He absolutely is not. He’s (moderately) liberal. The absurdly polarized social media scene has moved the window.

Yeah I think it's unfortunate that Rogan gets cast that way. His interview with SargonOfAkkad is pretty telling in that regard. He pulls no punches there and says pretty emphatically that he doesn't identify with a lot of what he says.

As I mentioned, I don't disparage "right wing". I actually enjoy Joe Rogans podcast, and also Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson. All three of them are solidly classical liberal, which is probably right of center today (individualism vs. collectivism, equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome, etc). But AFAIK, damore never came to the young Turks, Chapo trap house, which are leftist podcasts. I could be wrong.

> All three of them are solidly classical liberal, which is probably right of center today

Pretty much all of the mainstream “right” and “left” in America are takes on classical liberalism, with different ideas about concrete context applies. The far-right and far-left (including the alt-right as part of the far-right, for this purpose) aren't.

Would you go on the Young Turks if you were him? It'd be like walking before a firing squad.

I would go on a 1 on 1 interview with Cenk Uygur.

And you've watched the one he did with Sam Harris?

Yes. What is wrong with that interview?

Well, it has been a few years, and it's a very long interview, so I hope you understand I'm not going to be very specific.

These are the things that I came away with after watching it, to the best of my recollection: - Cenks inability to be charitable towards his guest - Cenks inability to let his guest make a point without challenging it repeatedly, and please note the that the word "repeatedly" is key - Cenks way of deflecting analysis of an apple by saying "but what about this orange?!" - Sams amazing patience and calm

Anyway, that's how I remember feeling after having watched it years ago. And I've never watched Cenk before or after that interview, so I have no other points of reference for his character or abilities as an interviewer.

I'm not going to go watch it again, so there's nothing to discuss here - it just amazes me that anyone would want to be interviewed by Cenk, considering how negatively I viewed his interaction with Sam.

So, I guess I should not have engaged you at all, because I have nothing to discuss, and no factual arguments to make.

I would delete my first comment if I could, but I can't.

I remember finishing that interview thinking that Cenk was the most intellectually dishonest host I had seen in a long time. Sam's patience from beginning to end was extremely impressive.

Okay, but running to Molyneux is instant confirmation of the things people thought about him.

and actually yes, do some prep work and go on a show that will be hostile. Not crazy, but potentially hostile. Someone who will reject the ideas and force you to defend and/or clarify them.

Uhh, he had The Entire Internet doing that at him 24/7, why do you think there needs to be more?

I think he didn't do much to defend or clarify his arguments and instead took exactly the path his detractors (myself included) expected from the minute we read his "poor oppressed conservative" portion.

Well, whether you disparage it or not, grouping Joe Rogan and Milo together doesn't seem very accurate.

Do you think any of those would have had him on?

I doubt he got many invites.

> All three of them are solidly classical liberal, which is probably right of center today

Classical liberal just seems like yet another rebranding by people who don't want to just call themselves conservatives. I've yet to hear a "classical liberal" who doesn't seem like yet another libertarian/conservative.

I've consistenly voted Labour / Labor for all my life, and my poliics haven't changed. I still believe in looking after the elderly, children and the ill, and negotation. I loved Milliband. But the left (at least Labour in the UK) has been siezed by a hard left group called Momentum, that supports far-left political violence, is often openly hostile to people based on skin color and gender. Classical liberals haven't changed, the far-left has just taken over left wing politics.

Small edit: "and negotation" should be "and collective negotation"

Which is why I stated that they are right of center... I agree, classical liberalism is basically right wing / conservative / libertarian. America generally is right wing, going back to it's founding.

Jordan Peterson especially sounds like every traditionalist Catholic I know. Which is fine, but at least they wear their stripes proudly.

Most of those "classical liberals" are now branded "leftists".

Anyway, what's the definition of classical liberal, conservative? It's a mishmash of random "single issues" thrown together.

The definition changes as it's convenient for the optimization game of politics, as parties, groups, power structures try to maintain their relevance, try to get more voters, more support, more donations, more allies, and so on.

No internal consistency, no moral foundations, no logic, no principles.

GP is asking you how you concluded that Joe Rogan is right wing podcast.

I'm sorry but I need to call this out. There is no difference between equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes for any significant population size. The latter is a direct consequence of the former; and anyone that believes we are close to having equality of opportunities in America is wilfully ignorant.

That sounds like absolute nonsense.

So was he disingenuous, or did he lack understanding? Pick one.

Are you operating under the belief that humans can only assign a single emotion to another...?

I said that he was a bit disingenous about some thing and then said that he "lacked understanding about...", yet, sure, cut that off, rip out the context in the interest of being snarky to a complete stranger. Why not?

Any living male with a pulse is generally considered to be "right-wing", particularly if they ask questions or exhibit any skepticism towards mainstream liberal culture.

If you spend a lot of time railing on "SJWs", and comparatively little time advocating for an alternative path to a more egalitarian social order, I think you can be considered right wing. Supporting pot legalization doesn't erase that.

"If you spend a lot of time railing on "SJWs", and comparatively little time advocating for an alternative path to a more egalitarian social order"

I mean, if you want to debate, I'm happy to do so, but I'd prefer the debate be rooted in reality and not hyperbole.

What hyperbole are you objecting to?

On net, do you think Rogan's political commentary favors the status quo or a more equal society?

Imagine you think fire trucks are an eyesore, so you start an advocacy campaign trying to ban them from the road. Someone might accuse you of not caring if people's houses burn down.

You might reply that deep in your heart you are 100% against houses burning down and you're just weighing in on the way fires should be fought.

And maybe you're being honest that in your heart of hearts you don't want houses to burn down. But that's only relevant to you. From everyone else's perspective, your politics are pro-houses-burning-down.

"What hyperbole are you objecting to?"

Your entire first post.

1) He doesnt "spend a lot of time railing on SJWs".

2) He absolutely talks, with almost every single guest, about how to potentially change the world for the better.

3) I never indicated that I thought he wasn't right wing because of how he felt about legal pot, yet, you throw that in there anyway, i guess to belittle an argument I never made? Fun...

So yeah, two sentences and every single point is either incorrect or not useful. That's not exactly how one starts a useful debate.

Also wow that is an atrocious analogy.

So, just to see if I follow:

You make really bad claim that has 3 parts and all 3 parts are either made up, exaggerated or irrelevant.

I explain, part by part, how these things are made up, exaggerated and irrelevant, and at the end of my post, marvel at how poor your followup analogy is.

Your takeaway? "Who gives a shit about that point by point argument he just made to me? I'm going to totally ignore that! The one interaction we've ever had, where he made point by point critiques of my argument, has shown me that he "sure does like to make strong claims without offering even a shred of argumentation.""...?

I'm curious how a human brain is capable of producing that kind of logic? It is just simply a case that you're lashing out because you're embarrassed your initial point was made to look so bad? I'm not getting what's happening here.

Your incredulity perplexes me. I offered a simple premise (that Rogan is vocally more anti-SJW than in favor of an alternative path to social justice) and a simple conclusion from that premise (that Rogan can fairly be considered right-wing).

You seem to disagree with either the premise or the conclusion, but rather than making an argument to that effect you have made 3 (three!) meta-posts about it, all while waxing on about the virtues effective debate.

Maybe you disagree with my premise, or maybe you disagree with my conclusion, but your posts so far amount to a whole lot of grandstanding and a vanishingly small amount of argumentation. Your insistence on talking about me and your meta-view of my argument rather than the argument itself reveals a lot more about you than it does about me.

I still stand by the argument (both premise and conclusions) I made in my original post. I wish our conversation could have been about that, as I think it would have been much more interesting.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines with uncivil personal attacks and by using the site primarily for ideological battle. Those things are not allowed here, regardless of your politics, how right you are, or how right you feel you are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You've been breaking the HN guidelines egregiously too. If you keep doing this we will ban you. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civil, substantive comments or no comments. That means no flamewars, no snarky dismissals, and no tedious tit-for-tats. And no personal attacks, which you stooped to shamefully in this thread.

I'm not banning you just this minute because your comment history doesn't show that you've been using HN primarily for this sort of battle, and that's the test we apply. But if you keep breaking the rules, we definitely will.

So it sounds like you agree with me that he lacked an understanding of how to behave in a workplace?

I agree only in a sense similar to how people in a wheelchair lack the capability to access public spaces in the same way as non-disabled people do.

It's funny how even in a highly logical technical community the conversations on certain topics are the same as you'd find elsewhere.

To be clear, your analogy is that this fellow lashing out at certain groups of his coworkers can be attributed to their mental disorder you've diagnosed and you've then decided that this is the same as a person in a wheelchair being unable to access certain areas? I'm understanding this correctly? You're sure this is an analogy you think is passably decent let alone one that can be be followed up with you mocking other people afterward...? What are we hoping to accomplish here?

> lashing out at certain groups of his coworkers

Please explain where he was "lashing out" and who those "certain groups of his coworkers" were. Try to be specific.

Ah! The old obtuseness defense. Fun.

You misspelled Socratic Method.

I wonder if you have any inkling of how you're demonstrating my point.

It's not about being politically correct, it's about not implying that your female coworkers don't deserve their jobs.

before someone says "He didn't do that, you obviously never read it", I did and I still believe it's a conclusion that he leads the reader to. Not sure it was intentional.

Also the whole "too neurotic for leadership" bit. WTF was he thinking with that.

I read Demores paper and I didn't get the impression that he thought that about female co workers. To me his main point seemed to be that women by number arnt as interested in tech as males are. On your second point it's easy to look back on the paper and pick at the way some of it comes across but I don't think he ever imagined it becoming the published and the political hot potato it became. Maybe he would have been more careful with the wording if he could have seen into the future, unfortunately we don't have that skill yet.

Totally agree. How in the world could you have Damore on a team with women after the memo is out and people know he wrote it?

I have never bought into this is some social political thing but rather just basic human decency. Never understood how the right wing got a hold of this and my only guess it was Damore or someone from the right wing that wanted this rather obvious HR issue as some social political issue. It is not in reality. Any company would have diciplined Damore including firing. A manager is responsible for everyone including the women.

Google expects people to work with people who openly hate white men. Just take a look at some of their twitter feeds. Damore expressed no such opinion of women he just has a broader explanation for under-representation in tech other than sexism.

Google is a for profit company. Damore obviously did not help that with his views of women and Google did as any company with a brain would do and get rid of him.

Why on Earth do you think a former Google engineer is sitting at home unemployed? You would never want him on a team that had to get something done.

There is so many reasons to fire him and it is California so Google did not even need a reason.

But the more interesting thing is how did the become a right wing thing? Who was able to pull that off and use this as something to gen up the right wing? Is it not a bit manipulative of the right wingers? Do they not see it?

A company with a brain hires a lawyer to look at the issue when an employee expresses concern that the company is breaking laws with their hiring practices. Firing someone who expresses those concerns makes the problem infinitely worse as we are seeing.

> Why on Earth do you think a former Google engineer is sitting at home unemployed?

Because he's busy - see the title of this post.