SIO28: The Discussion With Dave Rubin That Never Was (and more bad news….)

Yeah, that excitement didn’t last too long. I was scheduled to speak to Dave Rubin at Mythinformation in Milwaukee in September, but despite everything having been agreed to and announced, Dave dropped out due to a previously overlooked scheduling conflict. In light of that, I share some thoughts on what happened, what I tried to do in response, and what the result was. I also looked back through Dave’s guest history at his alleged “liberals” he has interviewed to see whether I haven’t given him enough credit for hearing opposing views. The answer may, or may not, shock you.
After that it’s more bad news… I researched the senate races in 2018 and the results are… problematic. Find out just how problematic, and whether there is any hope to hold onto in terms of finally getting some accountability in the Trump presidency.

Leave us a Voicemail: (916) 750-4746!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/seriouspod

Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/seriouspod

For comments, email thomas@seriouspod.com

Questions, Suggestions, Episode ideas? email: haeley@seriouspod.com

 

Direct Download

Leave a Reply

17 Comments on "SIO28: The Discussion With Dave Rubin That Never Was (and more bad news….)"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Dan
Guest
This episode made me more angry than anything you have done I think ever. Margaret Cho’s interview was 40 minutes and was a bonus episode. Also Rubin is now a libertarian, if you listened to his show you would know that. He started as a classic liberal. Jimmy Dore is on the Young Turks, so super liberal. First off, John Fugelsang is a progressive. One of the most progressive people Rubin has interviewed. He doesn’t call himself a democrat because they are too far right for him. He was a regular on the Stephanie Miller show and has his own… Read more »
Jeremiah Traeger
Guest
I wouldn’t call a few of those liberals, such as Sargon, Armoured Skeptic, etc. They align with classical liberalism, which despite having “liberalism” in the name they don’t fit what we would call a liberal these days. Classical liberalism is like a slightly modern liberal leaning libertarianism, which aligns with Dave Rubin’s outlook pretty well. I was going to come here to mention Andrew Seidel, though. I don’t watch Rubin Report, but I follow Andrew and I know he was on. In terms of threats to free speech, Seidel is probably the best person to talk to, considering he’s a… Read more »
Dan
Guest

Classical Liberalism is liberal. That’s where I fall myself. Those are all people that follow liberal principles, like free speech, like the right to do what you want without harming others, which would include drugs, right to die, legalized prostitution etc.

Where classical liberals differ from Libertarians is on the financial side. We tend to be for social programs, a government that does provide a safety net, etc.

If you consider Sargon or Skeptic especially not liberal then that word no longer holds any meaning.

Jeremiah Traeger
Guest
I wouldn’t draw an equivalence between the two. Classical liberalism relies on free market principles far more than what most self-described liberals in the west would agree with. It tends to place less values on social safety nets and programs under the banner of “personal responsibility” without going full conservatism. I can’t comment on either of these guys’ economic positions, but this tends to spill over onto cultural attitudes, such that words can never actually hurt someone or trigger a panic attack a la PTSD, or downplay the effect of implicit bias on hiring practices of minorities, etc. Modern liberals,… Read more »
Dan
Guest

I’m Canadian so I’m coming at it from that angle. The liberal party here has always been a Center left party.

In the US the term liberal is a dirty word because it’s become equivalent to progressive. That’s why we have to agree on what being liberal means.

St. Ralph
Guest

Having been a fan of Fugelsang for years (seen him twice in person and heard him dozens and dozens of time on the Stephanie Miller show back when I had a radio), I was taken aback a little to hear that he was not a liberal. I would have pegged him as an ultra-liberal, uber-progressive. Again this is from the horses mouth, as it were, listening to what he actually says, not what somebody says about him.

We should probably e-mail him and tell him he’s not a liberal progressive anymore. He might not know yet.

Dan
Guest
Thomas has a huge hard on for Rubin bashing and this is a clear case of confirmation bias. He hears not a democrat and automatically that is not liberal. Thomas used to be able to really explore all sides of an issue in a very neutral observer kind of way. I’m sure he had those biases then but he would push them aside at least and take an honest look at issues. It was I really liked about the show. Maybe as he has gotten more political he has shifted into carrying water for his chosen team. I miss old… Read more »
kyle
Guest
Maybe it would be helpful to set aside the discussion of whether or not his guests can be characterized as “liberals”, “classical liberals”, or “democrats” (et al.) and focus on the more pointed question of whether Dave Rubin has had any serious discussions about the specific claim of the “regressive left” causing harm with someone who disagrees on that point. I don’t watch Rubin’s show, and while there are a lot of results when I search for “Rubin regressive left,” they all seem to be clips of him speaking with like-minded people about the danger/absurdity of the regressive left. Does… Read more »
Dan
Guest

Rubin has an open invitation for the usual regressive subjects, Reza et al. No response.

Dave
Guest

Bullshit. Sam Seder & Michael Brooks of the Majority Report have repeatedly made clear they’re open to coming on the show. Rubin will avoid any leftist who would call him out on his idiocy while publicizing every instance of a liberal blocking him on twitter. He’s a lying coward.

Dan
Guest

How did you come to the conclusion that Rubin is lying and not Sam and Michael?

One side is lying because both sides have openingly said they are willing to talk.

Please don’t call people that believe Islamophobia is a real thing liberals. That is the exact opposite of liberalism.