Shapiro and JBP on the Rubin Report

It was mediocre by their own lofty standards. There was a point when the Rubin Report was characterized by, and heavily criticized for incessant bashing of the postmodern left. And the criticism was not misplaced. It isn’t as if I don’t giddly enjoy watching the left burn itself through use of identity politics, because I do. But Dave Rubin capitalized on that far too much and the show began to regress. He responded by deliberately shifting away from that robotic algorithm for his show, but the underlying theme remains. That’s fine though. Recently however, the repetition lays in the constant circlejerk of himself and other prominent intellectuals; namely, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Ben Shapiro. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy listening to all of them, but many times I tune in to a podcast or show, it is partitioned into two parts. The first half is general fawning over how they came together to have a civil intellectual conversation, and the latter half is true content. They probably know what they’re doing, if not solely masturbating their egoes. The adoration of their meeting probably makes the average person tuning in feel that much more rational and intelligent. I’m skeptical, and I feel one benefits far more in terms of aggregate volume of knowledge retained by merely reading. Like, if you transcribed their video, you’d realize not only how short their conversation really is, but how few novel ideas were actually discussed.

They are the best public intellectuals out there for the average person, though. I think really smart people read more of Chomsky, Dershowitz, and the like. And though I love to bash the left I sorrowly concede that there are far, FAR more intellectuals on the left and almost no right leaning intellectuals match their depth. Realistically the proportion of intellectuals across the political dichotomy is probably 95-5. You can name a few outliers, sure, but they don’t quite compare. If the left gives you Paul Krugman, the right responds in kind with Ron Paul. I like Ron Paul, but really? The former won a Nobel Prize in economics while the latter has a layman’s understanding of libertarian principles. That doesn’t mean Krugman is always correct, nor does it mean the philosophy he promulgates is the best one. But Ron Paul shouldn’t be the best the right has to offer. Or even Thomas Sowell, for that matter.

Sophomore Year

There were so many things I learned sophomore year. Almost none of them came from school. Actually, I’d be hard-pressed to think of any, in absolute terms. They all came from my own reading on the net, primarily of politics and philosophy. This year, my interests lay in the sciences.

Not coincidentally, the one tidbit of information I did learn from school wasn’t even part of the curriculum, necessarily. The class was going over World War 2 and the motivations behind it. There are the political and legal stimuli that were necessary, but what was far more interesting had to be the psychological underpinnings. This was obviously not reviewed in fantastic depth; however, when we did review this material I tended to agree with my teacher. He noted that the individuals in post WW1 Germany were no different than ourselves, outside of unfortunate political circumstances. There is obviously a bit more to it than that; the Germans may have had more of a proclivity towards authoritarianism than ourselves. Actually, we know this to be true by virtue of our founding principles. But as a general piece of wisdom, my teacher was correct: it’s easy to think of Germany and particularly Hitler as outliers, when similar events might spur our own nation down that same path. He noted that many aspects of life can be described as having fascist tendencies. The most striking have to be sports. Many high school sports end off practice (I know mine does) by having all participants congregate in a circle and chanting some sort of colloquialism. There is a reason it is done, and that is to remind the team that they are fighting for something beyond themselves, the collective. Your shitty performance is detrimental to the entire team, and you don’t want to let that happen. Conversely, you are fighting for something bigger than yourself, and if you perform well it does not go unnoticed. You will gain recognition for your service towards achieving a collective goal.

Punitive measures also revolve around this idea of the collective. If you fuck up and are subsequently sent to run a few miles in atonement, it sucks, but you perservere. But if you fuck up and the entire team needs to run a few miles as a result, the physical pain is the last of your problems. The associated psychological damage is far more compelling: you are to be shunned by your team, reminded constantly that you are the sinner. Word gets round and you might be the butt of a few jokes. Are you going to fuck up again after that? Hell no.

Coaches know this. And though I understand their tactics, I wholly disagree with them.