To give him his due, he was willing to engage people. He was also willing to (or at least appeared willing to) actually change his position every once in a while, instead of just going along with whatever the latest narrative shift was, which is a rarity in talking head land.
That said, the vast majority of his arguments that I have heard were in bad faith, and he seemed to employ any means at his disposal to “win” instead of actually paying counter arguments due consideration.
Most of the positions he held were just terrible, as well, so that kind of waters down any willingness to “change his mind” because it does seem like he preferred to change from one shitty position to another shitty position, most of the time.
Anyway, I think it’s bullshit to shoot someone because you disagree with them.
To give him his due, he was willing to engage people. He was also willing to (or at least appeared willing to) actually change his position every once in a while, instead of just going along with whatever the latest narrative shift was, which is a rarity in talking head land.
That said, the vast majority of his arguments that I have heard were in bad faith, and he seemed to employ any means at his disposal to “win” instead of actually paying counter arguments due consideration.
Most of the positions he held were just terrible, as well, so that kind of waters down any willingness to “change his mind” because it does seem like he preferred to change from one shitty position to another shitty position, most of the time.
Anyway, I think it’s bullshit to shoot someone because you disagree with them.
Do you have an example of a time a counterpoint was offered that changed his mind?
A bunch of people in the Trump admin changed their mind on even the existence of the Epstein files.
He came around recently on the Israel-Palestine question didn’t he? Or am I conflating that with the Epstein thing?