Has Bret Strayed from Reason? Bret Speaks with Robert Wright
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2024
- Bret speaks with Robert Wright on the Darkhorse Podcast. They discuss Robert’s suggestion that Bret’s ideas have strayed from plausibility.
Find Robert on Twitter: @robertwrighter ( / robertwrighter )
Find Robert on bloggingheads: bloggingheads.tv/
*****
Find Bret Weinstein on Twitter: @BretWeinstein, and on Patreon.
Please subscribe to this channel for more long form content like this, and subscribe to the clips channel @DarkHorse Podcast Clips for short clips of all our podcasts.
Check out the DHP store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: www.store.darkhorsepodcast.org
Theme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.
*****
Timestamps:
00:00 Introductions
00:50 Motivated reasoning
06:17 Sponsors
11:08 Trump era and media
14:30 Bret was pissed off. And inverse of correct response
19:37 Military podcast quotes
32:15 Alternative hypothesis for military mandates
53:20 mRNA injections to children
01:07:20 More hypotheses
01:18:27 Foreign influence and China
01:26:00 Why Robert doesn't trust Bret's COVID analysis
01:35:30 Robert Malone and censoring dissidents
01:42:30 Absolute corruption of the system
01:54:35 Podcast invitation and wrap up - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
*Walks into comments, realizes it’s actually an echo chamber*
Can walk OUT of echo chamber and find one he’s comfortable in and doesn’t call it an echo chamber….
Him and his audience are not in good shape.
Bret, you are outstanding when you're just discussing topics weekly with your wife Heather, but your brilliance really shines through in dicussions like this. The way you keep your cool but still holding someone's feet to the fire is really admirable.
ugh, who is this maroon. ditto from above, brett you have the patience of a SAINT!
Brett delivers a world-class oral vivisection.
@@Marsh-jk5ny and the smug understanding of emotional intelligence to let him dig his own hole.
If you think this low point of vague paranoid bullshit is brilliant you really need to get out more…
The only criticism I'd have of Bret is his decision to have this debate at all. I learned nothing from it.
I found that talk to be utterly entertaining. Robert seems fearful to entertain the notion that things have gotten a bit out of hand over the last 3 years. I know Bret is not perfect, but he did an excellent job explaining himself and for the most part, keeping cool.
And Bret, rather than employing Occam's Razor....has opted to go with the "I'm living through my own personal Da Vinci Code" approach.
He was fn destroyed and shown to be the coward that he is. Wright had his facts straight which rattled your grifter guy
“Facts” straight? You mean shouting the same propaganda from state media using the highest pitch that he has?
@@HolyCanoley Why is he wrong, though? Attacking the person is a logical fallacy. Bret provides his data and logic for scrutiny. You provide nothing but logical fallacy. It appears to be a fear-based reaction on your part.
Do explain. Solopsistic declaration have zero empirical value.
This is such a good example of how good faith conversation just brings you closer the truth and understanding people better. We need so much more of this.
Robert Wright doesn't strike me as being of good faith. He seems more concerned about defending why his insulting tweet was justified than trying to understand Bretts position (which is 100% logical).
Bret, you should accept Robert’s invitation to appear on his podcast, in the same way you accepted the invitation to appear on Tucker Carlson in 2017. It is an opportunity to get your ideas in front of a new audience. The room is not the room. You do not need to convince Robert. You only need to convince some members of his audience. You need to broaden your reach if you are to have the positive influence on the world that you say you want to achieve.
Hear hear.
Tucker and Brett share the same audience
I agree! But u know that cuts both ways right? Robert might well end up pulling more viewers from Brett than the other way around!
@@pablowall it be good if he did, Brett’s a lunatic
@Guy Incognito i feel like it was sam who cut off bret. but yeah ure right
This podcast was like watching a conversation between two frogs in a heating pot of water on the stove:
Frog 1) Something isn't right here, whatever is in control of our situation has set the stove to High. This entity must be indifferent to our suffering.
Frog 2) Oh c'mon! That's crazy talk. It's warm in here, but it's not like it's boiling. You think that hand up there that's working the knobs would allow us to suffer? I can think of much more plausible explanations.
Frog 1) They literally turned the knob to the highest setting, wouldn't you agree that's not in our best interest?
Frog 2) Okay, so they put it on High I'll acknowledge that. But they probably just thought that we were cold or something. I'm not the expert on stove top knobs. Most people agree that High just makes the water more comfortable. You're one of the few heterodox frogs that talks about this boiling water conspiracies.
Frog 1) It's my hypothesis that we're going to boil because that's where all the evidence leads. I don't see how that's crazy. Have you noticed all the simmering bubbles?
Frog 2) Now you want to talk about the bubbles, I just wanna talk about how it's more likely they just wanted to make us nice and warm. Most frogs would agree with me. Your hypothesis that someone is intending for us to boil is so unlikely and quite frankly it sounds a little crazy.
Frog 1) We can't ignore the bubbles because they are directly related.
Frog 2) You're such a cynical frog. You wanna visit my pond later and talk about something other than this boiling pot conspiracy of yours? ... (jeez it's fricking *hot* in here).
Well done sir lol. Crafted masterfully and well parallelled
"Best comment ever, except I have read other comments you've written that don't live up to this standard, so I will ignore this one" - Robert Wright probably
Totally agree with Mihai! Masterfully explained.
Thank you Derek, you saved me from having to sit through the last one and three quarter hours!
Edit: No, I was addicted to watching this slow-motion car crash to the bitter end!
Omg. That’s hysterical! Thank you for the much needed gut wrenching laugh after watching that. 😂😂😂😂
This was good. I always try to stay on the fence, especially on ever evolving issues, and hearing all sides and ideas just *feels* good to the brain. Kudos to both.
Wright's repeated snarky insults, which he then disclaimed, are the mark of a nasty ideologue completely out of his depth both in scientific understanding and logical reasoning. His delivery only made it more painful to endure. Bret's calm engagement, in the face of all that, was remarkable. The topper was Wright claiming he would "defend" Bret's decision to decline Wright's invitation by telling his audience Wright was "too busy." Dishonest, disingenuous, and a final drive-by sign of disrespect. Life is too short, frankly.
the amount of money south korean corporation give to both Dems and republicans are mind boggling.
something like 85% of car fire in US are Hyundai or KIA. and NHTSA done NOTHING to stop them selling those cars.
media wont cover it. this is going on like last 15 years, since obama took office.
are you for real?
lol
Well said.
When someone tells you that they haven't studied up on the details of COVID, and then proceeds to explain why you don't know what you're talking about with respect to COVID, that's a pretty good signal that they are doing something other than having a good faith exploration of ideas to generate understanding.
This
Yeah It was pretty weird. He generates four hypotheses that he thinks explain the military topic more plausibly than Bret’s, but Bret thought they were incomplete to explain everything we are seeing. Then he claims he wasn’t brought on to discuss anything other than the military issues.
Okay? 🧐
Over and over he did this… his “reason” for losing faith in Bret regarding Covid was exposed to be über thin to the point of being laughable… he wasn’t an honest broker… he was a hit man.
You seem to have missed the point. Whether or not Brett is correct about all he believes about COVID, he is not being intellectually honest, perhaps not even with himself, when he jumps to this Boogeyman hypothesis and bypasses so many other more likely scenarios. It does serve to give him some common ground with right wing wackos, who are the ones buttering his bread lately, that love pushing the narrative of Democrats are un-American and want the U.S. to fail and all the deep state conspiracy garbage. The question is, does he know what he is doing or is he delusional?
I think he must know, but I've seen smarter guys than Brett convince themselves that their integrity is in tact as they sell their last drops.
I hope Bret sees this comment. I feel like he was thinking this throughout several parts of the conversation, but just didn't want to say it out loud.
I am riveted and fascinated!
I am one hour in and I am banging my head on the wall because this guy is in total denial.
If this is how the rest of the "sheeple" on the planet are thinking then I fear that we are doomed.
Bret you deserve a medal for your forbearance, your ability to stick to the crux of the argument and your amazing patience!
Why "democracy" is the worst form of government and always fails catastrophically.
@@555Trout Well 555T I think you could be correct .
It has taken me until the so called pandemic and sixty years of life to wake up and realise something sinister is certainly afoot!
It feels to me like fascism that has been disguised as "saving the planet" regards Deb
@@deborahflello2316 The tragedy that we took the founders creation, a Constitutional Representative Republic, and have systematically converted it to a "multicultural democracy" is probably among human being's greatest failure.
Because the inevitable collapse of America will be very dark for the planet.
It utterly breaks my heart.
Regards too.
Trout.
@@555Trout And a simple constitutional article or two would probably have prevented it.
@@555Trout It must be tough to live there and to be aware of what is happening and to be impotent to prevent it .
You have my sympathy 555T.
regards Deb
That interview Brett had with our
War fighters . was respectful and appreciated. It was also disturbing . our readiness is down along with recruitment
You can ground the pilots that citizens paid billions to train to protect us force them to be jabbed .make sense of that for me.
You, Sir, have the patience of a saint, and I personally believe you have given Mr. Wright too much credit. I always admire your ability to remain calm in the face of attacks and continue with a rational discussion. I also admire your willingness to continue to evaluate and admit when you are wrong. Thank you for commitment to evaluating information and sharing it!
Brett clearly doesn't have the 'patience of a saint'
Halfway through this conversation and I'm struck by how strange it is that Robert Wright would read Brett's tweet and instead of thinking to himself that he must get educated on the topic of vaccines, in case the hypothesis has truth to it, he instead looks at all the hypotheses that seem more likely to him ,given his obviously very limited understanding of the situation.
🙈🙉🙊
^^^ This. I listen to both men weekly. How can a man with the intellect of Bob not stay on top of the vaccine controversies and nip down the various rabbit holes to get an understanding of whats going on? I'm not buying it. Bob has spoken plenty in his conversations with Mickey Kaus about what he was picking up on the ether relating to covid.
Better yet, he seems to still think he doesn't need to understand this.
Exactly, this dude exposed himself as a pseudo intellectual. He came I’ll prepared. For him to not understand it is all connected is automatic disqualification from this debate. Bret is an example of patience and class. His ability to articulate his thoughts is inspiring. I wish I had half his abilities here.
@@sbmullan this is my first experience with this man bob. While this is the first and last time I’ll listen to this man. I have a very hard time believing he’s an intellectual. How can he not come better prepared? All the things he dismisses are 100% relevant to this whole episode.
Robin: "I haven't looked it up" should be his tag line
I am not one of the followers of the Dark Horse. Just happened on to it by chance. However I have come to this same hypothesis as Brett. It has taken me a very long and a lot of thought to come this conclusion.
When I finally got an "Aha" moment, I was shocked and shattered because of the implications. It is frightening.
Yes it's a frightening feeling when that moment happens. It makes you look back at everything you ever took for granted as being true in a new way. If "they" are lying about this topic, what else do they lie about?
master class in why context matters
As a veteran of two conflicts, first as a Vietnamese interpreter in safe Thailand as an Air Force Airman/Sergeant, got out but went back for the first Gulf War, again safe in Oman as an Air Force JAG Captain before moving on to civilian practice, I completely agree with Bret that they are trying to take an odd sort of control over our military that is increasingly sinister. I strongly led my sons away from any thought of serving foolish politicians who try to police the world in various games that continue to kill our boys before they can even become men. Thanks for keeping me sane since your first podcast.
Well said. I wish more people, especially ex-military, would speak so candidly about how the military industrial complex is working to 'police the world' -- and pad the bottom lines of the weapons and ancillary industries -- vs. just 'protecting' the U.S. from foes. They are, thereby, misleading the citizenry and the unwitting youths they are actively recruiting into service. Glad to hear your sons steered clear of this path. It's all such a sham, at this stage, with perpetual military presence and engagement, i.e. unofficial wars, in multiple places around the globe and politicians who keep voting for more funding, more engagement, and more spin and propaganda around why this is being done. Our involvement in -- and dishonest, duplicitous support of -- Ukraine, is a prime and disturbing example.
It's a way to enact an ideological purge without seeming to. Many of the policies surrounding the CCP virus seem to be in this vein, but most especially the vaccine policies.
I know I'm not alone when I say thank you for your sacrifice. I wished we deserved it. God bless sir.
Could it be that interest in degrading military readiness in America is not the only interest at play here? What about the military readiness of the European Union, with all the financial and arms funneling into the Ukraine ... "for as long as it takes"
“That they are trying to take an odd sort of control over our military that is increasingly sinister” who/what is they?
I like that you had him on but whoever this guy is basically epitomizes why I don't support the left. I hear a tone of arrogance and snobbery whereas you try to give Robert grace, cordiality, and friendliness. He accuses you of making your echo chamber when your conclusions are the result of several years of commenting and observance of the behavior of the corporate machine.
I don't think this guy understands your populist views on this. I've never heard of this person until today and I am left with a pretty bad impression.
Like Bill Maher and Rob Reiner such arrogant liberals and as much as I supported sanders in 2016 but no longer I can see why Trump became president and just might again
KUDOS to BOTH of you! 👏 Even though it was like listening to my parents having a discussion, i've enjoyed it a lot. Discussions in that length and depth are so important and rare and there _should_ be more of that! So I'm all in for round 2.
Brett isn't. People like him, the intellectual dark Web, say they are brave enough for important conversations but the minute they get any legitimate push back the cry, lie and retreat.
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut for example?
The US military is effective on the battlefield because it pushes initiative down to platoon level.
They are *not* mindless automatons obeying orders, and that's why they fight so well.
It’s not that their mindless automatons. Robert’s point was that the military wants people who are willing to follow orders, which they clearly do. When new recruits show up they are given an entire battery of vaccine shots which they have absolutely zero freedom to deny. That is the type of efficient, no-fuss “order taking” that Robert is referring to. If every member of the military has their own views and speaks up about them all the time and declines to follow orders as a result, the military would not work.
Robert embodies the proverb "Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them."
He doesn't sound like hes full of himself, he sounds like he is defending something he doesn't understand out of fear, which is typical of most people who are deceived. And on some level that applies to everyone. He has work to do, and I fear his social circles might preclude him from wandering to far away from his position on this show, which is the point of the garbage politics going on right now.
i do think he came into this thinking that Bret was a moron and wasn’t expecting Bret to connect dots in ways he hadn’t considered before (the nicest way I can put what happened)
@@ciaran7780 you have summed up robert wright perfectly!
"Wise for blindly following dogma and its leader?" Dogma is NOT man's best friend. Slavers love it though.
@@ciaran7780 yep
Bret: it’s a fucking forest.
Robert: all I see are unrelated trees.
Also Brett: sure looks like the forest was put here to obstruct our path forward. 'twas most likely the evil wood elves who done it.
Robert: what makes you think it was the wood elves?
Brett: uhhh... i'm not saying it was the wood elves... but it was the wood elves! complex systems man!
@@johangalician620Yep, Bret does not seem to understand that the "party" that he seems to think has a wonderful history/legacy NEVER did along with the fact that, Robert's weaknesses as far as being trapped in his evolutionary-scientific-political paradigm is IDENTICAL to his own!!!
Good on ya for having a crack Brett. You’re a legend. I am drawn to hearing out these kind of disagreements to better understand WTF is going on in this world. If it doest do your head in to much I would appreciate more of this kind of dynamic.
That was an amazing listen. I thought Bret had gone off the rails when he suggested a purposeful effort to undermine military readiness. Thanks to Mr. Wright and this podcast, I now see that position as reasonable. How often do people use the concept of confirmation bias to attack an adversary rather than self-reflect? Wright needs some self-reflection. Brett picked him apart.
"Bret picked him apart"... but Mr. Wright was too dull-witted to notice.
Both Wright and Weinstein deserve credit for engaging in these necessary conversations.
I reluctantly agree. They both listened and responded to what the other said. However, Roberts insistance that Bret's flaw was he didn't consider beurocratic red-tape, etc was such a weak argument. His entire list was weak, and I'm glad Bret called out the fact that it made no sense for Robert to say his credibility was gone but still want him on his podcast. Dude! You don't insult someone (for making a SLIGHT MISTAKE THEY THEMSELVCES CORRECTED) and accuse them of narrow minded motivated thinking (using super weak arguments) and not being credible and then invite them onto your podcast!
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Robert Wright finds vigilance “incendiary” and his answer is… don’t consider, I don’t know about that because I don’t look at it and anyone who does look at evidence of problematic governance is unreliable. A hot mess but the majority of people seem to be Robert Wrights sleepwalking off the edge of the cliff.
Yes, and all of us deserve some credit for grinning and bearing it to listen to these necessary conversations. Though I admit that I listen to it on double speed just to get through it with less pain and all of my hair still in my head.
Well said. We need to be open to these conversations.
@@mauriciosantos9076 WHY were Robert's arguments "weak"? That was NEVER discussed, unfortunately. How could we distinguish between the meddling of a foreign power versus the corrupting influence of big pharma versus the cynical and sinister motives of government bureaucrats? This conversation had a huge amount of potential, but I feel like it was mostly wasted on superficial and trivial disagreements. Most importantly, what are the SOLUTIONS to this mess? That was not discussed AT ALL.
All men are intellectually equal... But some are more intellectually equal than others... 😂🙄
Good job Dr Weinstein
so the guy who self-admittedly doesn't pay that much attention to "ivermectin stuff" is willing to dismiss someone's credibility on the basis of one mistake that they later corrected while failing to acknowledge or probably even be aware of all the other evidence they have discussed. this guy is a perfect example of where we are at.
Brett makes me feel sane when everyone around me is telling me I'm delusional.
@Guy Incognito eh nah mate, you sound ideological driven. I'll take the 20 upvotes in comparison to your reply.
@Guy Incognito No because you come into this comment section looking for an argument, the first thing you do is call me delusional, that's what makes it seem like you are ideologically driven.
@Guy Incognito you just seem mad because people agree with Brett.
What makes Brett delusional? He has been able to rationalise everyone of his options quite well.
@Guy Incognito what about the people making up the science/rules/mandates, they have basically no evidence for the measures they have implemented.
You kinda sound delusional saying Brett draws conclusions without evidence, sounds like you don't understand what he's saying.
@Guy Incognito I understand completely what Brett is saying, it sounds like to me that you don't understand, you tell me what you think he's saying!
The mask mandate, Vax mandate for non-elerdly people and lockdowns all have very little good data to support these ideas, Brett says similar things. Don't take my word for it, Dr Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford speaks about these themes also.
Psychopaths are running the system, and Wright doesn’t understand the depth of evil in psychopaths.
Absolutely right.
Or his paycheck dictates he doesn't....
I think if he was paid to not understand or he wouldn't bother to have this discussion. He actually thinks he's right.
Then again, every time Brett brings up giving the shot to kids Robert has a conniption and yells how he doesn't know anything about that.
He shouldn't be having this conversation, then, as he is not fully informed.
something which doesn't seem to like people is running the system.
I'm not saying its aliens.
Wright is probably a sociopath. That comment about “Heather finding him charming” was totally unacceptable.
Love you Brett. Don’t die in these hills. Keep ur head up and fight the light war for us. Rooting for you and your family.
I'm rooting for Bret, Heather and Eric to go to a psychologist and address their terrible insecurities and overinflated ego's.
@@steven5054 Didn't get your 'common sense' badge in the Cub Scouts there Steven?
@Guy Incognito Your projections are 60's pop psychology propped up with a bit of personal insecurity of your own my friend.
@Guy Incognito Self-reflection takes practice, no worries, you'll get there.
@Guy Incognito Keen sense of the obvious there Sparky.
"I think something's been eating the fruit off my tree, there are fruit missing from one day to the next."
"How can you say that?! Do you know exactly what creature in your garden is responsible?"
"Well, no, but it's just a hypothesis..."
"YOU CAN'T SAY THINGS LIKE THAT IT'S DANGEROUS"
Your analogy is flawed in that the lives of millions of people do not depend on knowing what is eating the fruit in the tree.
Bret is certainly not immune from the kind of biases Robert alleges, and I bet a lot of us have worried at various points in the last 3 years that he was at least sounding like he had started to degrade his impartiality, convinced he had the end of a sinister thread in his hands and just needed to keep pulling. Even then it makes no sense to write him off as a kook, as anyone who thinks that hearing divergent viewpoints on a regular basis is the best way to keep your mind and your eyes open, but still, it's great that someone like Robert takes him to task, and great that Bret (contrary to Robert's assertion that he only books guests that agree with him) accepts the invitation to debate.
That said, he ought to do a better job of picking Bret up on actual leaps of faith rather than throwing the wrong accusations at him. Robert seems to get himself a little overwrought at times and lose sight of the terms of the argument in his exasperation. He repeatedly conflates the idea that unknown actors with heavy chequebooks are working through indifferent elected officials to undermine something (a likelihood he concedes) with the idea that the elected officials are the ones consciously seeking to undermine something. Whether or not that is what someone might infer is secondary to getting what Bret said straight, which Robert is so close to doing but always veers off the road at the last moment to go look for his original accusation instead of leading himself to the obvious common ground.
I think the first thing Robert fails to understand is that detecting lies is far easier than knowing what the truth is.
This! 🙌🏾
Great comment
Well stated.
Damn dawg.. this was one of those once-in-a-blue-moon TH-cam-comments that actually hits home all the way and sticks with ya.
Nice goin! Peace out.
✌️He’s not even detecting the lies!
Were anyone else's toes curling the entire time? I felt so uncomfortable with how Robert conducted himself. Bret did such a great job of not being perturbed by Robert's tactics and logical fallacies and of maintaining the strength and focus to make his points elegantly.
I also wasn't prepared for how uncomfortable that ending would make me...
Not perturbed? He was about to break down in tears he was so upset. Watch it again.
The ending was hilariously awkward. Goddamn
@@ledaswan5990 Didn't pick up on that at all.. Watched the ending again, can't see any change apart from the obvious cringe they're both forced to bear out as Bret's son mercifully begins phasing them out with the music, lol.. Where are you picking up on this? I mean, I could imagine that Bret is the kinda man that would be very saddened by this off-camera, but yeah..?
Bret is a snowflake
I had such a 'cringe' reaction to Robert that I had to pause the video several times to get through it.
I think this guy is emblematic of the apathetic majority in the West. His whole identity would explode if he was forced to watch an autopsy of a vax victim.
As an educator, Bret can’t stop trying to help Wright “connect the dots.”
Patience. Of. A. Saint.
Exactly what I said - patience of a saint.
@@saacha8289 It was important for Brett to clearly flesh out what the critic was trying to do was smear and discredit Brett without any understanding of the topic. A fool has been exposed.
@@cantweallgetalong Right on. This guy knows nothing on the topic while Bret knows reems. Talk about uncareful behavior.
Brett was a straight up savage at the end:
“please come on my podcast.”
“It’s a mystery to me, why you now think that would be productive.”
If by savage, you mean, whiny little bitch, yeah, he was the biggest little savage I've ever seen!
Straight up cowardly haha
I'm just glad Wright isn't a homicide detective.
____
Finds a body with knife sticking in the chest.
Brett: I think this guy was murdered.
Wright: By who!?!
Brett: I don't know, but there's a knife in his chest... that doesn't look like a natural death.
Wright: This is preposterous! You want to call this murder, but you can't even flesh out your hypothesis to say who did it!? Who is this mysterious killer you keep talking about?
I put tis in another reply but:
I think this is more you find a dead body and someone says "this was a murder". You may not have a suspect but if you don't have a clear motive, or a murder weapon, you might question the murder hypothesis.
I think Bret's position here that "well you can't deny murders happen right? And people could have reason to commit murders right?"
Because in your analogy "The knife" is the means and that is the biggest hole in Bret's theory. How could this "actor", which Bret does imply here is foreign, actually affect the levers of power to maintain this mandate? Bret kind of waves this off with a "well in science you don't need to fully understand a phenomenon to observe it". Equating it to something like we don't exactly know how gravity functions, but we can observe it and predict it. Yes but we are getting more specific here and attaching intent, to me it would be somewhat like saying "the patriarchy causes gravity, because it's trying to keep everyone down". At this point you do need to present some sort of functional mechanics for that to happen.
@@moloney55 except in this case the person is saying "it could be a murder" together with "murder is quite common around here".
@@jimbrowsing5690 Isn’t it?
@@moloney55 He did present the mechanism(s)..? He just couldn't name names and present documents of fraud/corruption, what are you on about? When all of society (literally the whole world, basically) has the same pattern of behaviour, in all different parts of public life, in the same worrying and absurd direction, it becomes completely ludicrous to take one tweet about a very specific thing, and focus only on that without the proper context in which it is being considered, all the while accusing him of being careless and not having enough evidence, despite the fact that he is on his 149th podcast episode now and most if not all of them cover this very topic on a routine basis.
Haha!
It was absolutely baffling to me how his entire argument hinged on him catching Bret in making a mistake that Bret corrected as soon as he realized his mistake. Thats literally the basis of scientific thinking and it's incredibly scary that people outright oppose what Bret did. I agree with Bret that a follow-up conversation wouldn't be productive, given that mindset.
Bret's entire issue with Wright was based on the difference of a few words in a tweet, which was also corrected early in the podcast. They're both frustrating to listen to here. As a former admirer of Bret, he was clearly too offended by what he thought was tweeted to allow Wright to fully lay out any of his arguments. Every time Wright tried, Bret went back to trying to convince him the current system is corrupt, which Wright wasn't even arguing against.
Bret needs to stop answering his pointed questions with leading questions of his own
@@vipture. It sounded like Bret accepted that very early on? Wright said it was due to a Twitter character limit error. Meanwhile, Wright dug in that admitting a mistake was a bad thing. Those examples are not at all equivalent.
I was thinking the exact same thing, lol
@@LeviathanTheEnvious he dug in that admitting a mistake was a bad thing? Wright kept trying to redirect back to the initial point because Bret kept dodging his question, and Bret kept refusing to directly answer them.
When Bret starts saying things like 'You don't have the right to ask me to explain', it's very clear he's not interested in discussing, only in being right
Wright's argument against Bret's hypothesis is that he could think of other hypotheses. That is a nonsensical way of thinking. Bret wasted his time talking with this guy. The guy obviously has no interest in learning about the crux of the matter(vaccine mandates). The pushing of Bret to name the "conspirators"and his anxiousness to say why he thinks Bret's not credible makes me think this guy is working with the propagandists.
This was great. A bit of a cluster, but no shouting, no canceling, only a little name calling, lots of cognitive dissonance. I hope to see more. 😄
Well debated,Sir!Deep inside he knows you re right!!!
That was completely baffling. Is this what the "mainstream" audience thinks? He had no teeth, basically no real objections. Well done Brett, and yes, you were too nice. Him trying to make nice at the end was cringe.
Ultimately, now we all know more about Robert Wright than possibly any of us ever wanted to know! Well Done Bret!
I encourage you to read Wright's bio. He is a product of institutions that are heavily populated by individuals who think they should guide society.
@@scottwatrous7649 that was plain to see while watching this (painful) podcast! I have seen enough.
@@RoninDosho I'm glad Brett did this episode. Highly instructive. I am surrounded by many people like Wright. I spar occasionally. I think the pendulum has commenced it's swing away from their ground. Regards
This guy Robert is so indicative of where we are right now..well done on calling it put
@@adamp108 fair comment. Thought it was obvs as on Brets channel. Sorted lol
My opinion is to NOT go on Robert’s podcast. I would anticipate the conversation (or attempt) at conversation would closely resemble this one! I admire your ability to remain reasonable and respectful.
Also I feel there would be editing as there clearly is disinguinity present.
This is exactly what I expected from Wright. A whole lot of nervous energy, passive aggression, terrified to have an actual free flowing conversation and completely stuck on him reading from whatever he had written in preparation for this podcast.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
I didn't know this person, but your description is spot on.
*Wright ain't right*
He realized he screwed up about halfway through and then did just that, he plugged his ears and doubled down. I'm betting he knows Bret is right deep down but his ego won't allow him to concede any ground. It's quite pathetic.
@@YawnGod ... and the CIA is a hell of a thug. This guy is compromised or worse and complicit, IMO.
I was taken aback that Bret refused Wright's invitation to go on his podcast, which taught me about my own blindspots and inappropriate need to "smooth things over." Bret was absolutely right to decline the invitation. I am learning from his example how to respect myself.
No he wasn't. He should have asked Wright more about Fauci
@@Ever23last Wright doesn't know anything about Fauci or about the virus or the vaccine or anything related. He said so over and over. And he wasn't interested in learning about it. It would have been pointless.
Active duty military. Can confirm that *many* have gotten out (mostly retired when eligible but not looking to otherwise) specifically due to illegitimate Rona "vaccine" mandates. Not just military; also senior engineers at high end defense contractors who can't just be replaced capably with another warm body. Bret is absolutely correct about loss of readiness related to it, and taqiyya by sophists about what could be alternate possibilities is exactly the sort of reckless musing that he alleges Bret is engaging in.
I’m only 29 minutes in, but I think that this seems to be going like: Bret: “I think we’ve been duped.” Robert: “who’s your suspect? there’s no crime without a suspect.”
Very well done. And it may be important to take care to stay away from such people (cowards)
I can see that but I can also see if you find a dead body and someone says "this was a murder". You may not have a suspect but if you don't have a clear motive, or a murder weapon, you might question the murder hypothesis.
I think Bret's position here that "well you can't deny murders happen right? And people could have reason to commit murders right?"
I think Robert's thought here, that big Pharma's desire for profits and political sway could be the more obvious answer than some entity with desires to cripple our military, isn't ludicrous.
One of the reasons I find this conversation maddening is because I am a therapist and I spend a lot of time with families trying to deny the abuse in the family system. And then the family system, all the resources going to denying the abuse, rather than recognizing it, and, therefore, dealing with it. We are in an abusive relationship with our government. Get used to it, Robert!
@Zeda Samuel Great analogy Zeda.👍🏾
Exactly, I draw this analogy all the time.
I think Brett should go on Roberts podcast. This was more productive and important than Bret was able to appreciate at the time. It feels like some people go to the abyss and look into the abyss and some people try to look the other way.
What has infected discourse everywhere is this notion, taken entirely for granted, that a person must never think out loud, speculate, or give voice to any thought that isn't utterly complete and utterly certain and packaged with a bow. The fear that grips people is that the listening audience will then form their own conclusions which may be (*gasp*!) incorrect. They are afraid of the wrong thing. What is far more dangerous and leads to a complete breakdown of communication and permanently damaged trust is this demand for censorship and self-censorship which prohibits any chance of the group working together to arrive at the truth. One person doesn't have all the pieces of the puzzle. Discussion and debate is the process of discarding the less likely hypotheses for the more likely ones. You cannot accomplish this if everyone's energy has to be expended in fending off attacks and demands that you simply not speak at all. The constant objection that "the listeners" will come to the wrong conclusion and take dangerous actions accordingly is paternalistic, condescending, and oppressive. This irrational fear has removed all checks and safeguards that would, in healthy circumstances, adjust and correct the dominant narrative if it is off-course. We now don't have that, haven't for some time, and it has resulted in the shitshow we see before us.
The search for truth is like how a blind man explores his environment with his white cane. As with any blind search, it is going to be wrong more often than it is right, but that is a necessity for converging on the truth. The new authoritarians want to confiscate the cane and give orders to the blind man as to where he should go, and even if that results in the blind man falling down a lift-shaft, they are still in the right, because their credentials tell them they cannot be wrong.
@@Ubu987 Yes, that's a good analogy.
I love the world we live in where the interpretation of a tweet is the subject of a youtube video
A two hour TH-cam video at that.
That's entertainment!
Wow, I’m at the end of the video and did not realize it was two hours… thought it had been 40 minutes 🤣
... plus some number of comments to that video.
@@davidwindt which are no small part of the pie!
For a person who admits not knowing much about the subject, he sure stands firm on his positions. Hats off to Bret for his calm attitude in dealing with the man.
Watching Bret sigh and collect himself as Robert spoke echoed a wish that I had: that Robert would listen and work together with Bret to find the answer. He *fought* Bret, he didn't *find* with him. I would agree with Robert that he is not a scientist. He does not seem to be a logician when he most needs to be, either. Bret did well.
Brett was every bit as defensive as Robert Wright, and not always as logical and objective as he likes to come across.
@@musopaul5407 For example?
@@craigsmith1443 Wright offers at least two credible hypotheses for the military vaccination policy and Brett dismisses them without actually considering them. Also, the point Wright makes about Brett's error is, I think, valid and Brett is extremely evasive.
I'm not saying Wright is correct, I'm looking at Brett's reactions, which I don't think are strictly logical.
@@musopaul5407 Wright refused to recognize the greater context even of Brett's point that he was specifically criticizing, and chose to isolate the aspect of military preparedness from all others to make his hypothesis sound more credible than it was. Bad faith was evident.
I have no idea who Robert Wright is, but holy cow... Bret, you were much more reasoned and less emotional than he was in your discussion points. Robert kept twisting what you said. And, quite frankly, twisting what he said every few minutes. Very insightful discussion. Thank you!
The corruption is so deep, it has become endemic! Wright acknowledges it and Bret understands it!
declaring corruption is a vapid point. it's just a truism. Bret isn't claiming simple corruption, he is claiming self-sabatoge .. He's claiming the military industrial complex is making themselves weaker on purpose because they've been bribed to do so. But he's not coming out and making that claim, he's "hypothesizing" it so he doesn't have to deal with a burden of proof to actually explain why that's the case
I took a shot every time Robert Wright said in a whiney voice "can I just read the hypothesisisis's that I wrote down?" and now I've died and am writing this comment from heaven.
I did the same, but instead of taking a shot I put on a pair of roller skates. Look at me go!
If you listened to Robert for 2 hours straight I don't think you went to heaven mate. That's just Satan's VR you're seeing. Call Constantine !
A "shot"? Was that a Freudian slip? 😏
Wright is playing the gaslighting skepticism game again.
The proper response is to ask him to do his honest best to steel man Bret's position. This opens him up to being made a fool of for every obvious thing he leaves out of the steel man.
And while we're at it, people serious about analyzing arguments *write them down* as they go.
As contentious and uncomfortable as this conversation was, I found it remarkable to watch two people remain in a stalemate to the end but neither left the room. Problematic that Wright discredits you based on your assessment of the pandemic and it's many facets yet freely acknowledges he hasn't dug into it too much, himself. Can't have it both ways, Mr. Wright. Thanks for airing this. Whatever you decide about appearing on his podcast, I'm all in favor of it.
@Mitthenstein Funny how when people disagree with someone, the first thing they do seems to be to search with all their might for some reason why that person is actually stupid, not smart. Just a random observation.
@Mitthenstein Of course. I guess it must just be pure coincidence that everyone who disagrees with a given person is always stupid. If this suffices as proof of such, though, then I suspect there might not be a single intelligent person in the whole world. For instance, one might as well assert that everyone who would believe that a vaccine can be proven effective based on a study which does not include any clinically validated diagnostic method for the disease in question and, further, where 95% of all the potential/possible cases were simply not even given the "test" is a complete idiot.
@Mitthenstein OK, fine. Gloves are off. I know this is a waste of time because you are definitely not ingenuous, plus no-one is obviously seeing this but us; yet I can't resist. You ASSERTED that Bret is stupid. Ergo, I referred to ASSERTING. Am I going too fast for you here? Your ASSERTION clearly indicated that you thought you had PROOF of your ASSERTION; therefore I referred to PROOF. How you are pretending to misunderstand this is beyond me.
If you really want to be a wise guy and insist on some high-minded, "scientific" definition of 'prove', go ahead. Just at least _be consistent_ and admit you have no 'proof' that Bret Weinstein is stupid. Also, please admit that the "public debate" would clearly have you believe that the "vaccine" (do you, by chance, know what that word _actually_ means, you know, before it was conveniently redefined?) trials indicated the 'Safe and Effective' status of the "vaccines" to the standard of the colloquial meaning of 'proof'. Most people do in fact think the trials "proved" something. I even just saw Neil Tyson say almost exactly that in a recent podcast interview, while, apparently like you, not actually knowing how the trials were technically done - and not wanting to know, either.
In science, we are not supposed to use general populations for guinea pigs. This means we gather _good_ data in our pre-licensure trials - not *absolutely useless bunk,* like these trials (certainly the Pfizer one) generated. I refuse to believe you don't understand my point re the Pfizer trial, since I referred explicitly to just two aspects of it that immediately disqualify it as a source of relevant scientific evidence. I won't even bother listing any of the other problems since, like I said, you are clearly not even interested in understanding what I am saying. Just keep trying to assert your superiority while skirting the actual points. We are done.
@Mitthenstein You can rename it "pointing out" or "arguing" or anything else you like; it still remains the same thing: an assertion. There is nothing about the term 'assertion' which implies it is not part of an argument, you silly clown. Your trying to pretend my relationship to Bret is somehow the point here is quite telling as to your ingenuousness. FYI, I have almost never listened to Bret Weinstein. As far as I am concerned, viruses have never even been proven...I mean: "indicated to a scientifically relevant degree of certainty" to exist.
Now, stop avoiding the point: Explain how a trial featuring *no clinically validated diagnostic method* could possibly produce scientific evidence of ANY quality with respect to the incidence of a disease. Then, go ahead and pretend the diagnostic method is actually valid and explain how you could possibly conclude anything relevant about efficacy while you *completely ignore 95% of all potential cases* actually reported in the trial. Then explain how you can "pass" _any_ appropriate standard of scientific evidence regarding expected safety in the public while using a test population many times healthier than the general population, including almost no people from actually vulnerable groups, while never accounting for the number of people thrown out of the trial for unspecified "protocol violations," which, incidentally, are *twice as many* as there are total "confirmed cases" and five times as many in the test group as in the control group, and while eliminating any semblance of a control group after somewhere between 3 and 9 months. Also, please explain how it would make sense to completely disregard the non-incidence of "severe COVID" in the trial, and at the same time pretend that the incidence of severe AEs in the same trial - with the same abnormally healthy population - should somehow just be assumed indicative for the general population. You have never actually dared to think seriously about any of these things, have you? And here you are, presuming to lecture other people about "critical thinking." Don't make me laugh.
BTW, If you think effectiveness is ever "demonstrated" by any "post-market surveillance," then _you_ don't understand science. Wait, let me guess: "Demonstrating" totally has nothing to do with "proving," right? You pathetic prevaricator. Epidemiological studies of all kinds are notoriously unreliable and gameable and in practice insufficient to demonstrate anything, positively or negatively, since relevant variables are never adequately accounted for. Any actual critical thinker understands this.
If you game the clinical trials as grossly as you did this one (I assume you will want to personally take credit, you know, as an official representative of The Science™), then you are most certainly also going to game the official epidemiology. It is ten times easier because you can just play freely with definitions and apply all manner of adjustments of selection criteria and arbitrary endpoints pretending to correct for biases while actually introducing them. This happens literally all the time. Half the time you have no idea why they chose all the parameters and endpoints they did. Survivor bias alone seems sufficient to account for the claimed "protective effect" of the so-called vaccines. In fact, studies of official overall weekly mortality data through 2021 (which is very difficult data to manipulate) clearly indicate that they have an immediate effect in the form of killing large numbers of each group into which they are injected. The same thing, incidentally, is what has always been indicated by the extremely increased rates of reported, especially serious, AEs in the public databases, which all the hand-waving in the world will not magically make go away and is also being confirmed by the files coming out from the CDC right now. But of course, you will just pretend that all this evidence somehow doesn't exist, right? And then petulantly assert the impeccable credibility of your own opinions again.
@Mitthenstein That's funny. I actually didn't even realize you were explicitly equating 'doing a stupid thing' with categorically 'being stupid', logical inferences be damned. Of course, if this is the case, then I was indeed correct in my second comment: By the logic of your argument, there is not a single non-stupid person in the world since everyone has done some stupid thing. Never mind the fact that being categorically incapable of comprehending basic grammar is, virtually by definition, incompatible with attaining a Ph.D. in biology. But since you apparently insist on painting yourself into this corner, maybe you are not too bright yourself. Or, which seems more likely, you just can't get past your ego. You really should have just left well enough alone after the first reply, but you had to get triggered. Bottom line: Your categorical assertions about about other people are inconsistent with your faux-scientific posturing about the use of words; You were caught out; Just own it.
Do you actually think your silly, myopic harping on about the meaning of 'assertion' is somehow fooling anyone? You just got done ASSERTING how you know all about the vaccine studies and you can easily explain how they work and scientifically support all the conclusions officially drawn from them because, apparently, you believe you must just necessarily know more than all those dastardly wrong-thinkers - I mean, how could you not; you are an official representative of The Science™ after all, right? I take the bait and explicate my objections to your belief in detail which is impossible to misunderstand, and you immediately proceed to make up excuses for your conspicuous _evasion of every single substantial point._ You couldn't even manage to find a single partial sentence to disingenuously pick apart and use for a symbolic "debunking," like most people will at least try. Nothing. That's just pathetic. Your ASSERTION that you just gosh-darn refused to demean your high-and-mighty self by reading the whole post legitimately made me LOL. But at least rest assured you are by no means the first I have seen take this tack and I am sure you won't be the last. Happy trails valiantly preaching the orthodoxy, you complacent windbag.
Bret’s hypothesis definitely/rationally belongs on the table. And man he’s cool as a cucumber.
Wow! Is he for real?? Talk about motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance. "Pride comes b4 a fall and makes a fool of us all"
“That can’t be true, honey. If it were, I’d be terrified.” - H. Simpson.
This is the most important conversation on film at this point in time. Sharing it proves your love for humanity, even in behemoth level aggression which will inevitably encounter you
Brett, you are brilliant. He appeared to be listening to RESPOND vs really wanting to understand. He just kept coming back to “do you want to hear my hypothesis? When can I tell you my hypothesis?” Additionally, his perspectives seemed to live in a small vacuum, as you noted, this is a complex issue that requires broad thinking. AND, one can’t just feign ignorance on aspects of the issue as a way to get out of properly considering your perspective. It became clear that he actually couldn’t consider you as a credible thought leader on this whole subject based on ONE part of a podcast he listened to where you cited the Argentina’s study…which you corrected! Ugh. This conversation was fascinating on so many levels, and discouraging from the vantage point that even very smart people (I have no doubt Robert is a very smart man), simply cannot see this issue differently. This is a case study in what you and Heather were talking about prior to this podcast about certainty…and how if you start from a place of certainty and double down, as opposed to being curious and asking more questions and pealing back the onion on your WAY to certainty…it’s just such a huge distinction. God bless you man, I don’t think I could’ve held it together like you did…and I have learned so much about how to dialogue on these issues by watching and listening to you. Thank you. Can’t wait to hear the post mortem on this one with you and Heather!!
Wright was trapped in Empire's political constraints. He was triggered into reacting, which shut down critical thought.
I know who is doing this -- the Money Power Families.
Monetary illiteracy is the curse of the modern age.
Socrates called it amathia. It's crazy to watch someone who has it up close isn't it? The intelligence and yet the ignorance are both staggering.
@@aaronwebb1548 Thanks for the amathia reference. Orwell called it Crimestop and I called it "trauma aversion mind control" where the subconscious recognized a threat, triggers the ANS (fight/flight) and prevents the conscious mind from honestly engaging
You may already know of the Trivium method of intellectual self-defense, but if not, search "Trivium Gene Odening" to learn more.
A Rothschild was asked how to become a threat tontheir rule over society. He listed each element of the Trivium, in order, and absolutely nothing else
Wright is experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance. He has not been paying attention to what has been taking place since about 2012.
The first part of your comment doesn't follow the second.
@@Deno2100 nonsense.
@@one4320 ?
I think way before 2012. I think Bret’s right that it started to turn in the 90s under the Clintons and their administration .
Bret is so much more patient than I am... I can barely stand to listen to this...
Totally agree he must be a regular guest on morning Joe
This is actually Bret right at the edge. He takes some digs and I've never heard him do that before. Loved it
I agree completely.
this isn't unusual for RW.
💯 agree!
This was enjoyable for me to watch. Robert is unable to see past his political party for the protection and care of our country. It has helped me get perspective on my attempts to have an open conversation with someone who is unable to see past their beliefs while "Rome is burning". Wow. So thankful for your keeping cool as you tried to make the information clear.
Yes, there's no excuse for not seeing the dangerous position we are all in. Even Katie Perry understands that Rome is Burning.
Well said.
Lol. This was bold, Bret. Called out Mr. Bean! What a gaslighter.
Wow! It was like no matter what Bret said, Robert simply could not hear him. It was as though he was constantly trying to turn Bret into a conspiracy theorist. I was frustrated when he kept trying to get Bret to say who is causing all these problems and what their endgame is, and that, in and of itself showed Robert was simply unable to grasp the fundamentals of what Bret was saying.
Is it worth watching in full? I get just so angry when this sort of thing happens to the point I have to turn it off!
@@Enhancedlies Hi Nick, there’s no need to watch it the whole way through if it’s upsetting. These days, I sometimes have to turn things off, too, for the same reason - It’s infuriating! Really, it’s Bret trying every creative way that he can think of to say basically the same thing and Robert (who by the way I like and respect) is just not getting it.
@@Enhancedlies I'd say it gets better later in the podcast. Even though they keep arguing, to be fair, there is some common ground and less gaslightning. Still may be upsetting though.
Get Robert a hearing aid!
No one can grasp what Bret is saying
I thought Robert had to go, but first he has to promote his book. Why would anyone read a book by someone who didn't bother to investigate the forced medication of children? What could be more important?
Bret, you are a class act!
To keep your composure with "an irritable" person...respect! Also, substantively an excellent conversation! Thank you for doing what you do!
I actually thought Bret failed to provide conclusive evidence on a few of the things he said this time. I'm starting to feel like a fool for ever believing him. Plus, I didn't get the jab and I got real sick from Covid! (After listening, and trusting Brets podcast)
This was incredibly difficult to watch, but necessary. I have appreciated both of these men for their contributions to the conversation over the past few years. I’ve also taken issue with both of them on occasion. Robert fell way short here and Brett once again proved himself to be a careful thinker and restrained person.
Go on his podcast Brett
@@paddygurley did we watch the same video? robert carefully explained why he stopped trusting bret, and bret got his feelings hurt.
@@gnubbiersh647 Sorry, but you'll have to provide examples for that before I can accept what you've said. I'm not sure that Robert even understood Brett's position.
Kind of like tearing a band aid off. Robert was the exposed wound. What an embarrassing display for a guy that "hoped Hunter Biden's laptop really was Russian disinformation". What a dolt, why admit you would hope that something obvious is not true, and expose you are afflicted with extremely bad judgement. And he acted like it was justified instead of apologizing for being an idiot.
Brett didn't cut him any slack and without raising his voice or calling him an idiot, he just asked him the right question to draw out the foolishness that Robert tried to pull on Brett.
@@cantweallgetalong crazy how we are watching the same video but we get completely different ideas about what happened, because we are politically biased.
brett got mad that robert called out specific examples of him being unscientific in his language. brett chose to not engage in further debate (typically hte leftists run away from debates, brett really messed up there)
Robert was trying to "win." Brett was trying to seek the truth. Robert showed himself not worth talking to.
Yep, Bret wants dialectic, the mutual, reflective pursuit of the "truth". Most people these days think "winning" by linguistic cunning and sleight of hand, makes them right.
"Of course they would buy it." Golden moment. Masterfully done.
The problems are of middle management. Middle managers are most concerned about keeping their job than doing the right thing.
Outstanding debate. A viewing must.
This guy falls into the trap of thinking, "it would be impossible for this conspiracy to be true, because it would have to involve SO many people being corrupt, and having bad intentions." But what he doesn't realize is that MOST conspiracies involve humans simply being human. People have their own fears, desires, and greed, that are capable of corrupting their decisions. The simple desire to keep their job, or not rock the boat attitude, is enough to allow corruption to grow. There's no safe guards anymore. 🥴
Robert Wright being called out on his passive aggressive pretentious prickery. Wonderful
The issue here is that Bret wants to make extremely strong statements to his audience, but then he wants to walk back his language to just say he was being hypothetical. Wright holds him accountability, Weinstein claims zero responsibility. It's amazing he can't see this about himself.
Nah, that isn't the way Bret works. He observes some phenomenon, comes up with a range of possible explanations for it, from the simplest to the most complex, from the most mundane to the most unheard of, in other words many hypotheses that he then eliminates one by one.
obscene levels of corruption... too bad this discussion seems to have taken place before the FTX collapse, it would have been nice to hear Mr. Wright's illuminating views on that uncomfortable little incident and where the rabbit hole may lead...
This is embarrassing. Bret is proposing that there may be forces behind the scenes influencing our politics in a negative fashion, forces outside the country. He does not have to be able to prove that to hypothesize that it is the case. Step one is to name the issue, after that comes proving or disproving. You can't defeat it by saying he's wrong just because he can't immediately prove it.
Robert's whole argument is similar to sam harris, it's 'dangerous' to even wonder about such a thing. To Robert, Bret is spreading misinfo and should be stopped, bc he will cause another "deadly" Jan 6
@@aguyinhisroom It's absurd and sad to think that way.
Seems like all pro-Bret comments here.... I think only time will tell whether Bret is a visionary or guilty of the hyperbole, catastrophizing and demeaning superiority that finally dawned on me in his words. I hope I'm wrong. Been watching a long time...
@@rickmcentee9204 It would be interesting to read the comments from Robert's audience, should he post this talk on HIS channel.
@@rickmcentee9204I don’t think it takes much of a visionary to see that in an overwhelming majority of issues that Brett is at least raising a valid point. Would you not agree?
I’m still waiting for anyone to make even a half assed argument for the CDC recommending the vaccine for children. Even their own spokesman couldn’t come up with one, other than to say “well, it’s just guidance”.
I hear people slamming anyone who dares challenge the CDC, but I never hear them make an argument for what the CDC has done.
Robert’s entire point is nothing more than appeal to authority and an absolute refusal to even notice the Overton window he’s looking through.
What a gift Bret gave to this squeaky chicken of a man who lacks honesty, intellect and integrity. That Bret could survive a discussion of almost two hours with him and maintain civility and composure is a remarkable feat of decency. The world needs Bret’s careful language, impressive intellect and thoughtful analyses more than ever during this perplexing time where all that we have relied upon for truth is breaking down or completely lost. God bless Bret Weinstein. He keeps me sane.
I find it remarkble that Bret would talk to Robert after Robert uploaded an interview entitled:
_Is Eric Weinstein a Crackpot? | Robert Wright & Timothy Nguyen | The Wright Show_
Bret, you did beautifully and it was clear that your guest was utterly unprepared to discuss any of the bigger picture topics at hand. Not sure I would’ve had the same self-control as you did. Thank you for sharing this.
Robert Wright claims he doesn't know the information but has the nerve to call Bret crazy?!?! Robert Wright's opinion comes from a place of self acknowledged ignorance.
I generally like Robert and Mickey but in this exchange Robert is being intentionally difficult. I think Mickey acts as an effective foil but in this case Robert can't see past his own ego and have an honest conversation.
Thank you Bret for standing up for your hypothesis and for trying to reach him.
One of the most satisfying moments on any podcast for me recently is Bret telling Robert he doesn't want to go on his podcast and then gave the perfect reasons any person with healthy self-esteem would give.
@@headie3737 what are you basing that statement on?
I would base it on Bret not allowing to finish his explanation.
@@headie3737 the irony of course being that you are blind and deaf.
@@headie3737 I think it takes a lot of confidence and bravery to do what Brett is doing. There’s endless examples lol
Actually when a leftist does what bret did, they call them woke. If you don’t wanna speak to someone because they showed you your errors then you can’t complain about wokes either
This is hilarious. Wright accuses Bret of conformation bias, motivated reasoning, and being brainwashed and emotional.. while Wright is throwing paniced tantrums, not knowing basic vaccine information, and is absolutley locked into his position whithout giving any ground.
So true 😅
It's called projection.
Yes!
Yeah, Because Bret isn't locked into any of his positions....apology for pushing Ivermectin when?
@Guy Incognito it isn't a conspiracy theory that Hunter Biden got big money from China (and Ukraine). It's pretty clear that big pharma has been hiding evidence about vax safety ( lack of). It's a leap to say the military
doesn't want healthy troops.
Imagine thinking someone saying you were factually incorrect in this instance is an insult. “You’re insulting me” saying someone is factually incorrect in a particular instance isn’t an insult unless you think you’re the most intelligent person in the room, and think your point of view is dogma.
Sorry-I’m a retired clinical laboratory scientist. I agree whole heartedly with you Bret. I lost my brother who was denied ivermectin and forced into receiving Remdesovir . He died as a result. This whole process has been nothing short of toxic to it’s citizens. Never forget- never forgive. This has nothing to do with science.
Condolences.
Same here. My Mom covid got covid in california, frantically tried to get in to an infusion clinic for 3 days, was told she wasnt eligable because she wasnt from a disadvantaged population, had to be admitted to the er, was forced on a respirator and remdesovir, and locked up in the ICU for 3 weeks alone until she died, alone. Robert wright is totally cool with all that.
I only know of 1 person a youtuber who died from covid. He was put on a vent in the first months of covid. He was murdered. I am greatfull no one in my family died in such a way. I am already reving up for revenge.
Struggling with a kind of inner rage at what they did & continue without consequence.
@@sailingsolo5290 please use holding the perpetrators to accountability with telling your account of events so the light of truth will smoke them out. No violence, that plays right onto satans hands.
Gif bless you and your families
Π7Π⁷
Thanks so much for airing this debate.I admire your patience and ability to discuss without ridiculing your opponent. I'm not American and don't know Robert Wright but he was clearly outmatched. Evidenced by the eye rolling and smirks - sign of a person with a weak position. Secondly he lost me completely when he mentioned the Pelosi incident. I imagine your political parties are full of people like Robert - sadly we have the same problem in New Zealand.
Thanks to both of you for debating these issues. I like to consider all combinations of motives including skeptical, cynical and pessimistic alongside optimistic, benign, beneficial and even philanthropic interpretations of WTF is going on and how do we collectively improve our lives.
I'm "in" on the Enlightenment Project / liberal democratic social experiment believing we can and should PROGRESS / IMPROVE ourselves through rational thought and action. What else have we got other than a prayer?
1:04:50 Actually listen to Robert here. I heard Bret the first time, but going back I noticed that Robert admits that if he were a politician he wouldn't mandate vaccines for children.
Not because of any ethical reason mind you, but because it's "not worth the blowback."
That really helped me to understand the way he's thinking in this discussion.
Thank you, Bret. For the admirable patience, continued coherence, and honor.
I enjoy consuming content especially when someone picks a fight with Bret on the grounds of science, logic, thinking, honor, COVID, and institutional capture and/or subversion.
It does a great service for the public to see the types who often represent the two sides, along with the way they conduct thier behavior on the grounds of logic, honor, argumentation, and coherence.
Very well said, Nate.
Yeah I second that. Extremely well said.
Well done Bret! Valid hypothesis well forwarded. If you see smoke, you hypothesise fire. The hypothesis is not invalidated if you can't say how it started. We hear you! 🙏🌏
Yeah, but he failed to detail the bank account numbers involved in the buying of influence, therefore his hypothesis is invalid! He also didn't criticis Hitler, so why does Bret support Hitler?I'm kidding, of course. I do appreciate Robert being willing to listen and speak his part, but disgree with his arguments. Bret did an amazing job.
Like you wouldn't want to open a murder investigation if you didn't have a suspect yet.
Yes, very well said. I think this Wright guy is committing logical fallacies but I can't work out which ones
Wow, okay. I mean, you go Bret. Came here through some clip from a youtubeside "dismantling" you from clips of this conversation, and it's just saddening to see. Your patience is admirable in this conversation, this guy Robert doesn't seem to have it all together. Hah
Support
Best podcast I’ve listened to in a long time
Anyone who strays from mainstream narrative has “lost their marbles”…?
Brett, your clarity of thought and precision of speech is breathtaking. I learn so much about demeanour and respect (for oneself and one’s interlocutor)when I listen to you. Suffice to say you mopped the floor with this chap!
Absolutely!! I particularly loved when the guy said "Can we just get back to that? Or do you just not want to discuss it?" and instead of exploding, Bret just says: "Cute." 😂
The only thing that surpasses his intellect is his patience. I don't know how he does it.
Robert Wright has made countless logical errors during the course of this podcast that he will not even admit to, ever, because of his personality - where Bret made the smallest error in a podcast, admitted to it once he found out he was incorrect and corrected it. This is the behavior of a reliable source. Robert Wright is acting as a small, small man and I would never consider him a reliable source. His pride and defensiveness is so obviously primary in his makeup that he will hide from and evade anything that might bruise his ego. This man is the most infuriating person at Thanksgiving dinner every, single, year. Without question.
The wikipedia entry on "Echo Chamber" now includes screenshots from this comment section
I watch both of their shows. Robert has been consistently wrong about almost every major topic or development of the past 3 years, Bret has been almost consistently right. That’s all you really need to know about their ability to project an accurate mental model.
Good observation
Bretts been consistently right, but he also has first mover advantage. Going back to Evergreen up until now, he's consistently early
@@dannybrown5205 there was no advantage in interpreting censored data as it came out
Trrrrrueee
What major topics has Robert been wrong about? I am not sure I have enough "Bretts" to suffer him long enough to find out myself. Thanks.
Not surprisingly, a person who states repeatedly "I don't know enough about that" can't understand what Brett has understood. Leading to the insult.
This laziness/indifference/overstimulation is what I see in to many people now. They see it at some level, the fear of the magnitude prevents them from acknowledging the connections.
th-cam.com/video/LE_MLJpv71k/w-d-xo.html
Russell seemed to provide some insight.