Past generations had much greater Jews (Einstein, Friedman, Ayn Rand, etc.). Now it feels like 9 out of 10 of them are progressive lunatics. Sanders, Pakman, Kulinski, Big Joel, significant portion of Breadtube, and practically everyone who writes anti-white articles in the media. (Niggers just rant about whites on TV or Youtube. Jews instead write about that stuff as if "journalism".)

It's target fixation. I'd say the number one offender I see are WASP women. If I were to really name a demographic it would be people with 6 figure salaries and/ or postgrad degrees. Naturally this is going to be overpopulated with Jews and WASPs.

Like you brought up Sam and I listened to his last interview at work today. To 'understand' deplorables he went to who? A journo for the New Yorker. I think, as a general practice, podcasters like Sam or Joe should make an effort to have on, maybe only 10% of the time, someone who has *neither* a postgrad nor a 6-figure salary.

Because otherwise your exposure is to an extreme minority of people. You are really about as worldly as a kid from the inner city slums of Baltimore. If you move that kid to another inner-city slum (much like moving from one upper-class neighborhood to another) their socialization and worldview does not change much.

anyone else find it astoundingly coincidental that mexico and chile are sprouting some problems close to election season, with the wall being built, and immigration being cut down on

and Hillary was the Foreign Policy person

and she's potentially running again?

all very convenient

@Jym It's also the matter of Sam Harris' "choice" of conversation partners, as those who disagree with him are less likely to engage with him because he's such a hard hitter, or intellectual powerhouse. Almost no one can straight up defeat him in an argument because he's so rock solid.

And then there's the issue that those who oppose him, if they agree with him on other things, may not want to spend time on him, because they consider it a fruitless effort, or perhaps even dangerous for their own careers. The pool of voluntary debating partners shrinks to an absurd degree then.

Basically, agreeing with Harris, or at least having similar views, is the safe and easy choice.

@ETBrooD

I honestly do not find Sam that impressive. Maybe it is because I was never in to movement atheism? I like that he will expose me to ideas I would not normally seek out. But my pint was that those 2 categories represent an extremely narrow band of interest and experience and these public conversations suffer from that degree of ignorance.

Now, I dare you to find someone on the opposite isle of Harris, someone with equal intellect, who opposes his views, and is willing/able to have such a big platform as his.

Harris worked for years to even have the financial stability to be able to safely voice his true opinions.

Yeah, I'm not arguing Harris can't be wrong on things, I'm sure he is. And I'm sure he has his own set of fallacies.

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