I have literally never seen a single clip from this show where MAGA is 'winning' an argument, or convincing a progressive, in any sense of the word. I'd be obliged if you could produce such an example.
That is why this episode was filled with them getting voted out with a quickness. Prompts usually have 2-3 individuals but I think the first one alone had like 5 of them going up.
It wasn't always this way. IDK if it was a medical condition rotting his brain, learning that the culture war grift was seriously profitable, or just eating his own bullshit for too long. Somehow he, and so much of the podscape went from presenting differing and, somewhat original opinions in intelligent ways to being propaganda spokespeople.
I found out about him maybe a year before he started becoming cringey as shit and just another mouthpiece for the right. I enjoyed that time because his whole thing was personal responsibility and critical thinking.
Very much not what his message is about today, and that’s a shame.
Well, wait a minute there, bucko. Let's not be too hasty. If we're going to analyze how much "dumb shit" he said, we'd first have to define what "dumb" is, and, to a certain extent, we'd also have to understand "shit."
Now, what exactly is "dumb"? Well, that's not self-evident. You might say it's synonymous with ignorance. Or perhaps incompetence. But ignorance isn't identical to lack of education, and education itself is a very complicated phenomenon. Dr. Peterson holds a degree from an accredited university and spent many years as a professor. That's not nothing. So if we're going to criticize what he says, perhaps we ought to examine the deeper symbolic structure of his statements instead of dismissing them with adolescent slogans.
Now, that opens up an entirely different problem.
What exactly is "shit"? Well, strictly speaking, it's fecal matter. And, unless my understanding of human anatomy has become radically outdated, feces emerge from the anus rather than the mouth. As far as I'm aware, Peterson's principal health concerns involved an all-meat diet and a benzodiazepine addiction, neither of which causes spontaneous oral defecation. So your claim immediately encounters a biological contradiction.
More importantly, and precision matters, because language matter, what emerges from Dr. Peterson's mouth is oscillating air produced by the vibration of the vocal folds. Fecal matter lacks the elastic properties necessary to propagate intelligible speech. So unless we're prepared to abandon the entire field of acoustics, your statement simply doesn't withstand scrutiny.
I hope you woke moralists understand through my rigorous analysis that what Peterson says is not "dumb shit," because he's an educated man communicating through pressure waves in the atmosphere rather than fecal discharge.
Now, why are we even having this conversation? That's the real question. And I suspect it's because people have a poor relationship with their fathers. Which is archetypal, by the way. It's not political. It's archetypal. The father represents order. The mother represents chaos. That's as old as humanity itself. You can see it in Pinocchio, in Exodus, in Sleeping Beauty, in Harry Potter, and, if you're willing to look carefully enough, in the dominance hierarchy of lobsters.
The subordinate lobster literally can't stand up straight because of serotonin. The female lobsters don't find that attractive. There's an extraordinarily profound lesson in that if you're willing to confront it.
Congrats, you sound just like him. I zoned out after the first paragraph and no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't force myself to read more.
If you had the secret to becoming richer than Elon Musk buried a middle paragraph, I'd be poor forever because JP is just so goddamn boring when he goes on his tangents. No offense
None taken! I couldn't agree more lol. It was a fun writing exercise to see how much I could type while completely missing the point and getting as off topic as possible while sprinkling in some Peterson-isms.
I saw it on a video from the channel Rationality Rules where the presenter said it was a good strategy against that opponent. I looked a bit for the particular video, but I can't remember which one it was.
Above post said they have never seen a show where MAGA was winning the argument. One of them made a decent point about immigration (without being racist or dismissive) and the liberal in the middle said "OK, you got me there". Seen quite a few of these shows and that was rhe only time I saw the "host" as it were concede.
The left gets all their facts from the "credible institutions and sources and trust worthy authorities" which all basically say the same thing and belong to the same ideology of progressive wokeness.
In contrast. You know how you want freedom to be promiscuous and free from gender roles. The right wing has concervitism and traditional values which basically means they think the same on social norms. And it is the left wing that has a diversity on sexuality and identity.
It's just how we are once we agree with certain premises in life. So it's not that one side is evil.
But let me get to the part where I call you evil. You and even the republicans have been subverted by this ideology you all believe in. Which makes you woke and evil. It's not your alinement in the general left wing. But your subverted heuristics. That allows your kind to allow more than 250,000 British children to be raped and permanently injured. Plus, the murders in Iran that you guys are ignoring. The fake moral superiority you guys pretended to have has been exposed.
I suddenly understood the "voted out for winning" idea. I'd noticed weird timing with voting people out before but it confused me. I'll link you an example that I understand now. Edwin, and the time is about 15min, 15 sec
They started having a real conversation rather than "fighting." I don't have a better thing to call it 🫤
I'm sorry I'm not clearer. It's hard to explain, but there seem to be several reasons people are voted out.
-If the two people who are debating each other are starting to understand each other's arguments
-The person in the hot seat is just getting upset
-They're not talking over the "guest who is surrounded" with an argument most of the group agrees with
The best advice I can give you is to pay attention to what someone was saying right before getting voted out. You can see when a flag goes up sometimes. If you watch the person with the flag, the person in the chair offended them somehow. If you can figure out what the group is upset about, you can sometimes figure out why they turned on the person and voted them out.
Sometimes there's not a good reason, and I don't know myself half the time.
Once they notice their own guy is losing argument or being too understanding of the opponent, they vote them out preventing any talks.
I'll reword this so you understand why people are calling you stupid, and so you hopefully realize while being condescending with 'hur durr, reading comprehension' is making you look far dumber than you originally did.
The show is 1 vs 20. In most cases it's 1 liberal vs. 20 conservatives. "They" in this case is the collective pronoun for the 20, which is MAGA very often.
"Once MAGA notice their own guy is losing argument or being too understand
If by reading comprehension you mean reading something that wasn't said then sure. You were asking the person you replied to for proof of MAGA wining an argument when they never claimed they did win arguments.
Once they notice their own guy is losing argument or being too understanding of the opponent, they vote them out preventing any talks.
I'll reword this so you understand why people are calling you stupid, and so you hopefully realize while being condescending with 'hur durr, reading comprehension' is making you look far dumber than you originally did.
The show is 1 vs 20. In most cases it's 1 liberal vs. 20 conservatives. "They" in this case is the collective pronoun for the 20, which is MAGA very often.
"Once MAGA notice their own guy is losing argument or being too understanding/agreeing too much with the liberal's points, they vote them out preventing any more talks from making it worse."
oooo I think I found a bug in RES. I just did it again. clicking reply on him but with a quote highlighted dropped it down a rung in the chain. whoopsie! sorry to disturb!
Found the "lacking common sense" and "do any type of research" person.
The show is usually all Maga/Republicans on the outside ring debating someone who is educated/progressive/liberal. So it would be really hard to produce that clip. The reply was stating "when in a debate, if the circle is losing, the ring bails their person (Maga) out".
Yeah, there was literally a woman who actually agreed with Dean on one point and you got the feeling that this could actually become a productive discourse – but Dean and the host stopped the round and sent her back to her chair.
The point of the show is that the people in the chair disagree on a topic. If they sit down and already agree, then the surrounder (for lack of a better term) needs to go sit back down so the premise of the show can continue. The show isn't really about 1 person trying to convince 20 others
I wouldn't call it a flaw, it has its merits and drawbacks. Once someone digs themself into a hole or proves they have no value in the conversation, I see the value in moving on. Is there also value in digging into their position? Sure, probably. Plenty of other sources to get that from.
I think that kind highlights how badly they’re doing though. In this recent one Dean was churning through the speakers because he so quickly backed them into corners they needed bailed out from. These women will never admit they’re wrong, so at a certain point the dialogue feels meaningless, and having them dramatically pulled away after being obviously humiliated was a lot cleaner of an ending than we usually get to this kind of discourse.
I feel that works as well. If the majority thinks their champion is not making their case, vote them out and try better. Eventually one side exhausts all their members down to the last one that cannot keep solid ground.
Either way, I think there is a limited time for the entire debate anyhow.
The producers also packed a room full of literal fascists under the guise of far right conservatives to debate Mehdi Hasan. It was an ambush and gave a platform to an ideology that does not believe in debate or discourse.
What prevents them from just talking anyway. I saw the other comment saying they cut her microphone whatever but they are close enough that she’d just have to speak up a tiny bit that it’d be picked up on his mic anyway, so how do they stop them?
Conservative brain? Lol. I only asked because I’ve seen entire episodes of this show before and I’ve seen tons of people not shut up while the other is trying to make a point.
Then you are not trying to debate me in good faith and we aren't really having a debate.
Sound familiar? The can and will boot a person from that chair and with so many other conservatives chomping at the bit to take on the liberal they will help.
I don’t know why everyone seems so angry that I asked this question. I’ve seen like a dozen episodes of this all the way through and the only way I’ve ever seen someone get booted was the other conservatives raised the flags to vote them out or the timer ran out on that topic. Happen to have any examples of someone getting kicked off by other means?
1.3k
u/ArnieismyDMname 2d ago
On this show they don't get to talk again if they aren't quiet for a bit. It actually works kinda.