Dave Rubin On The "Regressive Left."

Post Reply New Topic

I haven't watched many of Dave Rubin's content at this point, but this commentary made so much sense. I've been on this page for awhile, now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq86Beh3T70

Can you tell us about what Dave Rubin believes?

He's describes himself as a "classical liberal," but he has embraced libertarian ideals to some degree.

Oh, he sees himself as a spiritual successor to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, I bet.

No, I think he sees himself as someone trying to promote civil discussions between people with a variety of opinions -- some god, some not so good. That's what we need more of these days. Unfortunately, he has been demonized by the left, which goes a long to prove his points.

Well, I hear he has had a lot of alt-right and "racialist" people on. I heard he called Tommy Robinson "extremely moderate" even though Robinson was the leader of a far-right English group that was known to engage in violence. I also heard he failed to challenge a 19th-century-style racist named Stephan Molyneux, whom he had on his show, on his belief that black people have smaller brains.

So yes, it appears he likes to bring aboard various viewpoints, including some very fringe ones.

Very good analysis, beneficii. Rubin is an extremist who pretends to be a moderate in order to give himself an air of credibility, while allying with and praising open racists and denigrating liberalism and progressivism. He is not a liberal, a moderate, or a progressive; his go-to example of his supposed "liberal view" is his support for healthcare, which isn't a socially progressive view, just a left-wing one (and deeply incompatible with classic liberalism).

I'm pleased to see more and more people thinking critically and seeing through this anti-intellectual charlatan. He has nothing to offer except serving as an example of how racists like to try and market themselves to the easily-impressed.

That's a good thing, as opposed to just gathering in mobs and shouting slogans so they can't be heard. The only antidote to speech with which you disagree is more speech.

As far as Stephan Molyneux is concerned, he has talked about the IQ inequality between races, which certainly is a touchy subject for obvious reasons. I haven't watched that particular episode, so I can't comment on it.

It's obvious you haven't actually watched his content; rather you're just parroting a received opinion. If you had, you would realize he is not attacking progressive views or liberalism. He is attacking what the left has become. You perception is such because you are stuck in the left/right paradigm with no apparent regret.

What has the left "become"?

I don't need a stranger in a YouLube video to tell me how bad "The Left" OR "The Right" may be.

They've become intolerant of any other opinions. It's, "Think like we do, or we'll shut you down, marginalize you, and bully you."

I posted the video because I agreed with his commentary. Do I agree with everything he says? Hell, no! There's nobody with whom I agree 100%.

What I see happening is that people like Rubin are being smeared for allowing opinions of all sort. The same thing has happened to Joe Rogan, who has quite a number of political figures from the right on his podcast. It's alright to debate opinions, but it's another thing altogether to try to silence them, and demonize anyone who gives them a platform.

But demonizing is expressing an opinion, right?

Well if they allow pro racist or white supremacism then that is understandable.

That said I have not followed either of those individuals so I don't know what all they say, or what is talked about on their content or if that is the case. I'd have to delve more into it I suppose. If they don't draw the line at that kind of thing however, then I would not want to hear anything else they have to say.

Sure. But there have been a lot of people wrongfully labeled racists, bigots, transphobes, etc. Jordan Petterson is a prime example. He gained notoriety a few years ago by speaking out against a piece of proposed Canadian legislation that would mandate the use of preferred pronouns when referring to transgender people. He was called "alt-right" and transphobic which is absolutely preposterous. He was simply against the bill because compelled speech is an assault on freedom of speech. I agreed with him on that topic-- and I disagree with him on many others.

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.