Weinstein Bro Politely Calls Dave Rubin A Paid Shill
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- We stream our live show every day at 12 PM ET.
We need your help to keep providing free videos! Support the Majority Report's video content by going to / majorityreport
Watch the Majority Report live M-F at 12 p.m. EST at / samseder or listen via daily podcast at Majority.FM
Download our FREE app: majorityapp.com
SUPPORT the show by becoming a member: jointhemajority...
We Have Merch!!! shop.majorityre...
LIKE us on Facebook: / majorityreport
FOLLOW us on Twitter: / majorityfm
SUBSCRIBE to us on RUclips: / samseder
They completely missed the point of what Weinstein was saying. He was saying that most people will adopt ideas that are dictated by their social surroundings regardless of the truth. And the irony here, is that Nomiki is laughing here, when it's obvious she doesn't understand what Weinstein or even Sam is saying, but she already made up her mind that Weinstein is supposedly "right wing", not part of her clique and thus wrong. Therefore, she's being exactly the type of idiot Weinstein was describing without even realizing it.
Of course they did. Because they are left wing shills.
Sam and Naomi breakdown of this is cringe level 9,000. How do they still have this up? It's embarrassing.
The fact that someone could call Weinstein “right wing” is incredible to me. He’s obviously a liberal. He says it all the time and openly suggests left wing policy. But if you critique anything on the left, I guess that makes you right wing.
Please don't ever stop dragging Rubin.
My secret goal of becoming a "public intellectual" seems more and more achievable.
Lol.
In a way social media is a great equalizer...
@Viganch0 lol...or become a Republican. Then you don't need to even educate yourself or your kids.
Make America (segregated and) Great Again!
Let's work together Ian. You invite me on your show and I'll invite you on my show..... About 30 times a month.
@Viganch0 I agree that D'Angelo's book is problematic. However becoming a right winger is just as profitable. Just ask Candace Owens, and David Rubin, who has recently authored a problematic book of his own.
Quite frankly all 3 are representative of capitalism gone stupid.
The nonchalant feelings of grief may unfold in a hexagonal prism formula. Yes sir I have achieved public intellectual status kiss my toes
Interesting how people don't understand the larger argument here! This whole grievance with the IDW simply started as a result of Sam Seder and the Majority Report pointing out that Dave Rubin is not an honest actor and his high level "ideas" are paid for! The IDW took that as an attack on the group and tried to discredit Sam Seder, but their defence of Dave Rubin is impossible! So we see a continuation of this argument play out over time with Seder's position remaining consistent and the IDW distancing themselves from Rubin as they now realize they can no longer defend Rubin and maintain their image!
Exactly. You nailed it.
wElL dUh;
I understood that just from reading the title of the video - like i assume most people did. But; Sam Seder speaks so much untrue shit the first minute, so I didn't bother to watch it.
Of course people are distancing themselves from Rubin; nobody has ever thought he were an intellectual - ever. i assume, and hope, the next clown they are distancing themselves from is Ben Shapiro.
I’ve heard this argument a bunch, and I’ve tried to find evidence of it, but not being a frequent consumer of Rubin’s content, I can’t find the smoking gun. If you could direct me toward a good example of Rubin being a grifter or shill, I’d really appreciate it. (Not defending Rubin, just saying it’s hard to sift out as someone who doesn’t watch a lot of his content)
@@TTyger check out timbah.on.toast's videos about dave rubin. He watched all of Rubin's videos for us. His video essay is divided into three. It's called Dave Rubin's Battle of Ideas.
@@scrabbledmind Sam Seder is a clown. He literally practices wrong think. He plays 2 min videos in the span of 20 minutes just so he could pause every 10 sec and tell us what to think. I`ve seen him do this more than once now. Moreover his arguments are always extremely shallow. They have nothing to do with first principles. He just has an ideology and tries to defend it regardless of facts.
Truth is true liberals today actually agree with the right on most values I think but they agree with their radical wing on policy. If they don`t do something the country is gonna go to hell but they have too much ego.
What he said was perfectly clear. There was no need to ineptly paraphrase him after each remark
Everyone thinks Dave Rubin is a shill from both the left and right. Who is he appeasing lol
Nothing sadder then a shill who no-one will pay.
he's making money $$$$$$$$ that's all that matters to him
Right winger thought bubble libertarians
Literally just fossilized boomers, who watch tucker carlson. Dave is on that twat's show constantly
The days of Dave Rubin fooling people that he's an intellectual are coming to an end.
One of my first exposures to Dave Rubin was him getting eviscerated by Larry Elder on his own show regarding the validity of systemic racism. Then I watched the second interview with Larry where he supposedly did some research on the topic and he asked basically no substantive questions, and I was like, this guy is part of the IDW and has millions of followers? Wtf?
Does anyone actually think Dave Rubin is an intellectual? Seriously?
@@alantasbler4581 it's difficult to say what people believe these days. All I can go by is what they say. Someone allowed him among the "intellectual" dark web for whatever that's worth.
@@StannisHarlock I'm not disputing you. I'm just wondering what kind of person thinks Dave Rubin is an intellectual.
@@StannisHarlock I must say that the very term "intellectual dark web" is pretentious as hell. I think the term was coined by Eric Weinstein. It is neithr "intellectual" nor "dark," but it is largely web-based. One out of three ain't bad?
IIRC the weinstein guy was annoyed at the day of black absence was for some reason turning into a compulsory white absence day by students & staff and he was 100% right to be upset about that. the point wasn't to make him feel bad about being white, it was telling him he was a racist if he didn't stay home or some shit, which most people would agree with. you guys grossly misrepresented this guy and were on dave rubin levels understanding the topic you're speaking about. I was starting to like this channel too and was about to subscribe but you guys can't act this smug and make such reckless mistakes.
Weinstein lied and mischaracterized what happened at that event. Fuck Wienstein. It wasn't a compulsory white absence day. It was an event that you signed up for and it was completely voluntary. White students interviewed afterwards who went to campus on that day because they had a lot of work to do said that they do not feel they were looked down upon, or punished for doing so. The actual video footage in which he was arguing with students happened during protests that were not all about him. There was a great deal of tension on campus over a few events, including one event where a black student had been arrested on campus. Weisntein was also not pushed out of his job, the school paid him and his wife a lot of money to leave. Weinstien is, quite frankly, a liar.
@@wikidystopia4681 it's compulsory if you show up, and get protested and threatened. You're in too deep with this extreme left crowd, my friend.
Love,
A Bernie Bro.
@@PatOnTheBack321 AAAAAAAAAAAAAND that is not what happened. Weinstein sent out an email before the event happened declaring it was a mandatory absence. It was not, it was a voluntary event. While some people were uncomfortable with his email and his mischaracterization, they did not protest it at the time. Furthermore, several white students and faculty who had work to do on that day showed up to campus, and have been on record that they never felt any fear of consequences for doing this, and that there were no consequences for them for doing this. Weinstein showed up on that day, and nothing happened.
Weinstein was being protested, not because he showed up on the day of absence, but because he was behaving like an obtuse asshole and actively undermining the antiracist student grounp. Then, there were rising racial tensions on campus that were driven by a few events, including a case of some black students who were arrested in their dorms. And then when the protests happened, there was a confrontation, but it would not have been as bad as it was had there not been general rising tensions. The students were not upset over Weinsten showing up on the day of absence, they were upset over his mischaracterization of what happened, and his constant denial of the importance of their cause. Now, was the student group always right in their actions? No, but Weinsten behaved worse than them, and had way more power in the situation. He also did not get fired, as his narrative suggests.
Weinstein inserted himself into the situation, made it worse, then went on Tucker Carlson and micharacterized what happened as being an attack against him as a white person, and he did not get fired, he sued the school and they paid him and his wife 500000 dollars to fuck off. And after Tucker Carlson, at least four faculty members of colour and allies had to quit, without being paid 500000 dollars, over conservative harassment directed towards them. Weinstein made the situation worse, actually profited off of it, and still cries about it online, even though he was not in the worst position.
@Jacob Strom Wiki Dystopia gave a detailed response about the situation. You gave a one-liner "NUH-UH!" response. I would say you're not very intellectual...
He didn't quit just because he didn't like the "day of absence" thing.
He sent out a mass email to other faculty and students saying he didn't like it, then a bunch of students (and some other professors) called him a racist because of this email, there were big protests, some people said they wanted the college to fire him, and according to Weinstein he had people sending him death threats and shit like that.
So he quit because of what he described as a hostile work environment created by the controversy over this email he sent out about the "Day of Absence", not because of his objections to the event itself.
Daaaamn. Its too bad Dave Rubin listeners don't understand words bigger than 'ideas', so they won't recognize this indictment of Rubin for what it is.
who seripusly listens to Dave Rubin as a primary source? his stupidity is blatantly obvious after a couple min and im shocked he has serious fans in the way other pundits/hosts do
@@nedz5852 I've come to learn that anyone is capable of anything. There are no depths of anti-intellectualism that I can imagine that scores of people ultimately sink too. The best I can do in this instance is link people that timbah on toast youtube mini-series where he breaks down Dave Rubin as a show and as a person. Its so damning, like 3-4 hours of just smashing his ideology and methodology. But then again, when someone is saying stuff that makes you FEEL justified in your beliefs, you overlook so much. It really is comforting to just sit down and be told stuff and assume it is an accurate representation of reality. Its just...exhausting making yourself sit down and evaluate everything you consume on its own merits, double checking and verifying information.
@@Rowdy422 i hear u but i can understand the appela of Shapiro, jordan peterson ot even fox news hosts to certain demographics or people ive seen. Dave Rubin just has nothing, and i mean NOTHING, redeeming or interesting. you dont even need to pick apart his arguments to see what a jackass he is lol, just tones and demeanor while talking is evident of that
Lol the Weinstein Brother who tried to cancel Matt Lech
lmao! i just looked it up
Yea that was dumb. I think Matt's whole twitter thread on Bret was stupid and baseless, but I wish Bret didn't succumb to the whole cancel culture bs.
Rest in peace Michael Brooks
As a freshman undergraduate, he wrote an open letter criticizing/standing-up to a fraternity (Zeta Beta Tau) at the University of Pennsylvania for mistreating women at their parties. Subsequently, there was retaliation and harassment to the degree that he had to transfer schools. To imply that such a person is somehow "right-wing" is laughable.
Seder's glad that his fans aren't smart enough to understand what Weinstein's saying about peer pressure and the like.
For you to argue that writing "an open letter criticizing/standing up to a fraternity...for mistreating women" somehow makes you a leftist, is very telling of where you consider the American left and right wing spectrum lies.
@@brianitis To be fair, I am only trying to refute Sam's characterization of Brett being right-wing as some kind of negative insult. I don't think there' something actually wrong about being "right wing", but in the context of the Sederverse, right wing is characterized by racist, homophobic, and misogynist members. In this sense, publicly condemning a patriarchal structure in favor of women of color goes against the "Seder" depiction of what it means to be right wing as some type of insult.
Furthermore, Brett himself describes himself as very left leaning and liberal (not leftist). If we as individuals don't have a say in describing our political affiliation at the end of the day, then who does? Am I allowed to call Sam right wing against his own self-perception as well? I'm not quite sure of your point.
How, precisely, is my argument "telling" about my perception of the left and right wing spectrum? We can easily verify this, you describe "my" perception of the left/right wing spectrum and I can tell you if you are correct.
I am also curious as to what the underlying claim here is. Are you saying Brett is actually right wing and I am wrong? Please clarify.
@@SirLaughter The claim here is that Bret and Eric Whinestein are not of the left, in any way. The proof is in the pudding. Tim Pool claims to be a "left/liberal", Sargon and Dave Rubin claim to be "liberals" and so on, but that's not what I want to focus on. Every single left leaning individual leaned towards Bernie or Elizabeth Warren this past primary (Andrew Yang was a prop who barely caused a ripple and no Leftists backed him up...don't even get me started on his infatuation with Dan Crenshaw). The reason we claim Bret and Eric to be of the right is because there is a long history of grifters claiming to be of the "left" and snuggling up with far right figures, pushing right wing talking points. This helps normalize and mainstream far-right talking points by showing a "civil" discussion with "someone on the left and someone on the right", despite all the talking points being right-wing and them not being challenged. As far as your claim that "right-wing is characterized by racist, homophobic, and misogynist members"...this is true of the current right. Nothing about this administration emits "fiscal responsibility", "civil liberties", "law and order", "morality", or "small government". Republicans that still hold on to those tenets have all jumped on The Lincoln Project (see Stuart Stevens).
@@brianitis I think I see the gist of the claim now a little more clearly. As for the other figures you mention, I would like to put that off for now. I would instead like to focus on the claim "The reason we claim Bret and Eric to be of the right is because there is a long history of grifters claiming to be of the "left" and snuggling up with far right figures, pushing right wing talking points." This is certainly a plausible stance to take, however you offer no evidence. You simply offer the possibility of grifters claiming to be of the left. By default, if someone outright tells you their political stance, you need pretty strong evidence to claim "they are lying, that is not really their political stance." I'm not asking for loads and loads of data, but if you do claim that Brett is right-wing, please provide some evidence of things he has done or stances he has publicly taken that support this idea.
If you don't happen to know the exact clip or link, that is fine, you can describe it. Just any examples of when/how Brett has taken right-wing stances or actions on something.
As an aside, this is what I was attempting to do by giving the anecdote starting this thread: I gave an example of a recorded action that aligns with left-leaning principles, i.e. standing up to an organization that was harming women of color. I would like to see some examples of him doing right-wing stuff if you are accusing him of being right-wing.
i have no idea why youre so upset over this tiny exchange weinstein had with his wife.
He leeches off other people's names. He figures his viewers need something to keep coming back to, and this is the best Seder can think of. I think of his routine as "if it ain't broke don't fix it" run amok.
This is unwatchable. You start the video by displaying you know next to nothing about Bret Weinstein and the comment section is just filled with people pouncing on "bots" who simply don't agree with you. What a sad cess pit this channel must be.
Dave Rubin = “Intellectual”
🤪
Summary of this video: Brett and Heather are far too intelligent for these people to understand what they’re saying.
Can you exlplain it so? Thanks
Brett and Heather launched there media careers by portraying a school event as an attack on white people. Finding them to be intelligent with them having this kind of logic is a bit of a stretch.
Dave Rubin book 1 star reviews on Amazon are hilarious. "My brain is in recovery mode from reading so many vapid and uniformed opinions." 🤣😂🤣😂 Yeah that sounds like Dave Rubin.
just looked it up 😂
Forget the fact he didn't really answer the question, I just love how he says (with that gentle-spoken arrogance of his) that his brother's comment " is the smartest thing anyone ever said ". He makes it sound like " the crowd is untruth " is a great discovery only he and Eric made, or that 'group-think' or any similar criticisms, haven't already been made for centuries by much smarter thinkers than these two. I've no real issue with the Weinsteins, but they don't have a monopoly on 'truth', and they clearly take themselves way too seriously on occasion.
Yeah, that's another thing that bugs me about the Weinsteins, their self-congratulatory and self-aggrandizing attitude. Brett much less so, but Eric so obviously loves to hear himself talk.
If it wasn't his bother I might be more bothered. It was eye opening and his bother told him first, that being said there are other examples of them congratulating each other's intelligence and Eric deffinitaly pretends to have a monopoly on truth. Bret not so much.
Way, way too seriously
When someone gives an evolutionary perspective to explain a phenomenon, and when two people don't comprehend the perspective and can only laugh.
Well said!
I think "sociobiology," or applying concepts derived from evolution to human behavior, can be insightful. But it can also be overly reductive if pushed to far, or as an explanation for all patterns of human behavior. And it sometimes appears tautological, such as the assertion that institutions that persist over time must somehow be functional or serve some useful societal purpose (in an evolutionary sense).
Jordan Peterson takes this position to extremes, when he claims the value of ancient myths / religion etc. He degenerates into a kind of Jungian mysticism, or so it seems to me.
Many institutions and cultural practices that are clearly dysfunctional for the well-being of a group as a whole can certainly persist. That is just demonstrably true.
To be fair, what happened to Bret Weinstein at Evergreen was pretty horrifying.
@@Cat_LadyYou'd have empathy if it was a black woman.
@@Cat_Lady Anyone who isn't autistic can read the dismissal in your comment. Don't pretend it came from a place of empathy.
Not really, he angered people then he and his wife voluntarily resigned and got $500,000 out of it.
I think most of us would be just fucking fine with that kind of "horror" happening to any of us. You included.
This video is honestly unbearable. They are dismissing everything Bret says by just laughing at it and calling it stupid. Sam is so horrible now
No, you are simply siding in social alliance with those who hold power so that they shall bestow upon you a small amount of their power. Weinstein has informed me all about this tactic that you are using.
Bret is making a decent point but indeed does not go into great detail. Sam and those other annoying people laughing in the background are childishly laughing at him, as a form of smear that frankly doesn’t get any point across. Like, what’s their problem? What are they trying to prove? To me, Sam is proving Bret’s point in sam’s own video, by proving he cares more about dissing the people ‘from the other group’, rather than make any argument from principle.
WTF is Bret saying. Dude just loves to hear himself talk. lol
As a person who has alienated everyone in my life, I find his assertion that I'm too clever and truthful for my own good to be very soothing.
I think Seder should lay off this beautiful brain genius.
Grifter vs Grifter
In the left corner we have Sam Sedar, and in the right corner we have Dave Rubin. Clown vs Clown
May they both keep real intellectuals names out of their mouths, and focus on grifting each other until both of their crap channels tank.
Seder often has a strong grasp on reality. Rubin is a mess of a man. They're nowhere near the same.
You don't even know what grifting means lmfao. Peddle your "both sides" bullshit elsewhere.
@@Bolizen grifter; a person who engages in petty or small scale swindling. They both pander to the people on "their side", that think that everything is black and white. They both conveniently forget that every situation and perspective has nuance, and that most reasonable people fall in the gray area between black and white. See how I responded to your comment without insulting you? You should try it, conversations help people figure out what's right, and insults end potentially constructive conversations. ✌
Maybe I'm not looking enough, but it seems more of Sam Seder vids are gossiping/mocking about other pundits.
Explains why David Pakman will get to 1 million subs before him
Pakman will get to 1 million because he does cross-programming with other youtubers. I saw him with top Chess youtubers, Hikaru Nakamura and Alexandra Botez. I'm guessing he's also on other categories of youtubers... probably comparing mani/pedi with some 15 year old vlog sensation.
This Sam Sedar pulls a lot of bad faith moves, pretending to miss the crux of what Weinstein says, conspiracy about them trying to gain RUclips markets, some not real academics, fake academics ad hominem , and has this "oh my God this is hilarious, look at this guy, lol" sort of tone which probably works if you made up your mind that Sedar is right. But it seems pretty cheap and weakens his position if you are not sold.
Cool man
The thoughts of all these "intellectuals" have been utterly weak and vapid for years. It is now part of this show's background knowledge. If you aren't caught up with the rest of the class, you need to watch videos from a few years ago.
This guy caught the grift. This is pretty much the most perfectly succinct take. The only genuine question I have is: and I mean this with 100% sincerity, do you think they are conscious of the giant straw man that they DESTROYED? Giving the most charity possible - I don't think they realize it.
What seems to rub them so wrong about this particular Darkhorse clip is that it is directed exactly at what "Majority Report" is doing in this very video. But they think it's just about Dave Rubin and Bret wanting to be RUclips famous, lolz.
qiexia will you be teaching the re-education class?
@@robertr7563 I don't think they see the irony and I don't think they realise its a strawman, it's more just a result of not making an attempt to understand the other point of view, played out over many years getting a little more exagerrated each time, its hardwork to steelman and play devils advocate even when you want to, if you never do it, you are going to sort of stereotype other opinions and box them more and more to the point of absurdity.
Evidence of this is firstly it is actually seen in some cirles as "bad" to play devils advocate, asking questions politely on somebodies held belief is "sea lioning", and that's actually considered to be a negative thing. So with that mindset, that brings me to my second piece of evidence, somebody commented on this thread that "you need to watch the show for years" and that its like "a class". That tells me that it relies on 'in jokes' and builds upon established assumptions, and also its viewers treat it as a sort of didactic message of truth, which is different relationship to the channel than you or I might have to something we watch.
For example where I watch Bret Weinstein and am intreagued by his ideas, I might think his Unity 2020 sounds contrived, Or I will read the BBC news site article and see it has good scientific backing accept that, I will watch CNN, but then listen to Sam Harris who questions something on the news, but Pakman will make a response to that, watch that, and so on. And weigh it up, change my mind on issues, I think the crowd here, digest a diet of mainstream news, then watch these guys go over it with a 'comical' but ideologically identical slant. Other view points merely serve as a prop in this theatre.
Ironically this was an incoherent critique of something that was claimed to be incoherent but made perfect sense... wtf?
The worst explanation of Bret Weinstein ever. I like you guys but give credit where credit is due, Bret is a heavyweight explainer. Not always correct but always willing to be corrected.
Bandana Bret was promoting for months in a row that bandana's were giving the same protection as surgical masks.
@@robertblake1228 no he wasn't. If you watch the podcast you'll know he said that wearing a bandana is better than no bandana and could in fact be a better option because it's washable, easier to wear properly and easier to buy (during the shortage). where did you get what you thought he was saying from?
@@robertblake1228 where did you get that from?
I dunno feels like he doesn't really know anything about weinstein and is just hating on them cuz of the IDW thing. The whole background was pretty inaccurate
Please explain what specifically you found to be inaccurate.
Also Brett is in the IDW and he is criticising Rubin who is also part of IDW which is pretty funny all things considered. They purport to be "intellectuals" yet they point out there own fallacies a lot lately. Its also ironic too that Brett formerly claimed his ideology was "deeply progressive" yet he subscribes and panders to conservatives if it benefits him. Hence why they pointed out the Evergreen incident.
@@XxATMachinexX Do I suddenly gotta rematch this old video to satisfy your curiosity? From what I recall the evergreen college scandal was an example of some far left college kids being given power and taking things to far. Weinstein feared for his fam's safety, and was pretty upset about the whole thing. I think it makes sense for him to suddenly dedicate alot of time and energy to something that destroyed his life and career upto that point. So if I recall I felt like MR was brushing him off as a racist when I don't think he is one.
I do find it interesting how he panders to conservatives. I'm not well informed on the recent Brett Wienstein lore, lol, but I was interested in the evergreen scandal itself so I do not it was kinda serious and not about Brett being racist. I'm curious if he just doesn't notice how his believes are/were used to manufacture a false image of an evil leftist culture, or if he noticed and just sold out. Not sure how his views have shifted last couple years.
The tough part for me is I'm pretty sure the evergreen thing happened, and it was an example of a leftist mob out of control. So the conservatives who try to portray progressives as all communist's mobs out of control love to share it. But does that make Brett wrong to share and complain about it, if he is genuine this is something that ruined his life, for a while. Clearly the evergreen issue isn't a huge systemic one, and has gotten way more media attention then it deserves because the conservatives love the story. Yet for Brett this is personal, not political.
At this point I'm curious how many words a youtube comment can hold.
The crux of the issue is that people can have serious grievances that matter to them, but that doesn't mean it reflects on what matters to society. What do you do if those grievances naturally align with the evil conservative agenda to portray progressive ideology as commie bastards out to destroy America. Cuz its not that the ideas are bad, or that the people are dishonest, at least not every time, but the issue is blown out of proportion but evil interests.
@@XxATMachinexX Sorry for the big ramble. I was kinda in the IDW before Trump in college. In my defense early IDW was less crazy, and the PC college stuff had given me the urge to seek opinions outside of the progressive bubble.
Still trying to sort through what is true, what'd distorted, and what's a lie.
Rediscovering Dave Rubin has really shown me people are investing in media to nefariously "red pill" people with partial info, biased reporting, and magnified problems.
I don't think Brett played a willing roll in this evil like Dave Rubin or his funders did. Nor do I think Brett's politics are a good guide for government policy. I don't think Brett is a racist, he is just someone victimized by progressives who blames PC culture and is/was used by bad people to blow the issue of PC culture out of proportion.
Let me know if I'm misinformed or bad at ideas, if listening to the IDW has taught me anything its that bad ideas can be made to sound good,.
@samba tiger And now I think Bretts a dunder head, didn't take too long from my last comment, oof
Sam doesnt know anything about brett and it makes the whole bit stupid af
This is pretty pathetic of sam, your hatred of weinsteins just leads you attack him even though hes making a perfectly understand point. brett comes off pretty sensible here.
Yeah. His obtuse and brutally wrong introduction there is hilarious. Sort of reveals how badly Sam has no idea what he's actually talking about
RIP Brooks
Dave Rubin sends his regards
Bret is an evolutionary biologist. Of course he thinks about strategy. Bret is a voice of reason. Dave “this Dave” Rubin is a moron. Bret is in pursuit of truth. As much as I love watching Rubin get dunked on your cruelty towards Bret seems unwarranted.
Bret is a goober though
Watching Weinstein's video is like watching an SNL skit thats not entertaining
Tell that to Michael...Oh wait 😂😂😂
I had a good laugh at this. Once again Dave Rubin somehow sneaks into the show to provide laughter. Thank you. Sam? You never really left comedy. I'm grateful! 🤣
I hope Sam has noticed the comments on this vid are consistently negative. I guess if you totally ignore the context of what Weinstein is saying then you can make fun of it endlessly. A lot of Sam's content is good imo, but this was painfully bad. Do some research. I don't even particularly like Weinstein, but damn, this was some empty commentary.
Did I just watch the people who take half an hour to get to the point say Bret Weinstein is taking too long to make a point?
All the gigling and laughter in this video is a sign of people looking for acceptance and validation. Kind of like in grade school kids laugh at things that aren't particularly funny just to show they are cool.
(The video isn't half an hour)
Or they just actually found it funny, occam's razor and all...
I am sooooo glad to hear someone point out what I have been saying for years since i first encountered the Weinsteins and the IDW. I always wondered if there was a word for that sort of sophistry or whatever you call it. They talk so abstractly that they are not communicating at all, eventually.
The critique, for you Weinstein stans who can't see passed your blinders, is that Bret is very self-important, and his analysis of the world and of politics/social issues stems from his self-characterization that he is open-minded and only concerned with intellectual debate, but the entire context of this bit is niche and personal and emphasizes anecdote. Basically he isn't that important, he's just a RUclipsr.
Nobody is that important. Including Sam Seder. Nonetheless everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I mean, hes a dude whose videos on youtube I tend to enjoy. I dont know how that disagrees with your critique tbh, or how that critique doesnt fairly describe most people in this space including Sam
I like their podcast but this is accurate enough. The Q&A hour is generally lamer and all this is is an especially insipid part answering a question from somebody who is just inviting them to riff on "aren't we so smart for resisting the wokies."
@@smoovjazz8029 exactly. That is the point Sam is literally making. If you watch the video he literally says this. And on his recent Eric Weinstein critique he makes the same point. He's just on RUclips and doesn't have a big head about it, that's why he pokes fun because it isn't earth shattering intellectualism, it's just fucking RUclips.
Josephine Matthias is a Nigerian Canadian reporter who went to Jordan Peterson's university and used to be more conservative but has since become more open to socialist ideas. Chloe Valdary is a black woman who follows Judaism and writes on Spirituality, she has a mix of conservative and left leaning ideas. They did kinda make it unclear who they were speaking about. But at least they called Rubin out.
Yup, and if they aren’t celebrities then they obviously aren’t real academics amirite ?
That couple are the human personification of the "Smelling My Own Farts" episode of South Park...
You mean the two people here on the MR right? They are the biggest clowns in the entire discussion.
Dave Rubin, Tim Pool and the Weinsteins are the prime example of grifting
How is Bret Weinstein a grifter?
I'm sort of confused by this video. Arent these people talking about the machinations of changing ideologies irrespective of what the ideology stands for? And that Rubin flipped from one to the other while never being principled in either and talking shit about the previous one and how ridiculous it is to do so? Aren't they leaving out the ideology on purpose because it's about the social aspect and not political points. I'm not familiar with Weinstein so I may be off here but it seemed like Sam was addressing an irrelevant point.
Yes they were. Additionally, when he Bret references people saying wacky stuff, he's referencing ideas like "only white people can be racist. Black people can't." Not actual nuanced issues.
You aren't confused, though it's only about changing ideologies in the Rubin example. You should understand that Seder will mock any member of the IDW regardless of what they say. Thus, what Weinstein is criticizing is largely what Seder does and he's right. That's why there's no substance here, Seder is the one with the unprincipled position.
Also, this Weinstein brother is fairly progressive while the other is the opposite, yet you will find Seder paints them all with a right-wing brush, including Sam Harris who is quite liberal. Yet another example of Seder arguing his team's cause rather than principled positions. Seder is smart and holds good positions but he is not very principled or this video would not exist.
Their NPR voice is reminiscent of the Schweetty balls SNL skit, for sure.
Not one person has explained their reasons for not liking this video. Just alot of victims in the comments
Eric and Bret Weinstein lock themselves into a small walk-in closet, turn on a space heater full-blast and then start farting.
The Weinstein brothers will fart and fart and sniff their farts in a 120 degree closet and then wax poetic about wbat theyre smelling like a sommelier does when describing wine.
Dude, do your research, Bret is a stand up guy, and if you actually took a second to follow what happened at Evergreen you should be concerned as well. Racism isn’t ok in any direction, and that situation was ridiculous. Do some research!
Research done. Guy's a prick. Cheers.
@@pano3607 Nice, well done.
Bret has said some dumb things in the past. But this particular clip can only be considered an example of such after a severe bout of mental gymnastics. Seriously... what is there to disagree with when he says Rubin has become an RNC shill who strawmans everyone on the left, even those who are against the illiberal left?
Brett is an evolutionary biologist so that’s the lense he’s viewing the question through. Not “clout” Sam
Dont know if sam doesnt understand weinsteins point or is misconstruing it on purpose but hes got an absolute shit take here. Sometimes sam has great points but this is really not one of them
The craziest thing is how smart these people think they are
C which people are you referring to?
"I am shocked by the proclivity of all of my friends to subscribe to the woke mentality." Classic conservative that isn't very bright but did pretty good on the English section of the SAT's. I could literally hear that writer's bowtie.
Complaining that a conservative was to articulated when explaining a point of confusion. Of course that doesn't makes any sence becuase conservatives are all dumb. You should use some motivated reasoning to imagine a very specific scenario that would make it easier to dismiss their consern without actually addressing them.
@@marlondowney4033 Sense
@@seansteele6532 I corrected it pretty quickly, but I did have the typo.
@@marlondowney4033 too, because, concern. motivated reasoning doesn’t mean what you think it means.
@@plateoshrimp9685 Before I go digging into this any deeper. Do you think I have misapplied the term or that there is no way that motivated reasoning could of contributed to the above comment?
Sams characterization of Bret just dishonest. I cannot believe Sam would not be on Brets side when it comes to the shit show Evergreen
You made Weinstein sound more intelligent and more worthy of listening to than the Majority Report. Was that your intent? Haha.
Bret and his wife are evolutionary biologists. So when they talk about strategy it's not RUclips/podcast strategy...I think you're highlighting more about your own world more than you're highlighting a limited vantage point in Weinstein.
This was weird because the whole tone was a takedown but you just found a clip of Brett saying what you already agree with, which is what the title says. Why review the video with a point-by-point mocking breakdown when you're essentially in agreement? Is it just that they were so naive to have once believed Dave Rubin was an honest actor?
to your last point, yes
He's a evolutionary biology professor, of course hes going to relate it to some sort of "strategy"
Imagine a group fighting institutional power without a strategy
The IDW is dying, there grift is over. Now they’re just trying to find a new one. Can’t wait to see what it is! Lol
The IDW was never really a thing.
They tricked gullible idiots like Sam Harris and Steven Pinker into destroying their reputations.
Look at BLM. All of a sudden they are BTransLM. WTF is that about ? Where did that come from ? The lunatic left.
@@jollygoode4153 Meanwhile the right is sequestered in their facebook groups talking about how q-anon is going to save them from Bill Gate's 5G-Corona virus
The right isn't devoid of lunacy so fix your own shit before you try to come down on the left for wanting to make things better for marginalized people
@@jollygoode4153 it is about supporting universal rights and refusing to dehumanize people by labeling them as other and unworthy of basic human rights. It is about just saying no to identity politics - a position approved by both Nancy Reagan and Ben Shapiro.
It all started when Gwendolyn served a soup starter with dessert spoons. Beatrice said it was beastly of us to draw attention to it in front of Piers, then the claws came out.
Ok you misrepresented what Bret did and went through. You can disagree with his views but he wasn’t defending an attack on whiteness.
they sound like SNL doing NPR
6:23 Sam....once again, you're not really listening; Bret literally never says "there are 2 types of people: those who go along to get that power and people like _us_ who are so wedded to the truth..." this, again, is just another example of you twisting someone's words to fit your preconceived impression of the type of person they are because ironically it's actually YOU who are divisively defining people purely through a sociopolitical binary (you're proving his point by overtly projecting this without even realizing it); what Bret was saying is that those who resist popular opinion are doing it for likely _one of two reasons_ : either they see how it'll ultimately only benefit them in the short-term or they're, as he puts it, 'sticklers of the truth'" -- thats not the same as saying "there's either one of two groups".... that was you
edit: just wanna note that I'm not criticizing sam to defend Dave Rubin; when it comes to Rubin, he's right on the money; it's just that Sam sometimes doesn't see when he's being just as ideologically narrow-minded
Do you understand what 'paraphrasing' is? That's effectively what Bret was describing.
@@rsnowden0524 but it wasn't; he wasn't making a broad distinction between two opposing sides of the issue (what sam described); he was stating 2 probable reasons why someone would reject that kind of mentality
That is not a couple I wanna be invited to have dinner with holy shit who has this type of conversation this seriously with THEIR SPOUSE!
I am not coming back to listen to this nonsense.
No one cares
The reason these two can't seem to grasp what Bret and Heather are discussing is that they are what Bret and Heather are discussing.
Exactly
Another comment that nails it. It's strange how high school this is. Two cackling idiots and nothing of substance said even by accident.
So glad your critiquing this guy. He is so pompous and smug is sickening. Just watched his latest episode in which he interviewed Matt Tahibi (great author). I was lost most of the time as Weintein spoke vaguely about whatever. Always with this superior tone and often correcting Tahibi on his opinion. Super pompous.
I've never heard much from him, though I saw his video criticising Crowder for his continuous homophobia.
I thought it was a fantastic interview. They corrected each other. I saw it totally different from you.
@@Competitive_Antagonist Weinstein is definitely a progressive.
Sam "so what they're saying is" Seder
Very Cathy Newman indeed
This is kind of my first exposure to Sam and I found him to be intentionally dishonest about some stuff. Davd Rubin is a lightweight, but Sam isn't completely honest either so... 🤷
Ugh, this is a horrible take by Sam. Its obvious he doesnt understand what Bret is talking about.
I'm so here for Sam's strong trolling game.
*psychotic trolling game
*strong dicking game
Eh. In this case, it seems like he's straining to not understand what they're saying.
All of Sam's content is about mocking people who actually produce content.
Try actually watching the show, these are just segments.
Look, even fans of the Weinsteins have our criticisms of them, but this is just pathetic. I don't believe Sam is so dense as to completely misunderstand Bret's point like this - which means he must be deliberately and grossly misrepresenting him. In other words, Sam is probably being a shill.
Anyone wanting to actually learn Bret, Heather, and Eric's POV should just listen to their podcasts and interviews, and draw their own conclusions.
I do, they are all leagues above Sam intellect wise lol
Perfectly put. This was embarrassing
It's reassuring that so many comments about Sam Seder are negative, even on his own channel. Even people inclined to agree with him see how unfair and dishonest he and his clique can be.
he's far more honest than the Dave or this other asshole.
Seder just comes off as such a disingenuous weasel.
Im a big fan of the majority report and I don’t follow Weinstein but you summarized the evergreen state college situation very poorly.
As in they don’t have a clue what the hell they are talking about, seriously they need to do some research before they criticize people like Bret. Bret seems like a very stand up person that would be worth listening to more.
I was enrolled at TESC Evergreen the semester before that whole situation developed in the spring. Although I didn't know this faculty member personally, I was familiar with the students that were involved and followed what was going on somewhat closely. Definitely summarized very poorly.
Agree
Yeah, its sad because TESC vs Bret was a lot like NBC vs Sam.
I'm a simple man, I see Sam inserting himself in drama and I like. Sam rules
That is a fair assessment lol
Um, Weinstein is making sense. I don't see any valid criticism from Sam.
Sam "pause it" Seder
Rest In Power Michael Brooks.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Bret Weinstein's thing seems to be "ignore the police violence and Trump disappearing people, some students at Evergreen acted the fool in 2017". I get it, he lost his job, but there are a bunch of things that are way more important going on right now.
Actually, it's not. He's supportive of the protests and of their rationale, and hopes that it will lead to police reform.
He however refuses to condone the riots and looting, and is very worried about how the protests also empower certain factions of leftist politics that he considers are misguided, delusional and ultimately dangerous, such as calls to eradicate the police altogether, and this latter thing is what is informed by his being directly in the crosshairs of these people in the past.
Sam actually says this is from the fun half of the show where they simply mock people for their specious arguments and don't spend much time dissecting them, yet Weinstein bros in the comment are still whining about just that
Ugh. The condescension and dismissiveness. The ignorance of the importance of what happened at Evergreen. The authenticity of Eric Weinstein's arrogance and concern versus this guy's performative gotcha gossipy arrogance.
It reminds me of a joke on a late night show when social media first announced that they would serve as a news source. The punch line was that the lead story would be discussing why their friends were being mean to one another.
Sam openly admits he’s mocking these people in this video. Weinstein happens to be a pretty decent guy. It’s very clear Sam hasn’t heard many of his recent talks and ideas and it shows. I think Sam would find they agree on a lot more issues than he realises. Rather than sit in the corner of your living room Sam, and spout bollocks by mocking people like bullies used to do at school. Try getting these people on your show and have constructive conversations. I’m a centre lefty, and I’ve started to realise channels like yours are EXTREMELY counter productive to what you stand for. People are fucking tired of mockery and mud slinging. Stop this dumb format and maybe just have a chat with these people and actually make some progress. Honestly man, I’m tired of this stuff. Check out the channel rising to see how easy it is to talk to people across the table.
Seconded
Yes, this video seemed disjointed logically to me. He plays the clip (twice) where the two (gasp) academics say that Rubin is a charlatan, for seeming to change his ideology to fit the paycheck (which Sam has said explicitly a number of times) and then mocking them for going on Rubin's show after the Evergreen debacle. He wasn't IDW or even known until he asked to stay on campus and teach on "the day without white people". I was a professor and I am now a teacher, and if my school asked me not to teach and leave because of my skin color, I would raise holy hell. Not because I am a racist, but for precisely the opposite reason.
Ad homs are pretty reasonable to do to people who talk outta there ass like Dave Rubin and Weinstein do lol
@Hiro Takkan lol much easier to attack formatting then actual ideas eh?
@Hiro Takkan thanks for criticising my dyslexia and not my idea.
Sam is right on about Rubin. But his characterization on what happened at Evergreen is way off. It is much more complex than that and fucked up what happened at that school. I also think that his reading of the Weinstein brothers is way off. I believe he is misrepresenting their views because when I listen to them you see the full context in which some things they say are being said. And I think that you don't have to spend a lot of time listening to them to get this impression. The fact that Sam does not seem to truly understand their positions, seems to me that he hasn't put the effort into actually listening them to find out what they are really about.
Sam automatically stigmatizes anything related to the IDW, which I can totally understand. But you're right, it's unproductive.
@@resir9807 I don't know the guys but that skit was indeed hilarious and did not bode well as to their skills .
The dialog was very obviously so thickly scripted that its vacuity made for a staggering anticlimax .
Pray tell, what *really* happened at evergreen? Because of you’re about to tell me that it’s an example of college campus cancel culture, I can tell you right now: it really wasn’t.
P.S. extra points for using the classic “out of context” get-out-of-jail-free card there, bucko!
@@hughtubecube why are you so antagonistic?
@@ingridschmid1709 I'm not defending it
Eric is the funniest of them all. Dude is living out some kind of rogue/renegade/rebel hyper-intelligent underground physics professor who's sticking it up to the man.
Lol no he’s just a wrong dork with a podcast
Leftist Human so what would be a "right" dork?
You open this segment with a gross mischaracterization of his character and what happened at Evergreen.
Very true. Sad.
To be fair The day of absence was stupid.
@@forky3525 I'd be genuinely curious to hear what you identify are his alt-right positions?
@@forky3525 " alt-right curious provocateur." you on crack?
It's amazing how perfectly Sam embodies what Bret's talking about with people who play fast and loose with the truth for the sake of, as Sam so aptly puts it, "clout." None of his specific speculations here map onto anything except a misinformed caricature of Bret and Eric Weinstein. I'm not some huge fanboy of theirs come here to defend them. They make some good points sometimes, and they say some silly things, and they're more pretentious than is merited. I could go on all day with specific criticisms of either of them, but Sam is only ever inclined to quickly rattling off insulting mischaracterizations masquerading as "summaries" of their points of view, and lazy speculations about their motives. Sam is either too stupid to come up with a fairer reading, or he just doesn't really care about how fair he is because he thinks that they're wrong in the end (and can therefore be dismissed, smeared and ridiculed without regard to the merits or truth of that smearing and ridicule.) And then, because most of the audience has been taught to subsist on dunks alone, they cheer this along, and Sam's clout goes up amongst a certain crowd of wannabe intellectuals.
RIP MB.
Yep, it couldn't be said any better. Haven't heard anything from Brett in well over a year but instantly understood what he was saying and it was immediately obviously that Seder's response was a canonical example of what he was criticizing. Seder sees it as a full time job to trash any member of the IDW and no lie or misrepresentation is too far in that regard.
@bongo155 then how are you any different from "Trump supporters"?
@bongo155 that's a pretty stupid thing to say. were you dropped on your head as a baby?
It's amazing that Seder, the ultimate RUclips- and media-only individual, would characterize Brett and Eric Weinstein as only caring about RUclips clicks. You guys are amazing.
Eric Wenstein is primarily a finance guys with Thiel capital, nothing to do with YT, and secondarily, his other main schtick is that he is one of the two or three genius math and physics guys who is developing a theoretical physics solution to some fundamental epistemological issues, that is actually a serious thing, not a crackpot theory. And thirdly, he gets involved in the podcast world too.
Brett Weisntein was a biology researcher, who has spent a large percentage of his life in the amazon rain forest, actually studying biodiversity in the field, taking his students from Evergreen there year-in-year out to make them good biologists -- until, that is, he got run out of his university under threat of violence from social and gender studies students (not his own students) because he didn't want to be told as a white person that he had to leave the campus so that black people could come in and be there on their own. You can argue the merits of his position all you like, but cheering on his being run out of his job by violent mobs because he stood against what he saw as a racist policy, says more about your character flaws than about his.
These are the two people that Seder and Konst here characterize as having a life centered around RUclips and clicks.
The level of ignorance and delusional self-agrandizement displayed here is quite stunning.
Tu quoque fallacy. But on Bret: He published TWO academic papers his entire career and was teaching at a third-rate, obscure state college. He was not threatened with violence, as he explained in his testimony to Congress (and which can be seen in the many videos of the event). The "violent mobs" depiction is total fucking bullshit. And he wasn't told to leave campus -- he was invited to stay away for one day for the observance (paid day off). You are parroting the right-wing reinterpretation of this event, not the actual event.
@@aecnqewimnazxclwdxl First he privately objected to the invitation to leave. THEN he was told to leave.
@@aecnqewimnazxclwdxl Ha! Tu quoque fallacy!
Pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it means. If I detail why Sam's characterization is utter nonsense, and then apply the "pot-kettle-black" disparaging conclusion, this a tu quoque fallacy it ain't...
As for the details, violent mobs were running around the campus with baseball bats, people did get beat up. You know that these Evergreen events didn't just last the duration of the probably single video of Weisntein that you have seen, where the mob of students are coming to shout at him to resign in his face, right? It lasted for weeks, and there were many distinct events.
If Weisntein wasn't actually directly a victim of violence, it's because he remained away from campus, under threat of violence.
But nothing that I say will even prompt you to go and get a clue, because you have made up your mind on the basis of your pre-established biases. You don't want to understand this event, because it conflicts too much with your comfort zone. Ergo: you won't.
@@aecnqewimnazxclwdxl Oh, by the way, I forgot: do you realize how much of a terrible petty judgmental individual you sound like when you say "he published two papers and taught at a third rate college"? This is a person who decided, out of lack of traditional careerist ambition, to teach at a progressive college with a majority disadvantaged student population, who earlier left U-Penn for being harassed after calling out harassment of women at frat parties, and who refused to play the academic research game (if you don't know the issues with academic research, then that's a too-long conversation) and instead put value on teaching people who would really benefit from hands-on scientific education.
It's really amazing how it appears that some people, like you it seems, will utterly abandon all their progressive principles the minute their intellectual comfort zone is threatened by conflicting information.
@@vfwh First, you're not following the tu quoque problem: You're suggesting Sam Seder is a hypocrite for pursuing "clicks," and therefore his argument about Brett W. is false/ignorable. That is definitionally a tu quoque fallacy; Sam's perceived hypocrisy is wholly unrelated to the validity of his criticism of Weinstein.
Second, point me to the "distinct" events where people got beat up at Evergreen. I'm not suggesting there was no wrongdoing at all on the part of students, I am saying that Weinstein was never in real danger and any claim to the contrary is false (your argument here borders on "moving the goalposts," btw). And he attended several student meetings on campus and was confronted by students outside of his classroom, so students had a chance to harm him if they wanted (videos online).
Third, my criticism to Weinstein's academic record is relevant to your claim that "Brett Weisntein was a biology researcher." Researchers publish, Weinstein does not.
And finally, your claim that I am not listening to you is also nonsense -- I am going through step-by-step and pointing out why your arguments are invalid and unsound. People who are unmoved by reason are the same folks who tend to commit repeated fallacies in the presentation of their arguments. So you might want to check the mirror.
Wow. I've watched a bit of Sam, and he can be quite smart, but I'm seeing how cynical he is. Brett is much more humble than Eric and power or clout is not what he's seeking. He never would have made a career at Evergreen if that was the case. He was forced into this by being hunted off that campus by a woke mob, quite literally. The righteous warrior fights reluctantly. I don't see that reluctance in Sam.
Brett being humble is kinda odd considering he tried to sue a college for $3.8 million on account of his own stupidity.
@@XxATMachinexX His own stupidity?
LOL
The Josephine theyre referring to is a former anti-SJW rightist YTer who has realized how fucking stupid those ideas are, and now espoused center-left beliefs. She seems genuine. Bret, for once, isnt saying anything worth making fun of here imo
Sam didn’t know Bretts back story. Didn’t know his wife’s name or anything about the podcast but feels justified laughing at names he doesn’t recognise.
This is a pathetic hit piece and I’m normally a fan.
They're making fun of the fact that the Weinsteins have turned on Rubin, and they gave no specifics for why they're turning on him.
Joe Monaghan don’t let Sam fool ya.
Jon M
Sam and co could have done the bare minimum work of looking up the names Brett mentioned. This makes them look like assholes at a time when the Weinsteins just made assholes out of themselves. Its like we're back to square one.
She asks, do you think intelligence and attention to detail have anything to do peoples ploitical choices? Like shes never met a Trump voter.
kek, a lot of Wesinstein fans in the comments
Deluded by the brothers' ability to spout off random tidbits of knaawwlidge
I like Bret and Heather so far, had to drop Eric, and Rubin is just lost... I think Sam is wrong about non-sequiturs.. it follows from the questioner being concerned about peers to analyze their social strategies... I mean, it makes sense and explains some of the Dave Rubin nonsense with echo-chambers...
Me too. I don’t know what it is but I don’t like Eric these days. I find him very annoying and seems like he’s trying really hard to be cool or appear so relatable but still acting like he knows more than anyone else on every subject. I still think he’s exceptionally intelligent but he annoys me these days.
Sam starts this clip from a really indefensible position and that it one of not understanding the subject matter "that evergreen 'thing'. I don't have any problem with an alternative view but you have to understand the subject first. I've noticed that Sam does this a lot. Has strong opinions without understanding the detail. It's a real turn off for me and I'm looking for another viewpoint on this stuff. As this appears to be a running issue with Sam I will have to look elsewhere
Meh, it’s not the main point. Whinestiens a shill and it’s so obvious
Yeah he just accused them of a non sequitur and then just did it himself. Classic politcal strategy there.
@Jacob Strom Kyle Kulinski does the same, ..youll notice...jimmy dore and tim pool
OMG do I have to fully read the Quran as well to be able to talk about how stupid someone's ideas AS DIRECTLY PRESENTED are? To hell with your stupid pet Evergreen THING. Weinstein's followers sound like Jordan Peterson followers, who also tell me I must read at least 5 of his books to "truly" worsh..."understand" him.
@@letsomethingshine yes actually. If you're going to critique something you need to know a bit about it. Sam doesn't seem to know a great deal about anything that doesn't back up his opinion. Everything else is either vague or is dismissed. He doesn't come across as very intelligent tbh
Is Sam Seder going to realize that he is the left version of Dave Rubin?
Idiot
The Weinstein's complain about publishing and peer review and yet neither of them have done any publishing. Eric thinks Brett should have won a Nobel Prize. These guys are so self-referential. They don't really talk about any other idea other than the ideas of the other IDW people.
`
Lady Garden well said
kinda true, tho Brett has published 3 papers and given talks and lectures. Eric has definitely published math-based theories outside of academic institutions (they do seem kinda "kooky", maybe I'm just too stupid tho)
Do people actually watch their podcast? What an absolute SNOOZE. Why does Heather talk like she's on npr after being karate chopped in the windpipe?
They get more views than this channel.
@@barrysmit5181 I guess people are desperate to find audio to fall asleep to.
@@barrysmit5181 Okay Bret.
A rough Google of the things you're gonna talk about wouldn't hurt. Isn't this your job?
Clearly their job is shoveling horse shit into the greedy maws of their braindead audience.
I’ve literally never heard of _these_ Weinsteins until last week.
Congratulations? You should watch them. I could recommend video if you're intrested
This felt like watching Fox News.
I know Sam has good political commentary and insight. Missed it here sadly.
What’s truly sad is there’s someone on the right doing the exact same thing and straw manning progressive arguments, and sadly convincing their viewers that there is nothing of sense or that’s worth hearing from the other side.
Yee I agree 100% what Sam has made me realize is the left has legitimate arguments, but his inability to give any credence to the threat of cancel culture and legitimate populist movements on the right is a blind spot for him.
I'm a huge Chomsky fan. I'm just gonna throw this out there. I feel like Sam ultimately follows the same perspective of being more critical of America because that is a) something he has some element of control over and b) hypocrisy is a big deal. Where I really feel they diverge is that Chomsky will be equally critical of the left whereas Sam seems to be operating under a bigotry of low expectations. This is, really, the only fundamental issue I have with Sam. Unfortunately, it is a really big one for me.
@@JS-ok4dx Yes, and Seder acknowledging the threat would require that he change his ways. Seder believes that constant mocking and ridicule is a good approach to every topic on his show. It is for unserious opponents like Rubin and Shapiro, but it's not helpful for real issues. Seder is capable of making great arguments, so it's particularly sad to see video clips like this one.
@@craigsj agreed
@@JS-ok4dx
"legitimate populist movements on the right"???? please identify them for us.
Mock these pseudo-intellectuals and charlatans as much as you can. Excellent job Sam.
I don't see why they're charlatans. They're a bit pretentious, especially with "IDW", but I don't get the hate.
@@souljaboyisbad Because they pretend to be on the left and do nothing but bashing the left; they either do not or refuse to see problematic things spouting by the right.
No offense but what he was saying flew right over your head...watching you talk about this was painful