Its very hard to talk about politics these days. Everybody is so quick to label someone who disagrees with them with a nasty name like “Nazi” “libtard”, “fascist” or “SJW”.
Of course I’m not trying to take the moral high ground here or anything. I myself have been guilty of this in the past as well.
As a result of this we are all to some extent sealed off in our own little echo chambers and the few times anybody is willing to approach the other side, sadly its usually just to trash them rather than try and hear their argument.
In this article I am going to run through which debates between public figures on the opposite ends of the political spectrum I’d like to see.
I think its very important for people who have large audiences to reach out and debate with each other. Not only does it help to set a good example in the media, that all ideas can and should be debated regardless of how objectionable you may find them. But it also opens up people on the other side of certain key arguments to their opponents ideas in a more fair way.
Of course there have already been a few positive examples of people from opposite ends of the spectrum reaching out and debating with each other.
The most famous example is arguably Laci Green and Chris Ray Gun, who have begun a relationship in the last few months.
Kevin Logan meanwhile, though I don’t agree with him on much, I do respect the fact that he has been willing to talk to people like Coach Red Pill, Blaire White, Andy Warski, and Sargon of Akkad in many fair, one on one debates.
Similarly Blaire White has also debated a number of people who are opposed to many of her beliefs, such as Laci Green.
Though of course it hasn’t always gone well. Blaire White’s recent debate with Candace Owens, AKA Red Pill Black was a trainwreck of epic proportions.
I don’t blame Blaire for this. Candace Owens gave an absolutely terrible performance. She shouted over Blaire every time she tried to speak and tried to rattle her by maliciously calling Blaire a man and he all the time.
It doesn’t matter how fair Blaire is, if the other person is just going to shout and scream then the chance to exchange ideas or argue is lost.
A way round this I think is to adopt the “Grapple in the Apple” format.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, the “Grapple in the Apple” was a famous debate between the late Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway on the Iraq War.
Its often hailed as one of the greatest debates of the 00s. Undoubtedly a large part of this is due to the fact that Galloway and Hitchens, love them or hate them, were big political figures at that time ( and still are), with huge followings, who were renowned for their aggressive, no holds barred debating styles in particular.
Still a large part of why I think its so great is that it allows Hitch a chance to speak for about 5 minutes, then Galloway a chance to speak for 5 minutes, then Hitch, then Galloway until both had fully laid out their arguments.
Both are completely forbidden to speak whilst the other is talking, though at the end the two are given a proper chance to talk with each other.
This allowed both sides of the argument to be heard clearly, both men a chance to say all they wanted to say, and both men a chance to respond to the others accusations.
Best of all it still allowed them a chance to properly interact at the end after their arguments has been fully stated.
I’d love to see grapple in the apple style debates with the following people. I think all of these debates would be interesting for various reasons. I freely admit that a large part of why I want to see these people debate is for entertainment value as well as the exchange of ideas too.
That’s part of why we love debates too, including “Grapple in the Apple”. Galloway and Hitch always thrived on colourful language and flowery insults.
Still ultimately I think these debates would be very interesting from many perspectives.
1/ Shoe0nHead vs Claudia Boleyn
Claudia Boleyn is a fairly popular feminist youtuber. She talks about forms of entertainment from an SJW, or feminist perspective like Doctor Who, Sherlock and Game of Thrones.
She has also done videos about the feminist movement in general, and other subjects such as Brexit.
Claudia I’ve always found to be a very fair and nice person overall, in both her videos, and in my interactions with her on twitter. Whilst I think her views are misguided on a lot of things, she has always been very polite and reasonable to her critics. She also unlike other feminists doesn’t censor comments, block critics, and has even done videos answering her critics questions.
She has also responded to videos about her in very classy and cool ways too that I honestly can imagine very few youtubers doing. She’s already responded to a video by Shoe0nHead herself.
Shoe0nHead (real name June Lapine) meanwhile is a popular anti feminist youtuber. She is left leaning, and overall has a liberal outlook on things, though I suppose she could also probably be described as a bit of a centrist too. Sadly however because almost all critics of feminism are tarred as “Nazis” many of Shoe’s critics will dismiss her as right wing.
Shoe’s style is humorous, energetic and over the top, but she does make a lot of good points, and has helped to expose a lot of feminists and SJW myths such as the wage gap, and the slew of supposed hate crimes that happened after Trump’s election. Shoe also does many collaboration videos with her boyfriend, another very popular youtuber who goes by the handle of Armoured Skeptic.
Now I think a debate between these two women would be good as neither are really what you would call extreme in their beliefs.
They are obviously strong in their convictions, but still both as you can see are fairly open minded enough that I think that they would really take the others opinions on board. I’m not saying they’d sway the other one necessarily, but their debate would certainly offer up a more nuanced and respectful alternative to many anti SJW vs SJW arguments that we see online and in the media in general.
I have spoken to Claudia about the possibility of debating an anti SJW before and she has said she might be up to it in the future, but sadly her depression and anxiety would make her too nervous right now.
I don’t want Claudia if she’s reading this to think that I am pressuring her into doing a debate with Shoe (not that I have any influence anyway.)
I believe Claudia, as not only has she had problems with her mental health before (which she has been very brave and inspirational in being open about.)
But she has certainly shown herself to not be afraid of arguing or talking with people who disagree with her many, many times, so she has nothing to prove in that respect.
Also to be fair not everyone likes to debate anyway. There’s a difference between just not really being the type of person who likes to debate, and shutting your opponent down.
Personally however I think Claudia vs Shoe would be an interesting, enjoyable debate, and I hope Claudia and Shoe are able to speak with each other in a greater detail at some point.
Who Would I Support?
Shoe. Again I like Claudia a lot personally, and I think she’s a smart woman, if misguided. But I agree with pretty much all of Shoe’s criticisms of feminism and identity politics. Her points are usually very well researched and even handed, so I don’t really see how Claudia could get the better of Shoe, but then again maybe I’m just biased.
2/ Paul Joseph Watson vs George Galloway
The opposite of the Shoe vs Claudia debate.
George Galloway and Paul Joseph Watson are known to be quite confrontational and even outright vicious towards their targets.
As you can see these two in the same room really wouldn’t hold back when arguing with each other.
Galloway is a passionate defender of Fidel Castro. In fact he even claimed to be a close friend of the former dictator. Galloway is also a socialist, and has been accused of courting support from the Muslim communities in areas he’s ran for office in quite controversial ways. The worst such example was when he declared Bradford an Israel free zone.
Though Galloway claims to not be a Muslim himself, he has often blasted famous critics of the Islamic faith such as Tommy Robinson as racist and ignorant.
Paul Joseph Watson meanwhile is a supporter of capitalism, condemned Fidel Castro when he died as one of the worst monsters of the 20th century, and is a high profile critic of Islam.
The two men it should be said do actually overlap on a number of important issues. Both supported Trump in the 2016 election, as both regarded Hillary as the bigger danger as she was a war monger. Both also later criticised Trump’s decision to launch an air strike on Syria. Both utterly despise Tony Blair and have been critics of American foreign policy in countries such as Iraq throughout their entire adult lives, and both were also high profile supporters of Brexit too.
Indeed whilst Paul Joseph Watson has criticised George Galloway on many things, he did also retweet him on Brexit.
Still I suspect that the two men would probably clash over the things they disagree with more than they’d find common ground.
I think this debate would possibly rival Grapple in the Apple. It would obviously need a good moderator to stop it descending into a Candace vs Blaire situation.
Galloway vs Watson would not just be a huge, passionate clash of ideals, but also of egos. Both men I think its fair to say take a lot of pride in their work. I’m not knocking them for it. After all you have to be confident to beat your opponent in a debate, and also even just to deal with the constant accusations of “you’re a racist”, “you’re a bigot” etc.
Still I think its fair to say that PJW and Galloway are quite full of themselves.
With a great moderator this would be a truly spectacular debate. Again it would be the opposite of a respectful, Shoe vs Claudia debate, but that’s okay. There’s a time and a place for the more angry, confrontational debates. Indeed having two men who really don’t like each other, still sit down and talk over their problems if anything is a better representation of free speech, than two people who are fine with each other like Claudia and June.
Who Would I Support?
Well this one is a bit more complicated. I think PJW would absolutely hammer Galloway on the subject of Islam. As always I am not saying that all Muslims are evil. I (along with PJW) recognise that many Muslims who live in the west have abandoned the bad bits of the Quran and integrated.
However the problem is many of them haven’t. Islam as an ideology is far more dangerous than either Christianity or Judaism.
Islam’s holy book, the Quran commands that its followers murder all non believers, that all gay people are to be killed, and that all black people and women are inferior to white men. It also promises a happy afterlife for all those who martyr themselves in conflict too.
Now its true that the old testament is a vile book too, but the Jewish religion is more loose, and tribal overall. Also it has had a reformation, many times too.
Christianity similarly has not only had a reformation, but the Christian holy book, the New Testament is nowhere near as twisted as the Quran, and Jesus overall was portrayed as a more genuinely benevolent figure who forbid violence and encouraged his followers to love their enemies above all else.
This isn’t about race, as anyone of any race can be either a Muslim or a Christian, or convert to Judaism. This is about ideology and the ideology of Islam is currently causing far more problems across western society, never mind on a global scale. Grooming gangs, homophobia, terrorism, religious persecution, anti semitism, all of these things have increased in areas where the influence of Islam has increased.
Here are the facts to back this up.
Now again obviously I’m not saying that that means we have to kick all Muslims out (and PJW has never argued for anything like that either), but a sensible and reasonable discussion needs to be had about the problems Islam is causing.
Sadly however George Galloway is one of these people who refuses to hear any fair and objective criticism of Islam as anything but racist. Even when presented with the facts he will still just shout “you are a bigot” and whilst he is undoubtedly when he’s good, a brilliant debater, in these instances he just comes across as a total clown.
Imagine this being PJW here. This guy does well obviously, but as you can see his approach is more laid back. Imagine it being someone who is as belligerent as Galloway in a fair environment. Would be quite interesting I think.
Still that said I think Galloway would get the better of Paul when it came to politics. Again I admit this is just pure bias on my part, as I am a socialist.
I don’t think there is no value in capitalism, but I think that PJW overlooks its faults too much. For instance in his “Why Capitalism is Great” video he dismiss all of the problems that have arisen from capitalism such as the invasion of countries like Iraq, and people like George Soros gaining so much influence as being as a result of corprotism and not true capitalism.
Ironically this reminds me of the argument PJW always sneers at that lefties use to gloss over the failures of communism “they just weren’t doing it right”.
There are problems with every system, and so I think its stupid to get so tribal over one and dismiss any faults that can arise from one as “just bad people not doing it right.” Karl Marx himself ironically praised capitalism, whilst simply acknowledging its faults.
I admit there are problems with socialism, which is why I wouldn’t associate myself 100 percent with the ideology. I call myself a socialist for practical reasons as I am currently very sympathetic towards many socialist concepts and ideas such as the welfare state, and the NHS. But I think that the best thing to do is take the best ideas from many different ideologies that work together.
Now fair enough Galloway I feel can be tribal when it comes to his politics too, but ultimately I’ve found his defence of socialism to be more detailed than Watson’s of capitalism. For instance he actually tried to defend Cuba remaining a dictatorship by pointing out that whilst no elections have been held, this is because the country has been under constant attack from US forces, and that the UK similarly abandoned elections during the Second World War too.
Watson also at times I feel buys into some myths about socialism too.
For instance he has called Hugo Chavez a dictator many times. Say what you will about Chavez but he was NOT a dictator. Even Jimmy Carter of all people said that he was a free and democratically elected leader.
Added to that Watson has even spoken favourably of Margaret Thatcher (someone who supported ACTUAL dictators like Agusto Pinochet) a few times, which to me further shows how he isn’t prepared to admit that there are faults with the capitalist system.
Needless to say on positions like this, Galloway would absolutely hammer Watson.
So I suppose I would be on PJW’s side when it came to social issues, but Galloways more on political ones.
3/ Tree of Logic vs Abby Martin
Similar to the PJW vs Galloway debate I see this as being a very tense, confrontational encounter.
Abby Martin is a journalist who originally worked for RT, hosting the show Breaking the Set. She has since gone on to produce the documentary series The Empire Files for telesur.
Now Abby is very left leaning. Arguably her greatest moment for me was the work she did on Hillary Clinton. I’d say that Abby and Paul Joseph Watson really exposed to the wider world just how corrupt Hillary was more than anyone else.
Obviously other people including the great Christopher Hitchens had done work on the Clintons, but Abby’s work was really the most extensive. To be honest I can’t imagine any reasonable person not breathing a huge sigh of relief that Trump won when you watch Abby’s videos on Clinton.
Its terrifying to think how close this person came to occupying one of the most powerful positions on earth!
Tree of Logic meanwhile is a youtuber who first rose to prominence in 2016.
She has done comprehensive videos (that I highly recommend) on Islam, Black Lives Matter and gun control among other things.
She is a conservative by her own admission, so I clash with her on some of her political opinions, but she’s still one of my favourite youtubers because of her brilliant style, and because I feel her videos on Islam are among the most insightful. You should check out her Taqqiya video.
Still arguably Tree’s shining moment so far was when she exposed Candace Owens, AKA Red Pill Black.
Candace Owens had originally set up a website called Social Autopsy that was designed to doxx people for saying mean words online. After it was thankfully rejected by the kickstarter, Candace re-emerged as an anti SJW.
Now obviously people change. I myself had some SJW leanings before (I used to believe things like the gender wage gap for instance.)
However the problem with Candace was that she kept the website Social Autopsy, and the information she had gathered on people there. Personally I think that Candace wasn’t necessarily going to launch the website as some claimed (though that was certainly a valid opinion.).
Still in my opinion rather than being a trojan horse SJW, Candace is a chancer who has no real political beliefs, and had jumped ship when it was obvious that the third wave feminism movement was dying.
Social Autopsy however I think was her bolthole in case the conservative fad didn’t last or work out for her.
Still regardless of whatever her true motives were, in making sure that this heinous website was never able to launch, Tree really did everybody on the net a huge favour.
At the same time Tree also interestingly showed how sadly many people on the right have a soft bigotry of low expectations too. We all know how the left talks down to people with dark skin. Their “love”of Islam comes entirely from this. Basically because most Muslims have brown skin, then they have to be the poor victims in the left’s eyes and that’s that.
Sadly however Candace showed that a lot of conservatives are desperate to have a black person on their side that they’ll overlook her faults in comparison to a white person. Its doubtful that a white person with a doxxing website would have been promoted as “the new sensation” by Info Wars.
Now Tree vs Abby would be a great debate for many reasons.
Obviously they are on the opposite side on many things. Really the only area that they overlap on is a mutual loathing of Hillary Clinton. Even then however Abby hates Trump, whilst Tree is a huge supporter of her president.
Abby sadly like many on the left is a bit of an apologist for Islam. She’s clashed with people like Sam Harris, Paul Joseph Watson and even Maajid Nawaz (who claimed that people like her were the reason he coined the term the regressive left.)
Needless to say there could be some interesting conflict between these two.
Tree and Abby also are both known for having very dominant personas and being very alpha.
Of the two of them I must admit, personally I think Tree is more genuinely alpha, as she was a former police officer after all. With Abby not to do her down, as I am overall a fan, but I think a lot of her alpha persona is kind of a bit more for show.
Take a look at this vid to see what I mean.
So yeah of the two I think Abby’s is perhaps more of an act.
Still I think it would be a very interesting debate nonetheless, and I hope Abby goes on Tree’s channel sometime. I would also like to see Abby debate Paul Joseph Watson (properly and not just some bitchy comments to each other on twitter.) And Brigitte Gabriel too.
Who Would I Support
For the most part Tree. Again however as Tree is more right wing than me or Abby, then much like with Galloway vs Watson, on some political issues I’d probably side more with Abby.
However even then with the main political issue of Trump vs Clinton, Tree feels the same way as Abby, so I suspect the debate would most focus around Islam and BLM in which case I think Tree would mop the floor with Abby personally.
4/ Tommy Robinson vs Owen Jones
Now I’ll admit here that this is a little different in that I dislike Owen Jones greatly.
With all of the previous people though I disagree with all of them on some important issues, I still overall like most of their work.
Jones however I have virtually no respect for. To be fair to him its not like he hasn’t said and done great things too. This article here that he wrote recently is brilliant, and very well argued.
However my big beef with Owen Jones is that he is a threat to free speech.
Jones has famously refused to appear on television with people he disagrees with, and has even got some people fired from their jobs for comments he dislikes.
As you can see Jones is not just a misguided SJW like say Claudia Boleyn. He is a bully, a coward and someone who needs put in his place for the sake of free speech.
Tommy Robinson meanwhile is someone I have tremendous respect for. I’m not saying he is perfect or anything, but I feel Tommy has done more for the working class of this country than most.
He has brought attention to the problems Islamic immigration has caused to working class communities and helped those whose stories are often side swerved or outright ignored by the mainstream media and sometimes even the authorities.
Over the years Tommy has had to deal with the mainstream media sliming him as a racist (when nothing could be further from the truth) and even attempts by the police and the government themselves to silence him, Tommy has still not given up however and continues to try and help those who need it the most.
In decades to come I honestly do think that Tommy Robinson will be remembered as a true British hero.
Obviously as you can see this would be a bit of a one sided debate from my perspective. Still I think it would be good to have Tommy and Owen actually debate each other properly on the subject of Islam. They’ve said bad things about each other in articles and videos before, and have had a few bitchy confrontations on twitter, but never a proper debate.
If Owen genuinely believes that Tommy is just a racist bigot, who can be easily dismissed and his accusations against Islam are all just caused by him “not liking brown people” then wouldn’t Owen want to finally expose him in a debate to his followers and everyone else once and for all?
Personally I would love to see that happen to Owen Jones. Owen for once in a fair Grapple in the Apple style debate, would not just be able to storm off, or bully people into silence, and would actually be forced to have the courage of his convictions.
Hey if he genuinely thinks that Tommy Robinson is completely in the wrong. What’s he scared of?
Who Would I Support?
Does it need said?
5/ David Wood vs Maajid Nawaz
This is a debate that I think would be interesting as Maajid Nawaz is a figure that I and many people are somewhat unsure of these days.
Initially many people saw Maajid Nawaz as a hero. He was a Muslim reformer who worked with people like Sam Harris and Tommy Robinson to try and bring attention to many of the problems caused by Islamic extremism. He even coined the term regressive left to refer to people like Abby Martin and Owen Jones who silenced all criticism of Islam as racist, and ironically ended up defending the most conservative ideology on the face of the planet as a result.
However in the last year or so a lot of people have begun to doubt Maajid for a number of reasons. To start with whilst he has talked about reforming Islam, he has never actually mentioned HOW he is going to reform it.
Islam is a difficult religion to reform as it is intended to be the definitive word of god and so therefore everything in it has to be taken literally. Maajid hasn’t to this date as far as I am aware offered up any kind of answer to this question.
Added to this he has also become ironically a bit of an SJW recently. He’s quick to shout critics down as racists on LBC, and he also recently begun feuding with Tommy Robinson, who a member of his foundation, the Qulliam foundation tarred as a white supremacist of all things.
Furthermore there is his support for removing President Assad from power in Syria. Now Assad is guilty of many heinous crimes, that much is true, but ultimately he is a secular leader and thus a step forward for the middle east.
Added to that toppling Assad at this stage would lead to absolute chaos in Syria, similar to Iraq and Libya and ironically allow the real Islamic extremists a chance to overtake the country just as they are being crushed.
Some have accused Maajid of being a trojan horse who had simply duped the likes of Harris and Robinson with taqqiya.
Personally however I wouldn’t go this far. I think that what the youtuber Simon Harris said about him being something of a self promoter is probably closer to the truth.
Still I don’t want to give up on Maajid Nawaz just yet as he has done a lot of good work in the past and still continues to do so.
I would like to see David Wood interview him. Wood is one of the greatest experts on Islam. His videos are probably the best overall for learning about the true nature of the Quran, not just because of the extensive research he puts into them, but also because he provides sources to back up every single claim that he makes.
Whenever Maajid appears on an interview I feel that people tend to just take his word when he says that Islam can be reformed, but with David Wood then I think he would have to actually lay down what (if any plans) he has to reform Islam, and I think it would be a much more tense, but interesting interview than his ones with say Sargon, Douglas Murray, or Sam Harris.
Who Would I Support
Well this wouldn’t quite be like the others, in that ultimately I hope both men are on the same page about Islam. It would be more about finding out what Maajid Nawaz’ positions on reform actually are.
6/ Sargon of Akkad vs John Pilger
John Pilger is one of the most respected journalists and documentary makers of the 20th century and a personal hero of mine.
His work focuses mostly on the disasterous effects of American, British and Australian foreign policy, though he has also focused on the Australians treatment of the Aborigines too.
Arguably Pilgers greatest accomplishment was his 1979 documentary “Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia.” which focuses on the devastating after effects of the 1970 bombing of the country by American forces during the Vietnam war, and the subsequent brutality and genocide inflicted by the Paul Pot and the Khmer Rouge, as well as the limited aid from the west.
After the broadcast of the documentary over 45 million pounds was raised from the United Kingdom and donated to Cambodia.
Sargon of Akkad meanwhile is a very popular youtuber who identifies as a classical liberal and has made videos criticising the worst elements of both left wing and right wing politics.
Though he has become more famous for his critiques of left wing politics such as third wave feminism, which has led to many to label him right wing (or even hilariously in some instances a Nazi!) Ultimately I see Sargon as being a liberal, who merely talks about left wing politics like feminism more often simply because it is more dominant in our culture and thus more of a threat.
Ironically however my absolute favourite Sargon videos are on the same subject as much of John Pilgers work, American foreign policy.
“A Tale of Two Narratives” which was about Trump’s strike on Syria, was by far and away the best researched, most balanced and intelligent thing I saw on the subject, in any medium.
Sargon has also used his position to help promote the careers of many other youtubers including both Shoe0nHead and Chris Ray Gun too, and whilst many have accused him of sealing himself off in an echo chamber, Sargon has still reached out and debated many people on the opposite end of the spectrum to him like Kevin Logan. He has also offered to debate others like Steve Shives, but predictably his offers have been rejected time and time again.
Now the reason I would like to see Sargon and John Pilger debate is that I feel Sargon has become too anti socialist in his recent videos.
He wasn’t always that way. Many of his previous positions were very left wing. He supported socialist Bernie Sanders. Many of his critics liked to call him a Trump supporter, but he only supported Trump as a lesser of two evils approach, which by the way many leftists did too including both George Galloway and John Pilger himself!
Bernie was his actual preferred candidate of choice above all the others. Added to that, Sargon has also in the past even said that he is “quite a socialist in some ways” and that he likes the idea of “socialised healthcare and wealthcare.”
Sadly however nowadays I find his videos to be more tribal and more “ALL SOCIALISM IS BAD”
I’m not saying that some of his criticisms of socialism don’t have merit, but I feel that much like Paul Joseph Watson he overlooks the problems with capitalism too, albeit to an even greater extent than Watson.
I think that Sargon much like the late great Christopher Hitchens before him has come to despise all left wing politics due to the state its in. Left wing politics currently IS a bigger threat to things like free speech, and social liberty. Its also a purveyor of the worst kind of racism and sexism in our society too against white men, and ironically has made the most genuinely backward and conservative ideology, Islam, bullet proof.
Sadly if you meet a socialist these days, then they are likely to support black lives matter, think things like the wage gap, and campus rape culture exist, silence all criticisms of Islam as racist, and think that things like white male privilege exist, which ironically is a complete betrayal to someone who is supposed to think that class is the greatest thing that divides people. An actual socialist shouldn’t think that Beyonce is less privileged than a homeless white guy!
Sadly however because this cancer has infected left wing politics, then its practically dead as anyone who does support genuine old left wing ideas like Sargon, will not want to associate themselves with the left.
Still its not a good idea to dismiss all left wing ideas, which I feel the likes of Hitchens and Sargon sadly are doing, or have done.
There was a popular video of Sargon interviewing some naive, Rik from the Young Ones style communist. During the interview Sargon furiously demands to know where capitalism has caused any deaths only for the young man to draw a blank.
If it was John Pilger however, a proper old school leftie, then I feel he would be able to put Sargon in his place as he would have experience to draw on and a proper socialist analysis.
You can see how Pilger has dealt with the problems caused by capitalism first hand.
Another problem with Sargon is that I feel he will often try and link anything bad he can to socialism too.
For instance he even said that Hitler was a socialist which has been debunked time and time again.
As the article points out, Hitler and the Nazis were really a political spectrum on their own that went beyond left and right, hence why conservatives and communists were united against them.
I also found it ironic when Sargon said that he is perfectly okay with saying anyone who is a communist is a bad person, yet has always been adamant that not all Muslims be tarred as evil. Now obviously I am not saying that Sargon is afraid to criticise Islam, but still it does feel like more soft bigotry of low expectations when he says its okay to say that everyone who is a communist is a bad person, when he is so adamant not to do the same for Islam.
Ultimately I feel that Sargon has become too tribal in terms of some of his politics, and so I think it would be good to see him have a debate with an old proper lefty who has a better understanding of socialist ideas and concepts like John Pilger, rather than stupid, ignorant, teenagers.
Of course at the same time I think there are areas where Sargon would own Pilger too. The problem with Pilger is that he is far too anti western society. His comments about 9/11 being the sign of a revolution were absolutely disgraceful, and he can be a bit too right on at times.
Still it should be mentioned that John Pilger has provided some very interesting and insightful critiques of identity politics and feminism too. He’s certainly not on the level of Owen Jones or even Abby Martin.
He’s definitely more of a proper old school leftie, though I suppose the fact that even he in a very few instances has drunk the SJW Koolade shows that this crap really does permeate the entire left.
Who Would I Support
Mostly John Pilger. I respect Sargon in a lot of ways, but ultimately I think he needs to be put in his place by a proper old school leftie.
7/ Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Amani Al Khatahtbeh
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a true feminist champion. She is a writer, journalist, activist, former politician, and a longstanding critic of Islam.
She has written many books about Islam that draw on her own experiences growing up in Somalia, and founded the AHA Foundation which tackles problems such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation and honour killings.
Amani runs a popular website called Muslim girl which is designed to help Muslim women and break the stigma around them.
Of course it never tackles problems for Muslim women in actual Islamic countries, and instead focuses on “Islamophobia” in western countries.
Worse still however Amani often tries to write off the problems women endure in Muslim majority countries as having nothing to do with Islam.
In this respect Amani is happy to throw women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali under the bus, just to promote her own career, as ultimately she is covering for the very system that ruins the lives of, and even kills so many women.
I would like to see Amani actually face someone who has suffered as a result of the backward and evil religion that she is promoting as a liberal fantasy, rather than some naive young feminist like Hannah who will buy all the shit she peddles.
Who Would I Support
Again does it need saying?
8/ Dave Cullen vs Paul Cornell
Dave Cullen runs a youtube channel called Computing Forever. Originally it just about tech products, but Dave has branched out into talking about identity politics, feminism, Islam and various other political and social subjects.
I like Dave a lot. He has a great, laid back, even handed style, he supports free speech for absolutely everybody, and there is a lot I agree with him on. However by his own admission he is far more right wing than I am. I see Dave as being genuinely right wing, as opposed to Sargon who I see as being more of a frustrated lefty.
Again I’m not saying that makes Dave a “NAZI” or anything stupid like that, but still I a lefty obviously clash with him on certain things like socialism and gay marriage (with Dave being opposed to gay marriage.)
Dave is also a huge sci fi fan (particularly of Star Trek and Doctor Who) and has commented on them many times. He even has a second channel called the Dave Cullen Show which is mostly devoted to reviewing sci fi films and tv shows.
Now Paul Cornell is an acclaimed sci fi and fantasy writer. He has written for various franchises including DC, Marvel. Vampirella and Doctor Who, with his work for all being very successful. He also runs a successful blog and podcast where he reviews classic sci fi and horror, and finally he has enjoyed success through many of his own creations too, such as most notably The Shadow Police.
Now I have criticised Paul many times in the past, but truth be told I don’t hate him. Paul is really no different to Claudia Boleyn, in that both express opinions I dislike yes, but ultimately neither, unlike Owen Jones, try and shut people down or even block them on twitter and FB. So really in all fairness there is no reason to hate Paul personally.
I admit though to getting more genuinely pissed at Paul than Claudia, but that’s only really because Paul is actually associated with Doctor Who and other franchises I like and so therefore has brought a lot a of this shit into these series themselves and therefore helped to ruin them. Though obviously if Claudia were associated with them then she would be the same.
I’d like to see Dave and Paul debate each other over the influence SJWs and identity politics is having on the sci fi and fantasy genres.
I feel that SJWs have gone after these two genres because they are easy targets. Many modern day feminists and SJWs like Anita Sarkeesian are chancers who want to be seen as feminist champions, and obviously make a little bit of money out of the movement too.
The problem however is that the likes of Sarkeesian aren’t brave enough to take on actual causes of inequality like Islamic countries treatment of women.
Saying anything negative about Islam is obviously a very difficult thing to do from many perspectives. Radical Islamic extremists may kill you, your reputation will be slandered by radical leftists, who will tar you as a racist. Your entire life may be ruined and sabotaged.
We can see this in action with people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Tommy Robinson.
People like Anita however obviously don’t want to live the types of lives that Tommy and Ayaan do, so they will instead pick a battle that has already been won like achieving equality for black people in western societies, or they will invent something like the gender wage gap, or finally they will pick a benign and easy target and smear that as sexist, and then bask in the praise for being supposed feminist champions.
Sci fi and fantasy are of course the easiest genres to bully. They are looked down upon as silly, childish interests. Even with the trendy geek culture that we are exposed too these days, sci fi and fantasy are still looked down on.
Thus if a feminist like Anita Sarkeesian, trashes sci fi, most nerds are not going to want to vigriously defend it out of fear of looking like a sad git whose life revolves around Doctor Who and Star Trek.
Added to that again as the genre is looked down upon, then the mainstream media is obviously going to take the side of the feminists as opposed to the “sad, basement dwelling, smelly nerds.”
Yes I don’t doubt that Anita has received abuse from some anti feminists online, but so what? Everybody gets abuse online, including many anti feminists. That’s hardly the same as what the likes Ali and Robinson get.
Of course many producers and companies like DC and Marvel, and Steven Moffat, the former showrunner of Doctor Who end up pandering to feminists and SJWs who make their voice louder than everyone else.
Now you might think well even if that is the case (which it is) what’s the problem as these people just want more roles for women, LGBT people and black people?
Well to start with that’s NOT simply what they want. Ironically the sci fi and fantasy genres have always been very progressive and have given women, LGBT and black people leading roles when many other genres have not. Why don’t feminists and SJWs go after Westerns and Spy and Espionage genres for instance?
Those two genres combined don’t have anywhere NEAR the same level of strong roles for women and minorities. Again however they aren’t as looked down upon, and thus aren’t as easy to bully, and so the likes of Sarkeesian steer clear of them.
Still at any rate SJWs and feminists want to take roles away from white men, rather than create new characters for women, they also want every single product to be filled with their divisive political agenda regardless, they demand that characters whole histories be changed to their liking, that white men be limited from writing and directing for sci fi series, and worst of all they insult the genre and spread malicious lies about it being a boys only club, which ironically completely overlooks the contributions of many actresses who have created memorable and iconic characters, and forged careers in the sci fi and fantasy genres such as Lucy Lawless.
I have written extensively about the negative impact third wave feminism and SJWs have had on the sci fi and fantasy genres many times before, but I think these two articles were probably the best two that I wrote.
Please check them out if you have the time.
Now Paul Cornell with this in mind I have always seen as an utter traitor to geek culture. He is happy to see icons like the Doctor and the Master be desecrated for the sake of some PC agenda, he is happy to demonise the very genre that he has made his name in by making out that it was always sexist, and worst of all Paul supports and encourages people like Whovian Feminism.
Whovian Feminism, a blogger is in my opinion as awful as Anita Sarkeesian. She isn’t just a misguided person, she is a bully who always wants to show how she has the power to end people’s careers. She’s never done setting up petitions to try and make sure that only the type of people she wants too get hired, and she’s always threatened to call a public boycott of tv shows and films if someone who she dislikes, an actor, director, producer, writer is involved with them.
She doesn’t give a damn about any of the shows she is a “fan” of. All she cares about is in proving that she has power over them, and in restricting positions in them for white men, who she despises (based on her misandiristic tweets.)
Yet Paul still constantly promotes this person as someone we should be listening too simply because she is a woman.
Dave Cullen meanwhile is someone who I feel actually represents what nerds and sci fi fans in general want.
He actually does care about the things he is a fan of rather in pushing his political agenda on them. Dave doesn’t give a shit about whether or not Doctor Who or Star Trek endorse his conservative political views unlike Cornell and Whovian Feminism. He just wants them to be good, well written and enjoyable for as many people as possible. Ironically he is more inclusive of all audiences than Paul Cornell or Whovian Feminism who want all of these previously politically neutral things to solely endorse their agenda and for anyone who doesn’t like that to be told to fuck off and tarred as a racist, sexist and homophobe.
A debate between Dave Cullen and Paul Cornell over the state of the genre would be very interesting. I know that this in comparison to the other subjects I’d like to see debated this is very much a first world problem, but still I think it is important in some respects in the long run.
Ultimately what Whovian Feminism and others are doing with Doctor Who and video games is what SJWs want to do to other areas of life. From political movements, to the internet, to the education system, IE control them and mould them all to their own ideologies, whilst bullying and shutting down anyone who disagrees.
The SJWs start with forms of entertainment exactly because they are seen as unimportant, but once they have taken control of that, then they can start to slowly spill their poison out into all areas of life, which is exactly what has happened since Doctor Who started going SJW round about 2014 and things like Gamer Gate as well.
Fanatical bullies like the SJWs have to be tackled at the start in my opinion. Thus a video where Dave Cullen who says what most nerds think, but are simply to scared to say, debating Paul Cornell, who is one of the biggest advocates of identity politics into the genres would be very interesting, insightful and I think open a lot of people’s eyes.
Who Would I Support
Dave obviously. Dave has actually already kind of debunked one of Paul’s main arguments, indirectly.
In 2012 Paul Cornell set up a policy for conventions called 50/50 where he would refuse to sit on a convention panel unless there was an exactly equal amount of women on the panel.
See for yourself. Paul Cornell Panel Parity
Dave Cullen already did a great video tearing this stupid obsession with making sure that men and women are always represented 50/50 at events, so I think he would do okay against Paul.
9/ Jordan Peterson vs Brendan O’Neill
Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, who shot to fame in 2016 when he got caught up in a debate over gender pronouns with rabid SJWs on campus.
Since then Peterson has become something of a hero for free speech to many people around the world, and has continued to criticise identity politics, post modernism and feminism.
Brendan O’Neill meanwhile is a Marxist author, but much like John Pilger, he’s one of the few, proper, old school lefties around who actually criticises identity politics.
The likes of Paul Joseph Watson have even retweeted and reposted things written by O’Neill many times.
Now I’d like to see this debate for much the same reasons as Sargon vs John Pilger, in that a problem with Jordan Peterson is that he is too anti socialist.
I’d like to see him have a discussion with more of a reasonable old school leftist like O’Neill. I think there is a danger of the SJWs producing such a backlash against left wing politics that they have taken over, that in ten years or so, people will go the other way and try and silence any kind of left wing politics out of fear that it will lead to SJW crap again.
I’m not saying that Peterson or others like Sargon or Dave Cullen want that at all. They have always championed free speech for all, but the problem is I guess that there aren’t really any old school lefties around to properly defend genuine left wing politics when the likes of Peterson attack it. All there is on the left are stupid SJWs who don’t even understand any proper left wing positions to the point where they can’t name ANY problems caused by capitalism.
So I think it would be better to hear someone like O’Neill debate with Peterson, over the actual merits of socialism rather than some stupid virtue signalling student. Again not that that’s Peterson’s fault as there are very few people like O’Neill left.
Who Would I Support
O’Neill, but Peterson I think would give him a good run for his money.
10/ Christina Hoff Sommers vs Emma Watson
Two feminists with a very different outlook to one another. I’m a big fan of Hoff Sommers. If more feminists were like her, then I think most people would respect the movement, as Sommers does genuinely care about problems that both genders face.
Now Watson I don’t think is a chancer like Sarkeesian. I see her as more of a Claudia Boleyn style feminist, IE a nice, smart person, but just a little bit misguided.
Added to that Sommers has also been fair and even handed in her critique’s of Watson too, so much like with a Shoe vs Claudia debate I don’t see it getting too nasty either.
Ultimately I see Watson as someone who simply wants to learn and use her high profile for good, so I think it would be for her benefit to speak with someone like Hoff Sommers.
Thanks for reading.