Malcom Sadwell is an intellectual fraud who epitomizes the way liberals argue: Appeal to authority, ad hominem, condescension, strawman, race card, strawman, race card, ad hominem, race card, and race card.
I love watching Murray argue, because he's so damn good at it, and he doesn't pull his punches. If words were knives, Sadwell would have been eviscerated by the end of the debate.
Gladwell is a fraud. Not just here, but his 'books' are based on pseudo-science, some of which he personally spun and lied about. For example, his claim that it takes 10,000 hours (what a suspiciously round number) to accomplish expertise in a given field has been disowned by the guy whose research he was falsely citing, Anders Ericsson.
I have read a few of Gladwell's articles, but none of his books. But I did read a very thorough takedown of some of his books, the source of which I cannot remember.
It pointed out his method of picking an interesting idea, then building a narrative to support that idea, while ignoring any facts that do not support his thesis.
Regardless, from his performance here, I can't take him seriously as a thinker. He is clearly just an establishment drone, and not even a particularly good one.
Just watched the debate. What a trainwreck, although Michelle Goldberg was slightly less awful than I expected.
Gladwell was absolutely insufferable. First he says that "I worked for the Washington Post in the 80s, we followed these procedures" and then asserts that it's the same now, without evidence, while claiming that MT (whose name he consistently gets wrong, typical for a journalist who can't get anything right) is perhaps now 'out of touch'.
How he pulled the race card repeatedly, from a guy who looks basically white and is definitely more than 50% white, even exasperated MT. But it's quite valuable. This is how you argue in the elite media: bring up race and call others white.
The fact that this fraud has been pumped up for so long speaks volumes. I'm ashamed that I read Blink and actually took it somewhat seriously a long time ago.
You can actually see audience members doing the "Dude, really?" face after the third or fourth time Gladwell does his "You don't trust the media because you're a racist" insinuation.
A pre-event vote of attendees and listeners showed 48% support for our “side,” versus 52% for theirs. 82% of thousands of audience members claimed to be willing to change their minds. They were telling the truth, as it turned out. In a bitter slugfest that featured tense confrontations, impassioned oratory (especially from Douglas), and several almost unbelievably petty exchanges, Douglas and I swung the vote 39% in our favor, ending with a 67%-33% win, the most decisive rout in the history of the event.
Kind of an ambitious title from Matt considering the overall mass of people who are indoctrinated by MSM. Good for them having such success here, though. Maybe there's hope yet.
Someone resisting communist tyrannies wrote that the people he found most kinship with were not necessarily people he agreed with, but people who had one thing: courage.
"During the event, Gladwell also scoffed when Murray and Taibbi raised the issue of Hunter Biden’s laptop being censored by Big Tech ahead of the 2020 presidential election."
They'll never accept it. I've already seen people on Twitter discounting the idea based on with musk now in charge you can't trust Twitter to be truthful
Full debate HERE
Taibbi and Murry stomped the others.
Malcom Sadwell is an intellectual fraud who epitomizes the way liberals argue: Appeal to authority, ad hominem, condescension, strawman, race card, strawman, race card, ad hominem, race card, and race card.
I love watching Murray argue, because he's so damn good at it, and he doesn't pull his punches. If words were knives, Sadwell would have been eviscerated by the end of the debate.
Gladwell is a fraud. Not just here, but his 'books' are based on pseudo-science, some of which he personally spun and lied about. For example, his claim that it takes 10,000 hours (what a suspiciously round number) to accomplish expertise in a given field has been disowned by the guy whose research he was falsely citing, Anders Ericsson.
I have read a few of Gladwell's articles, but none of his books. But I did read a very thorough takedown of some of his books, the source of which I cannot remember.
It pointed out his method of picking an interesting idea, then building a narrative to support that idea, while ignoring any facts that do not support his thesis.
Regardless, from his performance here, I can't take him seriously as a thinker. He is clearly just an establishment drone, and not even a particularly good one.
Might it have been this? A review of the Gladwell book Blink by Judge Richard Posner.
Here's 3 mins of Murray doing a brutal takedown: https://twitter.com/WeAreCanProud/status/1598334823591866369
Just watched the debate. What a trainwreck, although Michelle Goldberg was slightly less awful than I expected.
Gladwell was absolutely insufferable. First he says that "I worked for the Washington Post in the 80s, we followed these procedures" and then asserts that it's the same now, without evidence, while claiming that MT (whose name he consistently gets wrong, typical for a journalist who can't get anything right) is perhaps now 'out of touch'.
How he pulled the race card repeatedly, from a guy who looks basically white and is definitely more than 50% white, even exasperated MT. But it's quite valuable. This is how you argue in the elite media: bring up race and call others white.
The fact that this fraud has been pumped up for so long speaks volumes. I'm ashamed that I read Blink and actually took it somewhat seriously a long time ago.
You can actually see audience members doing the "Dude, really?" face after the third or fourth time Gladwell does his "You don't trust the media because you're a racist" insinuation.
He was the perfect counter to his own position.
National Review article on the debate: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/matt-taibbi-douglas-murray-dominate-trust-in-media-debate/
2/3 against 1/3 vote is enough for a constitutional amendment in many places. It's as close to unanimous as one can get without cheating.
Kind of an ambitious title from Matt considering the overall mass of people who are indoctrinated by MSM. Good for them having such success here, though. Maybe there's hope yet.
That's downright glorious. I have mixed opinions on Taibbi, but he seems very principled. Thanks for posting, will check this out later.
Someone resisting communist tyrannies wrote that the people he found most kinship with were not necessarily people he agreed with, but people who had one thing: courage.
I'll drink to that.
"During the event, Gladwell also scoffed when Murray and Taibbi raised the issue of Hunter Biden’s laptop being censored by Big Tech ahead of the 2020 presidential election."
They'll never accept it. I've already seen people on Twitter discounting the idea based on with musk now in charge you can't trust Twitter to be truthful
This is amazing
I've seen Murray on a handful of interviews. A but of a wonder this debate is even allowed to take place in occupied canada