DownThunder wrote:Just finished getting through that 1.5 hour non-stop dumpster fire that was the Carl/Thomas "interview".
I'm not sure there was a winner. Thomas was definitely a loser, he lost to an astronomical degree. I think his strongest point was the race issue, on every other point he lost the plot and a had terrible lack of control over his emotions. He obviously came in with the idea of a moral high ground and thought he would chastise not only Carl, but also the audience. A monumental miscalculation. If anything he should be trying to think like a politician courting votes.
But on the other hand, Carl barely got a chance to expand on his ideas and the ones he got out most were sound enough, they should have been supported with observable evidence. So, I think he won mainly on the fact that he had a supportive crowd that largely agreed already.
On second thoughts, the conference won. While they may have taken an additional financial hit, they have already made that money back, and the drama at the Sargon event is exactly the kind of drama sport that people love.
Maybe it's just me but I would have liked to see someone like thunderf00t sit down with sargon. They care big enough names that they would draw a large crowd, and they are reasonable enough people that they could sit down and have a discussion which may be heated, but not the shitshow that this was.
I don't think you'll see a repeat of this next year. No one in the SJW or SJW related crowd is going to go near these types of conferences when they don't have the censorship advantage.
I endorse this message.
As I said earlier, this was supposed to be an interview, Carl went prepared with a load of political/philosophical stuff, i think he thought he would be able to talk about classical liberalism. So I am hardly surprised that he wasn't armed with data about US crime statistics of the lack of diversity on universities. He was ambushed. I have a sneaking suspicion he wouldn't have done as well if he had been prepared for this.
I also think that you are going to be hard pushed to find a regressive willing to debate, unless they think they are playing to a home crowd and you can use their ego to goad them into a debate.... I am thinking Dr. Dick Carrier. =P
Dave Rubin was originally on the bill for this event, I could see a situation where one of theirs interviewed Rubin, didn't like the answers and that turned into a debate. In many ways I think that could be a lot more effective as many of the criticism I have heard from progressive leaning people are largely tribal and unfounded. There is also Laci Green and even Mr Rapzion, both were formerly religious and now atheist, both hostile to progressives but largely squeeky clean.
I have been scanning Youtube for responses and reading the comments.I don't recall seeing anybody arguing that Smith won the debate. A few have asserted it, but none have argued it. Instead they argue that Sargon is an awful person because he sends "rape threats". A few claim to have gone and watched his content which they characterize as being him cherry picking arguments and shouting about them. They also describe him as being dim and uneducated. Most of them just argue that he is actually right wing on the ground that he doesn't hold exactly the same positions they do. It is all very predictable.
So I have seen no evidence that anyone's mind got changed. The only thing we can say for certain is that four "Liberals" manage to get into this event and talk about politics which oppose the progressives -- that's if you count Melissa Chen which I do. I have not seen a lot of push back against Greg, June and Melissa. In the long game they may have actually been more effective at changing minds.
There have to be a silent majority/middle at these conferences who do not really take a side or too scared to stand up to the progressives and say "I don not agree with you". I suspect most of them will stay silent for the time being.
