Dave Rubin On The "Regressive Left."

Post Reply New Topic

You are projecting.

Firstly, I am not concerned about the left/right paradigm. I am not American, I live in a country with multipolar politics. I am not a leftist or a rightist, I am a proud liberal - and that's why both the left and the right hate me!

Secondly, Rubin does not care about "the left". When he talks about "the left" he does not talk about socialism. Again, he actually has quite a positive view of socialism. No, when Rubin attacks "the left", he is attacking the liberals and progressives who stand up to the regressives like him. Well Dave, that's the issue - we're not regressive leftists like you. We don't want to support racists and sexists as long as they support free healthcare. We're progressives who want a market economy AND equality.

Nothing about being a leftist makes you a tolerant, progressive, liberal person. Josef Stalin was a leftist. Kim Jong-Un is a leftist. Of course, there are tolerant, progressive, and even liberal leftists, but progressivism is not an inherently left-wing philosophy. Nor is liberalism. There are right-wing progressives (Theresa May and Angela Merkel for example) and there are certainly right-wing liberals. And those are the people who Dave Rubin goes after. He doesn't attack people for wanting to tax the heck out of you or control how you spend your money, he attacks people for supporting tolerance and diversity. He doesn't praise people for advocating business-friendly policies, he praises people for being disliked by progressives, liberals, and moderates. His opposition is not to leftism, it is to progressivism. He doesn't declare his support for Jo Swinson and Paul Ryan, he declares support for Tommy Robinson, Lauren Southern, and Stefan Molyneux.

And while I appreciate that it "the best antidote to bad speech is more speech" has a huge attraction to it - I desperately want it to be true - it's neither true, nor what Rubin facilitates. Providing a platform to extremist views mostly serves to normalise them. Still, giving someone a platform in good faith in order to tear them down wouldn't suggest that you support them. But again, that isn't what Rubin does. He offers up a token straw opposition, then praises his guest. If I may generalise:

Rubin: "Some idiots on the regressive left say that you have said racist things. Are they right?"
Hitler: "All my views are fair and reasonable. It's understandable that the left would want to silence me as I am simply too rational for them and they have no answer to me. Anyway, I support nationalising industry so clearly I am left wing."
Rubin: "I agree. You are part of the "New Centre Ground" with me. It's great to hang out with a fellow moderate, progressive, classic liberal."

Now obviously my example here is particularly ridiculous, and I don't intend for you to take it literally, but this is illustrative of Rubin's actual "debating" style. He doesn't take apart his opponents unless they are progressive (which is rare - there is very little ideological diversity amongst Rubin's guests). He acquiesces very easily. He even supports them. These are not the actions of a disinterested, neutral commentator simply trying to get at the truth. These are the actions of a partisan hack attempting to portray himself as a disinterested, neutral commentator, without doing any of the hard intellectual work that requires. He attempts to silence progressives and liberals while amplifying cultural conservatives and regressives.

Liberalism is not a lazy philosophy. It requires critical thinking, rigorous engagement with ideas, and intense wrestling with conflicting priorities. Rubin doesn't do that. He simply bashes progressivism on sight, attempting to shut down the expression of opinions he doesn't like. He is not a liberal. He is not a moderate. He is not a progressive. He is everything he claims to rail against. He is an intolerant, corrupt leftist who despises progressivism and critical thinking.

You are projecting.

Firstly, I am not concerned about the left/right paradigm. I am not American, I live in a country with multipolar politics. I am not a leftist or a rightist, I am a proud liberal - and that's why both the left and the right hate me!

Secondly, Rubin does not care about "the left". When he talks about "the left" he does not talk about socialism. Again, he actually has quite a positive view of socialism. No, when Rubin attacks "the left", he is attacking the liberals and progressives who stand up to the regressives like him. Well Dave, that's the issue - we're not regressive leftists like you. We don't want to support racists and sexists as long as they support free healthcare. We're progressives who want a market economy AND equality.

Nothing about being a leftist makes you a tolerant, progressive, liberal person. Josef Stalin was a leftist. Kim Jong-Un is a leftist. Of course, there are tolerant, progressive, and even liberal leftists, but progressivism is not an inherently left-wing philosophy. Nor is liberalism. There are right-wing progressives (Theresa May and Angela Merkel for example) and there are certainly right-wing liberals. And those are the people who Dave Rubin goes after. He doesn't attack people for wanting to tax the heck out of you or control how you spend your money, he attacks people for supporting tolerance and diversity. He doesn't praise people for advocating business-friendly policies, he praises people for being disliked by progressives, liberals, and moderates. His opposition is not to leftism, it is to progressivism. He doesn't declare his support for Jo Swinson and Paul Ryan, he declares support for Tommy Robinson, Lauren Southern, and Stefan Molyneux.

And while I appreciate that it "the best antidote to bad speech is more speech" has a huge attraction to it - I desperately want it to be true - it's neither true, nor what Rubin facilitates. Providing a platform to extremist views mostly serves to normalise them. Still, giving someone a platform in good faith in order to tear them down wouldn't suggest that you support them. But again, that isn't what Rubin does. He offers up a token straw opposition, then praises his guest. If I may generalise:

Rubin: "Some idiots on the regressive left say that you have said racist things. Are they right?"
Hitler: "All my views are fair and reasonable. It's understandable that the left would want to silence me as I am simply too rational for them and they have no answer to me. Anyway, I support nationalising industry so clearly I am left wing."
Rubin: "I agree. You are part of the "New Centre Ground" with me. It's great to hang out with a fellow moderate, progressive, classic liberal."

Now obviously my example here is particularly ridiculous, and I don't intend for you to take it literally, but this is illustrative of Rubin's actual "debating" style. He doesn't take apart his opponents unless they are progressive (which is rare - there is very little ideological diversity amongst Rubin's guests). He acquiesces very easily. He even supports them. These are not the actions of a disinterested, neutral commentator simply trying to get at the truth. These are the actions of a partisan hack attempting to portray himself as a disinterested, neutral commentator, without doing any of the hard intellectual work that requires. He attempts to silence progressives and liberals while amplifying cultural conservatives and regressives.

Liberalism is not a lazy philosophy. It requires critical thinking, rigorous engagement with ideas, and intense wrestling with conflicting priorities. Rubin doesn't do that. He simply bashes progressivism on sight, attempting to shut down the expression of opinions he doesn't like. He is not a liberal. He is not a moderate. He is not a progressive. He is everything he claims to rail against. He is an intolerant, corrupt leftist who despises progressivism and critical thinking.

It's one thing to bring a racist on air and challenge them on their racist beliefs. It's quite another to give a big huge platform to a racist, not challenge them, and label opposition to the racist as just the "regressive left" trying to shut the racist down.

What racists do you believe he has had on his show?

Stefan Molyneux, for one.

For the IQ inequality between races, I assume. I don't really want to follow him down the road. Still, I don't believe he's a racist. There is, unfortunately, data to back up his claims. The value of having this discussion escapes me, but I certainly believe he has the right to have these discussion.

What kind of discussion does Dave Rubin hope to have when he's already labelled the opposition to racists like Molyneux as the "regressive left"?

A very good one, actually. It's perfectly fine to debate what Molyneux has to say, but engaging in mob mentality is not fine. I've seen it time and time again, recently, and it's rather disgusting. When you go into a Jordan Petterson lecture and scream slogans in an attempt to silence him...well, I don't know how anyone can support that nonsense. Thankfully, I think more and more people are willing to push back against this mentality, despite the backlash from the left. I'm past giving a crap what anyone thinks of me. I'll think for myself until the day I die, and no amount of group think is going to discourage me.

You focus way too much on a small group of protesters and not enough on all the other people on the left.

In case you aren't aware, Molyneux has already been addressed by many people. If you're just interested in learning, wouldn't you start there?

So basically this is one big tone argument. It doesn't matter what they say, what matters is the tone they have when saying it.

And for what you support about Molyneux that is "non-political", are you talking about the white genocide conspiracy theory or are you talking about him blaming mothers for all the violence in the world*? Perhaps you're talking about him running a cult?

* https://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned ... onference/

No, it's not about tone, it's about intent.

Actually, one Molyeneux's broadcasts that I agreed with was his argument against spanking children. The fact that I even said that I don't disagree with everything people like him and Lauren Southern was to prove a point, which was it's far better to discuss or debate content being presented rather than smear a person's character.