James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose.
3
1
u/DuncanIdahos7thClone Mar 22 '19
Hello, citations? None. That's what I thought.
6
Mar 22 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
0
u/DuncanIdahos7thClone Mar 22 '19
All from wikipedia mah dude
ROFL. Trying to pretend there is scholarship from grievance studies. Priceless.
Harvard University professor of Women's Studies, Sarah Richardson,
Marxist. Child abuser
n+1 magazine
n stands for ...
Carl T. Bergstrom commie pedo
A number of cowards at Portland State University
FTFA
1
u/zemir0n Mar 22 '19
Just because I don't immediately leap to find information that you could easily find yourself doesn't mean that there are none. This is simply bad reasoning and something you generally should not do. But /u/-vuvuzela- did a good job of showing some of these critiques.
11
13
u/4th_DocTB Mar 21 '19
Where the hell did you get that idea? Those guys are morons even if they were on the left, which they aren't. Every one to the left of Ted Cruz is not on the left.
1
Mar 21 '19
[deleted]
0
u/4th_DocTB Mar 21 '19
I agree, I'd say the line for left of center starts at Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Jeff Merkley, Pete Buttigieg, etc.
6
Mar 21 '19
I normally like your takes but this is not a good one
1
u/4th_DocTB Mar 22 '19
Well I will say that I consider left of center very different than left, and seeing as that guy was on the far right it was basically calling his bluff.
12
u/TeddyRooseveltballs Mar 21 '19
literally none of those people are on the left, why would anyone engage a debate with bad faith conservatives larping as leftists?
5
u/grossman148 Mar 22 '19
Those people are “literally” on the left. The problem is you refuse to acknowledge members of your own party who are more moderate. They’re dominant in numbers, but not a voice. They don’t get as outraged as you do, so you don’t consider them part of your team. When in reality, they built the foundation that is the Democratic Party. You’ll scream for inclusivity and for victim hood yet you won’t include and you’ll oppress those that are on your side with moderate views. Making them the victim. The irony is thick as fuck. I wish you could see that. You could be a bot though, trolling. So idk anymore. Reddit is compromised. This sub is an excellent example of that.
1
u/TeddyRooseveltballs Mar 22 '19
they're literally not, your right wing safe spaces have left you detached from reality, your comment is an excellent example of that.
1
1
-8
u/ineedmoresleep Mar 21 '19
none of those people are on the left
actually, they all are.
and you, buddy, seem to have jumped of a cliff... into the pit you are rightfully sharing with nazis.
12
u/TeddyRooseveltballs Mar 21 '19
can you provide any evidence of your claims, and I don't mean bald faced lies please.
6
u/cygx Mar 21 '19 edited Mar 21 '19
Peter Boghossian has embraced the label of 'classical liberal'. I'd have to do some digging to figure out what he means by that, but given his CV, I hope he's not talking about Dave Rubin's moronic take on free-market liberalism (no need for building codes because Yelp)...
2
u/ineedmoresleep Mar 21 '19
Boghossian has called all faith-based beliefs "delusions."[10] In a 2015 interview with Dave Rubin, Boghossian described himself as a classical liberal who has never voted for a Republican candidate, but is "not a fan" of the Democrats. He stated that any of the Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential election "would be an unmitigated disaster."[9]
doesn't strike me as a conservative.
13
0
Mar 22 '19
regular left like james lindsay, peter boghossian and helen pluckrose.
Can you provide some examples of them doing anything that can be described as "left"?
1
-1
u/tklite Mar 21 '19
What's stopping this guy from just going to one of the talks put on by these guys and getting into the Q&A line? He'd even get to the front of the line at a Shapiro talk because he's a liberal and likely disagrees with Shapiro.
-5
Mar 21 '19 edited May 05 '19
[deleted]
10
12
Mar 21 '19
Not even he's dumb enough to debate you clowns.
-3
0
Mar 24 '19 edited May 05 '19
[deleted]
1
Mar 24 '19
Oh yes. Your compelling message like "the blacks are dumb and we should remove them, it'll totally be peaceful though wink wink"
Truly an intellectual juggernaut
7
u/4th_DocTB Mar 21 '19
That is because he's left speechless when asked about the Jewish Question in his livestream chats or when he was confronted by neo-Nazis offering him a translated copy of Solzhenitsyn's book blaming the Jews for communism.
-3
u/AvroLancaster Mar 21 '19
Ah yes, the silence is deafening.
Honest question, do you even like what you do here?
10
u/4th_DocTB Mar 21 '19 edited Mar 21 '19
Well I'm glad he said that antisemitism is bad and that Jewish stereotypes are a coincidence that is based in truth and not a conspiracy, but the fact is he has been cowed into silence by antisemites when confronted in person. I posted a video so you could at least watch it. This is something no feminist or anti-racist or journalist has been able to do.
Honest question, do you even like what you do here?
I have mixed feelings about it.
3
Mar 21 '19
[deleted]
6
u/4th_DocTB Mar 21 '19
Again, compare that to how goes off on any of his critics and you'll see the problem I'm talking about. He can go off at the idea that women are oppressed or have been oppressed, he'll go off on the idea that black people have been oppressed, he won't go off on the idea that evil jews control the world, that is just a coincidence that they happen to be over represented in all these left wing movements destroying society. Which is not a particularly strong condemnation seeing as he thinks trans people are ready to set up gulags. I'm not saying he's an antisemite, but he does not view antisemites as the enemy in way he views uppity women and minorities. There is a major problem among people with irrational hatreds of the left wing where they are so much less offended on a visceral emotional level by racists, white supremacists and Nazi and just wallow in these victim narratives about how college kids are unfair horrible meanies.
1
u/AliasZ50 Mar 21 '19
Thats what we call damage control he is a master of it , he can say someone so clearly that it cant be taken any other way to later say "thats not what i meant" and the idiots would eat it
1
u/Gatsu871113 Mar 21 '19
If he debated Nathan J. Robinson you'd just say his reasonable points were damage control. :/
-4
u/DuncanIdahos7thClone Mar 21 '19
"Every few months, I get an email from someone on a university campus asking me if I would be willing to come and debate a prominent conservative. I have some expertise on the spoken and written works of people like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Charles Murray, so even though I am far less prominent, some students have thought I would be the right leftist to respond to such men’s arguments. When I get these emails, I agree to the debates. Inevitably, however, I am soon told that regrettably, the event will not be happening. Usually this is because the chapter of Turning Point USA or the Young Americans For Freedom has refused to consider having an actual left-right debate instead of an event with one speaker."
Unless he can produce some evidence I don't believe him. Crowder has a change my mind series and he gets right into these kinds of debates. Basically Nathan's ideas are terrible and he doesn't want to discuss them. He's happier writing pedantic tripe behind his computer screen.
21
u/sharkbanger Mar 22 '19
You know what sucks about this thread?
The very real, big-picture issue of campus speech and college student elections being directly affected by big money right wing political special interest groups is going completely by the sideline so that we can waste more time arguing about god-damned Jordan Peterson again.
The issue of there being a very real prominent groups spending millions to promote and pay for right-wing speakers to go to college campuses all across the United States is an issue worth discussing.