Most who criticise him were once fans who enjoyed his show for the first few months.
Now he’s a limp, dishonest hack who’s show consists of not only interviewing mostly right wingers but agreeing with them 90% of the time without any challenge.
The argument that he “gives them enough rope to hang themselves” is fecking nonsense now.
If you judge Rubin by what he tweets, posts on YouTube or how he interacts with his guests, he’s a conservative pretending he used to be a liberal. Calls himself a ‘classical liberal’ without the awareness that’s what the likes of Milton Friedman called themselves.
It’s his dishonesty that pisses off people. If he just admitted he was right wing (which he 100% is) then I don’t think people would even care about him anymore.
Also he loves to say that left wing or liberal types get invited all the time but they won’t come on. Then you find out it’s because he’s inviting literal celebrities (Chelsea Handler an example) as some sort of comparison to the obscure cnuts like Shapiro. When people have pointed out that he’s probably better inviting similar level YouTube star liberals, he bawks at that.
But he’s gay, is pro choice and likes memes. Apparently that’s enough for some people to not see he’s a source of support to the right.
I'm not on twitter, which can explain why I don't get the inputs a lot of you do.
That and I'm by choice very slow to reach negative conclusions about people as I want to make sure I do it for stuff I know about instead of stuff others say about someone (and I'm slow on research due to my health issues).
I do agree that he seems to be a very agreeable person, and that he mostly takes liberals & right-wingers on his show, and that it comes across as not challenging people on their views.
I believe it's a choice he's made however, to just give people a platform to elaborate on their views and have viewers discern what is right or wrong. I believe he does it because it makes it more comfortable for people to be on his show as they don't feel attacked or threatened while there.
Naturally I can be wrong, but as I mentioned I'll get there in my pace & right now all I see is someone giving a speaking platform to others. I believe I'll eventually agree on Peterson, but I still think I'll see him as having interesting parts to his lectures about psychology, maybe because I'm uneducated on that field and always will be.
That said, I find your two last parts interesting to read, and I'll keep eyes open if I come across anything about who from the left he invites (what sources are there for his left-wing invites?).
It could be similar to how Shapiro, Crowler and the likes usually debate with people who haven't properly explored their opinions on school campuses. To explain which similarities I believe could be there I'd say that it's a dishonest choice of who to invite into the debate (under-developed opinions vs people not likely to show and "winning" by default).
Thanks for the reply though, it's the kind I'll need if I am to settle properly on a view.
