Your ideas don't have rights




  •  
    Interesting discussion, includes a great line about Trump.



  • Watched the first couple of minutes, sounds interesting. Thresholds for taking offence dropping - rings a bell! I'll have a better look when I've got a bit more time.



  • A bit long winded and rambling but some good points. I guess the main thing I took away was the viewpoint that the regressive left (TM Dave Rubin) were effectively stifling discussion by making certain subjects almost taboo and that people in the political arena are running scared of airing any problems around certain issues as they fear the race card/sexism card/whatever the latest card is.
     
    I did struggle with trying not to think about The Joker when seeing Rubiin's mouth though.



  • That's the problem with internet videos.
     
    That one requires me to spend 26 minutes on the risk that he might say something useful - and that I might not have gone off to make a coffee while he's saying it. If it's important he will have written it down somewhere and I can skim through and find it in two  minutes.
     
    Videos to impart information are basically shittily inefficient. So are conferences - though they're not bad for meeting people, drinking piss and finding a new job.



  • I did not find it to rambling. But then I find the free speech discussion quite interesting. Particularly how the regressive left  (or as they argue it is not left/ right, but authoritarian/ non authoritarian) are attempting to destroy it, and how that opens up things for politicians like Trump. It is an important topic for our times. We all lament the scarcity of good discussion and debate in the media, and then when a couple of people get together for just a  26 minute discussion on a quite broad topic... only a couple of poster make the effort to watch (kudos to them) yet even for them it was a bit of an effort.
     
    We are getting the journalism we deserve apparently, quick 2 minute videos on what Beyonce had for breakfast, sharp, snappy and to the point!
     
    My fav part of the discussion is about from 14:40 on.



  • I think that's what I was trying to say Baron, just not so rambling  :yes:
     
    But yes, the more vacuous our political discourse is the more we get the politicians we deserve, but unfortunately not the ones we need.



  • only a couple of poster make the effort to watch (kudos to them) yet even for them it was a bit of an effort.

    Well, only a couple of people are commenting. That is probably indicative of how many watched, but no guarantee.
     
    I watched it. Very meta - a lot of it was phrased in terms of very high level concepts that are typically the domain of academia. So some people probably got a couple of minutes in and thought "what a pair of Williss" then moved on, expecting another 23 minutes of fairly arch discussion that could have been expressed in simpler terms.
     
    Throw in the fact that anyone posting comments to the effect of "what a pair of Williss" was likely to be subject to a fairly verbose dismissal from the OP. 🙂
     
     
    In any case, its a good discussion in extraordinary terms of how "leftards" do themselves no favours by suppressing avenues of discussion. Most of the combative left actually help the right by defining a righteous, narrow path for themselves, and calling anything else bigotry.
     
    They actually spend more time talking about why Trump is wrong, than about why they're right, believing the right path to be self-evident to their own brand of intellectual, and failing to understand that isn't communicated.
     
    Trump knows there is no such thing as bad publicity, even comments like "China is raping us" as happened today/overnight.
     
    Its something you see on social media again and again. People getting outraged about shit and sharing it, which propagates it and therefore funds it.
     
    Didn't need 26 minutes to say that. The Williss 😉



  • Well, only a couple of people are commenting. That is probably indicative of how many watched, but no guarantee.
     
    I watched it. Very meta - a lot of it was phrased in terms of very high level concepts that are typically the domain of academia. So some people probably got a couple of minutes in and thought "what a pair of Williss" then moved on, expecting another 23 minutes of fairly arch discussion that could have been expressed in simpler terms.
     
    Throw in the fact that anyone posting comments to the effect of "what a pair of Williss" was likely to be subject to a fairly verbose dismissal from the OP. 🙂
     
     
    In any case, its a good discussion in extraordinary terms of how "leftards" do themselves no favours by suppressing avenues of discussion. Most of the combative left actually help the right by defining a righteous, narrow path for themselves, and calling anything else bigotry.
     
    They actually spend more time talking about why Trump is wrong, than about why they're right, believing the right path to be self-evident to their own brand of intellectual, and failing to understand that isn't communicated.
     
    Trump knows there is no such thing as bad publicity, even comments like "China is raping us" as happened today/overnight.
     
    Its something you see on social media again and again. People getting outraged about shit and sharing it, which propagates it and therefore funds it.
     
    Didn't need 26 minutes to say that. The Williss 😉

    You didn't word that post very well at all.
    Took me a bit  to decide who 'They' were in reference to talking about Trump. You were  talking about the 'leftards', not the presenters.
     
    And people describing them as a pair of piston wristed gibbons without even attempting to engage the actual topic deserve derision, and kind of makes the presenters point for them. If they dont like an idea the leftards try to shut down discussion on it. They cannot attack the ideas, so they attack the people presenting the ideas.
    It might seem like a crazy idea, but actually discussing a topic and not the presenters.. should not be radical.
    I am not sure why you went down the path of attacking the presenters, I can only assume you dont like the points they make, as they run counter to your beliefs, yet you cannot refute the presenters arguments, therefore they pissed you off.



  • I deleted your post Nick. It post was all about me, and the presenters. I would welcome you actually discussing the topic instead of trying to derail it with ad hominum nonsense.



  • You didn't word that post very well at all.

    I am not sure why you went down the path of attacking the presenters, I can only assume you dont like the points they make, as they run counter to your beliefs, yet you cannot refute the presenters arguments, therefore they pissed you off.

    Who was this about?  Fred the mechanic??

    I deleted your post Nick. It post was all about me, and the presenters. I would welcome you actually discussing the topic instead of trying to derail it with ad hominum nonsense.



  • Fair point, I should not have deleted it.
    I let my annoyance of Nick trying to derail the thread to get the better of me.
     
    But actually the thread was nothing about posters until this... 
     
    "Throw in the fact that anyone posting comments to the effect of "what a pair of Williss" was likely to be subject to a fairly verbose dismissal from the OP."



  • I watched it last week and feel better for doing so
     
    It was good to hear  people trying to be balanced and discuss phenomena by describing and not so much criticising. Some of the references to other people had me a bit lost.
     
    I clicked with the idea of the premise that we need open and honest discussions and needn't be afraid of deeply exploring issues. I did wonder though if, from a practical point of view, that there are a majority of people with the intellectual capabilities to handle that in this modern world - that's cynical and reflects my life in a Military dictatorship - 
     
    The balancing act moving forward is to frame these type of discussions in such a way that people don't feel attacked or sneered at. Unfortunately not everyone can take on these discussions without feeling, threatened or attacked - yep that's a bit dumb but also a reality if we want to effectively "enlighten" people (which we should). The nefarious leaders of these groups also revel in beating down even, objective discourse as it's easy for them to keep the status quo - it has ever been thus
     
    But I like the message of not having taboo subjects, it's one I will adhere to but the application of such needs a pretty gentle and thoughtful approach. Preaching tot he converted is easy



  • I also think a better thread title would have been. 'Your ideas don't have rights'.. which should be blatantly obvious.. but as they discuss might be not if the path was continued.



  • I also think a better thread title would have been. 'Your ideas don't have rights'.. which should be blatantly obvious.. but as they discuss might be not if the path was continued.

    Yeah that's the big take away and a bloody good one.
     
    If you had to point to one message to throw at people (particularly the young ones) in 2016, it should be that. A sad fact that it's not blatantly obvious



  • There's nothing wrong with the concept of trigger warnings. I understand that some people have been through some shit and PTSD is a real condition which should be treated seriously. I just think that people take that good idea and spread it to other things - people say Trump 'triggers' them which is ridiculous. In saying that, I have never met anyone in real life who goes on about being triggered. There were nutcases at Uni but most of the rest of the students actually thought they were nutcases.



  • I actually think having a go at the presenters is valid. To a degree. Their target audience clearly isn't the wider world, but a pretty narrow band of more a academic / theoretical leaning. The equivalent of 2 English lit majors discussing Ulysses & what it means to modern literature. There may well be some valid points, but 99% of the public won't care as they'll be bored & the 4th time one of them says a p[phrase like "hijacked cognitive software". That’s probably OK for them as they are hitting their audience. But their audience is going to be very small. Basically the fact that the guys having the discussion are that theoretical & verbose is why its not a wider discussion.
     
    It's been one of the reasons the polarisation has happened. You have the broad left (Sanders, Corbyn) screaming simplistic shit about violation of rights & comparing everyone to Hitler. And the broad right (Cruz, Trump, le Pen) screaming simplistic shit about death panels, socialism, immigrants & appeasement. And in the middle you don't really have anyone making a catchy simplistic pitch and - rightly or wrongly, in an era when 5 minute youtube clips have been replaced with 10 second GIFS because they can't hold people's attention, that’s what you need. Mitt Romney & Hillary are boring as fuck. Its why people like John Oliver & adored John Stewart. Oliver is probably the best news source today at dumbing shit down & pitching the basics.
     
    On topic, for me the issue is less detailed even than the fact people think their idea's have rights, its that they think their rights are all encompassing. That anything they do, feel or care about cannot be threatened as they have rights. They don't. They have a small set of core human rights. Outside of that group its fair game. You see this a huge amount with regard to social welfare. People have a right to a roof over their head. I can live with that. They don't have a right for that roof to be in a nice part of town & have a sky dish attached to it...  People have been told so much what they are entitled to - its why welfare in the US is called entitlements, that they think they are entitled to fucking everything from a job to being able to say hate speech to being free from anything they consider hate speech.



  • Agree, Gollum.
     
    Some people have a very, VERY strange understanding of free speech - that they can say whatever the hell they like, without consequence. Nope.
     
    And don't get me started on the rights and responsibilities argument. The number of people who want to sit back and have everything handed to them on a platter seems to be increasing at an incredible rate. As someone who has spent the last six years working 7 days a week to build a business, dealing with countless setbacks but always getting up and trying again, that shit fucks me off no end.



  • I watched it with my better half last night and had a good discussion with her about it afterwards, though we are basically on the same page re: all of this. Thanks for posting BSG.

    It's been one of the reasons the polarisation has happened. You have the broad left (Sanders, Corbyn) screaming simplistic shit about violation of rights & comparing everyone to Hitler. And the broad right (Cruz, Trump, le Pen) screaming simplistic shit about death panels, socialism, immigrants & appeasement. And in the middle you don't really have anyone making a catchy simplistic pitch and - rightly or wrongly, in an era when 5 minute youtube clips have been replaced with 10 second GIFS because they can't hold people's attention, that’s what you need. Mitt Romney & Hillary are boring as fuck. Its why people like John Oliver & adored John Stewart. Oliver is probably the best news source today at dumbing shit down & pitching the basics.

    Yep. People say things like "The type of stuff the media reports on and garbage T.V. like reality shows are dumbing the population down". I call BS on that, the reverse is true, the majority of the population is already dumbed down which is why that type of media/T.V. is so bloody successful. They are playing to their audience.
     
    I pretty much avoid the main stream news sites and watch very little T.V. other then sports nowadays. The reason I enjoy posting on here so much is that I can have a good robust debate with other literate people, where if you bring an idea to the table you better be able to back it up with sound evidence or it will get pulled apart very quickly. Unfortunately this type of debate is rare across most forms of media.
     
    Stewart and Oliver are absolute gold at getting their ideas across in a way the majority can understand. Using comedy is very effective as at least people are entertained, meaning you can hold their attention for longer periods. Though I found the above debate absolutely fascinating, I agree the majority of people would find it dead shit boring.
     
    Education is key. Learning how to think critically for yourself is a skill not many people appear to possess.
     
    On the actual topic discussed, it is a serious problem. The human race is getting towards a tipping point now where we all need to get on the same page as soon as possible before we make the earth uninhabitable for ourselves and future generations. The regressive left making it their crusade to stand up for absolutely everything including peoples ideas just shuts down the debate and gives rise to extremists who appear to have "answers". The left are absolutely the reason Trump is so popular, as even though 99% of what he says is completely insane bullshit, he comes across as someone that "says what he really thinks", which in today's climate is rare as people hesitate to talk about any topic that is seen as "taboo" because words like "racist", "bigot, and "islamaphobe" will get thrown their way.



  • I actually think having a go at the presenters is valid. To a degree. Their target audience clearly isn't the wider world, but a pretty narrow band of more a academic / theoretical leaning. The equivalent of 2 English lit majors discussing Ulysses & what it means to modern literature. There may well be some valid points, but 99% of the public won't care as they'll be bored & the 4th time one of them says a p[phrase like "hijacked cognitive software". That’s probably OK for them as they are hitting their audience. But their audience is going to be very small. Basically the fact that the guys having the discussion are that theoretical & verbose is why its not a wider discussion.
     
    It's been one of the reasons the polarisation has happened. You have the broad left (Sanders, Corbyn) screaming simplistic shit about violation of rights & comparing everyone to Hitler. And the broad right (Cruz, Trump, le Pen) screaming simplistic shit about death panels, socialism, immigrants & appeasement. And in the middle you don't really have anyone making a catchy simplistic pitch and - rightly or wrongly, in an era when 5 minute youtube clips have been replaced with 10 second GIFS because they can't hold people's attention, that’s what you need. Mitt Romney & Hillary are boring as fuck. Its why people like John Oliver & adored John Stewart. Oliver is probably the best news source today at dumbing shit down & pitching the basics.
     
    On topic, for me the issue is less detailed even than the fact people think their idea's have rights, its that they think their rights are all encompassing. That anything they do, feel or care about cannot be threatened as they have rights. They don't. They have a small set of core human rights. Outside of that group its fair game. You see this a huge amount with regard to social welfare. People have a right to a roof over their head. I can live with that. They don't have a right for that roof to be in a nice part of town & have a sky dish attached to it...  People have been told so much what they are entitled to - its why welfare in the US is called entitlements, that they think they are entitled to fucking everything from a job to being able to say hate speech to being free from anything they consider hate speech.

    I think if there was a right wing version of Stewart or Oliver.... they would be subjected to sustained and continuous attack from the regressive left... until eventually they were removed. 
    Look what happens with Hosking and Henry... and they are nowhere near as edgy as Stewart/Oliver
     
    And no attacking the presenters is not valid as all you are doing is criticising them for not dumbing down the ideas enough so it appeals to a broader audience. Maybe they are just happy to leave it to others to give the idiots version. Not everyone wants superficial discussions and thought process. Both have their place. They are not mutually exclusive and you people dont deserve criticism for either.



  • My ideas do have rights; they're called intellectual property rights.

    Education is key. Learning how to think critically for yourself is a skill not many people appear to possess.
     
    On the actual topic discussed, it is a serious problem. The human race is getting towards a tipping point now where we all need to get on the same page as soon as possible before we make the earth uninhabitable for ourselves and future generations. The regressive left making it their crusade to stand up for absolutely everything including peoples ideas just shuts down the debate and gives rise to extremists who appear to have "answers". The left are absolutely the reason Trump is so popular, as even though 99% of what he says is completely insane bullshit, he comes across as someone that "says what he really thinks", which in today's climate is rare as people hesitate to talk about any topic that is seen as "taboo" because words like "racist", "bigot, and "islamaphobe" will get thrown their way.

    Michael Bloomberg hits on this very theme:
     
    The most useful knowledge that you leave here with today has nothing to do with your major. It’s about how to study, cooperate, listen carefully, think critically and resolve conflicts through reason. Those are the most important skills in the working world, and it’s why colleges have always exposed students to challenging and uncomfortable ideas.
    The fact that some university boards and administrations now bow to pressure and shield students from these ideas through “safe spaces,” “code words” and “trigger warnings” is, in my view, a terrible mistake.
    The whole purpose of college is to learn how to deal with difficult situations -- not run away from them. A microaggression is exactly that: micro. And one of the most dangerous places on a college campus is a safe space, because it creates the false impression that we can insulate ourselves from those who hold different views.
    We can’t do this, and we shouldn’t try -- not in politics or in the workplace. In the global economy, and in a democratic society, an open mind is the most valuable asset you can possess.

    • more


  • I think if there was a right wing version of Stewart or Oliver.... they would be subjected to sustained and continuous attack from the regressive left... until eventually they were removed. 
    Look what happens with Hosking and Henry... and they are nowhere near as edgy as Stewart/Oliver

    I'm not sure in the US, but it does appear the left side have guys who are doing it in a comedic way, the right go with the outrage - Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh etc. There's no humour, its sheer panic inducing rage. And they have been attacked & it had zero effect, Limbaugh in particular has far more reach than Oliver.
     
    In the UK the rights version of Oliver is probably the hugely successful & well read Jeremy Clarkson. Outside the UK he probably just looks like Top Gear, but here he's got a very prominant & well read newspaper column, his books top best seller lists etc. The right very much court him due to his influence.

    And no attacking the presenters is not valid as all you are doing is criticising them for not dumbing down the ideas enough so it appeals to a broader audience. Maybe they are just happy to leave it to others to give the idiots version. Not everyone wants superficial discussions and thought process. Both have their place. They are not mutually exclusive and you people dont deserve criticism for either.

    Its not just that, its that they seem to be intentionally tryng to academicize the whole thing. And then veer off into an almost entirely theoretical discussion. I understand their point, I just feel, like I said, its less like 2 guys trying to discuss a good point, more like english lit majors comparing Voltaire to Ulysses to tell people they have read them.
     
    If you are trying to make a point & you have almost no audience, unless you were trying to have almost no audience, you've failed. Not your audience. And thats the problem here, its not an idiots version thats needed, its an average person version. Those on the Fern in this forum are largely well educated, pretty intelligent & barely anyone gave a shit. They didn't just miss the idiots, they missed almost everyone. To then go "well anyone who didn't like a thing I liked must be a doo-doo head dumb dumb!" misses too.



  • I'm not sure in the US, but it does appear the left side have guys who are doing it in a comedic way, the right go with the outrage - Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh etc. There's no humour, its sheer panic inducing rage. And they have been attacked & it had zero effect, Limbaugh in particular has far more reach than Oliver.
     
    In the UK the rights version of Oliver is probably the hugely successful & well read Jeremy Clarkson. Outside the UK he probably just looks like Top Gear, but here he's got a very prominant & well read newspaper column, his books top best seller lists etc. The right very much court him due to his influence.
     
     
     
    Its not just that, its that they seem to be intentionally tryng to academicize the whole thing. And then veer off into an almost entirely theoretical discussion. I understand their point, I just feel, like I said, its less like 2 guys trying to discuss a good point, more like english lit majors comparing Voltaire to Ulysses to tell people they have read them.
     
    If you are trying to make a point & you have almost no audience, unless you were trying to have almost no audience, you've failed. Not your audience. And thats the problem here, its not an idiots version thats needed, its an average person version. Those on the Fern in this forum are largely well educated, pretty intelligent & barely anyone gave a shit. They didn't just miss the idiots, they missed almost everyone. To then go "well anyone who didn't like a thing I liked must be a doo-doo head dumb dumb!" misses too.

    I don't understand what is so difficult about that discussion that most people could not follow? Maybe a lot of people don't want to watch a 26 minute video. It still has 70,000 views. I didn't find it very challenging but I am a subscriber to the Rubin Report and they have these conversations often.



  • I think the demographic of people that watch "The Bachelor" and "Married at 1st Sight" would really struggle with the video above.



  • I watched part of that married at first sight show last night, it was like a train wreck. One of them looked pretty drunk and was moaning about her husband not bonking her. Mrs Jegga did not appreciate my running commentary .
    The drunk one referred to herself as a " sexual being" which I took to mean she owns all the 50 shades of gray books . The other three chicks displayed varying degrees of hotness and the the sort of insanity that comes with their gender but kept their ranting to a minimum .



  • I think the demographic of people that watch "The Bachelor" and "Married at 1st Sight" would really struggle with the video above.

    I find that whole point gollum made about presentation this just quibbling around the edges.
     
    Some people find it to hard to follow and have low attention span. That is always the way of things. You can criticise the delivery method of nearly everything, many people think Oliver politicises to many things and preaches to the converted with over simplistic nonsense. Just because he alienates potential viewers does not decide wether his points are valid or not.
    I kinda stopped debating about the presentation style in this thread as it was just another derailing that didnt interest me and that I didnt think was valid to the point they were making. And here I am again debating the presenters delivery style.... sigh.
     
    To me it says lot when people attack presenters or presentation style more than they discuss the actual point being made.



  • I don't understand what is so difficult about that discussion that most people could not follow? Maybe a lot of people don't want to watch a 26 minute video. It still has 70,000 views. I didn't find it very challenging but I am a subscriber to the Rubin Report and they have these conversations often.

    I don't think it was hard to follow, I thought there was a lot of intellectualism for the sake of sounding intellectual. And thats my complaint with it, if you want the broader public to take time out from reading Trumps tweets or a Sanders rant, you can't bore them shitless.
     
    Baron is trying to imply anyone not listening is stupid, thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying most of those who gave up were probably bored. See my point re Mitt & Hillary, the centre ground have bored people, they over intellectualise simple concepts, they try to pretend they are so much smarter than either the morons on the left or the crazies on the right, and yet they can'y actually clearly simply make their points in a way that holds attention.
     
    Basically a lot of people donb't want to watch a 26 minute video that could have been a 10 minute video. And in the current political climate thats a problem. This had 70k hits, which on the net is nothing, and its 40k of people who feel smart for having watched it & 30k of people who went "I'm pretty sure there is some good stuff in here so I'll wade thru it during my commute"

    To me it says lot when people attack presenters or presentation style more than they discuss the actual point being made.

    OK, you liked it 14 minutes in, you're right, that bit is good. He talks about the stupidity of comparing bad things as if thats a valid arguement & the way the truely stupid leap to the crusades. Or Hitler. Which you went straight to in your other thread calling anyone who disagreed with you an appeaser. Ahhh the irony.



  • I don't think it was hard to follow, I thought there was a lot of intellectualism for the sake of sounding intellectual. And thats my complaint with it, if you want the broader public to take time out from reading Trumps tweets or a Sanders rant, you can't bore them shitless.

    ^^ This.
     
    I got what they were saying, but had to look up a few terms they were using because I'm not a walking thesaurus or Professor of English Literature. Your average dinner party isn't going to espouse this topic in those terms. Hence my original comments on the video: it was a good discussion, but sometimes aimed higher than the majority of the population would go for.
     
    I was just looking around at some of Rubin's other stuff. The hit count varies from the tens to hundreds of thousands and its not just high-falutin' analysis. He's got a lot of guests covering a fair range of topics, and that is a good channel which I'll watch more of.
     
    This one, for example, has no guest but is very straightforward:
     



  • A lot of the terms like 'regressive left' or 'cultural libertarian' were made up by Dave Rubin's guests and popularised by Rubin himself. They aren't so much intellectual terms so much as buzz words. I don't think people outside that small sphere would use those terms.
     
    The thing with Rubin is, he basically formed his show because he thought the conversations people were having about politics on TV were really poor. The point of the show is basically to communicate big ideas in depth and to show that people can discuss these issues in a mature way. The problem is that he has some people on who are basically just crazy and Rubin doesn't believe in challenging their ideas. The point of the show is that you are meant to make your own mind up about whoever is on. Having to think for yourself is a good thing but it can be frustrating when climate denial goes unchallenged.



  • Having to think for yourself is a good thing but it can be frustrating when climate denial goes unchallenged.

    I don't think I've ever seen a climate change denier see an opposing argument, and think it was a good one. No matter how many facts or how much scientific evidence/consensus you've got
     
    🙂



  • I don't think it was hard to follow, I thought there was a lot of intellectualism for the sake of sounding intellectual. And thats my complaint with it, if you want the broader public to take time out from reading Trumps tweets or a Sanders rant, you can't bore them shitless.
     
    Baron is trying to imply anyone not listening is stupid, thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying most of those who gave up were probably bored. See my point re Mitt & Hillary, the centre ground have bored people, they over intellectualise simple concepts, they try to pretend they are so much smarter than either the morons on the left or the crazies on the right, and yet they can'y actually clearly simply make their points in a way that holds attention.
     
    Basically a lot of people donb't want to watch a 26 minute video that could have been a 10 minute video. And in the current political climate thats a problem. This had 70k hits, which on the net is nothing, and its 40k of people who feel smart for having watched it & 30k of people who went "I'm pretty sure there is some good stuff in here so I'll wade thru it during my commute"
     
     
     
     
    OK, you liked it 14 minutes in, you're right, that bit is good. He talks about the stupidity of comparing bad things as if thats a valid arguement & the way the truely stupid leap to the crusades. Or Hitler. Which you went straight to in your other thread calling anyone who disagreed with you an appeaser. Ahhh the irony.

    Yet again you rant about things I didnt say or imply



  • ^^ This.
     
    I got what they were saying, but had to look up a few terms they were using because I'm not a walking thesaurus or Professor of English Literature. Your average dinner party isn't going to espouse this topic in those terms. Hence my original comments on the video: it was a good discussion, but sometimes aimed higher than the majority of the population would go for.
     
    I was just looking around at some of Rubin's other stuff. The hit count varies from the tens to hundreds of thousands and its not just high-falutin' analysis. He's got a lot of guests covering a fair range of topics, and that is a good channel which I'll watch more of.
     
    This one, for example, has no guest but is very straightforward:
     

    That was a good clip, I might check out more of his stuff. He's right though, it is bizarre that the leftards have one rule for us and another for a backward society they twist themselves in knots trying to excuse.



  • That was a good clip, I might check out more of his stuff. He's right though, it is bizarre that the leftards have one rule for us and another for a backward society they twist themselves in knots trying to excuse.

    They're effectively the shouty right, but with ethically-sourced latte instead of instant filter coffee. 🙂



  • They're effectively the shouty right, but with ethically-sourced latte instead of instant filter coffee. 🙂
    It's not quite as simple as that, leftards would have taken part in safe street rallies , campaigned for equal treatment for lbgt people , equal rights for women and wanked on endlessly about the American military needlessly killing civilians and yet they twist themselves into all sorts of stupid behaviour trying to minimise the behaviour of Islamic ferals who are disgusted by all those things apart from needlessly killing civilians. They are all over that .



  • It's not quite as simple as that,

    Really? My one-liner about coffee choices wasn't a comprehensive argument? :think: You're going to fucking hate my one about croissants versus cornbread 🙂



  • Really? My one-liner about coffee choices wasn't a comprehensive argument? :think: You're going to fucking hate my one about croissants versus cornbread 🙂

    You tart. I'm going to steal that from you , obviously I'll substitute croissants and cornbread for something less effete .



  • Stop it now girls before someone loses their lipstick.


Log in to reply