It's just so easy to say the likes of people he engages with are [xyz], when yes, that is most likely the case, but it still doesn't mean anything.

That is the whole idea of selection bias.

Just like Jordan Peterson, who has debated hard hitters, like Zizek. And many would argue he was ripped to shreds.

Yet, Peterson still holds his same old views, he hasn't changed anything.

I could easily stand against him on any number of issues. Kavanaugh would be a cake walk.

I don't doubt that, I'm sure many people can face Harris.

But are they willing/able to come on his show?

Is it a good idea for them?

Basically Harris' platform itself is a sifter for ideas

Any time bro. But again I have neither a postgrad nor (currently) a 6-figure salary. My point is that this demographic is the vast majority of people. Remaining ignorant of what they think and why is *intentionally* putting yourself into a very limited realm of ideas.

Which demographic?

As I said those with *neither* a postgrad nor a 6-figure salary.

I mean, would you agree that they would put their career opportunities at risk by going on Harris' show?

What do they have to gain from it?

It seems like an unneccessary risk for most people

There are a few hundred million in the country M8 pretty sure you could find a few. More to the point it is less impactful on their career opportunities. If you are making 50-60K a year most of your potential employers do not really care what Twitter thinks of you.

A hundred million who can actually stand up to Harris?

That seems unlikely

It's also not a matter of the Twatter

But harassing employees etc.

No I meant a couple hundred million in that demographic. "Standing up to" Sam is not really my point but rather exposing Sam (or Joe or any number of others) to people outside of their culture is more the matter I was addressing. Harassing employers is really not that big a deal. I could likely go on Indeed and find a higher paying job in a month or two if it came to that. At that level skilled experienced personnel are valuable and Twitter mobs have a very short half-life.

Dude

People can lose their jobs if they don't watch out who they talk to, what they say, etc., in these talks

Peterson himself got severely harassed just because he gave one heartfelt speech

The door to his office was jammed shut

I'm not sure but didn't he also lose his job?

"Harassing employers is not a big deal" is just so wrong, it's just a terrible thing to say

As if people's livelihoods aren't dependent on that

Not everyone has the fortune of becoming a celebrity like Peterson and receiving a lot of donations

If you don't enjoy that privilege, then your life can fall apart

That's precisely why Harris worked for so long before he finally opened his mouth about the riskiest topics

And in fact, Peterson can still become homeless any day, he's not set for life at all, and he's not safe

Or take someone like Count Dankula

One video made him completely unemployable

It wasn't even political speech, he made a joke

One that actually mocks Nazis, and that was used to call him a Nazi

These real life consequences speak very clearly, public appearances and voicing political views are high risk low reward ventures for most people

I mean that is more of an issue if you *are* someone in the postgrad/100K club. Take like Bogossian. He's in trouble because his career is as an academic and academia is in that small club. I'm in heavy industry and XYZ mid-level industrial producer does not even *have* a PR department.

It's an issue at every level

Lindsay Shepherd is another example. She also has mouths to feed, if only her own, idk.

It's an open secret that certain papers are advised not to be published so as to not harm one's own career chances.