Tucker talks comedy...
-
@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
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.
Elbows up!
-
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.
-
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.
@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.
-
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.
Elbows up!
-
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.
@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.
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 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.
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.
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.
-
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.
@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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 said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
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.
-
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.
@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
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.
@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.
-
@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.
@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.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
@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.
Education is extremely important.
-
@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 said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
OK, so it's a way to make money. He's essentially become a chat-show host.
There's not too many belly laughs, I'm guessing.
-
@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
OK, so it's a way to make money. He's essentially become a chat-show host.
There's not too many belly laughs, I'm guessing.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:
@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
OK, so it's a way to make money. He's essentially become a chat-show host.
He is putting his ideas out there and participating in the public discourse, and making money in the process. Like presumably everybody else you are aware of who's contributions to any political or social topic, you respect.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:
@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
OK, so it's a way to make money. He's essentially become a chat-show host.
He is putting his ideas out there and participating in the public discourse, and making money in the process. Like presumably everybody else you are aware of who's contributions to any political or social topic, you respect.
@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:
@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
OK, so it's a way to make money. He's essentially become a chat-show host.
He is putting his ideas out there and participating in the public discourse, and making money in the process. Like presumably everybody else you are aware of who's contributions to any political or social topic, you respect.
I think you may have me confused with somebody else. I don't watch any of these shows. This place is as close as I come to engaging in public discourse. It seems to me that JP has upset a load of people by saying things about gender and political correctness, and he's now capitalizing on that fact as the people who like what he said about gender and political correctness want to hear what he thinks about pretty much everything else under the sun.
And good luck to him! As long as he doesn't start doing saxophone mouthpiece reviews or chess streaming, I'm good.
-
@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:
@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
OK, so it's a way to make money. He's essentially become a chat-show host.
He is putting his ideas out there and participating in the public discourse, and making money in the process. Like presumably everybody else you are aware of who's contributions to any political or social topic, you respect.
I think you may have me confused with somebody else. I don't watch any of these shows. This place is as close as I come to engaging in public discourse. It seems to me that JP has upset a load of people by saying things about gender and political correctness, and he's now capitalizing on that fact as the people who like what he said about gender and political correctness want to hear what he thinks about pretty much everything else under the sun.
And good luck to him! As long as he doesn't start doing saxophone mouthpiece reviews or chess streaming, I'm good.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:
@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker talks comedy...:
@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
OK, so it's a way to make money. He's essentially become a chat-show host.
He is putting his ideas out there and participating in the public discourse, and making money in the process. Like presumably everybody else you are aware of who's contributions to any political or social topic, you respect.
I think you may have me confused with somebody else. I don't watch any of these shows. This place is as close as I come to engaging in public discourse. It seems to me that JP has upset a load of people by saying things about gender and political correctness, and he's now capitalizing on that fact as the people who like what he said about gender and political correctness want to hear what he thinks about pretty much everything else under the sun.
And good luck to him! As long as he doesn't start doing saxophone mouthpiece reviews or chess streaming, I'm good.
You can't ignore the culture, you can only pretend to. My point is that if he is going to devote his time to participation in public discourse as a public intellectual, he is going to get paid for it. That doesn't diminish his credibility, as easy as it is to hand wave a case for dismissal. I'm sure some on this forum will nod along with you.
-
@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.
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.
I don’t think anyone would consider taking your word for it.
As far as your book report assignment went you deserve at least a few marks for not reducing everything down to pop culture narratives or leftist agendas. A good start or attempt at a start.
I note you also managed not to refer to Putin as an existential threat - something which he demonstrably is, especially to Ukraine and other former Soviet states and Warsaw Pact. I attribute that omission on your part as an abhorrence of being mistaken for a progressive thinker. Perhaps in the minds of occasional lurkers to the forum but certainly not to any us regulars would we misconstrue your thoughts as anything even resembling progressive let alone moderately liberal on the matter.
-
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.
I don’t think anyone would consider taking your word for it.
As far as your book report assignment went you deserve at least a few marks for not reducing everything down to pop culture narratives or leftist agendas. A good start or attempt at a start.
I note you also managed not to refer to Putin as an existential threat - something which he demonstrably is, especially to Ukraine and other former Soviet states and Warsaw Pact. I attribute that omission on your part as an abhorrence of being mistaken for a progressive thinker. Perhaps in the minds of occasional lurkers to the forum but certainly not to any us regulars would we misconstrue your thoughts as anything even resembling progressive let alone moderately liberal on the matter.
@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
I don’t think anyone would consider taking your word for it.
As far as your book report assignment went you deserve at least a few marks for not reducing everything down to pop culture narratives or leftist agendas. A good start or attempt at a start.
I note you also managed not to refer to Putin as an existential threat - something which he demonstrably is, especially to Ukraine and other former Soviet states and Warsaw Pact. I attribute that omission on your part as an abhorrence of being mistaken for a progressive thinker. Perhaps in the minds of occasional lurkers to the forum but certainly not to any us regulars would we misconstrue your thoughts as anything even resembling progressive let alone moderately liberal on the matter.
The existential threat of Putin is not obviously diminished by participation in the Ukraine war, according to Peterson and Gabbard.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:
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.
I don’t think anyone would consider taking your word for it.
As far as your book report assignment went you deserve at least a few marks for not reducing everything down to pop culture narratives or leftist agendas. A good start or attempt at a start.
I note you also managed not to refer to Putin as an existential threat - something which he demonstrably is, especially to Ukraine and other former Soviet states and Warsaw Pact. I attribute that omission on your part as an abhorrence of being mistaken for a progressive thinker. Perhaps in the minds of occasional lurkers to the forum but certainly not to any us regulars would we misconstrue your thoughts as anything even resembling progressive let alone moderately liberal on the matter.
The existential threat of Putin is not obviously diminished by participation in the Ukraine war, according to Peterson and Gabbard.
