Comments by "Jason Dashney" (@jasondashney) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

Notice how all the pro Anna comments are one liners like "What a snowflake" or "Rubin is a fucking fraud!", whereas any of the counter comments are actually thought out and stick to the issue instead of just personal attacks? That should tell everybody something.
33
So you believe, in your heart of hearts, that Sam didn't 100% confidently know who Russell Brand is and hasn't confidently known who he is for a long time now? It's a dirty little trick of character assassination. It's a thing disingenuous people do when they want to make someone seem less important. And it's doubly ridiculous in the segment because he made the segment about him. He wrote this. Obviously, he does not need to use that inflection at the end as if he's asking a question.
26
His overarching message is "Let's stop with the corruption from both sides, and let's come together with love and unity". He preaches that every show. That's a meltdown? You guys are all just furious he's not on your "team" anymore. He's not on any team anymore and for many people that's the worst sin of all.
14
Yes, he spent 4 decades laying the groundwork for this in his clinical practice and while teaching. It was all a master plan to grab fame and power and now he's achieved it. What a coup.
9
You tell people to do some specific reading to educate themselves about how JP thinks, and his detractors mainly spout personal childish insults. This is very typical of progressives. They don't say "I get what you're saying but I disagree and here's why", they just insult you or accuse you of trolling. The far right has wackos who just yell and scream and insult, but they're on the fringes. On the far left it's coming from scarily close to the mainstream, and they hold political sway. That's the difference. The tone is the most definitive characteristic in the whole polarization phenomenon. People way closer to mainstream on the left use a tone that is alarmingly childish. I get how people could disagree with Jordan Peterson's take on things, but I don't get how he is "controversial" in the very least.
9
The guy who asked him the question literally wouldn't stop talking. What was Russell to do?
7
Look at what Mothman wrote below in response to you, who is apparently part of the "salty fanbase" because you told them to get educated on the person and form their own opinion instead of relying on biased soundbites. Then Mothman goes on to more personal insults without providing any form of counter argument and says you don't need a proper understanding of where someone is coming from before forming your opinion. It's staggeringly ignorant.
6
That talk by Sam about men not having a threat of violence is bullshit. Yeah it normally doesn't come to blows, but the understanding that it could seriously helps curtail it. Look at internet comments. People say shit they'd NEVER say in person because they'd get their snot box crushed. These keyboard warriors really piss me off. Of course there's always a violent underpinning to arguments. These people are going to say that will all the anger they have that they've never felt like hitting the person they've been arguing with, they've never, ever modified their body language in response to those aggressive feelings? Of course they have. People don't lower their voice and slouch when they are in an argument, they straighten up, lean forward and raise their voice. What's the a possible precursor of? Gee, I don't know.............
5
Look at the difference between the tone and arguments given by the pro Rubin and anti Rubin sides. Pro = rational statements, Anti = personal insults with nothing to back them up. Wonder why.
4
These people circle jerk to Cathy Newman interviews.
2
So what you're saying is three guys that don't really bow down to either side got very large very quickly. That should tell you something. That should tell you that most people are more down the middle and they can't stand the ideology of either side. Sam is every single bit is ideologically driven as the most fervent Fox talking heads could ever ben.
2
Russell still doesn't like either side so I'm not sure what you are getting at.
2
"What's his name again?" Right. There's zero chance that you don't 100% confidently know the name of the guy who very quickly got 6 million followers doing roughly what you do, but not disingenuously. It's like when those CNN guys were talking about Joe Rogan, as if he was some random dude with a little podcast even though his numbers dwarf the entire net work by orders of magnitude.. It's so gross trying to watch you guys do the subtle little games to knock down anyone who's way more successful than you.
2
He feeds Nazi's? Does he feed them, or spend 4 decades studying them and then going very public about the evils of what they do and how people were led down that path of destruction? Fuck is wrong with you people? The guy spends his LIFE denouncing all things related to nazi's, and I don't mean "bad people", I mean specifically nazis, yet you assholes keep calling him one. SMH.
2
James - oh I know I should avoid commenting on ideologues who just see what they want to see, but sometimes I can't help myself. Notice how I didn't include one side or the other because they cover the spectrum. A really high percentage of people refuse to accept rational evidence and would rather just feel strongly about something, right or wrong.
2
Tri-Edge, you forgot one of the goofiest ones of all: Eric Dyson
2
I don’t understand what the complaint is. He’s not saying that he’s pro or anti teenagers getting pregnant, at least not in this clip. He just says that historically it was unbelievably common for girls to get pregnant at those ages. I’m not sure I understand what the controversy is. Then you guys go off and make up a narrative about what he probably meant by that. He was literally just stating facts. Is he denying that women didn’t have much agency historically? If he did, then I missed it. This is why people can’t stand modern leftist. They absolutely couldn’t care less about anything but narrative. It’s so gross. And then half the comments here are about the “mental gymnastics“ he had to go through. The guy literally just stated facts. The craziest part is that you guys even agreed with his facts. Going into whether or not girls had agency is irrelevant to the audio clip you posted. I see this all the time. Leftists will actually agree with the facts of what was said, but then get really angry about it and paint the person as evil for some reason. It’s intellectually bankrupt and it’s really unfortunate. It’s absolutely pathetic how much you guys have to interpret and read between the lines and come up with your own narratives. The worst recipient of that by far is Jordan Peterson. It’s absolutely unbelievable that you mean hard and savages try to take everybody down and almost always have nothing concrete on them. Jordan has dozens of hours of freely available video, and millions selling books yet somehow he’s the villain even though nobody ever actually has anything on him. It’s so common. I came to this video genuinely curious if Matt had said something truly reprehensible. If he did, then he should be condemned totally but he didn’t, and he just stated facts, and he repeated that over and over it somehow you guys wanna bury him and that’s cruel and mean and you guys are the absolute worst. There’s nobody with more hatred in their heart than those into cancel culture. You guys are disgusting parasites. I know I shouldn’t get this angry, but it’s the hypocrisy that absolutely kills me. The people on the far left are the most vicious, angry, hypocritical people ever. You guys literally try to destroy peoples lives and it’s reprehensible. It’s the only subject that gets me this angry. There’s nothing blacker in someone’s heart than wanting to ruin people. I would never advocate for the host of the show to be canceled, I would leave it at voicing my opinion and leaving it at that because I can’t stand illogical hypocrisy but that also means I can’t turn into the thing that I hate lest be a hypocrite. I just really hope that one day you guys come to your senses. It’s such a shame that what often has to happen is for the mob to come after you before you realize how insane that it is and how much damage you’ve been doing to people and how malicious you’ve been.
2
@Atmost11 Not exactly. He's saying that people get old and die for all sorts of reasons, and if you get married at 16 you're more likely to still both be alive when you have been married for 50 years as opposed to people getting married at 32 and living long enough to be married for 50 years. He doesn't actually state any opinion at all in his clips other than men are bad if they skip out on being a father and helping raise the kids. Other than that he only states facts like outcomes tend to be better for kids born into two parent households. The data on that is overwhelming. I am good friends with a single mom who kicked her deadbeat baby daddy out and she does really well and is raising great kids. Of course it's doable but it's the exception rather than the rule. He is mostly just stating objective facts and people keep adding narratives and it's gross. Stop it. Stop inferring things. If he actually says something wrong, then by all means call him out on it. I'd argue that most people would totally agree with his only actual opinion (that men should man up and help take care of their kids because being a single mom is an incredible, unfair burden)
2
He is 100% for deplatforming. Listen to the Triggernometry podcast where he basically destroyed what was left of his credibility.
1
Peterson absolutely does have power. Having the #1 bestseller on Amazon and being on every major network and popular podcast carries enormous sway in 2018. JP's testified on a Senate hearing and has been on these really long lecture tours that are sold out in city after city, and he has millions of views on YouTube and an extremely successful Patreon because his "followers" feel that strongly about him. I'll be seeing him at a live event soon that I had to by tickets for early because they were going like crazy. Not sure what else he'd have to achieve to be considered influential.
1
Where free speech goes to die? Isn't he the guy who people chastise for letting any and all guests on all sides of the spectrum have their full say without interruption? That's the absolute epitome of free speech. People get mad cuz he doesn't "challenge" them enough. That's the literal opposite of being anti free speech. Please cite one single thing he's done that's anti free speech. One. Also, I should hope political ideology goes there to die. Political ideology SHOULD die.
1
Wouldn't you rather see thought provoking insights? I'd rather see calm debates between people with different ideas so I can expand my horizons. You may as well be watching Real Housewives if your entertainment goal is just people bashing people behind their backs.
1
Matthew, his hands were perpendicular to show that there is only a tiny bit of overlap, but they are, for all intents and purposes, separate issues.
1
So the tenured U of T professor, and former Harvard professor with 4 decades of experience in the field he drones on about, and has written the #1 Amazon best seller on, isn't an intellectual? I can't imagine what the resume of someone who does qualify for intellectual status looks like then. I suspect it reads like someone with views you agree with. That means one of you is an intellectual, and it ain't you.
1
Terrance, Steven is going to see what he wants to see in JP. How a guy who's message is "be the best person you can be, and use history and biology as guides to navigate the real world" can be controversial is absolutely beyond me. Hopefully Steve lets go of his ideology one day and wakes up. Until then....
1
A journalist is impartial, and spends time on facts instead of just shouting angry insults. She is the epitome of editorial and that's a very different thing.
1
It's hilarious when guys like this will say that about somebody who he obviously 100% confidently knows the name of. It's a character assassination of someone who got way more popular very quickly and it's sour grapes. It's like when CNN will talk about Joe Rogan has some guy who has a little podcast or something that's gotten somewhat popular. Trying to big time people who are much larger is so gross and transparent. The first minute 45 of this video was literally nothing but character assassination. How about giving me facts and evidence? Just denigrating someone before you even go into them. It's pathetic. And then Sam says "well it is horse paste and quote while admitting it does have other uses made me roll my eyes so far, I can see my own brain. It literally won the Nobel prize for medicine for it's used on humans in 2015. YouTube recommended this clip and wow, there's zero chance I'm watching this clown again.
1
I'm only 4 minutes in but it's all I can take. It's been 4 straight minutes of someone who is so deep inside a bubble that he can't see it anymore. He literally makes fun of Jordan Peterson and calls him a "so called intellectual" because he basically says "Hey, a large portion of your country feels differently from you and they expressed in with their votes, so how are you going to try to unite the people instead of calling them a basket of deplorables and that's not a good way forward" and this jaded bastard says "That's how how politics works". THAT'S HIS FUCKING POINT!!!!!!! His point is that nobody is concerned at all with trying to get together and it's too polarized, and you respond by proving his point.
1
I'm impressed. You actually did catch JP saying something wrong, and backed it up with proof that didn't have to be interpreted. That was the first point, immediately after the tweet part. All of the rest of this was batshit fucking nuts/wrong/ridiculous. The rest of it was your interpretation, and you got it so wrong. You guys are obsessed with JP. It's like how everyone is obsessed with Trump. I think you all have secret crushes. You guys are such condescending cunts. At least the IDW talks calm and rational (in a way I can't). The last part if you guys looking for outrage. He's obviously not saying "men rule and we can't allow these bitches any space" FFS. Fuck I hate SJW's so much.
1
Where do his views come from then (not to mention the Like ratios)?
1
You mean the guy who over and over and over talks about how he was a lifelong liberal turned libertarian and was so surprised that he was getting more of a positive reception from conservatives? That's the guy continually espousing conservative ideas? Please cite specific examples please because I'm interested in seeing the sources of your accusations.
1
Please cite these "odious alt-right" types.
1
Ummmm....it's 2018. Perhaps you've missed the last few years of downhill sliding, but that IS journalism now. It's very rare to see or read anything lately where you'd have no idea what the journalist thinks of the matter. It's almost all editorial now.
1
"Who is this lying clown?"? He's a former Harvard professor and the author of a #1 Amazon best seller. He is currently doing speaking engagements to sold out audiences all over North America. Young people are paying big bucks to hear a kermit voiced skinny old professor speak on stage. He's clearly on to something.
1
Anarchy is always an ironic paradox. They don't seem to be in on the joke tho.
1
Kikasitsu - that's because he's not doing a series of clickbait hit pieces. He's letting all sides have their say in a very civilized manner. Somehow that's a bad thing? Why does is he "required" to challenge them?
1
Throwing a tantrum and calling someone names is not "destroying". It's how a small child acts. Using rational arguments to counter another person's narrative is how you destroy them. It wouldn't even be a contest.
1
I'm 1:45 in and so far you've done nothing but character assassination. What you do so so transparent and gross. I'm sure you're making decent money with it and good on you, but please don't feel that you doing something that's respectable.
1
So you're saying he'd lose a debate to a lobster? ;-P
1
If that ever happens, please notify me. All I'm hearing is angry personal insults. That's a very different thing from rational arguments.
1
@Atmost11 "as an argument IN FAVOR OF IT" Point me to the part where he said he thought it was a good idea. Be specific. At what point did he say it was preferred that girls get married at 16 these days.
1
@Atmost11 Asking questions is offensive to you? " "at some point we decided" that teenage pregnancy is wrong" This is not accurate? Did we not as a society at some point say that teenage pregnancy is wrong? "marriages lasted longer". Yeah, and I addressed that earlier. If you get married as a teenager you have a better chance of making it to the 40, 50, 60 year+ range because you got married when you were younger. That's how math works vs human life expectancy. "the problem is not teenage pregnancy". He's saying that for most of human history women got pregnant in their teens. That's how we survived and thrived as a species. He's not saying that it is preferable, he's saying that it's a historical fact and we've survived for hundreds of thousands of years so teenage pregnancy in and of itself isn't an issue. Also, why are you ending it with the word "conservative"? One, I'm not, and two, being a conservative is absolutely not a pejorative. It's just a set of opinions, just like liberal. (and to make things even more murky, a big chunk of modern-day conservatives are actually old-school liberals). You can be mad all you want and you can paint whatever narrative you want, but I hope you know it doesn't really affect me. I'm politically homeless and have absolutely no dog in this fight so I don't really care. Have fun "fighting the good fight", or whatever it is that gets you through the day. Must be exhausting though. Cheers.
1