Patience of a saint that caller 😅

To this day…

extreme stamina

He is probably just like.... soooooooooooooõøōòôöóœ......

The scary part is ... he's been on the line ever siiiiiii-iiiince! (Oh, and he's dead. I forgot to mention that part.)

@@mattzed11 bwahaha lol

Hahahah!

@Anton Chigurh Then you go to therapy like a big boy.

This isn't equality. Leftist philosophy is fraught with double-standards.

Lol, that's why the idea of Bernie getting elected is making billionaires cry and giving the poor, working class hope :)

@@Jianju69 list some of them

@@haveabanana2930 No, that's because they are creating false hope by promising to steal wealth from others unjustly and giving it to others equally unjustly. No one has any right to the wealth that anyone personally accumulates through legal means.

And white unemployment is not low as well? Also this: i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/160809195225-racial-wealth-gap-780x439.jpg

But it is appropriate. Rock could go onto say that sure White working class men ain't winning, but when the fuck were the working class ever winning? The point is surely that apart from the 1% we're all losing, just at different rates. Sam Seder is actually saying that Peterson and Shapiro and Rubin are correct. White men are losing their status because of the advancement of women and minorities. This is a dangerously wrong argument, and that is why we confront these spurious arguments from the Right.

John Barron : Brilliant!

Lose-lose is a thing. One need not always win for others to lose.

@Aaron Boone that don't mean a goddamn thing! When equal opportunity is not available.

LMAO I want that to exist in real life now.

He’d probably look like less of an idiot.

Ken's looking rough...

So MaNy HiGh LeVeL IdEaS

And when powered down he would say "My brain is now going into recovery mode from taking in so many high level, important ideas", it would be a hit

Leftist equality: every race except whites get their own society and home!

@@sequorroxx Every race had their own society and home until white people raided across the globe invading every land and culture they came across. They clearly didn't _want_ their own land back then. That said, none of the other races want to separate. That certain contingent of white people are the only ones fixating on that nonsense and projecting it onto everyone else because they're so terrified of non-whites they can't imagine *not* wanting to get rid of everyone outside your own race. 😒

@@sequorroxx You sound triggered hick boy. Sad that you are losing your status when you never earned it in the first place? Keep crying, your hick tears are delicious!

@@sequorroxx /pol/ talking points, very original. Garbage tier reactionaryism. What's wrong? Did your Big White Brain IQ crap out on you?

Hamadee Jalloh this ^^^ exactly

We suck at podcasting so you should watch us. kzfaq.info/love/iT8pkijkFEtkH7JaoBnKUAlive

I really like that on this show no person and topic is off-limit. Sam even gives random callers 15 to 25 minutes to debate. But those libertarian callers have disappeared once the rise of open exchange people gain strength, because it was never about challenging ideas. It was finding their own safe space.

What are they challenging exactly? I heard no arguments other than "white guys losing their status and thats why they vote for trump". Which is a typical leftist way of thinking. Good luck in life.

Gerald Weyland If you want to challenge them, you can always call.

+chokinonashes61 Why do you consider Gerald Weyland to be racist and misogynistic? He merely asked what 'they' were challenging and what their argument was for doing so. Why assume he is not among the good and decent American people? Seems like you are making the unwarranted assumption that someone at the opposite political spectrum can only take that position based on racist and misogynistic motives.

BOOST

25:47 lol

Watch him debate slavoj zizek. Zizek totally exposed him. At one point jp basically admits hes a postmodernist

It was a nice way of tying it all up

This is a great summary, and my exact perspective on Peterson. Cheers!

Did you ever talk about it? I'm down to see that. Jordan Peterson has 12 new rules, these conversations might unfortunately become more relevant

I definitely think that Jamie is hitting the most important point. If you take this discussion outside of the capitalist narrative then a lot of the other arguments fade away to a degree.

But it was so entertaining. I love the way they hashed it out, or at least tried to, on the spot. This clip was FANTASTIC

PurushaDesa thanks to baby boomers. They need their boob tube idiot shows while sitting in their diapers.

Art is more than the artists interpretation.

SOMEGUY7893 Yeah but he just missed the point. Do you think Born In The USA is jingoistic, too?

yeah Bruce Springsteen is like Billy Bragg, Jimmy Barnes and Midnight Oil. I am sure i have heard him singing the International too somewhere

@Starfish Coffeehouse My point was just that people can view it differently even if it's not the artists intention.

I remember seeing a Trump rally where they were playing This Land Is Your Land, as if it were a patriotic song.

Ronnie Sinclair his mother was a lobster you see

He doesn't. The ideas are persuasive.

thelittlegumnut to simpletons

​@@bonemeringue9464And his father smelled of elderberries.

Too nuanced for the average hog viewer

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying?

Thats because the Boers are more productive. Google boers farm transition. The Bantu are not handling the farms well. Just like after White farmers in Zimbabwe were driven off their homes for generations, South African farmers and other workers are in the hands of those who best use those resources. Stealing it from them will lead to starvation.

@@sequorroxx Don't confuse political power with economical power.

No Michael was right.

vulcanfeline if you could never eat the whole pie, sharing it wouldn't actually mean having less than you had in the first place. It's all about perspective. Not everyone is greedy.

Luckily economics isn’t a pie

Well said Angela. I totally agree.

I had a very similar experience, but lacked the background you have, and had to slowly learn it on the fly with some help from this program

I'm glad you both dodged that bullet. Good on ya :)

Peterson got his foot in the door with his self-help books, which are NOT the best ones out there by a long shot. It is just that there hadn't been any for a while so his books seemed novel when they came down the pike. If you've read them, you know that he states the rule and then goes off on a tangent which usually doesn't even relate that well to the rule. (I encourage everyone to watch Cass Eris critique of his 'Rules.' She goes through them with a fine-tooth comb and then you don't have to waste your money buying them.) Peterson's rules are just a rehash of what is contained in many other self-help books that are written in more understandable language and provide much better examples of how to actually apply those rules. If you are discerning and even a little smart, you know that Jordan Peterson is just filling pages with the gibberish after each rule because longer books can exact a higher price tag. Then he got some minutes of fame when he misrepresented C-16. His fan base is beginning to scrutinize his pontifications with more discernment, so hopefully he will soon fade into obscurity.

Thats not really what the debate was about lol

I thought that was an extended dig at Jordan Peterson. 'well first off you have to define' status'. Then of course you will need to define 'define' and 'you' in the non-literal sense and blah blah blah blah blah. "

lol pretty much what i said. mostly a debate on the focus of their definition of loss/gain, i don't think anyone was particularly wrong.

Definitely disagree with Sam here. This idea that these people are in essence reacting to the zero-sum game being changed is nonsensical. First of all, you have to consider that this implies there are two groups of people in society. Those who feel like this zero-sum game being changed is an issue, and those who don't feel that way. Clearly both kinds of people exist. You have both Sam Seder and Jordan Peterson. Thus there must be forces determining whether someone will turn into a Sam Seder or Jordan Peterson. If Sam were right they would be innate racists. It would be in their genes or something. Completely ridiculous. Does Sam feel like he's another species from them?

Not all racism is overt or even conscious. You also have to factor in culture as well. I see people all the time online talking about how they need to preserve the culture otherwise we will all turn into a bunch of Communist Islamic Nazi Marxists. Hell, just look at the release of the Black Panther movie. There were people who hated the movie because it supposedly tried to make black people look good. I am not saying everyone is like this, or even most people. However, there is a small, concentrated segment of whites that feel very strongly about this.

Jonathan Green Well to be fair a lot of working class whites are feeling further alienated. They turn on their TV and see rich, corporate dems who are the embodiment of white privilege, get on their high horse and chastise them, telling them to “check your privilege” while they struggle to make ends meet. Meanwhile Trump comes along and pushes all the right buttons to fool these gullible people into voting for him. So really all of it falls back on the dems failure to run likable candidates who actually support the working class and don’t resort to identity politics to gain support.

>This point cannot be refuted. It's a basic, definitional issue Which is why I'm not trying to refute it. >Being "okay" with losing your advantage is different from recognizing that the advantage exists, which again, is all sam is doing here Not sure what you mean by this. How does that tie in with the question of the caller? >The idea of innate racism is not ridiculous at all - if you were born into this country, you were born into a culture that was formed AROUND a system of racism and misogyny - therefore by virtue of being American, we have inherited the legacy of racism. White supremacy has been under significantly more threat in the past than it is now, largely because white supremacy was simply more prevalent. You can't claim that the things we're seeing today are the same old racism, since we know some variable has to be changing. That is the variable which counts. That's where you're gonna have these conversations.

How do you imagine them comparing themselves with other minorities like that? To me it seems not so much the measurable shifts in status, those are hardly perceivable to the individual. It is rather the process by which we "identify, call out, and work to reverse inequality." This is what triggers them. Why? Because they don't feel like they're experiencing the benefits of the (to them merely alleged) bigotry. They feel like shit about themselves and worry deeply about their future. They've been raised to treat women and black people as equals, and in their minds always kept to that principle. Now people are coming along telling them that they're the beneficiaries of sexism, racism, and whatever other distant evil. It doesn't make sense to them. That's the issue. They're told to make place for others, while they don't even know if they have place to begin with. All these other groups are given these great narratives of self-liberation. And against who? Them somehow. The outcast at school. The white kid with no social life who spends his time playing video games and posting on image boards. Do you see why this seems incredible to them?

lmao Fuentes would body them..

Slippery Nick? Lmfao even Destiny BTFO that little weasel! Get him to call in that would be the funniest thing ever.

2:22 Nick Fuentes takes calls unscreened, more reason to debate lol

Please tell me you've grown up and aren't still a fuentes fan lmao

This needs to become a copy pasta, it's great.

chokinonashes61 Poe' s law...

Top meme application. This is that Rick and morty copy pasta.

Tijtij shut up Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual and the fact that you think he's brilliant merely exposes your lack of 'intellectual capacity', you do not have to have a high iQ to understand Peterson in fact if you have a low IQ you would be more likely to like him because you clearly cannot think critically about the bullshit he spews, he believes all people with a developed moral compass must be religious because he cannot conceive of a moral atheist so assumes they all deep down believe in god but don't even know it which is Fucking ridiculous

Tijtij 👋👋

He is the homecoming queen

Alien Well, since your an alien, I guess you don’t know that many people. Can you back that statement up? Because I listened to him too and we’ll, he nailed the logic dude. What did he say that you can’t get your head around?

Matt Nice He lives in a politics bubble, he thinks Jordan Petersons driving force is political which is where the confusion lies. Peterson has been talking about this stuff since the 90s but he is Canadian and only got American and international attention recently.

Matt Nice It’s great that his blood and bones are made out of politics but he projects politics where it doesn’t belong or exist.

Alien Political ideology exists in your daily life. Mine too. But especially for someone like Peterson who has gotten very rich and famous talking about his ideologies. Politics isn’t limited to passing bills and foreign diplomacy, politics is the process through which we pass policy and we do that based on what our country’s ideology is and we hold national elections every few years so that the country can debate and decide what its ideology is. Don’t be fooled, Peterson is very knowingly tapping into the political angst and zeitgeist of the public. We’re discussing him here, on a political show and this isn’t the only one. That’s not a coincidence. He says he’s not political because it allows him a back way out. It doesn’t matter what country you live in, there are conservatives in all of them and liberals too. Ideologies don’t respect borders. Peterson knows that there’s a lot of money to be made on this stuff. He’s a conman. I see it. Maybe you will too eventually.

Matt Nice I’m getting anxious reading that because it turns out you’re a mind-reader or telepath. All that Jordan Peterson does is help people, give good advice and he puts his lectures up for anybody to watch for free. If you care about helping others and creating a society where everybody lives without hatred or violence or a republican government attacking Jordan Peterson isn’t going to help you or anyone and as far as I can see it’s almost all vitriolic and ignorant. He isn’t forcing you to buy anything, he is a clinician who really does understand how to fix people and he has done a more effective job than any political activist or show host.

sbcurley Honest question here. What do you like about Peterson’s ideas? Do you have any criticisms of him?

I'll answer, since I'm roughly in the same boat as sbcurley (never found any value in Rubin, but echo the sentiments on Trump and Bernie). For one, he helped me get my shit together, so I appreciate him for that. I also see some value in conservatism and individuality, especially relating to personal responsibility and order, and I think JBP is not at all mean-spirited on these issues, unlike US republicans. I don't like identity/victim politics --- even though I recognize that some groups of people are more victimized than others, I don't think it's productive to see the world through the black-and-white of victim and oppressor. It's far more complicated than that. I'll include the caveat that I don't agree with him on religion (not sure about his cultural marxism thing, either, though I AM alarmed by what's going on in American universities), and I'll also say that his logic is somewhat twisted on this topic, but I don't think he's dishonest. Most people are guilty of this when they set out to defend their sacred values. Lastly, JBP is remarkably gentle, considering the grief he gets from angry lefties and disappointed alt-righters. He's a force for good and a de-radicalizer of both far-left and far-right.

I like the if you want to improve the world start with yourself stuff. I know it's not original to him but I found him motivating to take that idea seriously, and I like the religious symbolism stuff. I don't care for how casually he throws around the phrases Post-Modernist, and Cultural Marxists its a little conspiratorial for me. Even if some of his complaints related to those things are worth considering. I have a bunch of complaints about how he handled certain interactions like the vice interview, which I think was easily misinterpreted because he was being too stand-offish, and more egregiously the incident where he said he'd slap that guy. I also wish he'd do more to criticize the far right, though he's gotten a little better at pissing off alt-right types. Those are probably my general criticisms of him. At the moment I can't think of others, but I feel like I'm forgetting a thing or two from this list.

Thank you, guys. I appreciate you taking the time to answer and I appreciate your honesty.

Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.

Shalom O'Neal dude Peterson has said he wants entire fields shut down on colleges because he doesn't like what they say, students should leave and boycott classes that use words he doesn't like like equity. He is working with programmers to create a database of all professors who he disagrees with so students can avoid being exposed to those ideas. And he has said art with political messages shouldn't be made.

Shalom O'Neal Three leftists channels i know have been shutdown by right wingers who disagreed with them. One them had been swatted muitlple times. Also MLK,Malcolm X and Rosa Luxembourg all leftists all murdered for being leftists,and not to mention all the murders the alt-right have committed recently.

Yeah, Peterson would never threaten violence on the writer of an unflattering piece on him. Oh wait..

5Amigos32 that wasn't the purpose of the database. The purpose of the database was to grade professors on a left-right ideological spectrum so that students could decide if they wanted to support that ideology. Also, he cancelled the project because it could cause a chilling effect on freedom of speech from the left...

Then why won't he debate Seder? That's the point of the video. Not him trying to shut speech down. He is scared of open discussion.

I'm South African

Definitely disagree with Sam here. This idea that these people are in essence reacting to the zero-sum game being changed is nonsensical. First of all, you have to consider that this implies there are two groups of people in society. Those who feel like this zero-sum game being changed is an issue, and those who don't feel that way. Clearly both kinds of people exist. You have both Sam Seder and Jordan Peterson. Thus there must be forces determining whether someone will turn into a Sam Seder or Jordan Peterson. If Sam were right they would be innate racists. It would be in their genes or something. Completely ridiculous. Does Sam feel like he's another species from them?

Farco sounds like you misunderstood Sams point.

Please explain Sam's point to me then.

James Baldwin Sam’s way of doing things are harmful to the progressive left movement. His words mostly serve to further alienate these on-the-fence working class whites who could easily be won over. When Sam says things such as “people only voted for Trump because they’re racist”, that just confirms everything right wing pundits have been telling them. Just like Michael said, the way to convert those people is to address the economic issues they’re facing instead of just looking down on them and shaming them for making bad decisions. After they’ve been converted in their economic views, everything else eventually falls into place. They shed their bigoted, racist, and sexist beliefs and next thing you know they’re voting progressive. I really believe it’s that easy.

Sean King You sound a lot like the people on Fox News Business with that last paragraph. How many people do you think can afford to take out loans and pay it back without going into debt? Again, I’m not talking about well off conservatives who will always vote republican no matter what. I’m talking specifically about working class whites who are economically depressed that voted for Trump partly because of his false promises of better economic security. Those aren’t the people who can necessarily afford to take out loans as many of them can barely make ends meet as is. That’s the base progressives need to be targeting, but as long as establishment dems keep playing identity politics while selling out to corporations behind the curtain, nothing will give those people any incentive to vote democrat in upcoming elections.

www.google.com/search?q=sam+seder+debates

That was a discussion not a debate.

John Redberg but their argument was ridiculous, people in this country ARENT voting out of fear over lost dominance?? They are, Sam was completely correct.

Brooks is always trying to talk over Sam which is very rude. it's Sam's show. Brooks would like to think he's smarter than Sam. He isn't.

This wasn't a debate buddy. It was a conversation...

Matt K has NOTHING to do with the clip as per usual.

It has everything to do with the clip actually.

Conservatives lack comprehension skills.

Weaselwords in the title.

It's called "using clickbait to draw in views" you dingus. How long have you been on youtube? You would probably have an aneurysm if you were around in the good old days of this site.

lol, isnt it pathetic? these guys are communists

Strawman, not an argument.

Gerald Weyland nice profile pic dude, brings me back to 4chan in 2016. Nothing pathetic about clinging on to the one victory you'll ever have in life.

Hunter Cannan lol Sam’s been asking him to be on his show for the past year and Dave refused. Dave only gets on conservatives and far righters and maybe the off “liberal” but only if they’re riding the anti SJW gravy train.

You probably meant delusional kook, but nonetheless, I like the idea of a delusional cook :) Gordon Ramsay on DMT? Other than that, totally agree.

Hunter Cannan I'd highly suggest you attempt to break out of the idea that speaking calmly and using common sense makes a person reasonable. Much of what we'd define as common sense falls apart under further inspection, and little public policy can be based on anything so minimalistic. Appearing calm says far more about a person's age, brain chemistry, and learned characteristics than it does their correctness. When evaluating who is worth listening to, I believe it best to go to whoever has the most facts or the strongest data. When we on the Left criticise Rubin, it's often because his apparent predisposition towards being "reasonable" acts as a sort of cover. The majority of his guests are Libertarian-ish thinkers pushing one type of worldview, and those who are not are often pushed on topics of agreement rather than disagreement. This creates a sort of echo chamber wherein one ideology is pushed forwards without considering the contrary evidence. This may appear reasonable, but it's not really hard to appear reasonable when 90% of what is said is agreeable, and the only conflict is around minor points and slight ideological differences. Also if you're mostly interested in calm, reasonable, cogent arguments that don't offend your sensibilities, I'd suggest you check out Shaun and Jen, Three Arrows, and Contrapoints. They're all cultural, but I think Peterson and Rubin are too, so it shouldn't be an issue. Cheers

Orange Pekoe Thank you for the input! I’ll definitely check them out. And hopefully make some sense of the political discussion of today

' take the argument in the most logical terms' LOL okay. What makes you think that? Because they claim to be 'objective'?

That’s true but I know an asshole when I hear (Peterson) one.

Lmao

Good joke

CountJimbo Well, you certainly wouldn't come to that conclusion after watching this video.

Why is he an asshole ? After attending many of his courses at the University of Toronto, I can honestly say that he is one of the best individuals I have ever met !

Omar Omar what?

Like general theory of lobsterism and quantum lobster theory.

The IRONY 😂😂😂

nothing in your post indicates that you have a clue about petersons views either...

(gripping of microphone stand intensifies)

this channel is a joke lol

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

something a Sam Harris stan would post in 2013

Erynn Gillian even Peterson admits his fans are mostly young white and male.

Sargon’s Black Grandfather His audience is MOSTLY young white and male, but not entirely. The diverse members of his audience usually support his specific message of free speech, political tolerance, and refuting specific social justice ideals, believing them to be authoritarian. I agree that Peterson's overall message is that the current system of hierarchy - fuelled inequality is somehow just because it is "natural", and that any attempt to aid it through appropriate government policy would either a) only go to service those in power and bring tyranny to the individual b) somehow "degrade" civilization culturally Or c) go against the natural order and destroy itself over time through major backlash. I obviously disagree with such a sentiment. Those who support Peterson usually disagree that the vast majority of inequality is necessary or just. I wouldn't be surprised if most support Bernie Sanders economically. They simply agree with his opinion that the preposed solutions by social justice warriors, which they have been disingenuously led to belief represent the left in the mainstream, are authoritarian in nature. As well as the fact that governments may use these authoritarian social policies to crack down on the population, with public support, despite remaining economically conservative and using progressive social policy as a shield. This is ESPECIALLY relevant in the sphere of Canadian politics; where Peterson hails from and remains most popular. Where the current Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau has given billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia, nowhere near met their Climate accord requirements whilst speeding up billions of barrels of oil production, has refused to raise taxes on the rich whilst placing a carbon tax on the CONSUMER and not the producer, has championed free trade including the TPP, has lied on multiple main campaign issues including electoral reform, has kept the government from being transparent, and much, MUCH more. This whilst championing feminism and gay rights, but ONLY domestically. (at least, claiming to whenever a camera is on and then doing nothing for the actual public.) Literally every second Trudeau gets the spotlight he cries, has a 30 second, VERY fake speech detailing nothing of substance given through an earpiece, and then behind closed doors runs the nation as a business for the benefit of wealthy oil tycoons. This whilst Feminist, Post-Colonialist, and Marxist literary theories are new, mandatory subjects to be taught in high school, which many view as a push towards nonsensical propaganda (something I do not necessarily agree with). This is what drives Peterson's theory of "Cultural Marxism"; that students are taught to look at things from an ideological lens which he views as dangerous and authoritarian. Whilst the concept of Cultural Marxism may originate from the nazis, I don't believe he is using it in a dogwhistle-like fashion. He simply needs to clarify his position (which again, I do not necessarily agree with) and use a DIFFERENT phrase (ie cultural revolution etc). For the record, I disagree with the VAST majority of Peterson's message (ie: his religious dogmatism, his right-wing sympathies and his view of ONE aspect of human nature driving, or ideally driving, social policy). Though share 2 things with the majority of his SUPPORTERS. The notion that focusing purely on progressive social policy without putting responsibilities on the government to respect freedom of speech, to be completely transparent, and represent the people economically, would be a disastrous direction allowing the government to crack down on opposing views (which will only push them underground) and thus become more authoritarian whilst remaining corrupt, business loving war mongers. The second being that social justice warriors often DO go too far in dismissing opposing views outright. Debate people who already have a large audience, regardless of how ignorant or disturbing you may find them. Just don't prop up such actors if they do not ALREADY have a large audience. You may be able to reach that audience rather than increase it through appearing authoritarian. Also, debate those in your life who you have the opportunity to sway. One last thing; pointing out privilege or power structures existing AS A SIDE POINT to your argument isn't a bad thing. It only empowers your opponent when you become lazy or frustrated and decide to claim "well you can't understand this..." or "well you should feel ashamed of..." your privilege. The majority of people ALREADY AGREE that white people (Americans in particular) do not face the same level of police brutality as their fellow black citizens. There may be disagreement as to why that is the case ie: drug war paired with systemic racism or "they just commit more crime" which is obvious nonsense, but you must POINT OUT WHY or else they appear to win to their audience, reinforcing that draconian belief. Claiming that the MAJORITY of Peterson fans agree with his very complex and somewhat hidden underlying viewpoint is disingenuous. Many agree that furthering equality and increasing the standard of living for all is right, they just have more libertarian social views.

jordan peterson's facebook group's cover photo is him smiling with his hands over a diverse selection of students, like five white boys and two black girls. always lol at it. so diverse. go clean your room buckoo!

Horsemanray That's not what I said but okay, lmao

Erynn Gillian This is just an absurd statement. Sam may be making an assumption based on what he's seen online or what his own biased may be, but your views are no better. Not only are you apparently biased in favour of the man, but you're also using just two events that you personally have attended as though it's "proof" of something greater. These are tiny anecdotes that, without any further clarification or data, are literally useless in this conversation. They disprove nothing.

Chad Tronetti He has many, many videos where he does exactly that.

He has had multiple Marxists reach out to debate with him and he has refused them and then claimed no Marxist ever tries to discuss with him. He is a liar. Anyone can win a debate against college students. The fact that Peterson refuses to debate Zizek, Wolff, etc makes him a liar.

Goobernational you're trying to connect dots that don't exist, but at least you tried.

Russian Bot High Servitor How is he connecting dots that don't exist when it's pretty well known multiple Marxists have reached out and he's turned them down and then he's gone on to say no Marxist don't wants to debate with him? You're trying to defend the indefensible, but at least you tried I guess.

Hoopla10 Because you're acting as if he is dodging marxist debate when in fact (for example) a potential debate with Lain is still tenable. Peterson has routinely gone on programs that disagree vehemently with his POV such as Vice, channel 4 UK, 60 minutes, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty etc. That's what he does. So no, nothing I am saying is indefensible.

So just to clarify you're making an equivalency with people who may actually know a thing or two about Marxism with some guy from Vice, a unprepared woman on channel 4 news where he coached all his stuff in the usual bollocks, Sam Harris etc???? "for example" and potential isn't the same as doing it. And given people have offered out a hand to debate with him on it then you got to wonder why he hasn't taken them up on it. Even more so when he's out right said they don't want to debate him. When somebody doesn't question it I have to then wonder why.