What does Sup Forums think of this guy?

I've seen a bunch of threads pop up recently about right wing commentators on YouTube and I haven't seen Dave Rubin's name get thrown around much. In my opinion he's a superior Milo in his ability to bring attention to issues without going full edgelord and just call it "being provocative". Rubin seems like a pretty reasonable guy to me who has seen the error in his ways (he used to be on TYT).

shameless self bump

Why would the alt-right want fascism-lite when they can just promote full on fascists directly? Rubin is fascism-lite.

Also, he is abnormally brain dead, but I'm more socialist so maybe the right thinks he's some sort of fucking genius.

He uses the guise of being "Ex-liberal" to pander to Conservatives. Much in the same way Milo uses being gay to do the same.
But in reality he is puppet to whichever ideology he can make more money from. Just like every single televised political commentator there is.

Integrity within the political sphere died in the early 2000's. Was on life support for 20 years before that until the last of the moderates were ousted.

He seems to be doing a good job covering a lot of different opinions, however, I can't support any public figure who gets behind someone like Sam Harris.

He's totally fine. Nothing bad to say.

But I'm sure half of Sup Forums is gonna say some horrible shit about him, and he's probably a kike

The real based faggot

Gay Jew psyop

Everyone else is a paid shill

Wasn't he originally a Young Turk?

>Fascism-lite
>Rubin
you wot m8? You're falling into Poe's law here and I can't tell if you're having a giggle at my expense or if you're actually retarded.

Rubin is a Classical Liberal and literal faggot. The only real draw for his show is that he will bring on a wide range of conservative and quasi-conservative people to interview and debate on his show, and is willing to give opinions he disagrees with a place to speak their mind. He offers a fair place to discuss issues on his show, and despite his liberal leanings I respect him for that at least.

He's essentially a few steps further to the left than Sargon, who was interviewed on his show, both of whom are only popular with right wingers because the mainstream left is so extreme they look like they're on the right at first glance if you don't know much about either of them.

His self-made label of "ex-liberal" is meaningless, and is a response to the left leaving him, not him leaving the left. He's still a liberal, he's just a classical one who isn't quite a useful idiot of the dipshits in the modern left. He can be debated with reasonably, and won't scream you down for not wanting to die as a culture and ethnicity, but he will still argue for degeneracy and socialism.

He is right about one thing though, his position is the most dangerous to hold, because no matter which direction the pendulum swings, he is left behind, and if it swings hard enough, both sides will want him dead. He's the kind of person who agrees there is a problem, but doesn't want to go through with any of the solutions because he finds them hard and immoral, and is thus willing to simply kill society through complacency, grumbling about the downfall but refusing the cure as he drags us all down into the grave with him.

He is part of the new-atheist neo-con cabal. These guys have learned how to take extreme positions such as torture, profiling and nuclear first strikes and make them seem reasonable.

It's a very underhanded and cynical strategy but it's clear what they're doing.

he's not pro-torture ya dingus or nuclear first strike

He's honestly politically ideal. Used to be a Turk who "red-pilled" himself in a way that was about the legitimate issues rather than going full Sup Forumstard. He's stuck to his guns, is constantly berated by the far left as a fascist/racist/sexist/alt-right/shitlord but doesn't buckle and seems genuinely reasonable.

I do think he's a little soft however though. I've watched a lot of his videos in the last week and he pretty much just brings people on to shittalk the far left which is good but it's not really adding anything to the movement. It's giving things a voice but when those voices are all saying the same thing it kinda gets old and feels neutered.

I do like that he's dishing out a moderate red pill though. Like a purple pill. Sup Forums tier redpilling was never going to win this fight but intelligent people who are open to debate and free speech are exactly what we need and Rubin has my support if he keeps doing what he's doing. Props to him for saying no to corporate deals and going full fan funding too. Keeps him more honest than nearly anyone out there.

wow you liked milo and now you think this gay jew is a better version of gay jew?

KYS my man

He may be a gay jew, but the guy seems to be willing to interview ANYONE. I like his work because of his dedication to it and shills against the young roaches constantly.

>he's not pro-torture

He's written extensively on the defence of torture, at times under that very heading. He gives clear examples of situations where torture is the moral option and admonishes people as monsters for not considering that option.

>or nuclear first strike

Again, false. If ISIS were to acquire nuclear weapons tomorrow, Sam Harris would be advocating a first strike based on the parameters he's already set. That is completely untenable.

You could at least try examining his content before making yourself look like a retard.

Neo-con is the last way I'd ever describe Rubin, and while he is atheist, he never mentions it in any real political way. He's also as far from being pro-torture as you can get, to the extreme in fact. I have no idea how you'd ever even come to those conclusions unless you were listening to some insane hard left outlet smearing him, since as I said, both sides' more extreme leanings hate him for being a mild-left fence sitter.

>I can't support any public figure who gets behind someone like Sam Harris.

Why's that? I watched Rubin's interview with the guy where they talk about Affleck going nuts and the dude seemed pretty reasonable. Has a problem with Islam and writes book about atheistic spiritualism. Mind pilling me on him?

Love him. This last couple of years have made me really appreciate leftists that see the left for what it is and condemn it's modern state.

Meh. He doesn't really talk, he just lets his guests do all the talking.

I hope he gets Destiny on the show.

Hes a faggot who doesn't let it define his identity, I have to respect that

I'm not saying those are his views per se, but they're views he's given platform to and cover for. At first he was just that but he doubled down on support for Sam Harris and others by shouting down any of their detractors. He drew the line in the sand and chose where he wanted to stand.

Sam Harris is a mixed bag. He has a very cerebral and philosophical way of approaching things which can be hypnotic. I'm also not denying he has a lot to say on many topics. However, his politics come through often, especially on topics such as Islam or the ME, and they're heavily neo-con, hawkish views. If that's your thing, fine.

He is very neutral I'll give you that but I see it more as trying to let his guests get a word in and feel shouted over.

seems like a basic bitch conservative

>but they're views he's given platform to and cover for.

What's wrong with that though? The entire point of his show is solidarity for free speech regardless of your beliefs. Saying Rubin should let people tear into the guests he has on his show simply because he doesn't agree with their viewpoints is the entire problem with the left right now.

True. I share some of his core understandings of the world, but there are specific things he says that makes me cringe. Same with Ben Shapiro.

So he's the polar opposite of Molyneux.

>Patreon full of anonymous contributors
>beholden to conservatives

Don't be a faggot, he hosts people ranging from Alex Jones to Sam Harris.

Well yea, he's a gay guy. Most reasonably people should hate islam, but faggots doubly so since they're the ones that get chucked off rooftops. The rest of us get standard oppression and extra taxes, their religious texts literally just says to chuck fags from the rooftops. I'd consider it a non-starter of he ever actually defended islam.

I consider it a non-starter if anyone defends islam, actually. Fag or not. Fags just have a more selfish reason to hate them.

This is sounding more and more like the issue is you are just hard fucking left of an already left leaning homo.

Yeah, being on that retarded show redpilled him into going independent.

>Literally nothing on the internet of him criticizing the right.
>Literally everything hes done for the last 2 years has been in criticism of the left.
Yeah, he is totally just a centrist!

A platform to is fine, cover for shows his true allegiances. I'm not sure if he's had far leftists or SJWs on his show but, if he has, did he then go on to defend their views multiple times? He has been outspoken in defending specifically Sam Harris and others with extreme positions, why?

He speaks in prepared segments on his channel and mostly listens to his interviewees.

Thanks?

>If ISIS were to acquire nuclear weapons tomorrow, Sam Harris would be advocating a first strike based on the parameters he's already set.

Well shit, I advocate first strike now before they get the bomb. You're just making them sound more reasonable than I thought they were. Not sure what your argument is, other than, again, you somehow think we would believe him not being left enough is somehow bad, because you are yourself hard left and think you are in good company, to which I must reply:

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee get out kike loving pinko commie reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

He speaks and also listens, not the same as what you're saying.

Because those are the people routinely dogpiled on by the left in these circles. There's not really any Gamergate level of left-bullying going on lately.

>thinking about stuff is bad
fucking abo

He's a good gateway for normies because he just brings people on and they talk with the prompt of maybe three questions.He's who I would recommend to anyone who is ready to dive into the independant media

Classical Liberal, gay, kike. I enjoy his podcast.

There's a difference between criticising Islam and religion and characterising all Muslims as a monolith who need to be suspected. The way forward in this argument doesn't come from splitting the east and west even more than it is. Publicly advocating for profiling, torture, drone strikes, etc and only making the argument these things should be applied to Muslims is how we become the other permanently.

he barely ever says anything political, everything he says is just philosophical

are you so fucking retarded to be afraid to think ?

>I advocate first strike now before they get the bomb
>reasonable

Oh right because that wouldn't cause a chain of incidents which would destroy humanity within a week. Fucking good one m8 nice talk.

>extreme position

are you fucking retarded ?

>citation needed
and hypotheticals aren't policies

>and only making the argument these things should be applied to Muslims

Sam Harris has literally said he himself should be included in profiling. He said that he supports reasonable TSA profiling and gave the example that someone like Jerry Seinfeld or a 60 year old white southern woman shouldn't be taking up the time and resources of a TSA check but that there's nothing wrong with checking people who could reasonably be terrorists or ISIS converts and with the prevalence of deluded white males pledging themselves to ISIS he even said he would advocate being stopped himself as an able bodied adult male.

And honestly there's nothing wrong with that. Why waste time and resources for political correctness? This Japanese businessman isn't going to drive a suicide bomb truck into a crowded square on Christmas. You don't have to waste time on him because you don't want to hurt feelings of Middle Easterners.

He has openly claimed to be a liberal, which is why he says he fights modern liberalism, because he sees modern left as a cancer patient and is trying to make his side capable of winning again by calling out all the bullshit.

As the saying goes, never interrupt your enemy as they make a mistake. People like Rubin, Sargon, Thunderfoot, and all of the "skeptic" type people out there who have become popular with right leaning people are actually just various flavors of left leaning liberals, most often classical liberal, who are trying to fix their side by removing the cancer killing it.

When you say you are a muslim, that means you consider the Koran to be your holy book and Muhammad to be your prophet.

The koran teaches you to murder, pillage, and rape non-muslims and throw gays off buildings, and Muhammad was a warmongering rapist pedophile who married a six year old girl and raped her at nine, so yes, it is okay to look upon all muslims with blanket suspicion because right out of the gate they consider a mass murdering pedo rapist to be the pinnacle of mankind.

The numbers regarding how many muslims support such atrocities holds this idea up as well. While most are not willing to do violence themselves, they support such violence and the oppression of Sharia.

I will not, and never will accept or trust a muslim man until he admits his prophet is a war criminal, a rapist, and a pedophile, and condemns his actions and atrocities as the acts of barbarism they are, which by definition would require him to give up his faith.

That gets you stoned to death by other muslims, by the way. Such a tolerant religion, isn't it?

You clearly took a wrong turn on the internet today. I think you meant to go to reddit. Try again, faggot.

I want you to be intellectually honest here. Is there no connection whatsover here?

>We live in a culture where Muslim profilling
>Sam Harris speaks in support of this issue
>His ideas spread along the grapevine
>A demographic which agrees becomes energised
>Elect a pro profiling president
>He enacts profilling in the first week

I'm not saying Sam caused Trumps election but he is one voice fostering this culture. Now you may have no problem with that case, but what of when it extends to torture, drones and nuclear strikes? These aren't useful conversations unless that's your end goal.

Did he actually become right wing because being an "ex liberal" is meaningless if he still supports 90% of their policies and his only beef is their tactics and how they carry themselves.

Pretty great content, good guy

He uses the Classical Liberalism label but in recent videos he's mentioned that he feels himself flirting more and more with the right and libertarianism because he's being PUSHED there.

I want you to be honest too. He refers to it as "anti-profiling" and as you said puts himself within the profile. As you are he's arguing we should scrutinise for example, a Norwegian octogenarian woman. Focus on those who seem less likely, less/ That's all well and good to say, but that already implies you're going to be checking those who "could" far more. And I'm not talking about Sam Harris, I'm talking anyone with a beard, anyone with the wrong name or from the wrong place. Anti-profiling is a cute but utterly dishonest deflection.

We should drop one right on their dumb fucking rock they keep in a box, middle of their dumb orbiting cult ritual, just to get the most of them at once.

Obviously we can't use missiles since those trip off all kinds of alarms, we should use bombers. Lots of them. Set to air burst for maximum effect. Bomb the entire subcontinent into glass.

Okay, so you're retarded. Great.

Also, I assume you consider none of this to have anything at all to how a bunch of muslims crashed several planes into our buildings and regularly scream about how they want to torture us to death, rape our women, and enslave our children on a regular basis on whatever medium they can find with no shame whatsoever?

>but that already implies you're going to be checking those who "could" far more

But like I said why is that inherently wrong?

When you subscribe to a religion that fundamentally disavows western values and where as said here even though most aren't violent themselves many of them still believe in the basic tenants and support things like Sharia law. We've all seen the British polls of muslim communities.

It's disingenuous to say we should look at everyone equally when we know that everyone isn't committing these crimes equally. That's not racist to admit.

He got gay-married so I hate him. Or rather, I hate his sin and I love him in that I want him to change for his own good and the good of the world.

As a gay guy I think any Abrahamic faith is a threat to me, unless like Christianity it has been extensively reformed since its rock throwing savage days. Unfortunately islam hasn't gone through that process and so is still a significant threat to people like me. Before you cry westbro baptist church on me, think about the lack of Christians who try to kill gays? They may not agree with or like us but they aren't throwing me off a rooftop.

Stop acting on your homosexual desires. Please.

I'm not ignorant, you don't have to explain the barbarity of religious texts to me. Islam can be reformed. Already there are Imams who I personally find abhorrent for their views on LGBT+, feminism and other issues but they're moderate enough to thrive in our societies. They're moderate enough to change the face of Islam for the overwhelming majority who do want to live in peace. Even the men who commit the horrendous crimes of cologne largely want to live in peace. Their minds have simply been poisoned by a misogynistic culture. That aspect can be and is being reformed. Check out some talks by an man named Mufti Menk on youtube, he's one of my favourite voices on this topic.

You're a fucking moron.

Always liked him. He's too mild for Sup Forums's autism. Plus he's jewish so stormkeks will always screench whenever he's mentionned. Nice guy with a desire for a genuine bipartisan political reform but simply not Sup Forums material.

I have a strong belief in the nuclear family and despise the faggy gay movement don't you worry. I would never make a child live with two fathers and if need be I would raise my child properly with their mother for the child's sake

>islam can be reformed
oh my days the naivety

Suprising good answer.

>But like I said why is that inherently wrong?

There is no criticism of Islam which is racist. This policy is. An authority which is heavily biased against the heavily bearded, Lebanese Christian man over the ginger Muslim convert from Liverpool for example, simply on the basis of his race, is grotesque.

why are there so many alt right gay jews

The wages of sin is death. Even if you don't think you're doing something wrong you're still hurting yourself if you sin. Satan says sins are of no consequences, then he says they are unforgivable, both are lies because sins kills the soul but no sin is unforgivable. Jesus wants to forgive us more than anything.

this. you dont switch ideoligies so radically that late in life, dude is a stooge

You are a retard, the first strike policy is much more nuanced than you make it sound.

Unless you work for ShareBlue or something.

I feel I described his position fairly. If a jihadist regime such as ISIS were to acquire long range nuclear weapons, a nuclear first strike may be the most appropriate action and he would advocate it.

Numbers aren't racist.

You're missing the point. The opposition to Islam is a war of ideas. This kind of policy makes it about race, there's no going back from that.

Off to reddit with your commie ass. This is not the place for you.

Islam has been a religion of barbarism since its founding, when Muhammad carved a path of blood across the land and founded the single most brutal and monstrous faith and culture to be known to modern man.

To hold the faith, you must somehow consider the teachings of this barbarian to be worth something. This means you either are insane, or you are lying and want to kill me. Since the muslim faith permits lying to non-muslims in order to trick them into allowing you to live close to them and lower their guard, and I have nothing to argue with an insane man, neither option is acceptable to me, so no muslim is acceptable to me.

I bet you think the crusades were an unjustified example of christian violence too, and not a response to rampant and oppressive muslim invasion across southern europe.

No, it's statistically grounded.

If you are black, you are more likely to commit a violent crime. If you are a teenager you are more likely to speed. If you are mexican you are more likely to be an illegal alien. If you are an abbo you are more likely to huff gas in the middle of the street like a retarded manatee sun bathing in its own filth. If you are an inuit or native american you are more likely to be an alcoholic, in fact, inuit tribal towns often still have prohibition because, according to the inuit leaders of the tribe, their kind cannot handle alcohol. That is their assessment, not mine.

These are things the numbers tell us. Cold hard statistics. If you are a bearded brown man with a funny looking hat, you are more likely to fly a plane into a building, just like if you have an unnatural hair color you are more likely to support communism and have daddy issues and people who drive cars covered in dents are more likely a shitty driver and people from africa are more likely to have AIDs.

Again, numbers are not racist.

Get a new argument. When statistics are no longer on your side, it's usually best to get a new argument.

And it makes perfect sense. Are you retarded? Is anyone going to give a shit about some quran bashers getting BTFO in the middle of the fucking desert? You know the nuke would not be stored/launched from a populated area in almost all likely scenarios because of risks of sabotage/espionage, right? Even ISIS would follow basic military common sense here - you don't leave your heaviest artillery exposed.

When the majority of Muslims and terrorists look like that it's not wrong to profile on race. The stats for amount of terrorists who are muslims are in the high 90s.

>He may be a gay jew, but the guy seems to be willing to interview ANYONE.

lol do you really think that? He has not let one ethno-nationalist or even race realist come on the show, and there are plenty of charismatic individuals who would happily do so. He's a boring fence sitting Jew, basically Boogie with 400 less pounds under a feckless centrist brand.

You say that a nuclear first strike is the most appropriate action but then demonize the man I'm not sure what your stance here is.

He's either a fake "enlightened" moderate or a naive fuck. There is no world in which the international community would tolerate a non-sovereign hostile nuclear-armed entity. Nevermind the country being the most likely to be targeted striking first, the whole international community would also advocate immediate intervention. Risks are simply to high to the status quo, even if you were a ultra-orthodox muslim country who hated the potential victim of a nuclear attack.

nice

He is a homosexualist.

This is the problem with you new atheists. You're so fundamental in your views you can't even consider other view points and simply call me ignorant.

I didn't call you ignorant once. Why are you quoting me? Defend your arguments instead of playing the victim.

You were a misquote, I simply went after my recent (yous) after I read them all.

I didn't suggest the action of first strike was appropriate, I was describing Sam's position. I've laid out and defended my position and you have yours. You believe in profiling based on race, I don't. I believe that's a twisted use of power and not something we want to be handing to authorities. Say in 8 years by some chance Mark Zuckerberg is elected president. Say there has been a spate of shootings similar to Charleston. Would you still be in support of racial profiling when a Democrat legislates against young white men?

He's a fag but he's a pretty ok fag desu.

No, I believe in profiling based on statistical probabilities. You just keep calling statistics racist without offering an actual argument.

At this point, I'm just going to start replying to you with Stefan memes until you give a new argument that isn't just calling numbers racist.

A zionist shill

>failing to provide an argument as to why first nuclear strike is bad. My posts at least detailed my reasoning why instead of simply memeing on you. Maybe you have no argument to make in return, shame you didn't at least try. Sad!

>fuggen meme arrowed myself
JUST

No because there's nothing to tie white men together like there is Islam. Not all whites statistically support the eradication of black culture and the killing of black men.

Your position is untenable, I've already said it. If you take the position of a nuclear first strike under ambiguous circumstances then the conversation is over.

I'm not calling statistics racist, I'm calling the application racist. The argument first was anti-profilling, not targeting those who obviously aren't jihadists. That position inevitably moves to target middle eastern men. The finite amount of resources means that only middle eastern men would be targeted for security checks in airports, regardless of their religion. They may be the only non Muslims on the plane full of blonde Swedish men, yet they are scrutinised. That is clearly, by definition, racist.

What is untenable exactly? The MAD principle? You realise it only really applies to sovereign states, right? A non-sovereign entity like ISIS doesnt get the same privilege and no other legitimate state would officially veto a strike on them, nuclear or not (whatever the logistics of said hypothetical scenario required, I suppose).

>The application of a statistic based policy is racist.

>They may be the only non Muslims on the plane full of blonde Swedish men, yet they are scrutinised.

That flies in the face of statistics though. White Islamic terrorists are a statistical anomaly and Sam Harris supports screening white men anyway. The vast majority of Muslims and the vast majority of terrorists look Middle Eastern. To not take this into account when being proactive is dishonest and dangerous pandering for politically correct brownie points.

I understand the discussion is happening in relation to the logic of MAD. First hypothetically by the time a truly Jihadist regime gets hold of one of these weapons they may obsolete against their suspected targets. A nuclear strike which may potentially kill millions of innocents is in my estimation an untenable means of self defence.

I understand the logic of what you're saying but the sanctity of recognising individualism must be respected. Collectivism, witch hunts and group justice is a bad, bad way to go.

And some individuals are more likey to do x, while other individuals are more likely to do y, as proven by statistics.

Why can't you get this through your thick, abbo loving, petrol huffing noggin?

>he says while missing the point for the 5th time

Think of me when the education camps for white men open in 8 years buddeh.

He is reasonable. Yea hes a gay married faggot. But why don't we just see him and use him for what he is an attack dog that rips the left open at every turn. Look at the Colin shit that went down fucking dude back him the fuck up and i respect that.

Polygon tried to shit on Colin and Rubin pulled him right out of it dusted him off and now hes going forward.

>tfw numbers are still not racist.