Your ideas don't have rights
-
<p>I think the demographic of people that watch "The Bachelor" and "Married at 1st Sight" would really struggle with the video above.</p>
-
I watched part of that married at first sight show last night, it was like a train wreck. One of them looked pretty drunk and was moaning about her husband not bonking her. Mrs Jegga did not appreciate my running commentary . <br><br>
The drunk one referred to herself as a " sexual being" which I took to mean she owns all the 50 shades of gray books . The other three chicks displayed varying degrees of hotness and the the sort of insanity that comes with their gender but kept their ranting to a minimum . -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="577283" data-time="1462487911">
<div>
<p>I think the demographic of people that watch "The Bachelor" and "Married at 1st Sight" would really struggle with the video above.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I find that whole point gollum made about presentation this just quibbling around the edges.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some people find it to hard to follow and have low attention span. That is always the way of things. You can criticise the delivery method of nearly everything, many people think Oliver politicises to many things and preaches to the converted with over simplistic nonsense. Just because he alienates potential viewers does not decide wether his points are valid or not.</p>
<p>I kinda stopped debating about the presentation style in this thread as it was just another derailing that didnt interest me and that I didnt think was valid to the point they were making. And here I am again debating the presenters delivery style.... sigh.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To me it says lot when people attack presenters or presentation style more than they discuss the actual point being made. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="577277" data-time="1462486863">
<div>
<p>I don't understand what is so difficult about that discussion that most people could not follow? Maybe a lot of people don't want to watch a 26 minute video. It still has 70,000 views. I didn't find it very challenging but I am a subscriber to the Rubin Report and they have these conversations often.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't think it was hard to follow, I thought there was a lot of intellectualism for the sake of sounding intellectual. And thats my complaint with it, if you want the broader public to take time out from reading Trumps tweets or a Sanders rant, you can't bore them shitless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Baron is trying to imply anyone not listening is stupid, thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying most of those who gave up were probably bored. See my point re Mitt & Hillary, the centre ground have bored people, they over intellectualise simple concepts, they try to pretend they are so much smarter than either the morons on the left or the crazies on the right, and yet they can'y actually clearly simply make their points in a way that holds attention.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Basically a lot of people donb't want to watch a 26 minute video that could have been a 10 minute video. And in the current political climate thats a problem. This had 70k hits, which on the net is nothing, and its 40k of people who feel smart for having watched it & 30k of people who went "I'm pretty sure there is some good stuff in here so I'll wade thru it during my commute"</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="577292" data-time="1462488930">
<div><br><p>To me it says lot when people attack presenters or presentation style more than they discuss the actual point being made. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>OK, you liked it 14 minutes in, you're right, that bit is good. He talks about the stupidity of comparing bad things as if thats a valid arguement & the way the truely stupid leap to the crusades. Or Hitler. Which you went straight to in your other thread calling anyone who disagreed with you an appeaser. Ahhh the irony. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="577463" data-time="1462525468">
</p>
<div>
<p>I don't think it was hard to follow, I thought there was a lot of intellectualism for the sake of sounding intellectual. And thats my complaint with it, if you want the broader public to take time out from reading Trumps tweets or a Sanders rant, you can't bore them shitless.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>^^ This.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I got what they were saying, but had to look up a few terms they were using because I'm not a walking thesaurus or Professor of English Literature. Your average dinner party isn't going to espouse this topic in those terms. Hence my original comments on the video: it was a good discussion, but sometimes aimed higher than the majority of the population would go for.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I was just looking around at some of Rubin's other stuff. The hit count varies from the tens to hundreds of thousands and its not just high-falutin' analysis. He's got a lot of guests covering a fair range of topics, and that is a good channel which I'll watch more of.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This one, for example, has no guest but is very straightforward:</p>
<p> </p>
<p> -
<p>A lot of the terms like 'regressive left' or 'cultural libertarian' were made up by Dave Rubin's guests and popularised by Rubin himself. They aren't so much intellectual terms so much as buzz words. I don't think people outside that small sphere would use those terms.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The thing with Rubin is, he basically formed his show because he thought the conversations people were having about politics on TV were really poor. The point of the show is basically to communicate big ideas in depth and to show that people can discuss these issues in a mature way. The problem is that he has some people on who are basically just crazy and Rubin doesn't believe in challenging their ideas. The point of the show is that you are meant to make your own mind up about whoever is on. Having to think for yourself is a good thing but it can be frustrating when climate denial goes unchallenged.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="577483" data-time="1462527624">
<div>
<p>Having to think for yourself is a good thing but it can be frustrating when climate denial goes unchallenged.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't think I've ever seen a climate change denier see an opposing argument, and think it was a good one. No matter how many facts or how much scientific evidence/consensus you've got</p>
<p> </p>
<p> :)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="577463" data-time="1462525468">
<div>
<p>I don't think it was hard to follow, I thought there was a lot of intellectualism for the sake of sounding intellectual. And thats my complaint with it, if you want the broader public to take time out from reading Trumps tweets or a Sanders rant, you can't bore them shitless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Baron is trying to imply anyone not listening is stupid, thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying most of those who gave up were probably bored. See my point re Mitt & Hillary, the centre ground have bored people, they over intellectualise simple concepts, they try to pretend they are so much smarter than either the morons on the left or the crazies on the right, and yet they can'y actually clearly simply make their points in a way that holds attention.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Basically a lot of people donb't want to watch a 26 minute video that could have been a 10 minute video. And in the current political climate thats a problem. This had 70k hits, which on the net is nothing, and its 40k of people who feel smart for having watched it & 30k of people who went "I'm pretty sure there is some good stuff in here so I'll wade thru it during my commute"</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>OK, you liked it 14 minutes in, you're right, that bit is good. He talks about the stupidity of comparing bad things as if thats a valid arguement & the way the truely stupid leap to the crusades. Or Hitler. Which you went straight to in your other thread calling anyone who disagreed with you an appeaser. Ahhh the irony. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yet again you rant about things I didnt say or imply</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="577476" data-time="1462526758">
</p>
<div>
<p>^^ This.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I got what they were saying, but had to look up a few terms they were using because I'm not a walking thesaurus or Professor of English Literature. Your average dinner party isn't going to espouse this topic in those terms. Hence my original comments on the video: it was a good discussion, but sometimes aimed higher than the majority of the population would go for.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I was just looking around at some of Rubin's other stuff. The hit count varies from the tens to hundreds of thousands and its not just high-falutin' analysis. He's got a lot of guests covering a fair range of topics, and that is a good channel which I'll watch more of.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This one, for example, has no guest but is very straightforward:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>That was a good clip, I might check out more of his stuff. He's right though, it is bizarre that the leftards have one rule for us and another for a backward society they twist themselves in knots trying to excuse.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="577535" data-time="1462566625"><p>That was a good clip, I might check out more of his stuff. He's right though, it is bizarre that the leftards have one rule for us and another for a backward society they twist themselves in knots trying to excuse.</p></blockquote>
<br>
They're effectively the shouty right, but with ethically-sourced latte instead of instant filter coffee. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="577536" data-time="1462569144"><p>
They're effectively the shouty right, but with ethically-sourced latte instead of instant filter coffee. :)</p></blockquote><br>
It's not quite as simple as that, leftards would have taken part in safe street rallies , campaigned for equal treatment for lbgt people , equal rights for women and wanked on endlessly about the American military needlessly killing civilians and yet they twist themselves into all sorts of stupid behaviour trying to minimise the behaviour of Islamic ferals who are disgusted by all those things apart from needlessly killing civilians. They are all over that . -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="577559" data-time="1462579843">
<div>
<p>It's not quite as simple as that, </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Really? My one-liner about coffee choices wasn't a comprehensive argument? :think: You're going to fucking hate my one about croissants versus cornbread :)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="577573" data-time="1462587594"><p>
Really? My one-liner about coffee choices wasn't a comprehensive argument? :think: You're going to fucking hate my one about croissants versus cornbread :)</p></blockquote>
<br>
You tart. I'm going to steal that from you , obviously I'll substitute croissants and cornbread for something less effete . -
<p>Stop it now girls before someone loses their lipstick.</p>