> 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.