How would you know that unless he treated someone you knew ?
Reviews of his book from verified buyers on Amazon, Youtube comments, comments from him during interviews etc.
The 20th century... thus... far.... uh...
21st century, correct my error.
I have been listening to this (again) ... these people are intellectuals. Note how they don't descend into a pissing match even though their positions are extremely different.
He's not often a good debater on political topics. Your criticism is fair. Depending on his mood he tends to get agitated/angry easily. Maybe some of this is due to him being a prof and used to being on a pulpit for decades rather than being legitimately questioned regularly. I think some of it is also the nature of discussing politics, which is more personal and activist in nature. Discussing politics can get very emotional and people get defensive easily ("religion and politics" as they say). I think people with an academic background in political science and similar subjects tend to be better at looking at political issues from an academic perspective rather than an activist perspective since that's how they're trained. In political discussions he's positioned himself as a culture warrior rather than an academic.
People don't even want to listen to the academics on political issues. You get accused of the 'all sides" argument and people want you to draw a line in the sand. If you want to properly study ie: fascism or Donald Trump it's irrelevant whether you're for it or against it personally, that will just insert personal bias into your research.
Home
Contact
Login
Register