who wrote this book? 🤔🙈🤣

This man is a joke and a complete scumbag. A two headed snake if a ever saw one.

Max couldn't 'remember' what he wrote in his column or book... expecting him to remember what Afriforum stands for is asking too much.

Do you realize that by saying Afriforum is a cultural organization then saying it is nonracial is contradictory? You must be smoking whatever Max is on

@Thabang Manyana Makgowa a tena monna 🤣

Ryan, loved your assessment. Spot on, imo.

Yup a liberal liar horrible man.

I don't think he's a liar as in telling intentional lies with the motive to deceive. I think he just has no commitment to principles (or fewer than he likes us to think he does) and is driven 99% by expediency. Under those conditions it's unavoidable to "lie", because your opinions get blown around in the winds of circumstance. There's little that anchors his views so "telling the truth" would require remembering every position he's ever advanced as a disconnected fact. Naturally he can't do this, so he (presumably unconsciously) retroactively edits his memories of what he wrote/said into something else.

@@bpj1805 Damn, well said. Political expediency, spot on.

Bernd Jendrissek I would be more inclined to accept what you posit if Du Preez wasn’t so aggressive in his “mis- remembering. It would be so easy to extricate oneself by simply saying “In hindsight my wording was clumsy, I could have stated my position better, let me do so now” instead he got irate and accused Zille of lying about his writings. He opened the door to the accusation of lying and was quite prepared to besmirch Zille’s integrity so the label liar when describing Du Preez is accurate and well earned. The interesting thing about this series of interviews is just how ill informed the subjects have been thus far. Ill informed but not shy to prescribe to everybody else. Zille is in another league when compared to her guests. Enjoyable listening

@@tomsawyer4321 I would agree with you if I still held a more naive view of how human minds work. The naive view where people hold beliefs and change them based on what facts they're exposed to, and accurately remember the past. But no, the brain doesn't work like that. It makes some decisions almost willy-nilly, and then makes up reasons for it *after the fact*. Including editing the person's memories to make them consistent with the new belief. I think he genuinely believes he did write things he didn't, or believes he didn't write things he did. He misremembers because what he did in fact do in the past is not consistent with whatever position he's holding now. And it seems aggressive because he does so much of that, and he does so much of this retconning of what he thinks he wrote because he isn't anchored in [m]any principles - he's just a slave to pragmatics. But I'm certainly open to Max simply being an outright liar. I just don't think that's very probable compared to the alternative I've stated.

It always takes two fools to argue - two wise men will not argue. One wise man will not argue with a fool, therefore it takes two fools to argue

Bernard T Britz defnatief

Lol, aaklig om te kyk! Hy is so 'n snowflake!

Yes, covering for his wickets.

This was a no holds barred interview between the two of them

He's a disgrace to his race. Back stabber.

Best comment

Malema saw this...! He thought....instead of Tea I'd rather have Moët

He's too old for that. He should just book himself into an old age home

He stands for nothing, that's what I got out of this. His views get blown around like leaves in the winds of political circumstance.

Helen, I am concerned that you are being too aggressive in your style of conversation here. As someone who consumes large amounts of long-form media, I fear that your adversarial style is going to scare off many of the most interesting guests. One of the key critiques of the social justice movement is that it fundamentally fails to account for the nuance and context underpinning an individual's ideological position; rather preferring to see the world through a binary lens. I know that you are against this style thinking, but then surely this has to have implications upon yourself and how you interact with your guests. As someone who is equally appalled by the ideology of identity politics, my constructive critique to you would be to try your level best to start from the assumption that Max, Farial, even Eusebius (if that ever happens), are genuinely good people with generally good intentions. Give them the benefit of the doubt, rather than trying to put words in their mouths, and allow them to explain their positions as honestly and non-defensively as possible. One of the wonderful traditions of liberal thinking, that we seem to be perilously close to losing, is the idea of being able to disagree with one-another while still remaining courteous and civil, and not writing the person off in binary terms. I would love to see you carrying this tradition forward.

Can I suggest that you have the relevant quotes that you bring up on hand for people like Max to rub his nose in it. The same way one does with a dog who shits in the house.

To some, like Max du Preez, you need a firmer yank to his leash to bring him under control. His years of vitriol has rendered him more insensitive and disrespectful than the usual decent journalist. It's even better when a woman does it, just to demonstrate how formidable women can be. Good job, Auntie Helen.

#maxdupreez triggered

@@EbenJ2010 you have a point. If you watch from the start, I try to get into a constructive discussion but he keeps on wanting to read from his script and avoid the discussion. So I took him on at his own game after which we could move on and become more constructive. But you have a valid point.

LOL

You're a clown

I don't understand? Max said that she should post where he said what he said. If she did not post these banners confirming what he said the viewer would have to leave wondering who was lying. Thanks for the post debate banners.

@@Stephanlosmyhart Simple-Max cannot challenge what Helen posted as a banner. That's not fair.

@@EbenJ2010 She quotes him on what he has written himself, but then he denies it. Is she now in the wrong for having done proper research? I can agree that she might have given him a bit of a heads-up prior to the "debate" about what she was going to be quoting him on, but as for the fact that she placed her evidence regarding his writings post debate was most helpful for me as the viewer.

That's just one doos too many,

Just block him on Twitter.