I miss Michael. What a loss. I love both Robert Wright and Michael Brooks, but strangely I didn't know they'd had any conversations until after Michael's death. I thought TH-cam was supposed to figure these things out and draw them to my attention.
Noam Chomsky: "One big problem is that the white working class has been pretty much abandoned by the political system. The Democrats don’t even try to organize them anymore. The Republicans claim to do it; they get most of the vote, but they do it on non-economic issues, on non-labor issues. They often try to mobilize them on the grounds of issues steeped in racism and sexism and so on." Karl Marx said to the First International back in 1867, “in order to oppose their workers, the employers either bring in workers from abroad or else transfer manufacture to countries where there is a cheap labor force.” Or both, we should add.
But the republicans don't do it lol. There's nothing particular to the white working class; they simply vited fir Trump because if white identity politics, not legitimate grievances.
A lot of comments here confirm the point about how emotional these folks get about Harris. Fun conversation and thanks again for having me Bob. Cheers, MB
10 points to Gryffindor for taking the time to read through some of the comments here. Far too rare these days (though admittedly I do understand why most "content providers" stay clear of the comments section) so it is something that is very much appreciated, at least by this viewer.
Did you not get Wright's reference to A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, by Betty bloody Smith (1943) at the start of the conversation? That's a hell of a way to begin a discussion.
I think Michael Brooks is great and I appreciate somebody on the left pulling no punches. The timid, centrist-appealing approach that most people on the left take is not working and energizes nobody.
This conversation and more examples from Sam Seder and MB are a prime example of not 'steel-manning' your opponents arguments. Here are two examples: 1) '"The IDW is really arguing against college brats who no one really takes seriously anyway"'. No, they are arguing against the professors of the students and they are profound disagreements between the professors and the left one the hand, and some of the members of IDW on the other e.g if we are to discuss race and IQ should we separate the scientific question and answer it on its own merits or should we first and foremost question the motivations for anyone who dares ask the question and continuously remind ourselves that there are racists out there and whatever the answer the important thing to remember is that there was slavery and Jim Crow and so really whatever the answer it's important to keep reminding ourselves that there are mitigating circumstances which essentially washes away a possible unpleasant outcome. One view makes Charles Murray a pariah from the get-go the other engages him constructively and critically and is always open for further evidence. 2) " What do you mean 'Dark Web' these people have so many followers on twitter and my God they even appear on Joe Rogan who has a very huge audience. They are not being censored' . This misses the point Eric Weinstein was making when he coined the phrase. His point was that these group of people have gained a huge following despite being ignored by the mainstream media. THE FACT THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE A HUGE FOLLOWING IS THE POINT OF THE PHRASE.
"His point was that these group of people have gained a huge following despite being ignored by the mainstream media. THE FACT THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE A HUGE FOLLOWING IS THE POINT OF THE PHRASE. Vis mindre" Exactly. Both of these bloggingheads deny whats completely obvious.
Your definition of the mainstream media is useless since it includes anyone that can be searched on your Google search bar i.e it is infinitely flexible. If you don't like the term 'mainstream media' I can use the term 'traditional media' since that was what Eric Weinstein was referring to. I have already pointed out that the fact that they have huge audiences is the point of the phrase. They gained huge audiences without need of the traditional media. This is a simple point that most people seem to be either too stupid to understand or eager not to understand. We would not know them or have need for the phrase if they had small audiences. As for the people in IDW not being intellectuals I don't know what your definition is so it is hard to reply. My definition of intellectual is one I heard Thomas Sowell make namely: one whose end products are ideas. You don't have to agree with the ideas or think they are brilliant.But I suspect you don't like the people IDW so they are not intellectuals to you i.e your criticism mostly emotional.
Wow! You guys must’ve watched this at like 5x sped up speed since it was just released and you’ve already watched digested and formed and spewed opinions about it! Teach me how to speed watch!
Disagreement may not be misrepresentation, but misrepresentation is misrepresentation. I know how much you love basic truisms, so that one was specially made for you. Silly me, I just realised that I've gone and done a very fruitless thing by engaging with you. That one was for Robert and his appreciation for sarcasm and irony.
As a young conservative opened to a plethora of ideas from the path of Shapiro > Peterson > Weinstein now to Wright, I'm grateful for any and all of these meta discussions. As a new viewer, I greatly appreciate Wrights appeal to objectivity in these sort of discussions. I'm looking forward to his inclusion into the IDW via interview proxy ala Joe Rogan.
I guess Brooks wouldn't like that he'd be misquoted as suggesting that the wrong thing with how the students dealt with Murray wasn't the violence, but making it in a way that helps put the spotlights on him... but he has no problem with phrasing the whole topic as one of "black inferiority", and even attributing Murray's policy ideas to Harris.
So much time (1:12:00) spent discussing labels and 0:00:00 spent discussing solutions to actual, specific problems such as climate change, low wages, etc. Completely missed opportunity; no progress for the world achieved. Can we please keep our eye on the ball? Particle X rule of thumb: The prouder you are of your stupid label, the more you are a slave to it (instead of to the truth). This applies to Michael Brooks in this conversation. And by making labels the centerpiece of the discussion, Robert Wright perpetuates the idea that labels are extremely important, in the process doing more harm to the world than good. You cannot say you are without bias if you label yourself (and, almost as bad, label others). Self-labeling is what pumps up tribalism (not just your tribalistic impulse, but others' as well ), which of course is a great reason to not do it--if solving actual problems is the goal. Only by casting off your label can you pledge allegiance to truth and nothing but truth (and, bonus!, you will come off as less narcissistic). Let's seek truth, not self-validation from our tribe. These are mutually exclusive enterprises. Which one do you choose?
I think that a major problem is the way in which history is used as a tool for politics. Now that has always been the case, but on the left today many arguments run to history in pointing out how something happening today is "problematic" because something like that happened in the past that was bad and more overtly connected to racist ideas etc. ideas. For example if a person with low melanine content in their skin today happens to colour their face black for example, that act is connected to mistrel shows 100 years ago. The person might have no idea that that had happened in the past, and indeed not intend the act to be racist in any way, so it's unclear why it should be important to even mention the minstrel shows outside of as a curiosity. Maybe a bad example, but Brook critiques Lilla for not extending his historical analysis further back. Well, what is the proper line of ending a historical analysis? I guess you could argue that actually it's not Columbus' fault that the American civilizations got destroyed, but that actually it's the fault of the Turks that Europeans went on conquering and colonizing the world, because the Turks cut the Europeans off of the trans Asian spice trade, and that that forced the Europeans to try to circumvent the Turks and gain Christian allies against their war against the Turks that were threatening to conquer the whole of Europe.
I’m on the left and I think Michael Brooks is one of the people who have driven people from the centre left to the centre and the centre right due to his disingenuousness.
I didn't really know anything about him, but he was obviously left-leaning in this convo. After looking at some of his other content, gulag jokes and all, it's hard to take him too seriously.
I'm helping someone run for office who was by in large part influenced by MR/TMBS. Sooooooo this is awkward. lmao People are more open to candidates that are HONEST about their commitment to socialist values than you'd expect. www.peoplesworld.org/article/in-the-era-of-trump-a-growing-dsa-talks-socialism/ duckduckgo.com/?q=lee+carter&t=ffnt&ia=web
If I were part of the IDW, I'd have an avatar picture with one of those scary hoods, like that of the "death" skeleton character, or those villains of Star Wars.
Can't watch it now. But this will probably be a very interesting conversation. Robert, you are a weirdo. But that's what I like about you. + I really like the authenticity in the previous interviews I have seen. 🙏 Fuck it. JRE Howard Bloom has to wait. Too curious about this conversation. So far, I totally agree with what you said about a non-tribal following. My twitter list has gone from left-wing to right-wing & back and forth. People get very confused when you don't stay in your lane.
I respected Wright's piece on the IDW despite disagreeing on some points, but Brooks has repeatedly shown himself to be intellectually dishonest. Just here to shit on this.
Agree. Brooks and the MR are disgusting. The sooner the Left repudiates their kind (the tribally dishonest), the sooner the Left can get back on track.
"given a slightly smarter strategy by Hillary we wouldn't be here" + "the fact that a guy like this is even close" = "totally blew my mind" if only, Bob As always in America, the question is the hoi polloi. What I enjoy most about these opportunities is the inspiration to marry words to insight. Eg, I tracked down the term psychological scotoma. The attraction of Drumpf is the same mechanism at work when Bob supposes a rational polity. Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing Skip the section about Strauss in Miller londonsociety-nls.org.uk/The-Laboratory-for-Lacanian-Politics/Some-Research-Resources/Miller_Psychoanalysis-the-City-and-Communities.pdf I'm not asking facility with Marcuse, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance but surely Mill, Adams, Madison, Burke et al. are de rigueur? And if not? What red pill can suffice?
Oddly, or not oddly enough, this conversation seemed to be completely taking place within a singular tribal setting. The points made were of the sort that stem off of emotion and respond obliviously to strong negative attributes of "their own tribe". Especially when Brooks would respond to valid opposing positions from Wright saying things like, "yeaaahh.. but I still think..." I always enjoy Wright's devils advocates positions, but felt this was just leaning too far to one side to be objective or accurately critical.
"Across Age Groups, Whites Fared Worse in Employment Rates" NYT, By Eduardo Porter Dec. 16, 2016 While Hispanics, African-Americans and Asian-Americans have millions more jobs now than they did at the labor market’s high-water mark in November 2007, before the economy turned into recession, whites actually lost 700,000 more jobs than they gained. Perhaps it’s just that more whites retired? Not quite. The pattern actually looks worse for whites in the decade preceding retirement. (prime voting age) The employment rate of whites from the ages of 55 to 64 declined slightly - to 63.6 percent from 64.1 percent. By contrast, the employment rate of blacks, Hispanics and Asians increased.
I do not like Trump at all, but that "making fun of a disabled person" is kind of a hoax. He does those gestures to mock people in general, even himself, there's previous recording of this. And the gesture does not even match that reporter's condition, unless in a carefully selected still frame. So in a way he "mocked" the reporter, but not his condition specifically. In a way it was an "egalitarian" treatment.
You shouldn't generalize those who fell for the "fake news" (ironically legitimizing Trump's twist on the term, which isn't even a twist in this case). It is a convincing "hoax", and the gestures are that of a "retarded" person, much like a early teenager would do. Most people probably honestly believe Trump really mocked his condition, which isn't all that unbelievable from his general persona. I don't think Trump had much of a consideration for him either way, "I'll mock him just as I do with everyone else because that's the truly respectful thing to do, in a way". It's more like it's something automatic, and maybe if, given opportunity, he'd have given him some nickname that even hinted at his condition.
How come it "mirrored" more the reporter if his condition makes him still? That's maybe some degree of "pareidolia" combined with the cherry-picked still frame. There's several compilations of his mocking gestures made at several different, non-disabled persons: th-cam.com/video/F6vFsLA7K_0/w-d-xo.html
*>* That's really depressing. In Brazil, one of the most popular presidential candidates has a record of crazy-tyrant-dictator phrases, always excusing himself as just using an hyperbolic "manner of speaking". Things like "democracy does not solve anything, we need a civil war, killing at least 30 000, starting by president FHC. If some innocent will be killed, so be it". Not long ago a "journalist" falsely reported him saying something like that at some points cops should give a cornered gang one chance to surrender, and then just gun them down mercilessly. That specifically wasn't really said, but he regularly says things even worse than that, even recently saying that homeless/landless occupiers should be chased away with flame-throwers. Nevertheless, in this post-Trump political anti-intellectual climate, all it takes is one slip of someone idiot at the press, to bolster their "fake news" narrative.
Simple reason for that. In post-modernism world view to which Brooks subscribes, racism is attribute of the dominant group, and whites/western culture are oppressors, therefore, racists. So, following their logic, once opressed groups get the power, they will become racists. Another words, they advocate for making minorities into racists. If it sounds contradictory to you, don't despair, because according to post-modernism, there is no objective truth and the logic is invention and tool of Western oppression. Everything is good in the world of Brooks.
+listener523 That might be true. I know very little about Brooks and wasn't particularly impressed here. The problem is that when you cry wolf enough times and people start noticing that oftentimes there isn't a wolf, then people stop believing you even if there actually is a wolf. Harris overplayed that card to the point of becoming a caricature. Probably because he did have to deal with some legitimate cases of egregious misrepresentation at the beginning of his career. But now he's stuck himself into a corner. When you start calling out people like Ezra Klein as "far left" and not worth trying to convince anymore than a neo-Nazi because they're so blinded by dogma, when you start using the misrepresentation card because you don't understand their criticism and attribute ill-intent and bad-faith to them, then there's nowhere left to go to when the actual problem-people arrive. Ironically he's committing the same mistake he's so prone to criticize in so-called SJWs.
Yep. That's how it goes. Even a pretty good data-driven journalism platform like Vox has to be entirely dismissed because you don't like some of their editorial opinions about Harris. Note that neither Klein nor those who left Harris after this debacle were making any claims about his good or bad faith. Only Harris played that game. And personally I'm tired of people like Harris who try to moralize everything and judge arguments not on their merit but on what they perceive to be the intent of their interlocutors. The irony is that he's the only one doing the very thing he's criticizing others for allegedly doing (i.e. not addressing the actual arguments because of some perceived ill-will on the part of the people making the arguments).
That's the same argument Harris is spewing at every corner these days. He, and you, actually don't get it. Do I want to believe that my political biases fit reality? Well duh. Everybody does. But I'm cautious enough to be as aware as I can of my own motivated cognition and do what I can to keep it in check. See, the difference is that I answer that question by saying "yes I'm biased but I do my best not to be". Sam and his ilk reply by saying "no. I'm not biased. I'm sure of it." Even just a mild appreciation for Vox is seen as problematic. "Pretty good" is bad because anything other than "total piece of shit" isn't enough. "data driven" must be bad because it is viewed as if I had said that they actually get the data right all the time (there would be plenty to say about in-built bias and factual errors at Vox. It is still a very different beast than those platforms that are explicitly ideological, such as TYT or Rubin, et al.). There's no gradation, only attribution of intent and ill-will. But here's the thing, most of these actors in public discourse today have the decency to recognize that they are prone to bias. The only ones who aren't are the members of this so-called IDW (cringe). It happened with Brett Weinstein when talking with Robert Wright and it happened with Sam Harris when talking with Ezra Klein. Both Robert and Ezra, when asked whether they're biased or not, say that they try not to be but are inevitably human. The IDW people have consistently replied that they're not biased. They're sure of it. They're that good. Superhumans. They suffer from the delusion of thinking they are brains without bodies, that they hold the capital-t Truth. In other words, they are dogmatic. The rest of us just do our best to not be that, while recognizing that we're all prone to it. You can convince yourself that it's impossible to convince me to change my mind. Yet, when I unsubscribed from Harris 6-months ago after years of following him and decided to stay clear of most of his rhetoric, that was me being talked out of an opinion I had. So do what you must. If you don't see the irony in the fact that you've decided to not address what I was saying but instead resorted to ad hominem right after I said this was the very problem I had with Harris, then that's on you. Meanwhile I'll do my best to keep on having constructive discussions with people I disagree with, in the hope that we can learn from each other and both get nearer to that capital-t Truth if we can.
![Against the Web | Robert Wright & Michael Brooks [The Wright Show]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vBKe7ltmbGk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Against the Web | Robert Wright & Michael Brooks [The Wright Show]](/img/tr.png)
I miss Michael. What a loss.
I love both Robert Wright and Michael Brooks, but strangely I didn't know they'd had any conversations until after Michael's death. I thought TH-cam was supposed to figure these things out and draw them to my attention.
OMG what happened to him!!!?????????????
Noam Chomsky: "One big problem is that the white working class has been pretty much abandoned by the political system. The Democrats don’t even try to organize them anymore. The Republicans claim to do it; they get most of the vote, but they do it on non-economic issues, on non-labor issues. They often try to mobilize them on the grounds of issues steeped in racism and sexism and so on."
Karl Marx said to the First International back in 1867, “in order to oppose their workers, the employers either bring in workers from abroad or else transfer manufacture to countries where there is a cheap labor force.” Or both, we should add.
But the republicans don't do it lol. There's nothing particular to the white working class; they simply vited fir Trump because if white identity politics, not legitimate grievances.
This was one of the best conversations on this channel.
Well done to both of you.
This is too painful to watch again
RIP MICHAEL
You are missed, you taught us to support the forgotten, and your loss is just heartbreaking 💔💔💔💔.
A lot of comments here confirm the point about how emotional these folks get about Harris. Fun conversation and thanks again for having me Bob. Cheers, MB
10 points to Gryffindor for taking the time to read through some of the comments here. Far too rare these days (though admittedly I do understand why most "content providers" stay clear of the comments section) so it is something that is very much appreciated, at least by this viewer.
Did you not get Wright's reference to A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, by Betty bloody Smith (1943) at the start of the conversation? That's a hell of a way to begin a discussion.
i sure did
Possibly Thaddeus
Okay, whats it called?
I think Michael Brooks is great and I appreciate somebody on the left pulling no punches. The timid, centrist-appealing approach that most people on the left take is not working and energizes nobody.
Bloggingheads needs to explode on youtube. Seriously some of the best level headed interviews I have seen.
This conversation and more examples from Sam Seder and MB are a prime example of not 'steel-manning' your opponents arguments. Here are two examples: 1) '"The IDW is really arguing against college brats who no one really takes seriously anyway"'. No, they are arguing against the professors of the students and they are profound disagreements between the professors and the left one the hand, and some of the members of IDW on the other e.g if we are to discuss race and IQ should we separate the scientific question and answer it on its own merits or should we first and foremost question the motivations for anyone who dares ask the question and continuously remind ourselves that there are racists out there and whatever the answer the important thing to remember is that there was slavery and Jim Crow and so really whatever the answer it's important to keep reminding ourselves that there are mitigating circumstances which essentially washes away a possible unpleasant outcome. One view makes Charles Murray a pariah from the get-go the other engages him constructively and critically and is always open for further evidence. 2) " What do you mean 'Dark Web' these people have so many followers on twitter and my God they even appear on Joe Rogan who has a very huge audience. They are not being censored' . This misses the point Eric Weinstein was making when he coined the phrase. His point was that these group of people have gained a huge following despite being ignored by the mainstream media. THE FACT THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE A HUGE FOLLOWING IS THE POINT OF THE PHRASE.
"His point was that these group of people have gained a huge following despite being ignored by the mainstream media. THE FACT THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE A HUGE FOLLOWING IS THE POINT OF THE PHRASE.
Vis mindre"
Exactly. Both of these bloggingheads deny whats completely obvious.
Your definition of the mainstream media is useless since it includes anyone that can be searched on your Google search bar i.e it is infinitely flexible. If you don't like the term 'mainstream media' I can use the term 'traditional media' since that was what Eric Weinstein was referring to. I have already pointed out that the fact that they have huge audiences is the point of the phrase. They gained huge audiences without need of the traditional media. This is a simple point that most people seem to be either too stupid to understand or eager not to understand. We would not know them or have need for the phrase if they had small audiences.
As for the people in IDW not being intellectuals I don't know what your definition is so it is hard to reply. My definition of intellectual is one I heard Thomas Sowell make namely: one whose end products are ideas. You don't have to agree with the ideas or think they are brilliant.But I suspect you don't like the people IDW so they are not intellectuals to you i.e your criticism mostly emotional.
Wow! You guys must’ve watched this at like 5x sped up speed since it was just released and you’ve already watched digested and formed and spewed opinions about it! Teach me how to speed watch!
A lot of criticism Michael gets from what he says about Sam are from people on the left, as is Sam, because he does misrepresent his views.
And it's almost funny because it's so obvious.
Disagreement is not misrepresentation. But, engagement with cult thinking is usually fruitless
Disagreement may not be misrepresentation, but misrepresentation is misrepresentation. I know how much you love basic truisms, so that one was specially made for you.
Silly me, I just realised that I've gone and done a very fruitless thing by engaging with you.
That one was for Robert and his appreciation for sarcasm and irony.
As a young conservative opened to a plethora of ideas from the path of Shapiro > Peterson > Weinstein now to Wright, I'm grateful for any and all of these meta discussions. As a new viewer, I greatly appreciate Wrights appeal to objectivity in these sort of discussions. I'm looking forward to his inclusion into the IDW via interview proxy ala Joe Rogan.
RIP Michael 💔😢😢😢
Bro, you gotta cool it with the "dis-aggregate".
I guess Brooks wouldn't like that he'd be misquoted as suggesting that the wrong thing with how the students dealt with Murray wasn't the violence, but making it in a way that helps put the spotlights on him... but he has no problem with phrasing the whole topic as one of "black inferiority", and even attributing Murray's policy ideas to Harris.
So much time (1:12:00) spent discussing labels and 0:00:00 spent discussing solutions to actual, specific problems such as climate change, low wages, etc. Completely missed opportunity; no progress for the world achieved. Can we please keep our eye on the ball? Particle X rule of thumb: The prouder you are of your stupid label, the more you are a slave to it (instead of to the truth). This applies to Michael Brooks in this conversation. And by making labels the centerpiece of the discussion, Robert Wright perpetuates the idea that labels are extremely important, in the process doing more harm to the world than good. You cannot say you are without bias if you label yourself (and, almost as bad, label others). Self-labeling is what pumps up tribalism (not just your tribalistic impulse, but others' as well ), which of course is a great reason to not do it--if solving actual problems is the goal. Only by casting off your label can you pledge allegiance to truth and nothing but truth (and, bonus!, you will come off as less narcissistic). Let's seek truth, not self-validation from our tribe. These are mutually exclusive enterprises. Which one do you choose?
I think that a major problem is the way in which history is used as a tool for politics. Now that has always been the case, but on the left today many arguments run to history in pointing out how something happening today is "problematic" because something like that happened in the past that was bad and more overtly connected to racist ideas etc. ideas. For example if a person with low melanine content in their skin today happens to colour their face black for example, that act is connected to mistrel shows 100 years ago. The person might have no idea that that had happened in the past, and indeed not intend the act to be racist in any way, so it's unclear why it should be important to even mention the minstrel shows outside of as a curiosity. Maybe a bad example, but Brook critiques Lilla for not extending his historical analysis further back. Well, what is the proper line of ending a historical analysis? I guess you could argue that actually it's not Columbus' fault that the American civilizations got destroyed, but that actually it's the fault of the Turks that Europeans went on conquering and colonizing the world, because the Turks cut the Europeans off of the trans Asian spice trade, and that that forced the Europeans to try to circumvent the Turks and gain Christian allies against their war against the Turks that were threatening to conquer the whole of Europe.
Really not a fan of Brooks however Im very happy to see him talking to Robert. Good stuff.
what's going on with your mic, Mike? It's like you're calling from inside of a tin can
I’m on the left and I think Michael Brooks is one of the people who have driven people from the centre left to the centre and the centre right due to his disingenuousness.
I didn't really know anything about him, but he was obviously left-leaning in this convo. After looking at some of his other content, gulag jokes and all, it's hard to take him too seriously.
U can say "people like him" but his show is so awful not enough people watch it to be influenced by it
I'm helping someone run for office who was by in large part influenced by MR/TMBS.
Sooooooo this is awkward. lmao
People are more open to candidates that are HONEST about their commitment to socialist values than you'd expect.
www.peoplesworld.org/article/in-the-era-of-trump-a-growing-dsa-talks-socialism/
duckduckgo.com/?q=lee+carter&t=ffnt&ia=web
roxee57 if someone "drove you away" from a political position it just means you never had any real convictions to begin with. Just whining.
Jet Fury He said he thinks he drove other people away...what people can have a negative influence as well as a positive?
If I were part of the IDW, I'd have an avatar picture with one of those scary hoods, like that of the "death" skeleton character, or those villains of Star Wars.
Can't watch it now. But this will probably be a very interesting conversation. Robert, you are a weirdo. But that's what I like about you. + I really like the authenticity in the previous interviews I have seen. 🙏
Fuck it. JRE Howard Bloom has to wait. Too curious about this conversation. So far, I totally agree with what you said about a non-tribal following. My twitter list has gone from left-wing to right-wing & back and forth. People get very confused when you don't stay in your lane.
I respected Wright's piece on the IDW despite disagreeing on some points, but Brooks has repeatedly shown himself to be intellectually dishonest. Just here to shit on this.
I am with you 😊
Agree. Brooks and the MR are disgusting. The sooner the Left repudiates their kind (the tribally dishonest), the sooner the Left can get back on track.
"given a slightly smarter strategy by Hillary we wouldn't be here" + "the fact that a guy like this is even close" = "totally blew my mind" if only, Bob As always in America, the question is the hoi polloi.
What I enjoy most about these opportunities is the inspiration to marry words to insight. Eg, I tracked down the term psychological scotoma. The attraction of Drumpf is the same mechanism at work when Bob supposes a rational polity.
Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing
Skip the section about Strauss in Miller londonsociety-nls.org.uk/The-Laboratory-for-Lacanian-Politics/Some-Research-Resources/Miller_Psychoanalysis-the-City-and-Communities.pdf
I'm not asking facility with Marcuse, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance
but surely Mill, Adams, Madison, Burke et al. are de rigueur?
And if not? What red pill can suffice?
Oddly, or not oddly enough, this conversation seemed to be completely taking place within a singular tribal setting. The points made were of the sort that stem off of emotion and respond obliviously to strong negative attributes of "their own tribe". Especially when Brooks would respond to valid opposing positions from Wright saying things like, "yeaaahh.. but I still think..." I always enjoy Wright's devils advocates positions, but felt this was just leaning too far to one side to be objective or accurately critical.
>We are _so_ above tribalism.
>Repeatedly demonstrates tribalism.
"Across Age Groups, Whites Fared Worse in Employment Rates" NYT, By Eduardo Porter
Dec. 16, 2016
While Hispanics, African-Americans and Asian-Americans have millions more jobs now than they did at the labor market’s high-water mark in November 2007, before the economy turned into recession, whites actually lost 700,000 more jobs than they gained. Perhaps it’s just that more whites retired? Not quite.
The pattern actually looks worse for whites in the decade preceding retirement. (prime voting age) The employment rate of whites from the ages of 55 to 64 declined slightly - to 63.6 percent from 64.1 percent. By contrast, the employment rate of blacks, Hispanics and Asians increased.
Robert, when are we going to see you on the Rubin Report?
They are sensitive little beasts Mike.
I do not like Trump at all, but that "making fun of a disabled person" is kind of a hoax. He does those gestures to mock people in general, even himself, there's previous recording of this. And the gesture does not even match that reporter's condition, unless in a carefully selected still frame. So in a way he "mocked" the reporter, but not his condition specifically. In a way it was an "egalitarian" treatment.
You shouldn't generalize those who fell for the "fake news" (ironically legitimizing Trump's twist on the term, which isn't even a twist in this case). It is a convincing "hoax", and the gestures are that of a "retarded" person, much like a early teenager would do. Most people probably honestly believe Trump really mocked his condition, which isn't all that unbelievable from his general persona.
I don't think Trump had much of a consideration for him either way, "I'll mock him just as I do with everyone else because that's the truly respectful thing to do, in a way". It's more like it's something automatic, and maybe if, given opportunity, he'd have given him some nickname that even hinted at his condition.
Can you provide an example? That gesture looked just like a third-grader mocking a kid with MS.
How come it "mirrored" more the reporter if his condition makes him still? That's maybe some degree of "pareidolia" combined with the cherry-picked still frame. There's several compilations of his mocking gestures made at several different, non-disabled persons: th-cam.com/video/F6vFsLA7K_0/w-d-xo.html
*>*
That's really depressing. In Brazil, one of the most popular presidential candidates has a record of crazy-tyrant-dictator phrases, always excusing himself as just using an hyperbolic "manner of speaking". Things like "democracy does not solve anything, we need a civil war, killing at least 30 000, starting by president FHC. If some innocent will be killed, so be it".
Not long ago a "journalist" falsely reported him saying something like that at some points cops should give a cornered gang one chance to surrender, and then just gun them down mercilessly. That specifically wasn't really said, but he regularly says things even worse than that, even recently saying that homeless/landless occupiers should be chased away with flame-throwers.
Nevertheless, in this post-Trump political anti-intellectual climate, all it takes is one slip of someone idiot at the press, to bolster their "fake news" narrative.
Oh yesssss Michael!!! Great interview.
Hi Analysis flew over your head like an airplane then.
"It just doesn't fit into his world view that these people can be racist" Genius comment lol
No I'm actually very smart. My IQ is extremely high and Jordan Peterson told me that's very very important.
Simple reason for that. In post-modernism world view to which Brooks subscribes, racism is attribute of the dominant group, and whites/western culture are oppressors, therefore, racists. So, following their logic, once opressed groups get the power, they will become racists. Another words, they advocate for making minorities into racists. If it sounds contradictory to you, don't despair, because according to post-modernism, there is no objective truth and the logic is invention and tool of Western oppression. Everything is good in the world of Brooks.
According to Peterson there is no objective truth either. It all depends on what you call truth LOL.
Robert looks ill. Anybody have info?
32:50 - The majority of Trump voters are "affluent" - so 1/4 the nation is affluent... Ok, good talk bro
I want to slap Brooks until he admits he likes it.
Sam Harris brigade GO!
Quick, somebody say that they misrepresented his views. Quick!
PeRK So if I misrepresent your views, you can't correct me, right? Because I know what you think better than you do?
+listener523 That might be true. I know very little about Brooks and wasn't particularly impressed here. The problem is that when you cry wolf enough times and people start noticing that oftentimes there isn't a wolf, then people stop believing you even if there actually is a wolf. Harris overplayed that card to the point of becoming a caricature. Probably because he did have to deal with some legitimate cases of egregious misrepresentation at the beginning of his career. But now he's stuck himself into a corner. When you start calling out people like Ezra Klein as "far left" and not worth trying to convince anymore than a neo-Nazi because they're so blinded by dogma, when you start using the misrepresentation card because you don't understand their criticism and attribute ill-intent and bad-faith to them, then there's nowhere left to go to when the actual problem-people arrive. Ironically he's committing the same mistake he's so prone to criticize in so-called SJWs.
Yep. That's how it goes. Even a pretty good data-driven journalism platform like Vox has to be entirely dismissed because you don't like some of their editorial opinions about Harris. Note that neither Klein nor those who left Harris after this debacle were making any claims about his good or bad faith. Only Harris played that game. And personally I'm tired of people like Harris who try to moralize everything and judge arguments not on their merit but on what they perceive to be the intent of their interlocutors. The irony is that he's the only one doing the very thing he's criticizing others for allegedly doing (i.e. not addressing the actual arguments because of some perceived ill-will on the part of the people making the arguments).
That's the same argument Harris is spewing at every corner these days. He, and you, actually don't get it. Do I want to believe that my political biases fit reality? Well duh. Everybody does. But I'm cautious enough to be as aware as I can of my own motivated cognition and do what I can to keep it in check. See, the difference is that I answer that question by saying "yes I'm biased but I do my best not to be". Sam and his ilk reply by saying "no. I'm not biased. I'm sure of it."
Even just a mild appreciation for Vox is seen as problematic. "Pretty good" is bad because anything other than "total piece of shit" isn't enough. "data driven" must be bad because it is viewed as if I had said that they actually get the data right all the time (there would be plenty to say about in-built bias and factual errors at Vox. It is still a very different beast than those platforms that are explicitly ideological, such as TYT or Rubin, et al.). There's no gradation, only attribution of intent and ill-will.
But here's the thing, most of these actors in public discourse today have the decency to recognize that they are prone to bias. The only ones who aren't are the members of this so-called IDW (cringe). It happened with Brett Weinstein when talking with Robert Wright and it happened with Sam Harris when talking with Ezra Klein. Both Robert and Ezra, when asked whether they're biased or not, say that they try not to be but are inevitably human. The IDW people have consistently replied that they're not biased. They're sure of it. They're that good. Superhumans. They suffer from the delusion of thinking they are brains without bodies, that they hold the capital-t Truth. In other words, they are dogmatic.
The rest of us just do our best to not be that, while recognizing that we're all prone to it. You can convince yourself that it's impossible to convince me to change my mind. Yet, when I unsubscribed from Harris 6-months ago after years of following him and decided to stay clear of most of his rhetoric, that was me being talked out of an opinion I had. So do what you must. If you don't see the irony in the fact that you've decided to not address what I was saying but instead resorted to ad hominem right after I said this was the very problem I had with Harris, then that's on you. Meanwhile I'll do my best to keep on having constructive discussions with people I disagree with, in the hope that we can learn from each other and both get nearer to that capital-t Truth if we can.
Stopped watching after 5 minutes because of Robert's crappy audio quality
Salty as you get
You let this guy lie for about an hour. I was looking for serious criticism - what a waist of time.
Bob u scream in the mic
Welcome to the Wright Show
Broprah.
Wright is horrid