Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Intellectual Dark Web
Options
Comments
-
Veritas Libertas wrote: »You first replied to my post where I asking why this level of hate for Rubin, which a 4h+ video series that describes how he repeats himself a lot. This does not justify the hate he gets not even close.
A lot of people now do believe he's a fascist and a nazi because of Timbah's video series which is a fair critique in parts of his interviewing style.
But it does not lend itself to the hate he actually gets. It is in fact far and beyond. The reason is; the woke left have put up a full front attack on free speech, and they won't even admit it.
But if you pay close attention to their actions, any proponent of free speech is labelled a nazi and a fascist by them.
They won't admit it because they know it will lose them massive amounts of support, so they must invent other reasons to hate people like Rubin. The coordinated smear campaign has been happening for quite some time.
The videos aren't just about how Rubin repeats himself, it's a whole analysis of his interviewing style and intentions. He absolutely softballs right-wingers and placates them, allowing them to give the most basic form of their argument (which most people would find agreeable) without ever challenging them on the implications or effects of their arguments. He sells a complete false narrative, does little to no research, and never projects an actual independent thought or balance that he knows won't be agreed with because when challenged by someone who actually knows what they're talking about (like Rogan regarding the building codes I posted above, or how he completely floundered when discussing reparations with Marianne Williamson), he is completely out of his depth.
He's a nodding dog masquerading as someone "challenging leftists and restrictive ideologies" when he's completely dishonest, lauds those on the right who do the same things he blasts the left for, and is just an all-round idiot.
Hate-filled Nazi/Fascist? No.
Hateful moron? Absolutely0 -
Also just for the laugh
Great to see Libertarians get their stupid ideas scrunched up and handed back to them.
Regulations are there for a reason. It's to stop cunts taking the piss and fucking things up for ordinary people.0 -
Great to see Libertarians get their stupid ideas scrunched up and handed back to them.
Regulations are there for a reason. It's to stop cunts taking the piss and fucking things up for ordinary people.
Not to mention that in the exact example he mentioned, many building issues aren't evident and won't be evident until long after the builder is gone, and builders can close companies and start up under different names etc, plus the customers won't be familiar with the regulations so won't know if things were built correctly.
The idea that the marketplace itself or some sort of "Yelp for Builders" would ensure high quality work is just such a complete load of tosh.0 -
Not to mention that in the exact example he mentioned, many building issues aren't evident and won't be evident until long after the builder is gone, and builders can close companies and start up under different names etc, plus the customers won't be familiar with the regulations so won't know if things were built correctly.
The idea that the marketplace itself or some sort of "Yelp for Builders" would ensure high quality work is just such a complete load of tosh.
Out with the pitchforks, Rubin's in Canada; let's get him.
I have no problem with the criticism of him, in fact I share a lot of it. I am still to see something to make antifa hate the guy(i.e make him a fascist).0 -
On the bloodsport that is Good Morning Britain these days, Douglas Murray and Eunice Olumide discuss the word 'woke'. Resonates with the culture war.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Your whole premise is flawed and that's been pointed out repeatedly since you started the thread.
My premise that there is an unfair stigma attached to conversations these days? How is that premise flawed?
Can you have an opinion on any of the topics on this thread, apart from 'how the thread is going'?
Unlikely considering your first two contributions.0 -
The videos aren't just about how Rubin repeats himself, it's a whole analysis of his interviewing style and intentions. He absolutely softballs right-wingers and placates them, allowing them to give the most basic form of their argument (which most people would find agreeable) without ever challenging them on the implications or effects of their arguments. He sells a complete false narrative, does little to no research, and never projects an actual independent thought or balance that he knows won't be agreed with because when challenged by someone who actually knows what they're talking about (like Rogan regarding the building codes I posted above, or how he completely floundered when discussing reparations with Marianne Williamson), he is completely out of his depth.
He's a nodding dog masquerading as someone "challenging leftists and restrictive ideologies" when he's completely dishonest, lauds those on the right who do the same things he blasts the left for, and is just an all-round idiot.
Hate-filled Nazi/Fascist? No.
Hateful moron? Absolutely
Fair enough I can see how a reasonable person could draw all those conclusions. Except for the hateful part.
I'd be happy to call him a moron, but hateful really? Could you supply evidence for this in some way?
The point is the level of hate and vitriol is far and beyond just protesting the guy. Antifa now are following him around labeling him a fascist, hasn't this gone too far?
Isn't it clearly obvious they hate him for his support of free speech? Anyone seen supporting free speech these days is so 'uncool' as Tom Walker points out.0 -
Let's be clear here, the protests that were organised at Mohawk College in Canada weren't triggered by Dave Rubin's presence, it was the fact that it was seen as the college providing a platform for Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People's Party of Canada, which caused them. Rubin attempted to make it about himself by tweeting a paragraph from an opinion piece from a provincial paper entitled, Mohawk College should have declined to rent space to Maxime Bernier when he was lamenting the increased security costs for the event, mentioned earlier in the thread.
Framing it as a discussion primarily about free speech is also disingenuous since, as reported by CBC...The four chatted at length about preserving "freedom" from censorship in Canada, their doubts about climate change science, keeping government small and Bernier's plan to repeal the Multiculturalism Act.
The article also includes quotes from some of protesters present, all of which focus on comments made by Bernier and their objections to the polices of his party. There's also a piece on The Toronto Star site which covered both the protests outside, the chants used and the contents of the debate which, again, show what the protesters were there opposing and how the event went beyond simply the topic of just free speech.0 -
Let's be clear here, the protests that were organised at Mohawk College in Canada weren't triggered by Dave Rubin's presence, it was the fact that it was seen as the college providing a platform for Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People's Party of Canada, which caused them. Rubin attempted to make it about himself by tweeting a paragraph from an opinion piece from a provincial paper entitled, Mohawk College should have declined to rent space to Maxime Bernier when he was lamenting the increased security costs for the event, mentioned earlier in the thread.
Framing it as a discussion primarily about free speech is also disingenuous since, as reported by CBC...
The article also includes quotes from some of protesters present, all of which focus on comments made by Bernier and their objections to the polices of his party. There's also a piece on The Toronto Star site which covered both the protests outside, the chants used and the contents of the debate which, again, show what the protesters were there opposing and how the event went beyond simply the topic of just free speech.
How do you know the protests were for Bernier and not Rubin? How do you know it wasn't for both?
So Maxime Bernier is the fascist(seriously? an MP in Canada?) Makes perfect sense...Petroski said Bernier gave up "an opportunity to have a comfy life, be a minister in a future government and take a six-figure income for the rest of his life" to start his own party, come out with unpopular opinions and "represent an idea."
It was a discussion about free speech, and I watched most of it. To frame it as anything else is just disingenuous(maybe not on your part, but on the part of where you got your reporting from).
Is there any reason for Antifa to protest either Dave Rubin or Maxime Bernier?
If you watch the full video from Lauren Chen she was outside all day trying to interview the protesters. They attacked people in red hats and were seen chanting 'nazi scum off our streets'. Were they talking about Maxime or Dave?
Is either person even close to a nazi?
Here is the full discussion between Rubin and Bernier:
Link"These people didn’t take time to read our platform because what they were saying, it is not who we are and who I am as a politician, so that’s too bad that they didn’t want to have any discussion,” -Maxime Bernier
Bernier has denounced “mass immigration” and “extreme multiculturalism,” and has promised to dramatically reduce the number of immigrants admitted to Canada, saying the country should look after its own citizens first.
He has also said climate change does not pose an imminent threat.0 -
Here is Sky News Australia describing said event.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Because the overwhelming majority of the criticism towards the event was directed at Bernier and the PPC, the protesters complaints, as described in the articles in my post above, directly addressed both Bernier and the policies of his party and lastly the Mohawk College Faculty who organised a counter protest to the event called it "Unpacking the People's Party of Canada & Resisting the Far Right". Rubin, on the other hand, got a singular mention in an article entitled "Mohawk College should have declined to rent space to Maxime Bernier" while the entirety of the rest of the piece was directed at Bernier and the PPC.Veritas Libertas wrote: »How do you know the protests were for Bernier and not Rubin? How do you know it wasn't for both?
So Maxime Bernier is the fascist(seriously? an MP in Canada?) Makes perfect sense...
So yes, based on both these points and previous statements by Bernier where he denounces Trudeau's "cult of diversity" and the party's established aims which feature the repeal the Multiculturalism Act and elimination of all funding in the promotion of multiculturalism, I have absolutely no doubt the protesters regarded him as the fascist in attendance, not Rubin.
Yes, the event was called "Uncensored: The State of Free Speech in Canada", but it was also an event being run for "the benefit of the People's Party of Canada" with tickets priced at $50 and above. Despite the name of the event, it didn't stop the panel from discussing the usual populist talking points on immigration, the repeal of a 33 year old Multiculturalism Act being rather unique to the PPC of course, it certainly wasn't him, or his party colleague, simply denouncing what they believe to be "mass immigration" or Bernier's previous comments regarding "extreme multiculturalism".Veritas Libertas wrote: »It was a discussion about free speech, and I watched most of it. To frame it as anything else is just disingenuous(maybe not on your part, but on the part of where you got your reporting from).
He also didn't just say climate change does not pose an imminent threat, he outright dismissed the idea of there being a climate change emergency and that the main reason for climate change is human activity - it should be noted that Rubin's response to this was particularly pathetic and garnered an equally pathetic response from Bernier and then another from Rubin. It also didn't stop Dave Haskell's twisted recounting of the Climategate issue nor did it stop Bernier again describing the state of climate change research as a "religion" and said he hoped people would soon "wake up". Oh, and the crowd booing at the mention of Greta Thunberg was super classy.
But yes, I absolutely would recommend folk watch the full video, if only to see Rubin in action. The shift to policy talk described above occurs at around the 20 minute mark.
This is more appropriate to the Antifa thread so I'll just focus on Rubin here - no I don't think he's worth protesting, nor do I think he's anywhere close to being a Nazi or a fascist.Veritas Libertas wrote: »Is there any reason for Antifa to protest either Dave Rubin or Maxime Bernier?
If you watch the full video from Lauren Chen she was outside all day trying to interview the protesters. They attacked people in red hats and were seen chanting 'nazi scum off our streets'. Were they talking about Maxime or Dave?
Is either person even close to a nazi?
On that note, I also want to point out the thrust of my argument here - you claimed the pitchforks were out for Rubin as he was in Canada, that Antifa were following him around calling him a fascist and that it was clearly obvious they hate him for his support of free speech. My rebuttal is, if I've not made it clear enough already, is that they weren't, they were there for Bernier and it wasn't simply because of the free speech argument.0 -
Because the overwhelming majority of the criticism towards the event was directed at Bernier and the PPC,[...]
So yes, based on both these points and previous statements by Bernier where he denounces Trudeau's "cult of diversity" and the party's established aims which feature the repeal the Multiculturalism Act and elimination of all funding in the promotion of multiculturalism, I have absolutely no doubt the protesters regarded him as the fascist in attendance, not Rubin.
This is more appropriate to the Antifa thread so I'll just focus on Rubin here - no I don't think he's worth protesting, nor do I think he's anywhere close to being a Nazi or a fascist.
On that note, I also want to point out the thrust of my argument here - you claimed the pitchforks were out for Rubin as he was in Canada, that Antifa were following him around calling him a fascist and that it was clearly obvious they hate him for his support of free speech. My rebuttal is, if I've not made it clear enough already, is that they weren't, they were there for Bernier and it wasn't simply because of the free speech argument.
I do find it interesting that you spent three paragraphs denigrating his character, inferring him to be a grifter, and attacking him for his 'other views'. None of which can be proven, but merely asserted. I'll grant you these claims though for the sake of argument.
I'll even grant you that most of the hate was towards Bernier, but most protesters in attendance also hated Rubin as seen in Lauren Chen's video. They hated anyone merely associated with the event(including old lady).
The crux of the issue is your opinion(and that of many others including antifa) that free speech is a guise for other discussions that indoctrinate people to the alt-right/far-right.
Once you understand that conversations about free speech most often are about the things we dislike the most, you start to realize this is exactly what this event was; "Uncensored: The State of Free Speech in Canada".
What exactly do you think a conversation about free speech in Canada should entail?0 -
I did absolutely no such thing. With regard to the sections of my reply which you emboldened, here is Bernier's tweet from last month where he himself says the PPC exists because he "denounced Trudeau’s cult of diversity" and here is the website of the PPC where in the "Our Plan" section they say that a government run by them would "Repeal the Multiculturalism Act and eliminate all funding to promote multiculturalism".Veritas Libertas wrote: »I do find it interesting that you spent three paragraphs denigrating his character, inferring him to be a grifter, and attacking him for his 'other views'. None of which can be proven, but merely asserted. I'll grant you these claims though for the sake of argument.
You asked my why I believed the protesters were there for Bernier and not for Rubin and I outlined exactly why. I felt my response was quite clear but if not, let me reiterate it - given the current political climate in the US and Canada, it is of absolutely no surprise to me that an event of this nature, featuring speakers from a party such as the PPC, would attract the protesters which were present. This is also reinforced with the complaints made about the event prior to it taking place and quotes from the protesters on the day, which were featured in the articles I originally linked, and which specifically focused on the PPC and not Rubin.
I have absolutely no doubt there were those in attendance who also don't like Rubin but I watched the video and it did not show what you're claiming. Chen asked one protester directly about Rubin's presence, at around 05:50 in the video, who responded in a general manner about the US before seguing to Trump and then back to Canada. He didn't refer to Rubin once.Veritas Libertas wrote: »I'll even grant you that most of the hate was towards Bernier, but most protesters in attendance also hated Rubin as seen in Lauren Chen's video. They hated anyone merely associated with the event(including old lady).
No, that is absolutely not my opinion. Again, you claimed the hatred for Rubin was driven by his support for free speech. I specifically addressed this event and said that the available evidence does not support this assertion.Veritas Libertas wrote: »The crux of the issue is your opinion(and that of many others including antifa) that free speech is a guise for other discussions that indoctrinate people to the alt-right/far-right.
Generally speaking, a conversation about free speech doesn't particularly interest me, I would much rather see free speech itself in action whereby these figures from across the political spectrum actually debate the issues of the day, be they political, social or economic, together in a live, public and moderated fashion.Veritas Libertas wrote: »Once you understand that conversations about free speech most often are about the things we dislike the most, you start to realize this is exactly what this event was; "Uncensored: The State of Free Speech in Canada".
What exactly do you think a conversation about free speech in Canada should entail?
To give a practical example, Politicon in the US is an annual non-partisan political convention which would be an excellent opportunity to do this. For instance, Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA had quite an interesting debate with Sam Seder of the Majority Report last year. I'd love to see Rubin share such a stage with Seder or some other political commentator from "the left" such as Kyle Kulinski or David Pakman, all of whom have made it clear they'd be more than happy to have such a debate with him. Not only has Dave failed to take part in such an event however, but he also thus far rebuffed their repeated offers to come onto his own show, despite simultaneously lamenting the lack of people from that side of the political divide willing to appear.0 -
No, that is absolutely not my opinion. Again, you claimed the hatred for Rubin was driven by his support for free speech. I specifically addressed this event and said that the available evidence does not support this assertion.
Generally speaking, a conversation about free speech doesn't particularly interest me, I would much rather see free speech itself in action whereby these figures from across the political spectrum actually debate the issues of the day, be they political, social or economic, together in a live, public and moderated fashion.
I'd love to see Rubin share such a stage with Seder or some other political commentator from "the left" such as Kyle Kulinski or David Pakman, all of whom have made it clear they'd be more than happy to have such a debate with him. Not only has Dave failed to take part in such an event however, but he also thus far rebuffed their repeated offers to come onto his own show, despite simultaneously lamenting the lack of people from that side of the political divide willing to appear.
I appreciate you taking time in response. In fact it has helped me highlight what I believe is the failed premise in your position and that of antifa.
You both seem to believe that this was not an event for freedom of speech.
When I ask you what is an event about freedom of speech, you propose that Rubin should debate with some far-left commentators on youtube.
You realize this would not be a debate about free speech? This would end up being a debate about PC culture; cancel culture etc...
The reason Rubin hasn't debated Kulinski and Pakman in particular because they have previously attacked him on a personal level, and I have no problem ignoring people who act like this.
A debate about freedom of speech is a debate about the things people want to hear the least.... People don't want to have a debate about freedom of speech about the things that are already fine to talk about, I'm sure you understand this...
So what should a conversation about free speech entail? Its important because you seem adamant that this wasn't one.it didn't stop the panel from discussing the usual populist talking points on immigration, the repeal of a 33 year old Multiculturalism Act being rather unique to the PPC of course, it certainly wasn't him, or his party colleague, simply denouncing what they believe to be "mass immigration" or Bernier's previous comments regarding "extreme multiculturalism".
You are describing a free speech debate in our modern times. To label it as "Unpacking the People's Party of Canada & Resisting the Far Right" is disingenuous and dangerously so.
Why is this so important? Because if you believe that Rubin and Bernier are using the guise of free speech to spread their alt-right talking points, I can understand why you might protest them.
But if you understand anything about free-speech and realize people these days are afraid to open their mouths, you start to realize how detrimental the regressive left and their cancel culture is to modern society.“I do want to have a debate with them on why I think sharia is hostile to our liberties, and that’s not the conversation they want to have. The conversation they want to have is ‘you are not allowed to speak on Islam at all,’ even those parts of Islam that are political and deny human beings their rights … that’s their position, and it’s frankly pathetic.”-Hirsi Ali
What Ali says about the conversation about Islam is exactly the same as the conversation about freedom of speech.
People of the IDW do want to have these conversations about freedom of speech. People like Kulinski want to have conversations about whether conversations about freedom of speech is right or not. You see how they constantly unfairly want to reshape the debate?0 -
Veritas Libertas wrote: »How do you know the protests were for Bernier and not Rubin? How do you know it wasn't for both?
So Maxime Bernier is the fascist(seriously? an MP in Canada?) Makes perfect sense...
He's very Trump like and a legitimate concern.
He was a supporter of immigrants being vetted for 'Canadian values', which would be Conservative and Christian most likely.
He wants Canada to withdraw form any UN commitments and wants to withdraw from the Paris accord. He's basically anti immigrant, (depending on from where) and anti environment, sound familiar?
The other lad barely get's mentioned:A large crowd of protesters decrying the event stood outside with signs advocating for immigrant rights and yelling chants denouncing those entering, comparing them to Nazis and neo-Nazis. Supporters of the People's Party — some wearing "Make America Great Again" hats — stood behind police and verbally engaged with some of the protesters for about an hour.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mohawk-bernier-violent-clashes-1.5302342
Mind you blue coat walker lady does. I recall when this first appeared it was an elderly lady trying to cross the street. Update: an elderly lady trying to attend a far right party event being protested.0 -
You're conflating multiple issues here so I'll try and unpack it as best I can. I'm also gona move some of your quoted comments around a little to keep my response somewhat coherent. Before I continue, I also want to note one thing; not all of the protesters present were Antifa. This is confirmed by Chen towards the end of her video and should explain why I'm referring to them generally as "the protesters" rather than Antifa below.Veritas Libertas wrote: »I appreciate you taking time in response. In fact it has helped me highlight what I believe is the failed premise in your position and that of antifa.
You both seem to believe that this was not an event for freedom of speech.
When I ask you what is an event about freedom of speech, you propose that Rubin should debate with some far-left commentators on youtube.
You realize this would not be a debate about free speech? This would end up being a debate about PC culture; cancel culture etc...
A debate about freedom of speech is a debate about the things people want to hear the least.... People don't want to have a debate about freedom of speech about the things that are already fine to talk about, I'm sure you understand this...
So what should a conversation about free speech entail? Its important because you seem adamant that this wasn't one.
Now, your original premise stated that the protesters were there for Rubin. I think at this stage I've made it clear why I don't believe that to be true. You're now claiming that they did not believe that this was an event for freedom of speech and that we share this view. Firstly, in the context of your original question, my only position on the matter is this; they didn't care. The fact that they saw the PPC were organising a fundraising event on campus was evidently enough for them to organise the protest. That the proceedings were to take the form of a self-described free speech event were never mentioned in either the complaints made prior to the event or the faculty-led counter panel organised for after it. That being said, the topic clearly did influence some of those present as evidenced by the "Hate Speech is not Free Speech" sign being held by one lady.
Completely separate from this is my opinion on whether I believe this was a free speech event or not. This is somewhat tangential to my original point and I touched on it merely because of the accusation that it was Rubin's support of free speech that led the protesters to hate him. In any case, unlike the aforementioned protesters, this position was informed by the actual content of the event, as reported in the articles I linked originally and then expanded upon after watching the video you linked earlier. From reading your reply, however, it seems we have a difference of opinion on what a conversation about free speech should actually entail which has informed much of your response. To address the PPC event explicitly first, my objection was to the discussion itself being referred to as being "primarily" about free speech, not that I was adamant it wasn't one. I was careful with that distinction because yes, plenty of time was spent during the hour long conversation touching on the issue, however, when they then go and spend a considerable amount of the discussion talking about and defending the policies of their party, it crosses the line from mere free speech event to fairly standard political fundraiser.
As to what I believe a conversation about free speech should entail, well, one which discusses a range of topics relevant to free speech. To refer back to the protesters banner, Is Hate Speech Free Speech? Should a distinction be made between the two? If so, can a balance be struck between the two? Do the free speech laws, as we understand them in the likes of the UK and US, apply to private enterprises? Should exceptions be made for social media platforms run by big tech companies? Are there limitations to free speech? If so, what are they? etc...
This is the conversation that doesn't really interest me personally and it's why I replied saying I would, instead, much rather see these kinds of public figures debate issues in the manner described in my post. Of course, free speech could be one of these topics but the key difference is the use of the word debate. My lack of interest stems from the absence of any kind of challenge or critical examination of the respective positions held during these types of events. The PPC event for instance, wasn't a debate by any reasonable definition of the term as not a single point espoused by any of the three speakers was challenged by the other.
I completely disagree. As stated above, that particular example was the leader of a political party outlining their policies with respect to immigration in a completely unchallenged manner. I also did not label it as you've described, that is the name of the event which members of the Mohawk faculty have organised for later this week which again, focuses on their views of the parties polices and makes no reference to free speech.Veritas Libertas wrote: »You are describing a free speech debate in our modern times. To label it as "Unpacking the People's Party of Canada & Resisting the Far Right" is disingenuous and dangerously so.
Why is this so important? Because if you believe that Rubin and Bernier are using the guise of free speech to spread their alt-right talking points, I can understand why you might protest them.
But if you understand anything about free-speech and realize people these days are afraid to open their mouths, you start to realize how detrimental the regressive left and their cancel culture is to modern society.
Despite my disagreement with the naming of their event on the basis of the actual content, I also don't believe either of them, certainly not Rubin anyway, are trying to push their alt-right talking points under the guise of free speech. On the contary, Bernier has fought tooth and nail to be included in the upcoming leaders debate and as you've seen above, is also quite active on social media. I'll be more than happy to see his views challenged on an open platform where he'll actually need to defend his party's policies from scrutiny. In fact, when any of these figures want a platform I'm more than happy to see them get one, as long as that platform is across from someone who is ready, willing and able to challenge them.
And that, rather fittingly, brings us back to Dave Rubin. So there's a couple of issues with this bit. The person Rubin is mainly referring to here is Sam Seder and not just that but he's doing so dishonestly. I won't regurgitate the details here but if you're interested in the timeline of events, there's a breakdown of his interactions with some of these folk here which includes links to their interactions which are still online. One minor addition, when Seder saw Rubin's response, he took the video down and apologised which was, unfortunately, still not enough for Dave. With respect to Pakman, I'd also recommend watching this video as, if his appearance on Joe Rogan's show didn't already demonstrate, Dave isn't great at articulating his own position when pushed. Personally, I'd wager that this has as much to do with Rubin's reluctance to engage with these people as his claim to offence does, especially given the manner in which he's approached some other potential guests on his rather star-studded wish list.Veritas Libertas wrote: »The reason Rubin hasn't debated Kulinski and Pakman in particular because they have previously attacked him on a personal level, and I have no problem ignoring people who act like this.
People of the IDW do want to have these conversations about freedom of speech. People like Kulinski want to have conversations about whether conversations about freedom of speech is right or not. You see how they constantly unfairly want to reshape the debate?
To finally finish up, speaking of Joe Rogan and the IDW generally, it should be noted that both Pakman and Kulinski have been on his show in the past, twice in the case of the latter, and have resulted in some excellent discussions. Far from Kulinski talking about what you imagine, he's discussed a wide range of topics with Rogan from light-hearted stuff to more serious policy issues and has never shied away from calling both Republican or Democrat out on their bull****.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYotqgekKtU
Advertisement