yawn

No, distracting from the root issue by deflecting the blame to one side definitely gets in the way of that.

If you would you really like help with examples of the American right demonizing or attempting to suppress opposing opinions, I'll do that but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt before spitting a list at you.

No. Give me an example of right wingers using guilt via association to smear other right wingers for talking to a "problematic" leftist

Cause that's specifically what I'm talking about on the left. That's what I was referring to as mccarthyist.

The left has a unique way of “shutting down” voices they don’t like therefore it’s useful to talk about this problem in isolation.

Ah, when you were referring to them as McCarthyist, I thought that you were referring to

Can you give me some examples of what the right views as problematic leftists?

I could see a conservative uproar if some high ranking conservative interviewed this guy without challenging any of his points or criticizing him. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/ed...226810084.html

That quote was literally a rewording of what I just said, lol

And in the case of Rogan he's not even a high ranking leftist he's just a guy with a podcast that the left deems "problematic" cause he's had right wing guests on and he has a large, mostly young audience.

That's fair. I think the difference is just that they're successful with their attempts nowadays.

Apart from moving the goalposts to only include interparty smearing. But ja, I misread it as just "categorize anyone they disagree with as the enemy" lol.

Are you sure that it isn't because he high fives basically anything that's said on his show which includes blatant propaganda?

I didn't move the goal posts, you just misread.



No, it's because they felt too many of those high fives were going to right wing instead of left wing propaganda.

They've done nothing but fawn over his recent softball interviews of left wingers.

Poor word choice, goal post moving, same difference.

You're right, They did do all of that.

I like Rogan. Gives everyone a chance to be themselves, whether that's uber capitalists like Musk or guys like Sanders and Yang.

Thomas Sowell probably.

So now you're blaming me for you misreading my post. Brilliant.

From moving the goalposts to strawmanning, smh

You literally just went from " oh I misread x as y" to "you're moving the goal posts via poor wording."

I personally wouldn't double down on the strawman.

Initial post said that anyone who talks to anyone that leftists disagree with are vilified. Then you asked for an example of right wingers vilifying right wingers for talking to someone they disagree with. Interparty smearing is a fold of "anyone", but that wasn't made clear until later. So yes, poor wording is at play.

That should clear it up but let's try to get at least another page out of this.

You just said on the last page you misread it as "categorize anyone they disagree with as the enemy." That's clearly just you missing a few words rather than me being unclear.



Now you're changing your story yet again

Sorry for moving the goal posts lol

Sometimes two things are true at the same time.

George Will?

It's not about their credentials either. He could have hack leftists on all day and not raise an eyebrow. It's a strategic thing where certain elements of the left resent the success of guys like Peterson and they hold people like Rogan accountable for "giving him a platform."

Is it possible you just don't grasp the basic concept of moral outrage?

I believe I understand the concept. I think what you are actually trying to accuse me of is not having morals.

More like accusing you of being so numb and depersonalized that they don't function properly.

Coming from either of us that’s pretty rich.

Tell me though, specifically, why is talking to Jordan Peterson worth moral outrage?

I'm keeping it specific for the sake of simplicity

Because he won’t call a boy a girl.

He actually will though.

Agreed, but even if our wires are crossed or frayed they still spark.

**** your specificity. You always attribute leftists attacking anyone for any moral reason as being about something else and at some point it just looks like you assuming that you can't possibly be a big enough douche to not really grasp what other people are so bothered about.

He didn't specifically misgender anyone

I never minded Peterson personally, but Crowder and Shapiro are trash. Not that I've been outraged over them being on his podcast. They do spread dangerous misinformation though so I prefer we don't legitimize them with a platform.

you're getting vague yet combative.

My pronouns are I & I.

I'd say it's more about the glib way he dances around being a social conservative by not really saying anything of substance besides his most basic concepts like "young men are lost" or "clean your room" or "hierarchies exist in nature". It gets pretty gross the way he doesn't even take responsibility for what he implies.

I don't really care for them either but they aren't fringe enough to black list

I mean if he was interviewing Richard Spencer with soft balls that's one thing

But slowly but surely pretty much everyone on the right is being deemed untouchable

They're doing it to people who identify center-left too. Look at how guys like Tim Pool are treated.

this is worth moral outrage?

Is that not why you're here?

you can accuse me of a lot of things, but being vague isn't one of them

It's not.

However, in a stage controlled by a fawning talk show host where nothing is challenged, Peterson's presumptive approach to logic can seem reasonable to the impressionable. OH is right that it's not the job of people like Rogan to impart critical thinking on their audience, but they'd be a lot better at their jobs if they did.

In the interviews where he is challenged he did better than he ever did on Rogan lol

Should be boycotting Cathy Newman if anything

I've seen that.