[video=youtube;rdanSjmwtKI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdanSjmwtKI[/video]
[video=youtube;hKFlifNMM0U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKFlifNMM0U[/video]
Found this too funnier than above video.
I'm not convinced that these guys can all be dismissed as mere sellouts. Okay, maybe Rubin. And maybe a few others. But those are the guys that [I]don't[/I] expect you to believe any old conspiracy theory just because they said it was true. When did the anti-SJWs tell Sargon to say any of that shit? Why would they? It's got nothing to do with SJWs, it goes against what they're always told about Islam, and it happened over 15 years ago.
just watched the first vid and he just get's angrier and angrier until I just skipped ahead, laughed, then stopped watching.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52399348]What I got from skimming both these videos is Dave Rubin has all the spine and integrity of a senate republican, and Sargon is still a manchild alt righter who pretends to be a liberal and is completely disconnected from reality.[/QUOTE]
Yep
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52399348]What I got from skimming both these videos is Dave Rubin has all the spine and integrity of a senate republican, and Sargon is still a manchild alt righter who pretends to be a liberal and is completely disconnected from reality.[/QUOTE]
Uh sorry I think you mean "classical liberal" [sp]which is functionally the same thing as the "neoliberals" he has such a beef with. [/sp]
Isn't Sargon going to be appearing on Joe Rogan's Podcast tomorrow?
That should be interesting to listen to
[QUOTE=Elv02;52400820]Isn't Sargon going to be appearing on Joe Rogan's Podcast tomorrow?
That should be interesting to listen to[/QUOTE]
Oh jesus....
IDK, this guy just constantly strawmans Ruben's points. For example, he goes off on Ruben saying that he sees postmodern liberals as the biggest risk to the country by saying essentially saying, "Hey, the right is in control right now. So how can you say postmodernists are any risk. It's just a fake boogeyman created by Ruben." The problem, of course, is that Ruben never says that the postmodernists are all in power right now. I've heard him say many times that he's afraid of them gaining power. He afraid of what they will become, not necessarily what they are now.
He then uses funny mocking voices without actually addressing what Ruben said. He went so far as to say Ruben is the same as Alex Jones. That's just hilariously stupid.
I think there are plenty of things to criticize Ruben for, like not asking follow up questions when he should, but this guy seems to be just about as partisan and biased as he's trying to make Ruben out to be.
yo why does everyone with a goatee think they know everything?
is it the fedora of facial hair?
Man, I can't stand Dave Rubin
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52405109]To demonstrate why that's absurd here are a list of things that are a far greater threat to the country.
1. Climate change
2. economic inequality
3. obesity
4. student loan bubble
5. lack of access to healthcare
6. foreign election meddling
7. a tall glass of milk on the edge of nightstand as you jump onto the bed.
And you know why no one takes people like Ruben seriously when he brings it up? Because post modernism is a incredibly broad and fragmented movement (to the extent that some notable thinkers thought of as post modernist reject the movement) covering literature, philosophy, art and architecture etc that hasn't ousted modernism and will likely itself be supplanted by movements such as meta modernism and post-postmodernism. When you compare it to actually pressing and tangible issues the country (and the planet) faces today and say it's a huge danger no shit Sherlock you look like a disconnected, reactionary, tin foil hatted conspiracy theorist.[/QUOTE]
Why are you directly responding to the strawman claim by the host in the OP? I don't recall Ruben ever saying they are the single biggest threat to the country. That's part of my point. Ruben presents a more nuanced view that people are welcome to critique, but it's not helpful when people who are just as biased as they're claiming Ruben is come along and respond to some strawman of Ruben.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52405409]Why are you directly responding to the strawman claim by the host in the OP? I don't recall Ruben ever saying they are the single biggest threat to the country. That's part of my point. Ruben presents a more nuanced view that people are welcome to critique, but it's not helpful when people who are just as biased as they're claiming Ruben is come along and respond to some strawman of Ruben.[/QUOTE]
Is Dusty even claiming to be unbiased though? It's one thing to be biased, it's another thing to hide that bias to a point bordering on fraudulent.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;52405816]Is Dusty even claiming to be unbiased though? It's one thing to be biased, it's another thing to hide that bias to a point bordering on fraudulent.[/QUOTE]
I mean, calling another guy out for being biased and non-critical... and then going straight for a bunch of strawman attacks on him seems hypocritical to me.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52405818]I mean, calling another guy out for being biased and non-critical... and then going straight for a bunch of strawman attacks on him seems hypocritical to me.[/QUOTE]
He's not calling him out for his bias, he's calling him out for lying about his bias.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52400478]Uh sorry I think you mean "classical liberal" [sp]which is functionally the same thing as the "neoliberals" he has such a beef with. [/sp][/QUOTE]
no, those aren't even remotely comparable. Neo-liberalism is an economic model of heavy deregulation and extremely open economies, and a rejection of goverment intervention or even directed structure to an economy, and is typically associated with globalist and or mild collectivist ideas. Whereas classical liberalism is a set of philosophical beliefs, particularly in universal rights/social principals, universial political representation, the divine nature of the individual and truth being the highest virtue.
like seriously, saying those are roughly equivalent is like saying a the sound a tin can makes when you hit it is roughly equivalent to the color purple.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52405952]no, those aren't even remotely comparable. Neo-liberalism is an economic model of heavy deregulation and extremely open economies, and a rejection of goverment intervention or even directed structure to an economy, and is typically associated with globalist and or mild collectivist ideas. Whereas classical liberalism is a set of philosophical beliefs, particularly in universal rights/social principals, universial political representation, the divine nature of the individual and truth being the highest virtue.
like seriously, saying those are roughly equivalent is like saying a the sound a tin can makes when you hit it is roughly equivalent to the color purple.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if you portray classical liberalism as strictly a philosophical stance and totally ignore the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Political_economy"]economic arguments from classical liberals[/URL] (namely regarding laissez faire and free trade) they wouldn't seem remotely compatible, but when it comes to economics they are practically the same. Which shouldn't be surprising considering "neoliberalism" refers to a resurgence in liberal ideas regarding the marketplace during the 1980s.
Well, when classical liberalism is a political stance, yes it is a strictly philosophical entity. And neo-liberal political positions are basically globalist in nature, which is antagonistic to classic liberal principals, which is enough to make it distinct, and plenty enough to not be a hypocritical position to object to as a classic liberal. And if you're making the claim that sargon is a hypocrite for claiming to have classical liberal views and yet condemning neo-liberalism, which you are
[QUOTE]Uh sorry I think you mean "classical liberal" which is functionally the same thing as the "neoliberals" he has such a beef with.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] but when it comes to economics they are practically the same.[/QUOTE]
I've heard him mention a few times that he disagrees with the extreme libertarian market model, and supports social security nets and mildly regulated economies, particularly justified by classic liberal philosophical ideas. Which is a set of opinions in opposition to neo-liberalism, so there is no conflict.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52411399]I've heard him mention a few times that he disagrees with the extreme libertarian market model, and supports social security nets and mildly regulated economies. Which is a set of opinions in opposition to neo-liberalism, so there is no conflict.[/QUOTE]
As far as I can remember, he's for single payer healthcare.
i've heard him talking about the NHS and what a shame it is the conservatives plan on stripping it during a livestream coming up to the UK election, so i don't believe that's true either.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52411399]Well, when classical liberalism is a political stance, yes it is a strictly philosophical entity. And neo-liberal political positions are basically globalist in nature, which is antagonistic to classic liberal principals, which is enough to make it distinct, and plenty enough to not be a hypocritical position to object to as a classic liberal. And if you're making the claim that sargon is a hypocrite for claiming to have classical liberal views and yet condemning neo-liberalism, which you are
I've heard him mention a few times that he disagrees with the extreme libertarian market model, and supports social security nets and mildly regulated economies, particularly justified by classic liberal philosophical ideas. Which is a set of opinions in opposition to neo-liberalism, so there is no conflict.[/QUOTE]
Classical liberalism called for a free market economy which is pretty globalist. My point isn't that Sargon is a hypocrite (in this case, he is on other matters though), it's that he doesn't really know what a "classical liberal" is.
[editline]28th June 2017[/editline]
The fact that you say that Sargons opinions are in opposition of neoliberalism, when neoliberalism is based on classical liberalism, makes my case for me
well no, neo-liberalism is specifically a label for a set of economic principals/model, but classical liberalism is a specific set of philisophical principals, locke, hume, kant, etc.
[QUOTE]The fact that you say that Sargons opinions are in opposition of neoliberalism, when neoliberalism is based on classical liberalism, makes my case for me [/QUOTE]
And i disagree with this. Because, let's suppose that neo-liberalism was a set of philisophical beliefs and was directly comparable entities, which they're not, although the principal still applies, if they were functionally interchangable there would be no point in making the distinction, so there would be no neo-liberalism label, just classical liberalism.
And ok, let's presume that neo-liberalism is derived from classic liberal ideas, which is pretty well true. Just because something is derived from something else, doesn't make them roughly equivalent, because you can make some tiny change that fundamentally alters the core nature of the two. Communism/nationalist socialism is derived from the early 20th century socialist movement, but so is canada's democratic socialist model. They may be derrived from the same common source but they're very disparate. I don't believe that globalism is really comparable with classical liberal ideas because it emancipates the concept of individual and ultimately supplants the state, which runs against the grain of works like Leviathan or Hobbes, among others. Particularly, but not exclusively because it runs against the identity of the individual and his relationship with power hierarchies/the state.
I insist that they are not the same thing
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52413307]
I insist that they are not the same thing[/QUOTE]
And I insist that you can't just throw away the economic aspect of classical liberalism as given to us by people like Adam Smith. I can't possibly see how you can say that globalism isn't "comparable with classical liberal ideas" when actual classical liberals called for something that if not globalist itself, is very much close to it. So when a quick overview of classical liberalism on say, Wikipedia presents a lot of positions that run contrary to what Sargon himself says he supports, I find it to be a strange label to put on oneself.
Philosophically Sargon might be a classical liberal, but politically he falls flatly into the "just liberal" category. Interestingly, in an effort to refresh myself on where exactly he stands, I found that his Twitter page just sells himself as an "Anti-identitarian liberal", which I think is [I]way[/I] more accurate than classical liberal, so if he describes himself as that now then all the better.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
