Dave Ruben and James Lindsay come to mind (although Ruben was always a bit of a grifter).
Lindsay is the one I’m most disappointed with. He fell down the Trump/QAnon rabbit hole in record time.
Laurence Fox
- Thread starter Amplus
- Start date
Dave Ruben and James Lindsay come to mind (although Ruben was always a bit of a grifter).
Lindsay is the one I’m most disappointed with. He fell down the Trump/QAnon rabbit hole in record time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,357
Ruben isn't particularly interesting himself but does have some great guests on.
integration? cos every city I lived in they mostly lived in their little own "china town" hardly integrating is it.
I don't see how they are really any more integrated than people from Muslim countries, they tend to all move to one area as well.
Jewish people do the same often even having their own private Jewish housing estates
living in your own community isn't really integrating, same as expats in Europe, most want to live in the same area, tend to not learn the language and spend most of their time at the Irish pub every foreign city has.
I guess you could argue we are worse
I absolutely agree. He was always a ‘less entertaining Joe Rogan’ in that regard.
When I first found him, he positioned himself as “I’m a pro-free-speech, gay liberal-lefty and the SJW side of ‘the left’ has gone too far”.
Now he’s just another shill for right-wing talking points.
First two cant be a surprise for you surely? Him being a just the flu bro shows he is a moron though (or trying to appeal to the morons in society). At least you didnt call him a racist this time (yet).
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,357
Is he a "just the flu bro" type though? I know nothing about his position on lock down I must admit but most of the opposition seems to be that lockdowns are a disproportionate response to the issue and only delays the inevitable, all whilst destroying the economy and by extension peoples lives long term. What exactly has he said?
Textbook case.
'an entire nation forced into lockdown, all for a virus that kills 5 in 10,000 people and is about as lethal as seasonal flu'
I know exactly what you mean.
There are some good points to be made in principle on these topics but everyone who strongly advocates for a position then seems to become blind to their own hypocrisy.
A: “I think X”
B: “You can’t say that you are awful!!”
A: “ You misunderstand.”
Also:
B: “I think Y”
A: “Oh do you!!! That is terrible and it is YOU that is awful!!”
It really confuses me. Reminds me of earlier in the thread the Mr. Fox had been called a racist and was like “I WILL SUE YOU YOU RETRACT THAT RIGHT NOW”. I thought perhaps the better response would be a cool “no I’m not”.
It was tit for tat after the twitter brigade started suing him.
But he and many others have tried that, yet the unfounded "racist!" claims still fly. The purpose of him talking about law suits was to highlight the fact that people throw out the R word under the impression it's consequence free, and to change that impression. It worked on the case I saw, which was retracted immediately upon him getting serious about the allegation.
He's also started a political party so needs to protect his image. Furthermore if you don't push back against false accusations then it becomes harder in the future to sue someone making even worse claims.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Ive got to admit pro Thatcher in that way actually did throw me. Its almost like he is becoming a stereo type or caricature at least.
As I say I think he does most of his stuff for his audience. Like one of the replies says. He is close to going on about lizard overlords.
From memory I havent called him a racist.
Yeah the hypocrisy of those people labelling others as "ist", "phobe" or whatever, whilst lecturing everyone else about how their words have consequences is quite annoying. I think he was right to call it out.
And like his reply to that says "Peoples lives and livelihoods have been destroyed, our economy trashed, an entire nation forced into lockdown, all for a virus that kills 5 in 10,000 people and is about as lethal as seasonal flu, but sure I’m the goggle eyed loon" - I consider this to be a good litmus test for "common sense" as one of those two statements above (one by Fox and one by Harris) is written by someone who who is stating an opinion in a clear logical manner in a way which opens up debate whilst the other is a emotional attack with no calm rational thought behind it and is designed to shut down discussion. It's up to you to pick which you believe is the "common sense" tweet and different people will pick the different tweets for their own reasons.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,179
- Location
- Rollergirl
The problem with Fox's "common sense" approach is that if we had taken his preferred course of action then his justification for that decision would be invalid because the virus would have killed many more than the figure he has deemed acceptable.
He's literally using the success of lockdown as a reason not to lockdown. If you think that's clear logic then yes I can see why you think his is the "common sense" tweet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
The guy is not only an idiot but dangerous to boot.
Common sense says. Protect yourself, dont stay out.
The NHS wont be able to cope if others follow his approach. In the sense of Covid, non compliance is the violence route.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I imagine that Laurence Fox doesn't wear a seat belt in a car (since they have been shown to save lives) and exercises his independence of thought and freedom of choice by driving on the wrong side of the road.
Seriously, anyone who suggests that reducing the death toll is pointless should not be allowed access to Social Media or even out of an institution.
Seriously, anyone who suggests that reducing the death toll is pointless should not be allowed access to Social Media or even out of an institution.
This pretty much proves my "common sense" theory - you didn't read my post - instead you assumed I'd said "statement X" (which I didn't) which then forced you to react to something you assumed I said (which I didn't) by telling me that what I said (which I didn't) is wrong with your reasons for it. Now, what usually happens next in these situations this that, because you'll think I'm "against" you as I'm telling you that what you posted about me is wrong (you are), you'll want to ignore the fact that you didn't read my post correctly in the first place (which you didn't) and feel like you need to get into a back and forth argument to prove you're right rather than simply re-reading my post, realising you made a mistake during the reading and moving on.
To clarify - I never said which tweet I believe is the common sense tweet - You have allowed your own bias to force you into assuming that I must think a certain way with absolutely zero proof for your claim - and in doing so you have shown me that you lack some (but not all) common sense, proving my litmus test to be somewhat effective.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,179
- Location
- Rollergirl
@ianh I do apologise, I didn't realise I was taking part in an experiment to prove how clever you are.
My point still stands. It's unclear whether you concur, but it's also unimportant as I'm happy that I've made my personal view crystal clear and no counter argument to that has been presented.
My point still stands. It's unclear whether you concur, but it's also unimportant as I'm happy that I've made my personal view crystal clear and no counter argument to that has been presented.
Thanks and you're absolutely right, it doesn't prove how clever I am and it was never meant to as it was an extremely simple point for most people to understand - "there are two views and different people will pick different views".
However it shows who doesn't read posts fully and then who decides to make up something just so that they can then argue against the thing that they just made up