Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • TMBS_69_Postgame.mp3

Missing 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

At a certain point you have to respect Jordan Peterson's commitment to making the cash money. 

Sam Harris edits out an expert on white nationalism to protect his hate mongering friends

Steven Pinker is hawking the most tired third-way nonsense. 

Jeremy Corbyn makes a motion of no confidence against Theresa May. 

We talk about how criticizing Israel is punished in this country. 

Comments

Hampus Bystrom

I used to be on this "civility is bullshit" spiel, because liberals are so annoying and can't accomplish anything with it. Politics is not about consensus, it's about disagreements and building power to push one's agenda through, as well as building a coalition to figure out what "our" agenda is in the first place. But I now wonder. It's obvious that it has come back to bite a lot of people on the left in the ass, in that many people on the left can't disagree with eachother in solidarity and assume good faith. We've all seen the fucking tiresome twitter pile-ons or Facebook comment section nonsense from people on the left. This inability to discuss or make an argument, and just resort to name-calling is hurting intra-left debates, like saying that Angela Nagle only wrote that article about borders because she's a secret "fash" or whatever the fuck. I don't care what you think about that article, I thought it was pretty badly argued, but there's just no evidence from that article that she's a "fascist". Fuck off, it's pretty much a standard european social democratic union position. It might be wrong, but it's not fascist. This cycle is just so tiresome on the left, and unfortunately I think it might be at least partly a function of the left not taking arguments and disagreements seriously. They can be rooted in actual issues, rather than just moral posturing.