A taste of Prager U

[_Ceeboo]

Dave Rubin calls himself a classic liberal

Right - And you feel it to be your personal duty to make corrections and label him what you think he ought to be labeled (I'm starting to see a pattern with you in this regard)

Another example of your unique gift to label all others can be seen here:

He's basically a libertarian grifter whose shtick is selling himself as a liberal apostate.

Well, I guess Rubin should feel fortunate - You could have used your special gift to show how a Mexican guy from Montana made smoke signals to a Latino female in Georgia who used morse code to influence a black man in Iowa to release his carrier pigeon to make the journey to a Syrian child in Nevada who stoked the racial animus of a Jamaican lady in Ohio which made her viciously beat an elderly woman from Italy. Obviously showing how racist Rubin actually is.

[_canpakes]

Why did I post the video? In addition to never having heard of a "white privilege conference" before, I had also never heard of someone "extending their white privilege upon someone else" nor have I ever heard a white woman say that she was "hyper aware and feels super guilty all the time" of her whiteness. I thought these things were really odd - perhaps I am just out of touch?

I’m betting that there are many things in the world that, on any day, will be new to you. That’s what keeps life interesting. ; )

Why does this subject of white privilege seem so odd to you? What’s going on in your head that compelled you to post this example? And as an example of what?

[_EAllusion]

Classic liberalism isn't liberalism Ceeboo. It's closest to libertarianism. The fun thing about this is you are taking offense at a description that is obviously accurate if you know who Rubin is. This suggests you aren't and are going to bat for something whose familiarity you have with it extends to watching a short video. Excellent.

Anyway, let's say Rubin is the liberalist liberal who ever did liberal. How does a Prager video of him criticizing "the left" in any way refute what I said?

[_Ceeboo]

The fun thing about this is you are taking offense

I took no offense - at all.
And while I'm certain that you think it's fun, I find fun in other things (golf, coaching baseball, cooking, etc)

[_EAllusion]

The fun thing about this is you are taking offense

I took no offense - at all.
And while I'm certain that you think it's fun, I find fun in other things (golf, coaching baseball, cooking, etc)

Words, man.

You are reacting with intense personal criticism to the idea that Rubin isn't really a liberal. You think this despite him equating modern liberalism with "leftism" or "progressiveism" and calling it a mental disorder. As best I can tell, this now extends to you just not understanding what classic liberalism is, which is what Rubin explicitly self-identifies with:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... beral.html

Anway, can you explain why a few videos of liberals allinging with conservative criticisms of the left shows that Prager isn't a propaganda mill for right wing politics?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The irony of someone who bristles at being defined, politically, lecturing others and setting definitions for them is so thick it make his White privilege look like a marzipan.

The sheer audacity that Conservatives defend themselves and define themselves is too offensive to bear, and totes Libertarians like EA, whose hyper defensivesness of Progressive and Leftist positions grows in accordance with the more Progressive and Leftist they themselves get, can barely contain his own bouts of orgasmic pleasure at letting Ceeboo know he's wrong.

I mean for "F"s sake, god almighty, god forbid if someone calls himself a Liberal. Oh no no no! He can't possibly adopt the cover of a vast and ubiquitous political term! Only our totally-not-raging-socialist can do things like call himself a Libertarian as to throw the reader off of his ideology! Only our totally-not-a-Leftist can lie about who he is, who his neighbors are, what he does, and who he votes for.

Give me a damned break. At least Ceeboo has the balls to own up to who he is, and to post authentically unlike EA who lies about virtually every aspect of who and what he is because he hates himself.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Ceeboo's argument, trying to squeeze some coherency from it, is that it is unfair to say Prager U isn't a university so much as a propaganda mill for partisan hacks is refuted by the fact that Dave Rubin, a liberal, made a video for them.

The fact that Rubin isn't actually a liberal at this point is relevant. So is the fact that the video is nothing but a criticism of liberals.

Proving ideological diversity by simply adopting unorthodox or false labels is pretty lame. Fortunately, it seems fairly apparent the problem here is Ceeboo doesn't understand the distiction between classic liberalism and modern liberalism. If you or him wants to call Ayn Rand fans liberals, you know, like all the smart people do, that's your perogative. You just can't use them as proof about how liberal an organzation is.

[_canpakes]

Dave Rubin calls himself a classic liberal

Right - And you feel it to be your personal duty to make corrections and label him what you think he ought to be labeled (I'm starting to see a pattern with you in this regard)

Rubin has likely figured out that there’s a much more lucrative market cultivated within the right wing for labeling and name-calling, and has learned to frame himself in terms that appeal to right-wingers in order to allow themselves to validate their perceptions of left-wingers.

Maybe it would be better to examine what he says, and the validity of it, as opposed to merely pointing to his ‘label’ in an attempt to prove any point? On that idea, here’s a short vid of Rubin giving some opinions that don’t really sound like anything I’ve heard from the liberal camp. And he’s coming across as someone who isn’t a very strong thinker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpg_YivoKso

[Guest]

Wait, what? Why do you think the video was utter fallacy - a deceptive or a misleading/false notion.

I gave you an example of the flawed logic in my post.

It doesn't follow that because Hillary said we should talk to blacks, and we talk to blacks who say it's up to them to make it on their own, that there isn't a such thing as white privilege or that the "libertard" position is inconsistent. That was the overall story arch, and that is fallacious.

What do you think the point of the video was? (by the way, my right-wing friend can't summarize the point of the stuff he sends me -- just saying in advance.)

(again, the notion of exactly what "white privilege" is, is foggy to me, but we'll never know unless we're given the best articulation not the worst)

[_EAllusion]

I'd also call Sean Hannity a right-wing / Republican propagandist. Is the fact that he has had Alan Dershowitz on his show to defend Donald Trump with some dubious legal arguments a decisive refutation of this point? Following the logic of Ceeboo the answer is yes. Unfortunately, the answer is, "Are you crazy? No."