Dave Rubin (The Rubin Report) Discussion

beancounter said:

I stand corrected. Of the videos I've seen, his guest were conservative. I'm not sure why Youtube is only feeding me those ones, or suggesting conservative commentators in my feed..Geez watch a few anti-SJW videos, and you're labeled for life

I'm well aware that classic liberal is different from current liberal . I left a forum I had been a member of for many years, and joined this one because the opinions expressed there in the past year or two had changed from "save the whales" to "save my feelings".

Click to expand...

Likely due to the fact that the majority of his viewers are from the Right. He has become very good friends with many of the Right leaning figures on the internet (Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder etc) so those right leaning guests likely get more views when those fans check it out. It is actually a good platform for leftists to reach out to those on the Right if they would take the time to be on it.

Nap said:

He has stated multiple times that his goal isn't to judge or try to corner his guests. This is the reason why it appears "spineless" that is the intent for the platform he created. He gives people the opportunity to speak and let the audience be the judge of the interview. He isn't there to debate them, simply listen and try to understand their position.

Click to expand...

You can have that type of interview --I'm not unaware of his stated reasons for why he does interviews that way or that being his reasoning-- but if someone comes on your show and spouts bull****, and your response is "Mhmm, yep" and you aren't being sarcastic, your audience is now less informed, not more. You can ask an interviewee to defend a claim without it turning into a debate.

Maybe it would be slightly better if there was even a pretense of Rubin allowing both sides to speak on his show --but there isn't. He only lets the far Right onto his show to the point where I can name a single Leftist ever having been on his shows. The Right can sit on his show and defend literal white nationalists on his show, and so on and so on, and he has refused to let numerous liberals, progressives, and left-wingers onto his show, including Sam Seder, Michael Brooks, David Pakman, and Kyle Kulinski. I only know of one instance of a left-winger being let onto his show, which was Yanis Varafoukis. And that was largely because Varafoukis was anti-Hillary Clinton.

FieldTheorist said:

You can have that type of interview --I'm not unaware of his stated reasons for why he does interviews that way or that being his reasoning-- but if someone comes on your show and spouts bull****, and your response is "Mhmm, yep" and you aren't being sarcastic, your audience is now less informed, not more. You can ask an interviewee to defend a claim without it turning into a debate.

Maybe it would be slightly better if there was even a pretense of Rubin allowing both sides to speak on his show --but there isn't. He only lets the far Right onto his show to the point where I can name a single Leftist ever having been on his shows. The Right can sit on his show and defend literal white nationalists on his show, and so on and so on, and he has refused to let numerous liberals, progressives, and left-wingers onto his show, including Sam Seder, Michael Brooks, David Pakman, and Kyle Kulinski. I only know of one instance of a left-winger being let onto his show, which was Yanis Varafoukis. And that was largely because Varafoukis was anti-Hillary Clinton.

Click to expand...

I hadn't heard of him refusing any interviews, I would be very disappointed in him if true.

I think it is far more accurate to say his guests have ranged from far right to center-left. Most of the far right guests have been on because they were currently in the news and brought in to talk about what happened. The bulk of his guest largely reside in the mainstream right to center left. I agree that it would be better if more of the mainstream left and far left were included to round it out but that is going to be tough in the partisan reality we live in.

I think most of the Left to far left will not even give him the time of day because of the false label of Alt-Right and far right many have put on him. It is similar to Sam Harris and his interview with Charles Murray. Due to the negative attention surrounding Murray and his work, Sam never paid any attention to him let alone gave thought to bring him on his podcast. It wasn't until he was on the recieving end of the attacks from the Left that he really understood that many of these accusations of far right and Alt-Right are false and done to discredit the individual. Anyone that believes Dave Rubin is Alt-Right, a bigot, or far right is simply ignorant of his podcast.

Another potential issue is Dave Rubin's personal crusade for free speech. Given his attacks and rhetoric on "Regressive Left" in cases of free speech would likely keep them from wanting to be a part of his podcast. I doubt Dave would treat a guest in a negative manner or try to paint them in a negative light but you have to imagine they would be unlikely to give him the benefit of doubt on that regard.

Edit: Just looked into the Sam Seder / Dave Rubin thing. Would have really like to have seen that. Also, Dave Rubin was on Pakman's show.

Jesse Booth said:

When you make baseless, all-encompassing claims, you deserve bottom of the barrel responses. Note that I still provided examples of liberals that he interviewed, disproving that all of his guests are "very conservative."

Click to expand...

I've heard him say quite a few times, that ever since he left TYT a lot of his liberal friends aren't talking to him and it's been difficult to find liberals who are willing to be interviewed.

.

SeAnThOmAs said:

What are your thoughts on Dave Rubin? Is he a voice of reason? Is he a sellout? Is he an opportunist? Does he really just care about the ideas?

Click to expand...

Never heard of him.

SeAnThOmAs said:

What are your thoughts on Dave Rubin? Is he a voice of reason? Is he a sellout? Is he an opportunist? Does he really just care about the ideas?

Click to expand...

In case you or anyone else is interested, this is Dave Rubin describing himself politically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8O-6ab_HZQ

FieldTheorist said:

You can have that type of interview --I'm not unaware of his stated reasons for why he does interviews that way or that being his reasoning-- but if someone comes on your show and spouts bull****, and your response is "Mhmm, yep" and you aren't being sarcastic, your audience is now less informed, not more. You can ask an interviewee to defend a claim without it turning into a debate.

Maybe it would be slightly better if there was even a pretense of Rubin allowing both sides to speak on his show --but there isn't. He only lets the far Right onto his show to the point where I can name a single Leftist ever having been on his shows. The Right can sit on his show and defend literal white nationalists on his show, and so on and so on, and he has refused to let numerous liberals, progressives, and left-wingers onto his show, including Sam Seder, Michael Brooks, David Pakman, and Kyle Kulinski. I only know of one instance of a left-winger being let onto his show, which was Yanis Varafoukis. And that was largely because Varafoukis was anti-Hillary Clinton.

Click to expand...

I am a podcast addict and I agree that Dave Rubin tries too hard to be agreeable with his guests. Sam Harris has discussions with some of the same guests (Ben Shapiro, for example) . Harris is very civil with all his guests but he does not nod passively when someone utters a bad idea. He questions. He digs. He presents a genuinely thoughtful exchange of ideas. I think Dave Rubin is too eager to be liked.

Cassandra said:

I am a podcast addict and I agree that Dave Rubin tries too hard to be agreeable with his guests. Sam Harris has discussions with some of the same guests (Ben Shapiro, for example) . Harris is very civil with all his guests but he does not nod passively when someone utters a bad idea. He questions. He digs. He presents a genuinely thoughtful exchange of ideas. I think Dave Rubin is too eager to be liked.

Click to expand...

You are comparing Apples to oranges, they have 2 different views on what their podcast actually is. The intent for Sam's podcast is to dive into a particular subject and break down the reasoning and logic behind it. Rubin's podcast is more about giving a platform for people to come on share their views and why they have them. He isn't trying to dig in and break down their arguments because that isn't the goal of his podcast.

Nap said:

I hadn't heard of him refusing any interviews, I would be very disappointed in him if true.

Click to expand...

Pakman I may have misremembered, but we'll see if Rubin actually has Pakman on his show. Likewise, Kyle Kulinski gave Dave a large interview after his falling out with TYT, and I seem to remember Kyle asking to come onto Rubin show's, which has not happened. But in either case, the statistics of who is on his show is plain as day, and the case of Sam Seder and Michael Brooks is the most well documented.

I think it is far more accurate to say his guests have ranged from far right to center-left. Most of the far right guests have been on because they were currently in the news and brought in to talk about what happened. The bulk of his guest largely reside in the mainstream right to center left. I agree that it would be better if more of the mainstream left and far left were included to round it out but that is going to be tough in the partisan reality we live in.

Click to expand...

1.) David Pakman who was brought on to bash Reza Aslan. 2.) Varafoukis, who if memory serves was brought on to bash Hillary. 3.) Jimmy to do the same.

Who am I missing? Admittedly I haven't watched in a few months. Has he had on anyone left of center-right recently?

I think most of the Left to far left will not even give him the time of day because of the false label of Alt-Right and far right many have put on him.

Click to expand...

He's a part of the alt-Right not because he's personally an alt-Righter, but because he seems to have an obsession with giving them a platform in exchange for money.

It is similar to Sam Harris and his interview with Charles Murray. Due to the negative attention surrounding Murray and his work, Sam never paid any attention to him let alone gave thought to bring him on his podcast. It wasn't until he was on the recieving end of the attacks from the Left that he really understood that many of these accusations of far right and Alt-Right are false and done to discredit the individual. Anyone that believes Dave Rubin is Alt-Right, a bigot, or far right is simply ignorant of his podcast.

Click to expand...

My response here has to be somewhat nuanced.

1.) Reza Aslan's attacks on Sam Harris were dishonest, and I would agree with Sam that Glenn Greenwald's article on hate speech was wrong (Not totally, mind you, but I was not willing to declare Charlie Hebdo racist).

2.) Cenk Uygur (I can't account for his Twitter statements, but on his TYT program and during his interview with Sam Harris) gave completely valid critiques of Sam Harris. Glenn Greenwald's later article on anti-Muslim animus in New Atheism was completely fair and totally valid criticism. Kyle Kulinski's critiques (although more mild) were also 100% spot on. Noam Chomsky's attack of Sam Harris' worldview on foreign policy as being hopelessly childish and 1-dimensional is the most honest critique of Sam Harris to date.

Sam Harris is best against religious doctrine, because it's where his intellectual capacity and his personal interests mesh the best. When he tries to do philosophy or foreign policy, his complete lack of interest (and thus lack of understanding) in the underlying subject matter comes out. Him persistently claiming that everyone in the world is misrepresenting his views does not help his credibility on these matters.

Another potential issue is Dave Rubin's personal crusade for free speech. Given his attacks and rhetoric on "Regressive Left" in cases of free speech would likely keep them from wanting to be a part of his podcast. I doubt Dave would treat a guest in a negative manner or try to paint them in a negative light but you have to imagine they would be unlikely to give him the benefit of doubt on that regard.

Click to expand...

I mean, Dave Rubin does not pull punches on the Left, he referred to many Leftists as "fundamentally dishonest," "liars" and so forth, while he plays footsie with Milo Yiannopolous who was the most lying, disingenuous public speaker until Trump. I think there's also a sense that since Rubin has let his ship be boarded by the alt-Right, there's no reason to give his show any further legitimacy by putting themselves on as guests. I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment, but I do understand their point.

FieldTheorist said:

Pakman I may have misremembered, but we'll see if Rubin actually has Pakman on his show. Likewise, Kyle Kulinski gave Dave a large interview after his falling out with TYT, and I seem to remember Kyle asking to come onto Rubin show's, which has not happened. But in either case, the statistics of who is on his show is plain as day, and the case of Sam Seder and Michael Brooks is the most well documented.



1.) David Pakman who was brought on to bash Reza Aslan. 2.) Varafoukis, who if memory serves was brought on to bash Hillary. 3.) Jimmy to do the same.

Who am I missing? Admittedly I haven't watched in a few months. Has he had on anyone left of center-right recently?



He's a part of the alt-Right not because he's personally an alt-Righter, but because he seems to have an obsession with giving them a platform in exchange for money.



My response here has to be somewhat nuanced.

1.) Reza Aslan's attacks on Sam Harris were dishonest, and I would agree with Sam that Glenn Greenwald's article on hate speech was wrong (Not totally, mind you, but I was not willing to declare Charlie Hebdo racist).

2.) Cenk Uygur (I can't account for his Twitter statements, but on his TYT program and during his interview with Sam Harris) gave completely valid critiques of Sam Harris. Glenn Greenwald's later article on anti-Muslim animus in New Atheism was completely fair and totally valid criticism. Kyle Kulinski's critiques (although more mild) were also 100% spot on. Noam Chomsky's attack of Sam Harris' worldview on foreign policy as being hopelessly childish and 1-dimensional is the most honest critique of Sam Harris to date.

Sam Harris is best against religious doctrine, because it's where his intellectual capacity and his personal interests mesh the best. When he tries to do philosophy or foreign policy, his complete lack of interest (and thus lack of understanding) in the underlying subject matter comes out. Him persistently claiming that everyone in the world is misrepresenting his views does not help his credibility on these matters.



I mean, Dave Rubin does not pull punches on the Left, he referred to many Leftists as "fundamentally dishonest," "liars" and so forth, while he plays footsie with Milo Yiannopolous who was the most lying, disingenuous public speaker until Trump. I think there's also a sense that since Rubin has let his ship be boarded by the alt-Right, there's no reason to give his show any further legitimacy by putting themselves on as guests. I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment, but I do understand their point.

Click to expand...

Pia Malaney and David Smalley but even they were a few months back. I definitely agree there needs to be more, but I doubt it is from lack of trying given the list of previous guests.

I wasn't talking about misrepresenting Sam Harris's views as much as the labels many have tried to stick on him (Racist, Alt-Right, etc). It seems like if you so much as post a tweet that isn't 100% in line with Progressives then you are tagged as a Right winger.

I just realized something, is it just me or does it feel like Antifa and the Alt-Right have both crawled back into their parent's basements? I hadn't heard anything about either group in awhile now.

Edit: btw thanks for bringing up Pakman. I just started listening to his podcast and really enjoy it.

Nap said:

Pia Malaney and David Smalley but even they were a few months back. I definitely agree there needs to be more, but I doubt it is from lack of trying given the list of previous guests.

Click to expand...

They might be liberal, I haven't really followed them, but I find it immediately unshocking that Rubin had on a someone who's part of a think-tank funded by Peter Thiel. It pretty much tells you all you need to know. The fact that he works with these think-tanks and spouts of libertarian nonsense all of the time I find highly annoying. Particularly when he says that he supports classical liberalism but abhors neoliberalism, it's just cringy. He can't even pull up a Wikipedia page and educate himself about the basic tenets of what he publicly proclaims himself to be.

I wasn't talking about misrepresenting Sam Harris's views as much as the labels many have tried to stick on him (Racist, Alt-Right, etc). It seems like if you so much as post a tweet that isn't 100% in line with Progressives then you are tagged as a Right winger.

Click to expand...

The sophisticated critiques (i.e. the second article written by Greenwald and Chomsky's letter correspondence) don't accuse him of being alt-Right or a racist. The main critique --and it's the one that I agree with-- is that he seems totally unbothered about his staunch opinions on specific topics that he is misrepresenting or does not understand, and that his reflexive need to defend certain governments (i.e. the US and Israel) means that he either is a willingly cheerleader of the establishment or else he has taken their propaganda on board with insufficient inspection. And more recently, he seems totally unbothered with having genuinely anti-brown racists make up a sizable chunk of his audience. None of this is a good look for someone who's claim to fame is being a public intellectual and a Secular Humanist.

I think people have been touchy about the alt-Right because the alt-Right is such a corrosive part of the public dialogue, pretending to be upset about things they aren't, defending views they don't believe in, etc. So if someone is saying **** that sounds like an alt-Right talking point, people begin to get agitated. I can kind of understand, that's the result of having to deal with disingenuous assholes who refuse to debate in good faith and lie on a regular basis.

I just realized something, is it just me or does it feel like Antifa and the Alt-Right have both crawled back into their parent's basements? I hadn't heard anything about either group in awhile now.

Click to expand...

Oh, they're still around in droves (I mean, the alt-Right has always been bigger than AntiFa, but I don't think their core numbers have really shifted at all, they're just trying to hide until the smoke blows over). It's just not nearly as cool to be one anymore for the small segment of the population that ever though it was cool. I think they've both taken a major ramming in the court of public opinion. Breitbart has lost a lot of funding over Mercer getting fired from RenTech, and their name is a complete garbage now after the BuzzFeed story showing their direct links to white nationalists. AntiFa is still around, they make up a lot of Patreon supporters to ContraPoints (another great YouTuber; she's way in the social justice camp, but her videos are practically a work of art).

Edit: btw thanks for bringing up Pakman. I just started listening to his podcast and really enjoy it.

Click to expand...

I like Pakman, but to be honest I think the people I get the most information from --and that's not to say that I love them or their styles-- are Kyle Kulinski, Cenk Uygur and Sam Seder. It's really, really hard to find errors in their statements, particularly if you compare them relative to any other news outlets. Their opinions I don't think are always correct, but they do a better job of stating facts relevant to the situation than most other news sources. But I like Pakman, too.

FieldTheorist said:

They might be liberal, I haven't really followed them, but I find it immediately unshocking that Rubin had on a someone who's part of a think-tank funded by Peter Thiel. It pretty much tells you all you need to know. The fact that he works with these think-tanks and spouts of libertarian nonsense all of the time I find highly annoying. Particularly when he says that he supports classical liberalism but abhors neoliberalism, it's just cringy. He can't even pull up a Wikipedia page and educate himself about the basic tenets of what he publicly proclaims himself to be.



The sophisticated critiques (i.e. the second article written by Greenwald and Chomsky's letter correspondence) don't accuse him of being alt-Right or a racist. The main critique --and it's the one that I agree with-- is that he seems totally unbothered about his staunch opinions on specific topics that he is misrepresenting or does not understand, and that his reflexive need to defend certain governments (i.e. the US and Israel) means that he either is a willingly cheerleader of the establishment or else he has taken their propaganda on board with insufficient inspection. And more recently, he seems totally unbothered with having genuinely anti-brown racists make up a sizable chunk of his audience. None of this is a good look for someone who's claim to fame is being a public intellectual and a Secular Humanist.

I think people have been touchy about the alt-Right because the alt-Right is such a corrosive part of the public dialogue, pretending to be upset about things they aren't, defending views they don't believe in, etc. So if someone is saying **** that sounds like an alt-Right talking point, people begin to get agitated. I can kind of understand, that's the result of having to deal with disingenuous assholes who refuse to debate in good faith and lie on a regular basis.



Oh, they're still around in droves (I mean, the alt-Right has always been bigger than AntiFa, but I don't think their core numbers have really shifted at all, they're just trying to hide until the smoke blows over). It's just not nearly as cool to be one anymore for the small segment of the population that ever though it was cool. I think they've both taken a major ramming in the court of public opinion. Breitbart has lost a lot of funding over Mercer getting fired from RenTech, and their name is a complete garbage now after the BuzzFeed story showing their direct links to white nationalists. AntiFa is still around, they make up a lot of Patreon supporters to ContraPoints (another great YouTuber; she's way in the social justice camp, but her videos are practically a work of art).




I like Pakman, but to be honest I think the people I get the most information from --and that's not to say that I love them or their styles-- are Kyle Kulinski, Cenk Uygur and Sam Seder. It's really, really hard to find errors in their statements, particularly if you compare them relative to any other news outlets. Their opinions I don't think are always correct, but they do a better job of stating facts relevant to the situation than most other news sources. But I like Pakman, too.

Click to expand...

I haven't tried Kyle's podcast yet. I'm 50/50 on Cenk, sometimes he raises great points and offers good insight and others he sounds unhinged. Sam Seder seemed ok, but in my opinion so far Pakman just appears better able to articulate his positions with an emphasis on logic and reason. He reminds me somewhat of a Progressive version of Ben Shapiro.

Nap said:

I haven't tried Kyle's podcast yet.

Click to expand...

In my mind Kyle is basically what you like about Pakman, but even better. I think he sometimes (like Pakman) makes things a little more simple than I like, but you should really watch some Secular Talk videos on YouTube if you don't have time for a whole podcast (I prefer individual videos myself, anyway). He's really very good.

I'm 50/50 on Cenk, sometimes he raises great points and offers good insight and others he sounds unhinged. Sam Seder seemed ok, but in my opinion so far Pakman just appears better able to articulate his positions with an emphasis on logic and reason. He reminds me somewhat of a Progressive version of Ben Shapiro.

Click to expand...

I dunno. It's a matter of taste, of course. Cenk loses his cool too quickly, I think, but he's a very informed and one of the most prescient pundits when it comes to the political rat race and understanding the motives behind real-time political maneuvering. His ability to remember politicians, their goals, who funds them, what they've said in the past, etc, is honestly incredible. I really wish that Ana Kasparian got her own show on the Young Turks channel; she used to have "The Point" (which was concurrent with Dave Rubin's original run of his Rubin Report show), but I don't think it sort of got pushed to the back burner when she started preparing for her marriage and doing speaking junkets.

FieldTheorist said:

In my mind Kyle is basically what you like about Pakman, but even better. I think he sometimes (like Pakman) makes things a little more simple than I like, but you should really watch some Secular Talk videos on YouTube if you don't have time for a whole podcast (I prefer individual videos myself, anyway). He's really very good.



I dunno. It's a matter of taste, of course. Cenk loses his cool too quickly, I think, but he's a very informed and one of the most prescient pundits when it comes to the political rat race and understanding the motives behind real-time political maneuvering. His ability to remember politicians, their goals, who funds them, what they've said in the past, etc, is honestly incredible. I really wish that Ana Kasparian got her own show on the Young Turks channel; she used to have "The Point" (which was concurrent with Dave Rubin's original run of his Rubin Report show), but I don't think it sort of got pushed to the back burner when she started preparing for her marriage and doing speaking junkets.

Click to expand...

100% agree with Ana having her own show. I was impressed by her debate with Ann Coulter. I had only previously seen some not so flattering clips of her so had poor impression of her before so was expecting nothing but a shouting match and ad hom attacks between the two.

Nap said:

100% agree with Ana having her own show. I was impressed by her debate with Ann Coulter. I had only previously seen some not so flattering clips of her so had poor impression of her before so was expecting nothing but a shouting match and ad hom attacks between the two.

Click to expand...

She's one of the most unfairly maligned members of the Left, I think.

FieldTheorist said:

She's one of the most unfairly maligned members of the Left, I think.

Click to expand...

You are going to hate this comparison, but from my perspective it was similar to Trump. The videos I had seen of her originally were selective in showing her off at her worst and then when I saw her on TYT and she displayed something close to those tendencies it fed into confirmation bias. So while it could be argued that it was her actions and comments that brought about the negative image it was the purposely packaged segments (many taken out of context) that fueled the original perception.

I think that Dave Rubin is who he claims to despise. He claims to care about individualism, and yet he is happy to smear the entire left as a group when he sees an example of a some SJW college kids. He is just a brazen hypocrite. Look at this video that he posted recently to his channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K7pzTejBlM

He starts the video by implying that leftists are hijacking Martin Luther King jr's words to advance a political agenda. He is referencing how many people tweeted a quote by MLK about how he was more of a socialist than a capitalist, “I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic…". In fact, MLK WAS a democratic socialist, and he openly advocated for democratic socialism. MLK was a leftist through and through, and that is a matter of historical fact

Rubin, immediately after wrongly saying that the left is hijacking King's legacy, than talks about how King's views are no longer embodied by the left, claiming that political racial profiling has "infected the left almost entirely" (Again, Rubin smears the left as a group, not individuals on the left). The irony is that HE is using what King said about race, to advance his own "classical liberal" worldview. This is more dishonest than what he accuses the left of doing, because MLK was in fact vehemently opposed to the values of classical liberalism. MLK called many times for the expansion of the welfare state, for example.


Also, Rubin shows clear bias when interviewing. He often asks his right wing guest (who make up a vast majority of his guests) leading questions about how the left is bad in some way, and he NEVER challenges any of his right wing guests, even when they make factually incorrect statements ("Obama is a communist").

beancounter said:

He claims to be a "classic Liberal", but that is clearly not the case. If he ever was, he has since done a complete 180 degree turn.

All of his guest are very conservative, and I've never seen him ask any tough questions, or openly disagree with his guest.

There is really no way he can claim to be somewhere in the middle.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is pretty much my assessment of Dave at this point as well. He is apparently a "liberal", but I haven't ever seen him challenge any of the views of his guests. He's pretty much a conservative, under the guise of still being liberal. Same goes with people like Sargon of Akkad. I like the guests he brings on, but he really needs to challenge them more often.