Rudi wrote:She's after the broad brush strokes and he's a fine line engraver. She does the classic sensationalist seeker's trick of assuming an observation is an assertion. I'd like to see him interviewed properly by someone who listened.
I've followed him for a while, and while I don't agree with everything he says, he's worth a listen. He's gone from an unknown to a major internet celebrity in about 12mths. He does have a habit of attracting trump fan boys, but i wouldn't say he courts them. I got into him through joe rogan and i've got his latest book on order. He has another one called 'maps of meaning', which is meant to be heavier going.It's a strange one, cathy newman isn't an idiot by any stretch of the imagination and an experienced interviewer, but she blazes in right from the start and it gets worse for her from there on in. It's as if shes wildly swinging at him, and hasn't done her research. He's got a good brain between his ears, can quickly link brain & mouth and has been asked similar questions 1000 times before. He's also taught at Harvard. She ends up looking and sounding like someone rowing in wetherspoons. When he answers her question regarding right of free speech over right not to be offended, it visibly stuns her. The other comment that foxes her is when he refers to the lack of scientific proof, as if that is an irrelevance. He gets off her for 30 mins in an increasingly belligerent style and fair play he keeps his cool and tries to answer every question in a thoughtful, referenced manner, others would've simply walked off. If CH4 was hoping to get that response or hoped she'd make a fool of him, then the opposite has happened. It's pulled in over 1.5m views in 48hrs and opened CH4 up to questions of impartialism/professionalism/etc.It's also interesting that he is now being described as 'dangerous' by some quarters.