Back at the end of January, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and Dave Rubin got together on Dave’s Rubin Report to talk about how popular they all were.
Okay, that’s not the title of the episode. It is “Frontline of Free Speech.” And, to be fair, it has had almost 3.4 million views to date. So you could justifiably say that our three free speech heroes have every right to be a bit...ahem...proud of themselves.
Except. After spending a good hour and half congratulating themselves for being on the frontline of free speech, they started taking questions from the Super Chat audience.
Here was one of the first ones that Dave read (at 1:33.20): “Quick one for Ben. I think we’ve already hit this, but any chance of a future discussion with Milo?”
Ben’s response was utterly predictable for those who know how ritualized this question has become:
No. Waste of time [reaches for his water glass]. I’d rather talk with people who have something say.
Jordan’s response was somewhat more interesting. He l…
According to Joshua Conrad Jackson, Neil Hester, and Kurt Gray, in their recently published study “The faces of God in America: Revealing religious diversity across people and politics” (PLOS One June 11, 2018), most Americans would answer a) Milo.
Okay, they don’t say Milo as such. But look at the description that they do give:
What does God generally look like to American Christians? Participants saw God’s face as more masculine, Caucasian, attractive, intelligent, and loving compared to His anti-face, ts > 7.53, ps < 001 (see S1 Table for full statistics). See Fig 3. God’s face was also rated as significantly younger than the alternative composite, t = 31.83, p < .001, and as no more powerful, t = .47, p = .64, consistent with a general tendency for Americans to believe in a God who is more loving than stern. Importantly, t…
Milo and I were watching the livestream of the Heterodox Academy “Open Mind Conference” last week, and at one point he simply started shaking his head.
“It’s all throat-clearing, isn’t it?,” he asked me. “[Quoting] ‘Yes, I think that question about identity and expression is an important one, and one we should really focus on...’ WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT EVEN MEAN.”
Everyone knows that academics have a peculiar way of speaking that makes it difficult for Random Laypersons to understand.
I myself have been accused by family members of using “big words” to no purpose, back in the day when I was just learning academese. I think the culprit in that particular conversation was “Christology,” but it could have been “exegesis.” I don’t think I knew the word “hermeneutics” at that point.
“But,” I defended myself, “it is a technical term. I am writing for other scholars who would know what it means.”
“But don’t you want people to read your work?” my sister countered.