Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Full Video: Responding to the Right (Patreon)

Published:
2023-02-20 15:47:42
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Full video for patrons only - B

Files

Previews only

Responding to the Right (w/ Nathan J. Robinson) - FULL VIDEO

This week, Briahna got the help of Nathan J. Robinson, Editor in Chief of Current Affairs Magazine and author of new book, Responding to the Right, Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments, to push back against common right-leaning arguments t hat have emerged in the wake of the East Palestine train derailment and other current events. Is the regulators' failures proof that government is corrupt and w'ere better with out it? Also, should AOC debate Majorie Taylor Greene, and if so, how would Nathan prep her? Should Briahna debate Ben Shaprio? And if yes, what would hep her reach the best result for the left? Also, what's the libertarian socialist take on covid vaccines?

Comments

Anonymous

When someone says govt is the solution, not the problem, retorting "What about when your house is on fire," is a gotcha that could make them feel stupid. An alternative is to ask: "Are there any govt functions you think are worthwhile and would like to hang on or are you of the mind that we should do away with govt altogether?" This will prompt ther person to realize for themsleves that they enjoy at least some govt benefits. (Although I once had a conversation with an extreme libertarian who insisted that he would rather make do w/out roads and sewers, he said he and his neighbors could band together and create infrastructure for themselves).

Anonymous

Bri can say to Robbie that, in her view, when a tort case has reached the courts, that's a sign of failure. The public is better protected by preventing harm through regulation, not penalizing it years later. THe courts traffic in societal failure.

Anonymous

Sorry, I've been on a bender lol, I'll stop now. Great episode that provoked a lot of ideas for me.

Anonymous

I always found Nathan very unlikeable, but I have to say, he restored my faith quite a bit in this conversation....

Anonymous

He's so just insanely wrong about the vaccines. Like most of the actual supposed“real left”, he has lost this debate, refuses to admit it, and therefore discredits damn near everything else he has to say. I honestly thought the vaccine mandate issue was going to be one he refused to defend, but once you qualify that you will supposedly not defend bad policy and then proceed to defend it... There's is 100% objective, quality data that the vaccines: A.) do not provide sterilizing (or anything close to it) population immunity. B.) do not provide a better immunity than previous covid infection. That’s it. There is absolutely no justification for mandating covid vaccines, particularly for folks who can prove a prior covid infection, and any attempt to frame it as legitimate is complete and total horseshit. It’s not a “freedom” thing, it’s a basic fucking logic thing. If you cant acknowledge that vaccine mandates are completely and totally inappropriate when it comes to covid, you can apply that to literally any nanny-argument for denying essential rights based on personal health choices (like being fat, smoking, transgender in the military, anything). We live in a country where employment = HEALTH INSURANCE for most people. He can fuck right off, and I’m not even “the right”. Ps. Disregard deleted post. Nothing different, I am just a patreon noob on edits.

Anonymous

Gotta push back; Legislators are very reactive with policy IMO

Anonymous
>>102451580

This section really made it clear to me how strongly I disagree with Nathan philosophically. His implicit position that showing how any individual's behavior has any effect on others is all the justification needed for government to regulate that individual behavior is precisely the type of authoritarian nonsense that Fox News tells its viewers is what all lefties believe in

Anonymous

Wasn’t this the guy that attacked Krystal Ball for hosting a show featuring a left POV (Krystal) and a right POV (Sagar)? PUH-LEASE.

Anonymous

I loved it until the vaccine subject. Thank you, Bri,for presenting logic. I don’t think you were trying to debate him with that one but there, he did in-fact, lose.

Cclear
>>102451580

Please post the peer reviewed studies that back up your claims

Cclear

Loved the episode. Nathan did a great job. It felt like a throwback to a time when right wingers were the enemy, not the shitlibs. I think we need an episode on how to debate shitlibs too

Anonymous
>>102451580

First, that's not how a justification for mandates works, it's the opposite. Those justifying a mandate are the ones who need to prove the vaccines either DO provide sterilizing immunity (which everyone at this point- doctors, covid vaccine manufacturers, as well as all the quadruple vaxed-subsequently-infected persons- agree that they absolutely do not) or demonstrate significantly better transmission protection than being previously infected. As to the latter- whether vaccines provide better immunity than prior infection- anyone who believes in the value of vaccines should be able to easily concede that they don’t. The purpose of a vaccine is to provide similar protection/immune response to what happens if you recover from a live virus, and that’s *why* they work at all. Also, no government mandate that’s ever stood up to courts has ever required those with natural immunity to be redundantly vaccinated (smallpox, measles, etc), in part, because those vaccines and prior infection BOTH provide sterilizing (or near to it) immunity.

Anonymous
>>102451580

Though, if I take your question is actually good faith, since Nathan seemed to concede that if he believed they weren’t better he’d agree, here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext is a peer reviewed meta-analysis of 65 studies showing that prior infection is just as good “if not better” than being fully immunized against covid. It’s both stronger initially and wanes more slowly than the vaccines. Before you jump to the point of, “yeah, that’s because they don’t show hybrid immunity! Those with both shots AND infection have the strongest immunity…” so what? The question is not whether one gets stronger temporary immunity from repeated jabs, or repeated infections, or a combination of both. The question is whether a person who’s never had covid but is up to date on vaccines is less likely to transmit the virus, and therefore more entitled to WORK, than someone who is unvaccinated but can prove a “same time frame” prior covid infection. The answer to that is a resounding no. Just as you wouldn’t require someone who had vaccines to then expose themselves to covid and “gain stronger hybrid immunity” you can’t require someone with GREATER baseline protection to additionally boost it just because it’s “better” for a limited window of time. If you go there, you can damn sure require people to make lifestyle changes to reduce their risk of infection too, and fire all the sick/fat people until they improve their immunity and stop burdening the healthcare system as well. That’s “objectively beneficial” too, and even less risk than vaccinating all the young and healthy working people who already had covid. Oh wait… you wouldn’t do that because that’s insane. If you can’t work, you can’t have healthcare in this country. To leverage that over some additional temporary benefit to people who can already prove they have limited risk of covid and just as good immunity as a regular vax-only person, is nothing less than fascistic and authoritarian. “Right wing” if you will.

Gee Zee
>>102419474

Exactly this. There is a book called ‘A Manual for Creating Atheists’ by Peter Boghossian that basically gives step by step instructions on how to argue with theists through the Socratic method but could easily be used in the realm of politics. Anthony Magnabosco has pod called ‘street epistemology’ where he stands at college campuses or in parks and challenges peoples deeply held beliefs whether they religious in nature or not. He does it very calmly and just by asking questions. Its real interesting

Anonymous

Cclear: Yes. Also, a logic fail in Briahnna’s point: Even if getting the virus did produce an immune state as good as any other, one has to contract the virus to get that immunity, and in doing so one imposes a higher risk of infection on others, whereas in getting the vaccine one imposes no higher risk on others. Choosing higher infection risk for oneself innately imposes higher infection risk on others. One may think that one has a right to do that, but if so, _that_ is the claim one is defending — not that one’s choice does not affect others so is none of their business.

Anonymous

A thought: I felt a shudder go through me when Rogan was labelled as a good host. Yes, approaching conversation with more curiosity and questions than answers is a skillful and effective communication choice. I think that’s generally the best way to increase perceptual accuracy. However, what about when you have guests saying dangerous untruths presented as irrefutable fact and the host doesn’t know enough to question it with any legitimacy? Coupled with a diminished level of critical discernment from general audiences, it seems to me folks like Bri are better suited to the task, at least knowing enough to say, “that is false” when needed. Otherwise the podcast seems to be more like a megaphone for ignorance rather than a platform for meaningful discussion. My bias certainly affects my perspective here, but does anyone else share the sentiment?