“Oh I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but let me completely contradict that in the next sentence.” They also can incredibly honest about things that happened in the distant past, or admitting “mistakes were made” but not seeing the clear consistency and intention in elite policy decisions into the present.
"Danny have you considered that your ideology distorts your analysis" says who dude who not three minutes earlier said he considers China and Russia metaphysically evil. Insane
Not a huge fan of Zizek but he was spitting in that opening to Pervert's Guide to Ideology "I am eating from the trashcan all the time the name of that trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology makes me not see what I'm effectively eating."
The irony is that "history" as a discipline and method allows you to study everything, and much broader. By broader I mean that things don't exist in vacuum, and unintended consequences are often the most significant ones. Like the migrant crisis in the US, which I'd argue the US helped to create (e.g Guatemala).
Let it never be said that the public beating has gone out of style. Danny just rolled Shadi up and smoked him. But I guess that's what happens when you put a person who has a coherent worldview against someone who is clearly propelled mostly by how things make them feel.
These conversations are always funny, because these American power defenders really live in a different world. “General trend is getting better” according to this “democracy” metric we pulled out of our ass.
The fact that Danny did a *much* better job approximating Shadi's argument than visa versa is telling. Danny's interruptions and tone can come across as dismissive (particularly to some goyish audiences). But it's actually because he *knows* these arguments, both from of his scholarship and simply by existing in a world where liberalism is hegemonic. Liberals don't have to engage with other perspectives, so, as we see here, they're ill-equipped to even listen to people who disagree. Makes persuasion pretty difficult, and "discussions" like this pretty hard to listen too! At least Shadi was polite, I guess.
Agreed! I found it probably the most damning part of the debate that Danny showed he had a clear grasp on the other argument and still came up against it while Shadi floundered and struggled for a few minutes to even kind of point at what Danny's stance is. Danny was so clear and quick... like 2 sentences to sum up the opposition's argument...masterful.
I really enjoyed this. Great job Danny. I think political scientists are fooling themselves when they assume these measurements are actually objective.
Heh, I still remember in high school when they taught us that Japan is "governed by consensus", which is a truly incredible euphemism for a functionally one-party state. The only "consensus" governing Japan is the consensus between the LDP and the yakuza.
Not even 1/4 of the way through this and Danny has already de-pantsed an attempted eyerollingly milquetoast discussion multiple times.
In particular, interesting to see tension between an account of world history that wants to valorize US role in the world with Danny's, which questions it. Keep fighting the good fight, Danny: force discussions to make conclusions about US based on the ENTIRE record, not cherry-picked data points.
As much as a joke the first 50 minutes were at times, the final "steel man" discussion was beyond parody. I would at least expect Shadi, someone who agreed to this debate and who has debated Danny in the past, to have a semblance of an understanding of a leftist position on American foreign policy. How am I supposed to take him seriously in this debate if he can't even give an honest telling of Danny's position? And don't even get me started on his bullshit Marxism and restaurants point. Follow that up with Danny's fair and accurate summation of his thesis (by his own admission) and Shadi's already shaky assertions crumble in the face of an actually informed, considered, and coherent worldview.
This was a tedious exercise up until the portion about Gaza, where I was dumbfounded to hear Shadi make the maximally-normie argument for why the genocide is bad, but somehow fail to recognize the same argument applies equally well to many, many, many previous US-backed escapades abroad.
The question about if you (Danny) think your ideology distorts your perspective totally defied my expectations, because the person who asked (I think it was the moderator, but maybe it was Shadi?) didn't pause for a millisecond to pose the same question in the other direction. I'd thought in 2024 people recognized the end of the End of History, but apparently not.
The statistics he uses to justify America’s moral superiority to Israel’s are so thin, to not mention the destruction of the Iraqi economy and infrastructure and the scores of deaths that resulted from that is disingenuous. It’s precisely what’s happening in Gaza and Russia’s unilateral invasion of Ukraine that hold a mirror up to the history of American foreign policy, to pick and choose your moral indignation like he does show how baseless their ideology is.
Listening to Shadi's rationalization after the Gaza portion was fascinating. I presume his distress over the genocide is real and actually felt, but he *cannot* consider what that means for the broader US empire. In part because of ideology, BUT ALSO for position and money. He's literally explaining why he can't give up a book deal! A nice little microcosm of how people vested in empire are structurally and ideologically incentivized to blind themselves from how it works, and suppress their humanity.
I totally get why Mao preferred arguing with reactionaries over liberals.
“Oh I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but let me completely contradict that in the next sentence.” They also can incredibly honest about things that happened in the distant past, or admitting “mistakes were made” but not seeing the clear consistency and intention in elite policy decisions into the present.
"Danny have you considered that your ideology distorts your analysis" says who dude who not three minutes earlier said he considers China and Russia metaphysically evil. Insane
Not a huge fan of Zizek but he was spitting in that opening to Pervert's Guide to Ideology "I am eating from the trashcan all the time the name of that trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology makes me not see what I'm effectively eating."
The irony is that "history" as a discipline and method allows you to study everything, and much broader. By broader I mean that things don't exist in vacuum, and unintended consequences are often the most significant ones. Like the migrant crisis in the US, which I'd argue the US helped to create (e.g Guatemala).
A poli sci dork accusing someone of ideological thinking is so fucking funny. 😂
Conservatives like to pick on Philosophy or Gender Studies as useless liberal arts degrees, but poli sci is the actual fakest LA major
That was such an atrocious, ahistorical, ideologically-driven and inane statement. Can’t believe he just blurted it out, almost casually.
It's crazy how much political science is just the recitation of shibboleths.
"uhh actually it's not true that you're right about everything Danny!" 😤
You know you're winning the argument when you have to pull this gem out.
Let it never be said that the public beating has gone out of style. Danny just rolled Shadi up and smoked him. But I guess that's what happens when you put a person who has a coherent worldview against someone who is clearly propelled mostly by how things make them feel.
These conversations are always funny, because these American power defenders really live in a different world. “General trend is getting better” according to this “democracy” metric we pulled out of our ass.
as a statistician i share danny's utter contempt for this type of political scientist! there are a few good ones like dean knox.
The fact that Danny did a *much* better job approximating Shadi's argument than visa versa is telling. Danny's interruptions and tone can come across as dismissive (particularly to some goyish audiences). But it's actually because he *knows* these arguments, both from of his scholarship and simply by existing in a world where liberalism is hegemonic. Liberals don't have to engage with other perspectives, so, as we see here, they're ill-equipped to even listen to people who disagree. Makes persuasion pretty difficult, and "discussions" like this pretty hard to listen too! At least Shadi was polite, I guess.
Quick note - I'm also an ashkenazi american jew and interrupt all the time. It shows we're listening and engaged!
As a fellow Ashkenazi: this is the correct take.
Agreed! I found it probably the most damning part of the debate that Danny showed he had a clear grasp on the other argument and still came up against it while Shadi floundered and struggled for a few minutes to even kind of point at what Danny's stance is. Danny was so clear and quick... like 2 sentences to sum up the opposition's argument...masterful.
I really enjoyed this. Great job Danny. I think political scientists are fooling themselves when they assume these measurements are actually objective.
Your patience was deep like the ocean, Danny.
My god this is hard to listen to. Danny cooked his ass.
I mean if this guy thinks Japan is a democracy, I can see why he thinks the US is one too.
Heh, I still remember in high school when they taught us that Japan is "governed by consensus", which is a truly incredible euphemism for a functionally one-party state. The only "consensus" governing Japan is the consensus between the LDP and the yakuza.
And the US!
Not even 1/4 of the way through this and Danny has already de-pantsed an attempted eyerollingly milquetoast discussion multiple times.
In particular, interesting to see tension between an account of world history that wants to valorize US role in the world with Danny's, which questions it. Keep fighting the good fight, Danny: force discussions to make conclusions about US based on the ENTIRE record, not cherry-picked data points.
As much as a joke the first 50 minutes were at times, the final "steel man" discussion was beyond parody. I would at least expect Shadi, someone who agreed to this debate and who has debated Danny in the past, to have a semblance of an understanding of a leftist position on American foreign policy. How am I supposed to take him seriously in this debate if he can't even give an honest telling of Danny's position? And don't even get me started on his bullshit Marxism and restaurants point. Follow that up with Danny's fair and accurate summation of his thesis (by his own admission) and Shadi's already shaky assertions crumble in the face of an actually informed, considered, and coherent worldview.
When he said “I believe China and Russia are evil,” the debate should’ve been over. No rational analysis. Just vibes.
This was a tedious exercise up until the portion about Gaza, where I was dumbfounded to hear Shadi make the maximally-normie argument for why the genocide is bad, but somehow fail to recognize the same argument applies equally well to many, many, many previous US-backed escapades abroad.
The question about if you (Danny) think your ideology distorts your perspective totally defied my expectations, because the person who asked (I think it was the moderator, but maybe it was Shadi?) didn't pause for a millisecond to pose the same question in the other direction. I'd thought in 2024 people recognized the end of the End of History, but apparently not.
The statistics he uses to justify America’s moral superiority to Israel’s are so thin, to not mention the destruction of the Iraqi economy and infrastructure and the scores of deaths that resulted from that is disingenuous. It’s precisely what’s happening in Gaza and Russia’s unilateral invasion of Ukraine that hold a mirror up to the history of American foreign policy, to pick and choose your moral indignation like he does show how baseless their ideology is.
Listening to Shadi's rationalization after the Gaza portion was fascinating. I presume his distress over the genocide is real and actually felt, but he *cannot* consider what that means for the broader US empire. In part because of ideology, BUT ALSO for position and money. He's literally explaining why he can't give up a book deal! A nice little microcosm of how people vested in empire are structurally and ideologically incentivized to blind themselves from how it works, and suppress their humanity.
Danny Let the guy talk.