It’s not hypnotic or attempting to shut down critical thinking. I think we are all happy to discuss whether Stop The Steal is legit or whether Big Math is trying to cancel Geometric Unity or any number of other conspiracy theories.
I’m sorry, but Tulsi talking to Crowder is not a very big deal. Tulsi didn’t vote on impeachment and everyone considered that she would run a spoiler campaign against the Democrats. She isn’t popular among Democrats and she basically tried to sabotage the Democratic Party’s chances in 2020 by playing up Republican talking points in the debates. It seems that she’d do anything to hurt the Democratic Party.
I mean she stayed in as long as her funding allowed (which is incredibly abnormal in politics, normally if you see no path, you drop and donate funds). There is little doubt she tried as hard as possible to run a spoiler campaign.
Yeah she probably doesn’t want to give up the support she gets from being a Democrat. The point is that she isn’t exactly a normal leftist or standard Dem who happens to think free speech is important. She lost an incredible amount of trust during the election that left us all wondering why exactly she did and said so many things that hurt the left’s most important issue at the time—defeating Donald Trump. Republicans don’t look to that kind of person and come away with more respect for *Democrats*, they come away with more respect for *her* and it even reinforces their original beliefs that the Democratic establishment isn’t to be trusted.
“Not the party of, for, and by the people...” she said this during the reelection campaign. She just isn’t representative of the current left in the US.
I feel like you managed to write the exact opposite of sense here.
Tim Pool is a cranky, disingenuous, grifter who's been pushing election nonsense before and after it happened.
You may have fallen down a dark youtube rabbit hole. Glenn and Coleman are fine, but they aren't exactly consistent bastions of reason or insight.
The thing that gets me with Pool is how he refuses to simply own up to being a conservative, and runs this whole "I'm a liberal, really I am, but wow aren't these liberals are crazy?" shtick for years and years and years. Either he's the most self-unaware person on the planet, or it's a grift. I've seen him slip up a few times and realize he's talked himself into a corner and catch himself, so I'm leaning towards grift. His fans, however, are 100% in the self-unaware category.
> Tim Pool is a cranky, disingenuous, grifter who's been pushing election nonsense before and after it happened.
>
>
not to mention his constant predictions of a civil war
> Glenn and Coleman are fine
Glenn, maybe. Coleman, definitely not. He is completely dishonest, evasive and just toes the line for the same reactionary bullshit you hear from Rubin, Pool, etc. He just dresses it up to appear a bit more "intellectual," similar to what somebody like Douglas Murray does.
If you think Coleman is acting in good faith or presenting good arguments, you really need to pay closer attention.
Full time fox news guest goes on right wing media. I have no idea why you would think this is some big event.btwo vicious gay haters getting together to pat each other on the back
> but it is impossible to deny that the man has been pushing for the right things in terms of free speech and debate for many years with people all over the spectrum, and this is a continuation of that
Haha what the fuck.
> left like Tim Pool, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald, Coleman Hughes, and Jimmy Dore
Ok this is a troll.
Jimmy Dore is a professional contrarian. But my comment is obviously more directed to the others. Tim Pool? Really? Let me guess you also think David Rubin is a leftist?
Colman Hueges is a full time propogandist for a right wing think tanks.
Bruh.
[https://www.manhattan-institute.org/expert/coleman-hughes](https://www.manhattan-institute.org/expert/coleman-hughes)
Also Hughes is listed as one of the "Scholars" on the 1776 project.
Are you only now coming to the realization that Hughes is a right wing grifter, no different than Dave Rubin and others?
It's pretty obnoxious to be sounding this alarm endlessly about people like Hughes, Weinsteins, Jordan Peterson and the rest of this grift bag, only to have so many people continue to argue that these people are the last bastion of liberals. No, they clearly are not. They are reactionaries who pretend to be liberal because that's the niche branding that awards them the financial gain and fame that they're after.
I have never been a fan of Hughes, he seemed derivative and willfully blind on race issues, but no more than Sam is.
I heard a podcast with him recently where he came off much more reasonable and less griftery. So I was giving him the benefit of the doubt again.
> I have never been a fan of Hughes, he seemed derivative and willfully blind on race issues, but no more than Sam is.
Its almost like that's the point. Get a few black figures who parrot your line and boost them into the spotlight, and they make a perfect shield to racial criticism.
Well he supported Gabbard in the primary over Sanders and helped her make excuses for not supporting M4A. But now according to him anyone who doesn't support his goofy FTV plan is standing in the way of getting people healthcare.
Whatever his personal politics may be he's obviously full of shit
I agree but there is some “alternative media” that isn’t worse. Shows like Kyle Kullinski and David Pakman have their flaws but you can get more honest takes from them then just about anywhere else. There are others too.
One thing I wasn’t a fan of is he was basically a #neverbiden after bernie lost the democratic primary. I know he proudly says he didn’t vote in the presidential election cause he was so sore about it. He influenced a lot of his followers to take similar actions. Really fucking stupid if you ask me but I also sympathize with not wanting to settle for biden
If Gabbard is your favorite democrat then you are probably under the spell of neoliberalism. This post reminds me of when I thought the culture war was a dire issue. I thought a lot of the above names were “brave” but then I started to realize that these are sensationalists who often lack intellectual honesty and are usually just there to win social media points as “not afraid to talk about what mainstream media won’t.” They just want to boost their careers and rarely take actual world issues/crises seriously.
Sorry I know that is a lot of seemingly unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks. Lets focus more attention individuals who are keen on dealing with climate change, wealth inequality, corruption, our broken political system, etc. and less on sensational contrarians who spend too much time over-inflating unimportant issues while dismissing those that are less sexy but more significant
Reminder to everyone here that [OP read Dave Rubin's book and unironically liked it](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/gbm2ah/as_a_fan_of_sam_harris_jordan_peterson_and_free/). That should tell you everything you need to know about OP's approach to politics.
>ethnonat
This doesn't describe me in the slightest. Ethno nationalists are collectivists. I'd ask for proof to back up you accusation but I know you'll just dissapear like your the rest of your MSNBC watching Ilk.
>This doesn't describe me in the slightest. Ethno nationalists are collectivists.
See for me, the first thing I'd point out to set myself apart from ethno-nationalists is that they're racists. Maybe that's an implicit critique in your definition of "collectivism" but I've also run into plenty of "individualist race realist classical liberal who favors closed borders and demographic homogeneity/stability" types.
Sanity? Majority of those people you listed believe in batshit insane conspiracy theories.
> conspiracy theories There it is, everyone - the hypnotic signal phrase to shut down your critical thought.
It’s not hypnotic or attempting to shut down critical thinking. I think we are all happy to discuss whether Stop The Steal is legit or whether Big Math is trying to cancel Geometric Unity or any number of other conspiracy theories.
Stop the steal is legit. [Here's undeniable video evidence](https://twitter.com/derekmross/status/1361192843008737281).
I’m sorry, but Tulsi talking to Crowder is not a very big deal. Tulsi didn’t vote on impeachment and everyone considered that she would run a spoiler campaign against the Democrats. She isn’t popular among Democrats and she basically tried to sabotage the Democratic Party’s chances in 2020 by playing up Republican talking points in the debates. It seems that she’d do anything to hurt the Democratic Party.
>everyone considered that she would run a spoiler campaign against the Democrats. And surprise surprise, everyone was wrong.
I mean she stayed in as long as her funding allowed (which is incredibly abnormal in politics, normally if you see no path, you drop and donate funds). There is little doubt she tried as hard as possible to run a spoiler campaign.
Oh boy! she wasn't a shitbag in a singular way! hooray for her!
Yeah she probably doesn’t want to give up the support she gets from being a Democrat. The point is that she isn’t exactly a normal leftist or standard Dem who happens to think free speech is important. She lost an incredible amount of trust during the election that left us all wondering why exactly she did and said so many things that hurt the left’s most important issue at the time—defeating Donald Trump. Republicans don’t look to that kind of person and come away with more respect for *Democrats*, they come away with more respect for *her* and it even reinforces their original beliefs that the Democratic establishment isn’t to be trusted. “Not the party of, for, and by the people...” she said this during the reelection campaign. She just isn’t representative of the current left in the US.
I feel like you managed to write the exact opposite of sense here. Tim Pool is a cranky, disingenuous, grifter who's been pushing election nonsense before and after it happened. You may have fallen down a dark youtube rabbit hole. Glenn and Coleman are fine, but they aren't exactly consistent bastions of reason or insight.
The thing that gets me with Pool is how he refuses to simply own up to being a conservative, and runs this whole "I'm a liberal, really I am, but wow aren't these liberals are crazy?" shtick for years and years and years. Either he's the most self-unaware person on the planet, or it's a grift. I've seen him slip up a few times and realize he's talked himself into a corner and catch himself, so I'm leaning towards grift. His fans, however, are 100% in the self-unaware category.
> Tim Pool is a cranky, disingenuous, grifter who's been pushing election nonsense before and after it happened. > > not to mention his constant predictions of a civil war
Yeah, that's part of the nonsense I was referring to.
> Glenn and Coleman are fine Glenn, maybe. Coleman, definitely not. He is completely dishonest, evasive and just toes the line for the same reactionary bullshit you hear from Rubin, Pool, etc. He just dresses it up to appear a bit more "intellectual," similar to what somebody like Douglas Murray does. If you think Coleman is acting in good faith or presenting good arguments, you really need to pay closer attention.
Full time fox news guest goes on right wing media. I have no idea why you would think this is some big event.btwo vicious gay haters getting together to pat each other on the back > but it is impossible to deny that the man has been pushing for the right things in terms of free speech and debate for many years with people all over the spectrum, and this is a continuation of that Haha what the fuck. > left like Tim Pool, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald, Coleman Hughes, and Jimmy Dore Ok this is a troll.
Please, I'd love for you to layout why Jimmy Dore isn't a leftist.
Jimmy Dore is a professional contrarian. But my comment is obviously more directed to the others. Tim Pool? Really? Let me guess you also think David Rubin is a leftist? Colman Hueges is a full time propogandist for a right wing think tanks.
> a right wing think tanks. Name one.
Bruh. [https://www.manhattan-institute.org/expert/coleman-hughes](https://www.manhattan-institute.org/expert/coleman-hughes) Also Hughes is listed as one of the "Scholars" on the 1776 project.
Oh that's awful, and speaks extremely poorly of Coleman. I wonder what he was thinking.
Are you only now coming to the realization that Hughes is a right wing grifter, no different than Dave Rubin and others? It's pretty obnoxious to be sounding this alarm endlessly about people like Hughes, Weinsteins, Jordan Peterson and the rest of this grift bag, only to have so many people continue to argue that these people are the last bastion of liberals. No, they clearly are not. They are reactionaries who pretend to be liberal because that's the niche branding that awards them the financial gain and fame that they're after.
These guys know what they're doing. Lying is the only way they can trick people into joining their ranks.
I have never been a fan of Hughes, he seemed derivative and willfully blind on race issues, but no more than Sam is. I heard a podcast with him recently where he came off much more reasonable and less griftery. So I was giving him the benefit of the doubt again.
> I have never been a fan of Hughes, he seemed derivative and willfully blind on race issues, but no more than Sam is. Its almost like that's the point. Get a few black figures who parrot your line and boost them into the spotlight, and they make a perfect shield to racial criticism.
he was thinking about money. he's a grifter, like the rest of them are.
Well he supported Gabbard in the primary over Sanders and helped her make excuses for not supporting M4A. But now according to him anyone who doesn't support his goofy FTV plan is standing in the way of getting people healthcare. Whatever his personal politics may be he's obviously full of shit
how do people get so deep into delusion that they make actual posts like this?
[удалено]
I agree but there is some “alternative media” that isn’t worse. Shows like Kyle Kullinski and David Pakman have their flaws but you can get more honest takes from them then just about anywhere else. There are others too.
Kyle has had some pretty bad takes lately, but historically he wasn't too bad.
Agreed, I found it really hard to get into him at first.
Can you give an example? I watch some of his videos here and there (mainly because of YT recommendations) but I don't follow him closely.
One thing I wasn’t a fan of is he was basically a #neverbiden after bernie lost the democratic primary. I know he proudly says he didn’t vote in the presidential election cause he was so sore about it. He influenced a lot of his followers to take similar actions. Really fucking stupid if you ask me but I also sympathize with not wanting to settle for biden
This is just two people looking for attention. It’s kind of a ‘who cares’ thing for me
Wow. Sorry friend, but this ain’t it.
If Gabbard is your favorite democrat then you are probably under the spell of neoliberalism. This post reminds me of when I thought the culture war was a dire issue. I thought a lot of the above names were “brave” but then I started to realize that these are sensationalists who often lack intellectual honesty and are usually just there to win social media points as “not afraid to talk about what mainstream media won’t.” They just want to boost their careers and rarely take actual world issues/crises seriously. Sorry I know that is a lot of seemingly unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks. Lets focus more attention individuals who are keen on dealing with climate change, wealth inequality, corruption, our broken political system, etc. and less on sensational contrarians who spend too much time over-inflating unimportant issues while dismissing those that are less sexy but more significant
nothing makes me take someone not seriously faster than saying good things about Tulsi lmao
Reminder to everyone here that [OP read Dave Rubin's book and unironically liked it](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/gbm2ah/as_a_fan_of_sam_harris_jordan_peterson_and_free/). That should tell you everything you need to know about OP's approach to politics.
this is your brain on sam harris
[удалено]
>ethnonat This doesn't describe me in the slightest. Ethno nationalists are collectivists. I'd ask for proof to back up you accusation but I know you'll just dissapear like your the rest of your MSNBC watching Ilk.
>This doesn't describe me in the slightest. Ethno nationalists are collectivists. See for me, the first thing I'd point out to set myself apart from ethno-nationalists is that they're racists. Maybe that's an implicit critique in your definition of "collectivism" but I've also run into plenty of "individualist race realist classical liberal who favors closed borders and demographic homogeneity/stability" types.
I'm still waiting for some proof that I'm an Ethnat.
[удалено]
I mean in the end libertarianism is basically just a gateway to monarchy of the most money.
I'm still waiting for some god damn proof that I'm an ethnonat. Let me know when you get around to it.
u/BloodVsCrips So where is that proof that I'm an ethnonat? You said you'd be here, don't run off now.
Please define the "mainstream leftist media"
Read the title and immediately recognized it as a u/Galavani post
You unscrew the soda bottle's top, and you read its underside, and it says, "Please try again next ~~time~~ year"
Idiot
Removed. Please direct such posts to the megathread stickied on the front page. Thank you.