Tucker talks comedy...

[Horace]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Jolly said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Jolly said in Tucker talks comedy...:

As for Putin...Even Jordan Peterson says that Putin is not a psychopath. I don't like him, but I don't think he's the next Hitler.

He doesn't need to be a psychopath. Judas Iscariot wasn't a psychopath either. Let's invite him round for tea and crumpets!

Judas wasn't a psychopath. Petty thief, yes. But there are varying thoughts on why Judas betrayed Jesus, including some who think he was swayed by the arguments of the Sanhedrin.

I think it would be fascinating to have coffee with him...

I think so, too, but the difference is that we all know who and what he is. We're not starting from a standpoint of, "well, Judas and I voted the same, so maybe he was right about that whole 'Christ' misunderstanding..."

There are plenty of other people out there who bring up the relevant issues Tucker does without calling Putin a defender of Christian values. So yeah, he can go fuck himself and I'll listen to those other people instead.

Do you have a link for where he said that? It seems to have made a mark on you that he said it, so I'd like to hear it for myself in context. A google search didn't turn it up.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Jolly said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Jolly said in Tucker talks comedy...:

As for Putin...Even Jordan Peterson says that Putin is not a psychopath. I don't like him, but I don't think he's the next Hitler.

He doesn't need to be a psychopath. Judas Iscariot wasn't a psychopath either. Let's invite him round for tea and crumpets!

Judas wasn't a psychopath. Petty thief, yes. But there are varying thoughts on why Judas betrayed Jesus, including some who think he was swayed by the arguments of the Sanhedrin.

I think it would be fascinating to have coffee with him...

I think so, too, but the difference is that we all know who and what he is. We're not starting from a standpoint of, "well, Judas and I voted the same, so maybe he was right about that whole 'Christ' misunderstanding..."

There are plenty of other people out there who bring up the relevant issues Tucker does without calling Putin a defender of Christian values. So yeah, he can go fuck himself and I'll listen to those other people instead.

Do you have a link for where he said that? It seems to have made a mark on you that he said it, so I'd like to hear it for myself in context. A google search didn't turn it up.

I don't. Phibes might but I've got nothing.

Anyway, I don't have to like the guy and I'm under no obligation to listen to him. If that makes me narrow-minded that's hilarious.

[Renauda]

@Jolly

And something interesting is happening...The polls show a lessening of support for Ukraine. Are all those Americans Putin fanbois?

Probably not because they have no idea or, for that matter, any desire to investigate, why the Western world has coalesced in support of Ukraine against Putin.

On the other hand, some are definitely Putin fanbois. I have met and engaged with some here. Others may simply feel that the current US geriatric POTUS and his administration should not involve the country in a conflict in Europe. I suspect that there are a few in this den forum of iniquity that see it in that light. That is their choice. While I don’t agree with it, I can understand their partisan fear.

[Horace]

Tulsi and Jordan Peterson had a conversation that touched on this. Mostly they ended up talking about why Americans who question the war, get marginalized and dismissed by the mainstream.

Link to video

Of course nobody here would ever jump to any conclusions about a person who questions the war. But unfortunately that attitude does exist elsewhere in American culture.

[Horace]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Jolly said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Jolly said in Tucker talks comedy...:

As for Putin...Even Jordan Peterson says that Putin is not a psychopath. I don't like him, but I don't think he's the next Hitler.

He doesn't need to be a psychopath. Judas Iscariot wasn't a psychopath either. Let's invite him round for tea and crumpets!

Judas wasn't a psychopath. Petty thief, yes. But there are varying thoughts on why Judas betrayed Jesus, including some who think he was swayed by the arguments of the Sanhedrin.

I think it would be fascinating to have coffee with him...

I think so, too, but the difference is that we all know who and what he is. We're not starting from a standpoint of, "well, Judas and I voted the same, so maybe he was right about that whole 'Christ' misunderstanding..."

There are plenty of other people out there who bring up the relevant issues Tucker does without calling Putin a defender of Christian values. So yeah, he can go fuck himself and I'll listen to those other people instead.

Do you have a link for where he said that? It seems to have made a mark on you that he said it, so I'd like to hear it for myself in context. A google search didn't turn it up.

I don't. Phibes might but I've got nothing.

Anyway, I don't have to like the guy and I'm under no obligation to listen to him. If that makes me narrow-minded that's hilarious.

I think he makes good points on occasion. Or even usually. It's not too difficult to make good points on the right. That's where all the taboo truths reside.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:

Tulsi and Jordan Peterson had a conversation that touched on this. Mostly they ended up talking about why Americans who question the war, get marginalized and dismissed by the mainstream.

Link to video

Of course nobody here would ever jump to any conclusions about a person who questions the war. But unfortunately that attitude does exist elsewhere in American culture.

I watched it already. I don't mind questioning the war, but how someone does it will directly influence whether or not I listen to them.

[Renauda]

@Horace

Actually I would question both Peterson and Gabbard about their understanding and musings on social media and TV media of the war in Ukraine. Both have made clear that they subscribe to realist school of foreign policy as espoused by John Mearsheimer. Good for them, but I wholly disagree with Mearsheimer’s analysis.

Perhaps you can offer us what you personally have gleaned from their trenchant analyses?

[Horace]

@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Horace

Actually I would question both Peterson and Gabbard about their understanding and musings on social media and TV media of the war in Ukraine. Both have made clear that they subscribe to realist school of foreign policy as espoused by John Mearsheimer. Good for them, but I wholly disagree with Mearsheimer’s analysis.

Perhaps you can offer us what you personally have gleaned from their trenchant analyses?

Like I said, they mostly lament that you can't really have a conversation about the war without the mainstream dismissing you if you question US involvement. They lament the absence of clear goals and clear definitions of winning or losing. Peterson worries that a Putin replacement will not so much as probably be better than Putin for Western interests, and a balkanization of Russia into fiefdoms, many of which with nukes, would be a far greater disaster than what we have currently. Peterson wonders whether the war suits the military industrial complex and its profit motive, citing Eisenhower's warnings about such 70 years ago. Peterson does most of the talking and opining, with Gabbard remaining cagy and abstract, as her political aspirations would demand.

[Renauda]

@Horace

Like I said, they mostly lament that you can't really have a conversation about the war without the mainstream dismissing you if you question US involvement.

Depends on what aspect of US involvement. At this stage no one is questioning why the US and NATO are not more directly involved. The effort is to contain Russian forces in Ukraine and force the Kremlin to cease hostilities and withdraw through military means. Until that happens there is no chance for diplomacy to attempt a resolution. Putin is determined to reclaim the Russian empire one piece at a time.

They lament the absence of clear goals and clear definitions of winning or losing.

I don’t know why since the goal is for Russia to cease its aggression and withdraw to the 2014 borders.

Peterson worries that a Putin replacement will not so much as probably be better than Putin for Western interests, and a balkanization of Russia into fiefdoms, many of which with nukes, would be a far greater disaster than what we have currently.

He can worry all he wants. What comes after Putin is beyond anyone’s control. Appeasing Putin over Ukraine now will only foster more malevolence towards the West.

Peterson wonders whether the war suits the military industrial complex and its profit motive, citing Eisenhower's warnings about such 70 years ago.

Ironic but that concern is what I hear coming from the very vocal pro Putin leftists. The same ones who have not woken up to the reality that Putin’s Russia is not any way a workers’ state. He probably shares that with AOC and other DNC progressives.

As for Gabbard, I agree she has become an opportunist media whore.

[Doctor Phibes]

Surely, compared to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan this is pocket change.

Suddenly conservatives are worried about the military industrial complex?

Well, in truth JP isn't really a conservative, he's just been painted that way since he doesn't go along with the woke brigade.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:

Surely, compared to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan this is pocket change.

Suddenly conservatives are worried about the military industrial complex?

Well, in truth JP isn't really a conservative, he's just been painted that way since he doesn't go along with the woke brigade.

They talked about all the money spent in those wars, too. There wasn't as much facile hypocrisy as you might have preferred.

[Renauda]

@Doctor-Phibes

I think I have already posted it but I’ll say it again, Peterson is informative and good on topics of human and social psychology. When he wanders into global affairs and economics he lacks any real depth of knowledge and competence. On the topic of the war in Ukraine and US involvement. I can think of several people with expertise who would close Peterson down in a sentence. Stephen Kotkin and Timothy Snyder come immediately to mind. He wouldn’t last five minutes in a conversation with either Condi Rice or Fiona Hill on the topic.

Well, in truth JP isn't really a conservative, he's just been painted that way since he doesn't go along with the woke brigade.

I would agree with that. He is no Conrad Black let alone a William F. Buckley.

[Horace]

@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Doctor-Phibes

I think I have already posted it but I’ll say it again, Peterson is informative and good on topics of human and social psychology. When he wanders into global affairs and economics he lacks any real depth of knowledge and competence. On the topic of the war in Ukraine and US involvement. I can think of several people with expertise who would close Peterson down in a sentence. Stephen Kotkin and Timothy Snyder come immediately to mind. He wouldn’t last five minutes in a conversation with either Condi Rice or Fiona Hill on the topic.

You assume an adversarial conversation where an intellectual hierarchy is established. I don't think Peterson would engage in such a conversation with an aggressive or defensive stance, and he would not expect there to be a winner at the end. His goal would be to draw ideas out of his conversation partner, for clarification or potential disagreement. Maybe in the process he would reveal himself as an ignorant dullard on the topics, as you suspect. I don't suspect he would, since he has some self-awareness and does not in fact pose as an expert in topics he knows little about. These days, he is literally in the business of making content for youtube, so he talks to lots of people about their areas of expertise, about which he may not know much. Those people tend not to be the woke, or leftists, but I suppose that is not because they are unwelcome on his shows. I suppose it's because they would not accept an invitation.

[Renauda]

@Horace

You assume an adversarial conversation where an intellectual hierarchy is established. I don't think Peterson would engage in such a conversation with an aggressive or defensive stance, and he would not expect there to be a winner at the end. His goal would be to draw ideas out of his conversation partner, for clarification or potential disagreement.

I assume nothing of the sort. Why not just say he would engage in a debate. Whether it spirals into accusatory polemics is another matter. I doubt any of the four I referred to the lack self control to allow polemics to enter into the conversation. Likewise for Peterson.

[Horace]

@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Horace

You assume an adversarial conversation where an intellectual hierarchy is established. I don't think Peterson would engage in such a conversation with an aggressive or defensive stance, and he would not expect there to be a winner at the end. His goal would be to draw ideas out of his conversation partner, for clarification or potential disagreement.

I assume nothing of the sort. Why not just say he would engage in a debate. Whether it spirals into accusatory polemics is another matter. I doubt any of the four I referred to the lack self control to allow polemics to enter into the conversation. Likewise for Peterson.

He doesn't generally do debates on his show. He does discussions, which include disagreement at times, but not even always. And if you think Snyder is above polemics, you are not familiar with his panic mongering about the path to tyranny, as informed by his world class historical knowledge, after Trump was elected in 2016.

[Renauda]

@Horace

Indeed I was well aware of your previously voiced disdain for Snyder. Perhaps that is precisely why I paired him and Kotkin. I make no apology.

In any event Snyder’s theories on tyranny and his analysis of Trump are beside the point. I have tapped into several of his presentations on the politics of the inevitable and the politics of the eternal. His hypothesis is decidedly revisionist but is nevertheless interesting in the context of the current European political scene and the present populism affecting both the left and the right in the world. He may or may not be onto something. I don’t know. I just know that I, like Snyder, find all the shades of present day populism distasteful - particularly when it is masquerading as bastard libertarian conservatism on the right and the progressive social fascism championed by the milquetoast left.

Snyder’s unassailable expertise lies in Ukrainian and Polish political history. What he has to say in that area is worth the time and effort to listen to in an effort to make sense of the war. I advise anyone interested to do just that.

[Mik]

@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Horace

Like I said, they mostly lament that you can't really have a conversation about the war without the mainstream dismissing you if you question US involvement.

Depends on what aspect of US involvement. At this stage no one is questioning why the US and NATO are not more directly involved. The effort is to contain Russian forces in Ukraine and force the Kremlin to cease hostilities and withdraw through military means. Until that happens there is no chance for diplomacy to attempt a resolution. Putin is determined to reclaim the Russian empire one piece at a time.

They lament the absence of clear goals and clear definitions of winning or losing.

I don’t know why since the goal is for Russia to cease its aggression and withdraw to the 2014 borders.

Peterson worries that a Putin replacement will not so much as probably be better than Putin for Western interests, and a balkanization of Russia into fiefdoms, many of which with nukes, would be a far greater disaster than what we have currently.

He can worry all he wants. What comes after Putin is beyond anyone’s control. Appeasing Putin over Ukraine now will only foster more malevolence towards the West.

Peterson wonders whether the war suits the military industrial complex and its profit motive, citing Eisenhower's warnings about such 70 years ago.

Ironic but that concern is what I hear coming from the very vocal pro Putin leftists. The same ones who have not woken up to the reality that Putin’s Russia is not any way a workers’ state. He probably shares that with AOC and other DNC progressives.

As for Gabbard, I agree she has become an opportunist media whore.

My sentiments exactly, especially on the lack of a goal. There hasn't been a clearer military goal for the US since Desert Storm.

It's like any other fight. It goes on until one or the other is either unwilling or unable to continue. What we have spent here is chump change compared to what we have spent on much more amorphous goals.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:

I think I have already posted it but I’ll say it again, Peterson is informative and good on topics of human and social psychology. When he wanders into global affairs and economics he lacks any real depth of knowledge and competence. On the topic of the war in Ukraine and US involvement. I can think of several people with expertise who would close Peterson down in a sentence. Stephen Kotkin and Timothy Snyder come immediately to mind. He wouldn’t last five minutes in a conversation with either Condi Rice or Fiona Hill on the topic.

I think JP makes a mistake on seemingly being willing to opine on pretty much anything. He undermines his credibility a bit by being willing to take on all kinds of stuff where he doesn't know any more than the rest of us.

Obviously, the internet is packed full of people doing exactly the same thing - the difference being that JP actually is an expert in his professional area.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:

@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:

I think I have already posted it but I’ll say it again, Peterson is informative and good on topics of human and social psychology. When he wanders into global affairs and economics he lacks any real depth of knowledge and competence. On the topic of the war in Ukraine and US involvement. I can think of several people with expertise who would close Peterson down in a sentence. Stephen Kotkin and Timothy Snyder come immediately to mind. He wouldn’t last five minutes in a conversation with either Condi Rice or Fiona Hill on the topic.

I think JP makes a mistake on seemingly being willing to opine on pretty much anything. He undermines his credibility a bit by being willing to take on all kinds of stuff where he doesn't know any more than the rest of us.

Obviously, the internet is packed full of people doing exactly the same thing - the difference being that JP actually is an expert in his professional area.

He is under contract with Daily Wire for a new video every few days. The quality will lower to meet the quota. He's interviewed his whole family at this point.

[Horace]

@Mik said in Tucker talks comedy...:

My sentiments exactly, especially on the lack of a goal. There hasn't been a clearer military goal for the US since Desert Storm.

He distinguishes between Ukraine's goal and the US's goal. From memory I'm not sure how he drew that distinction, but he did mention that obviously Ukraine's goal is to keep its territory under its control. There's some subtlety between that goal and the US goal which he feels is undefined. Anyway don't take my word for it. I was only rising to the herculean challenge of doing a book report for Renauda about a conversation I listened to in the background.