Nathan Robinson is the GOAT takedown artist of pseudointellectuals

[Professor Emeritus]

Seriously, any influential pseudointellectual you can think of, Nathan Robinson has probably made him look like a fool. Gotta list all of these with their subtitles.



Everyone knows his Ben Shapiro take: The Cool Kid’s Philosopher ❧ Current Affairs



And of course his legendary dismantling of Jordan Peterson: The Intellectual We Deserve ❧ Current Affairs



But today I was thinking, "Did Nate Dogg ever take down Sam Harris?" Google reveals: Being Mr. Reasonable ❧ Current Affairs



Which made me think of Charles Murray, so: Why Is Charles Murray Odious? ❧ Current Affairs



One of those articles made me think of Steven Pinker, and sure enough: The World’s Most Annoying Man | Current Affairs



A very angry comment in a pro-Pinker blog pointed out that he'd also said mean things about Pete Buttigieg. Wait, Pete too? All About Pete ❧ Current Affairs




All of these deserve discussion. If you ever want an easy takedown line or two or really long paragraphs on any of these guys, Nathan J. has you covered.

 

[EndDomination]

I wholeheartedly agree - by far the most thorough writers concerning popular "intellectuals."

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

under appreciated talent of his

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

O hell yeah I’m here for this thread. I’d say post this in TLR but those cocksuckers wouldn’t read these articles. I’ll be reading these later

 

[Brehcepticon]

I’d say post this in TLR

Do it

 

[Professor Emeritus]

O hell yeah I’m here for this thread. I’d say post this in TLR but those cocksuckers wouldn’t read these articles. I’ll be reading these later

Do it

It would be a gargantuan waste of time. Robinson writes writes. There's no point posting him for guys who complain about "essays" if someone writes two multi-sentence paragraphs in a row.

 

[Brehcepticon]

Just read the Shapiro article. That boy got shyt on.

 

[Serious]

does he have a podcast

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Just read the Shapiro article [The Cool Kid’s Philosopher ❧ Current Affairs]. That boy got shyt on.

I don't see how anyone could ever read that article and not think Shapiro was a fraud and a piece of shyt human being unless they were just massive Shapiro stans. Nathan Robinson wrote a follow-up too:

Everything Ben Shapiro Says Is Still Worthless ❧ Current Affairs

 

[Broke Wave]

Nvm

 

[Cole Cash]

My only issue with nate was the way he did his own crew/magazine when they wanted to unionize. even then, nobody gave a shyt and hes good at what he does.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

O hell yeah I’m here for this thread. I’d say post this in TLR but those cocksuckers wouldn’t read these articles. I’ll be reading these later

they're too long for them

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Seriously, any influential pseudointellectual you can think of, Nathan Robinson has probably made him look like a fool. Gotta list all of these with their subtitles.



Everyone knows his Ben Shapiro take: The Cool Kid’s Philosopher ❧ Current Affairs



And of course his legendary dismantling of Jordan Peterson: The Intellectual We Deserve ❧ Current Affairs



But today I was thinking, "Did Nate Dogg ever take down Sam Harris?" Google reveals: Being Mr. Reasonable ❧ Current Affairs



Which made me think of Charles Murray, so: Why Is Charles Murray Odious? ❧ Current Affairs



One of those articles made me think of Steven Pinker, and sure enough: The World’s Most Annoying Man | Current Affairs



A very angry comment in a pro-Pinker blog pointed out that he'd also said mean things about Pete Buttigieg. Wait, Pete too? All About Pete ❧ Current Affairs




All of these deserve discussion. If you ever want an easy takedown line or two or really long paragraphs on any of these guys, Nathan J. has you covered.

Just read through the Shapiro, Peterson and Sam Harris ones.

I am partial to the Harris one mainly because the other two are such clowns. Not that Harris isn’t just as big of a clown (maybe not as big of a clown as Shapiro) but he has illusory credibility to a more trained mind than the other two.

He made persuasive arguments to young people in regard to religion. There’s a lot of young people who felt disenchanted or oppressed in some way by religion in their families and/or communities. Poking logical holes in religion is low-hanging fruit, but he did an effective job at that on a scale that was accessible to millions, as did the other “new atheists.”

But I can see how it’s easy to get suckered into the religious critique and start buying into all the other noxious bullshyt he says. Nate Rob did a good job of dissecting his garbage comic book villain-y scientism.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Just read through the Shapiro, Peterson and Sam Harris ones.

I am partial to the Harris one mainly because the other two are such clowns. Not that Harris isn’t just as big of a clown (maybe not as big of a clown as Shapiro) but he has illusory credibility to a more trained mind than the other two.

He made persuasive arguments to young people in regard to religion. There’s a lot of young people who felt disenchanted or oppressed in some way by religion in their families and/or communities. Poking logical holes in religion is low-hanging fruit, but he did an effective job at that on a scale that was accessible to millions, as did the other “new atheists.”

But I can see how it’s easy to get suckered into the religious critique and start buying into all the other noxious bullshyt he says. Nate Rob did a good job of dissecting his garbage comic book villain-y scientism.

I appreciate that Robinson doesn't just list the worst things about each of them (like I would), but he shapes his essays to address the fundamental root of their credibility and expose it as rot.


I was interested by your grouping of Shapiro/Peterson as the clowns and Harris as the one with illusory credibility. I think depending on your perspective they could group in several different ways


1. To many people Peterson looked as credible as Harris until he went sorta crazy with the no-beef obsession and collapsed with that complete mental break. You could frame Peterson and Harris as the academic intellectuals, perhaps with a few eccentric opinions, while Shapiro was the political hack.


2. Or you could see Shapiro and Harris, both the sons of Hollywood executives, as the fame-seekers, people who rather than pursuing any productive career were already publishing books and creating an image as a "pundit" years before they'd even finished their degrees. Whereas Peterson at least had a real career and a job for decades before he entered the public eye.


3. Or, for those deceived into thinking that Harris is actually some sort of scientist, he gets to be the rationalist who is basing his views on pure science, whereas Peterson and Shapiro are the flimsy humanities hacks just making up untestable frameworks of belief out of their own imagination.


What they all have in common is a bit of a hardon for white supremacy and unfortunate tendency to support the abuse of power as a means to an end.



Not that it's important, just musing on some of the interesting similarities/contrasts between the three.

 

[Th3G3ntleman]

Isn't this the dude that fired a bunch of his staff on some bullshyt?