James O’Keefe on The Portal, Ep.

[@KevinWillis2]

Eric is one of my favorite intellectuals and I try to deeply listen to everything he has to say. This episode is the first time out of all of the videos I have seen of Eric speaking (I've probably seen 99% of them) that I not only disagreed with him, but felt that he was not making a clear point, not giving sound alternatives, and was acting cocky in a way that was not good. I really hope this is a one-off because I dont want to see another 2 hour video of him telling someone his method is wrong, but not giving any valid alternatives to the method that could produce similar results. I just wish James would have said something along the lines of, "On these three example videos of mine, how would you, Eric, have 1) attained this info without a candid camera and 2) given the info to the public in a way you see fit?". All we heard was "stop doing what you are doing, but continue to give us groundbreaking material", but no alternative that would give similar intel and credibility.

[@Mike-rp6lb]

I think Eric just has cognitive dissonance. He has a belief that he and his circle are the even handed adults in the room, so he can't say he/they dismiss James because they "hate his politics" or "his presentation is campy" or "they think he is a light weight" or "he is not pedigreed" or "the MSM is ok" so he has to suss out a nuanced objection to the "method", which (being illogical) James aptly handles which makes Eric irritated (classic cognitive dissonance).

[@marcoa.5371]

I am quite fond of Eric too and believe he did attempt to have a genuine conversation. I think O'Keefe also noticed that and was trying his best to understand and integrate Eric's criticism, though I do not necessarily understand the reason for nor agree with this criticism. I feel that they spent most of the time talking past each other and much of that I do blame on Eric, since he is the proponent of the critic. The three points you mentioned should have been Eric's responsibility to deliver, not O'Keefe's to raise. That attitude may be why I felt a little disheartened with the interview like you did.

[@samlowrey63]

.....and when he runs into his own walls of logic, instead of first examining his own premises, he says, "this is all extremely complicated".

[@TPTnny]

Kevin Willis Did you listen to Erics very strong perspective? It seems like you miss the fundamental argument or problem just like James. James weaseled away from the deeper side of the pool because he knows better than to get deeper than his ability.

[@stormthepitbull]

This is a VERY revealing interview Eric is very open in his thought processes and plays this interview like a pissed Dungeon Master that don't like the new rules in 5ed. Am I alone in seeing this ? Guys ?

[@ghostrunnner]

Eric doesn't understand he's proving the problem: "when you put Project Veritas label on it, you lose credibility"...that's because you (Eric) are buying the hit-piece, the connotation that others put on Project Veritas...is it because you don't have the cajones to push back to those in your circle...

[@bradspitt3896]

It's the missing stair dilemma. It's everywhere.

[@moonrock5324]

@Einstein Brown you must be right then Einstein . That’s an approachable name in conversation

[@pearz420]

You seem to have tuned all of the nuance out of Eric's point.

[@horsefootrot5654]

@@pearz420 is that the point that wins landmark cases in court? Or the just the drivel that you perceive as nuance?

[@Heyemeyohsts]

Eric doesn’t like that fact that he admires James. So he wants James to change to be more palatable to Eric’s liking. But he secretly wishes he had the balls to do what James does, in the way he does it, but cannot stomach being rejected by all his peers.

[@solcetor]

hi james

[@Dilmahkana]

Eric wants everybody to pay attention to Veritas, that's his goal. Why aren't more people paying attention to Veritas? Partly due to the guerilla tactics, voyeurism and grey area of ethics which is confronting and discomforting, and partly due to the media tactics of belittling PV and diverting attention. I would put it out there that currently only a select number of people can and do get immersed in PV, people with a certain disposition for conspiracies (not in the tinfoil hat way), a contempt for the media and lefties and the right attitude to 'win at any cost'. To me, the method can be changed with the intention and results remaining the same, so why not do it?

[@Heyemeyohsts]

Dgkana I don’t think it will work. If James was any nicer, there would be no impact, and he becomes irrelevant

[@Kentucky_Blue]

Heyemeyohsts I feel this is a pretty good summation.

[@boazblake232]

Heyemeyohsts perfectly encapsulates Eric

[@jim5345]

"James, why aren't you the way I want you to be?"

[@maulor3]

Lllooolll yess

[@theetilesmith]

James why arent you a liberal!

[@stoempert]

If Eric thinks as highly of his audience like he says he does i hope he reads this comment section.

[@pauldabkowski2847]

Narcissistic leftists control all of our culturally-influential institutions. Eric has had more success than most with getting their ideological base to listen to reason. While most commenters here seem to want to continue trying the vinegar that has not worked thus far, Eric is not too proud to try the honey. Like Jordan Peterson says, the aim is not to win the game but to play it in such a way that you are included in more games in the future.

[@andrewfurusawa4609]

I like to interpret "audience" as the people who earnestly and honestly engage in the conversation and actually follows his topics/discussions instead of the alt-right types that wander through here to try to sound smart then leave.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

@@pauldabkowski2847 What if the game itself is poisonous?

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

@@andrewfurusawa4609 How do you know which is which?

[@stoempert]

@@andrewfurusawa4609 So if you listen to the whole thing, are disappointed in Eric and express that in a comment you are alt-right? Weird. I gather from most (negative) comments that they have watched a lot of portal episodes, that's how i interpret audience.

[@Shoutinthewind]

I think Eric is needlessly hostile in this interview. I haven’t followed Project Veritas very closely so perhaps I’m missing something but I don’t see what is so “troubling” about this guy.

[@dontaskme9047]

It sounds worse than that to me. Eric seems to be trying his hardest to undermine Project Veritas by getting James to agree to changing their tactics to something less effective. He is purposefully deceptive in this attempt, at one point claiming that James gets pleasure from exposing his enemies. This is a trick because naturally everyone always gets some bit of pleasure from besting their adversaries, however Eric paints this as a personal fault of James with the implied lie that if he gets pleasure then it is this pleasure that drives his motivation. To be extremely blunt, and therefore inherently broad; I would say that Eric's loyalty's lay with the reporters over truth, integrity, ideology and every other foundation he stands on when he himself bemoans the institutions that these people run. He wants to protect the corrupt reporters and deflect Jame's attack onto the faceless corporate facade they hide behind. Rendering it useless. I really used to like Eric. His DISC analysis is brilliant. But I think this interview exposes him as a wolf in sheeps clothing.

[@MrSesseLind]

@@marekan1410 I concur. Do you think it's a game? I've a hard time to think Eric disagree with James.

[@thedarknazo]

both of them are really hostile, but in a polite manner, usually people who have respect for the other one, but disagree strongly on idelogy tend to discuss in this manner, both have a strong character

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

@@dontaskme9047 I been starting to suspect the IDW as controlled opposition for some time. Doesn't mean I don't listen, but it also means trust is not super high. I mean I like Eric, he gives me a lot to think about, but for all his "lifelong outsider" schtick, the guy is still VERY well connected with VERY powerful people. For example he works for one of the largest financial institutions which, as was even mentioned in this video, was connected to the 2008 crash, and likely the dotcom bubble as well given his boss was a major player in PayPal. He's allegedly met Epstein, and a lot more. What really fucking annoys me about the information age is that what it really means is information warfare on unfathomable numbers of layers simultaneously (kayfabe in short). In a way we can't trust anybody. "But muh private company" allows complete circumvention of the 1st amendment both in practice (governments tell FB et al what to censor), and in spirit, because I very much doubt that the founding fathers imagined billionaires effectively being more powerful than governments and in control of everyone's public and private speech instead of kings or elected officials. We are basically just a new form of feudalism and imo, social media is just another arm of the establishment, even if it wasn't a direct spawn of the intelligence community which I also suspect it was/is. But in any case the resulting distrust of everything IS a weapon itself in that it has a paralyzing effect on the public, in my guess, completely by design. Veritas and Wikileaks are in my estimation the only legitimate journalism I have seen in my lifetime of roughly 40 years, which is only reinforced by the responses to them by institutions, and the tone police. But to come back to your original point, Eric very much seems to be behaving as the tone police here. These tactics, which are the same as have been used against aspects of the manosphere to limit their reach and effectiveness, is basically this: "OK, SUUUURE! You have a point! We can't win the arguments because facts are on your side, BUT: could just tone it down! Your tone and tenor negatively affects our opponents and offends their sensibilities. Couldn't you just use less effective tactics and not rock the boat? We don't want to be seen as ." Very disappointing.

[@captainramius790]

Eric is under some kind of pressure. Hes representing many different people with the message hes giving James. The game is over though. People know the media is terribly manipulative and the internet has forever changed the way people get their news. There is no going back. The people are taking back control

[@nateleibold4221]

I love how James O'Keefe just lets Eric ramble on and on. James is showing Eric in real time his own way of interviewing people and it goes right over Eric's head.

[@simulatedentropy5768]

And Eric's egotistical fanbois.

[@arcamemnon9193]

@Golden Runway "The Bible says speak little, listen much." But if people who speak much are unwise and foolish, won't listening to them all the time without engaging their ideas be a detriment to an intelligent life?

[@BhutanBluePoppy]

@Golden Runway LOL - humor appreciated.

[@golden1324]

@@simulatedentropy5768 I don't think it's going completely over Eric's fans heads, there's a large number of comments calling Eric out for being domineering and overly critical where it is unwarranted

[@jonathanlippe]

James OKeefe was superb. I appreciated that he didn’t allow himself to be reduced to Eric’s narrative of him that he wanted James to bring himself down to. Keep that self-confidence James. This guy keeps trying to cut James down and James maintains his moral code. Loved it.

[@eldenfindley186]

James is NOT a journalist. He’s the ambulance chaser of the New Media. Project Veritas is a joke. I have one question for James: if you truly do represent truthful journalism, why don’t you release full, uncut videos like you used to? Could it possibly be because you caught so much flak in the past for misrepresenting the words of others through deceitful editing and leading questions?

[@jonathanlippe]

@@eldenfindley186 do you apply that same criticism to the Mainstream Media who fail to perform any real investigative journalism?

[@eldenfindley186]

@@jonathanlippe yes I despise mainstream media

[@eldenfindley186]

@@jonathanlippe yes

[@jonathanlippe]

@@eldenfindley186 who do you consider “a real journalist”?

[@shofforth1]

James O’Keefe is doing what must be done. The lies we live under are miles high and need to collapse.

[@JerseySlayer]

shofforth1 agreed. Could he do it better? Maybe. But he's 35 years old. When he started this, he did some goofy shit. You can tell he's trying to mix a bunch of things.. real meaningful work, interesting cotent, and he's somewhat conflicted. There is no blueprint for how to do this in today's hostile media climate or with today's technology.

[@sylvanbear7125]

@@JerseySlayer And Eric is in his 50s? I suspect that he is tempered himself somewhat in the last twenty years. _Andere Zeiten, andere Sitten_ .

[@wabbittv8923]

@John Frylock Please explain. I didn't know much about O'Keefe before but I have a favorable impression after watching this interview. Could you please elaborate on the nature of his "lies" and "scams"? And also what is his political agenda?

[@spikeontheroad2560]

Someone, maybe not O'Keeffe, needs to find a way to bring down legacy media. Becoming a target that is easily dismissed because of tactics may not be the way.

[@lwrcica5]

@John Frylock Exposing the media / political people via video with their own words & thoughts is 'lying and scamming to push a political and ideological agenda'. K

[@ultimamente5473]

Why is Eric so opposed to the "morality" of what James is doing? James is doing exactly what Eric wants and says needs to be done to combat the "institutions" that Eric feels have failed him and us. Eric knows the world is not perfect...that's like the point of this podcast... yet he wants this "dirty" journalism to be done as clean as possible and completely dismisses James when James says that if he did it any cleaner than it's possible less truth telling would happen. I feel like Eric wants this kind of journalism to happen .. just not to him .. or his friends

[@jeupater1429]

Eric does not get what's happening. He wants to go back to what it was like when he was young. There is no going back. It's only going to get crazier, and rolling over for, or even giving an inch to the forces that want to topple society in its entirety is not an option. They use every tactic, beyond anything accessible to the right, and Eric is over here trying to sanctify the right. Please Eric, get a fucking clue. You don't send monks into battle. Eric is the kind of guy, where if Trump hadn't been elected, he'd be right there waving the demented banners of inter-sectionalism.

[@ultimamente5473]

@@jeupater1429 No I don't think so, I think Eric definitely knows there is no going back - that's why he's interviewing people like James - and he likes aspects of what James is doing. I just feel like Eric is too afraid. It took him a year to publish the Epstein episode because he was scared. It took him years to talk about the botched lab nice that he and his brother knew about because he was scared. I feel like Eric wants to be the bully James is, he is just too afraid of the backlash that would come with it

[@DensityMatrix1]

@@ultimamente5473 Have you considered that Eric is ultimately a from of GateKeeper? He was on Rogan literally calling for revolt but then now this...? Is he a careerist and doesn't ultimately want to lose access to the Academy?

[@ultimamente5473]

@@DensityMatrix1 you know I'm not sure. And if he is Im also not sure he intends to be. But I do think Eric is very influenced by others around him, like when he mentioned Tusi Gabbard's tweets among the other things he ranted about I looked at them and they were almost word for word what he said on the podcast about politicians needing to own up to their faults and say there was a mask shortage and to make a self sacrifice for the greater good - I agree with this tweet as well, but it was obvious by how similar Eric's rant was to her tweet that he took her idea as his own, which tells me that there are probably a lot of other things that he says that aren't really his ideas, just things he heard from others and made himself think we're his own ideas to start with, so idk exactly what his reasons for going from radical to overly cautious and back and forth are, I think we'll just have to wait and see

[@jeupater1429]

@@ultimamente5473 Here's the problem, the right, unlike the left pursues moral perfection, probably because they tend to be more religious. This has caused them the lose ideological ground to the left's deceitful tactics decade after decade. The problem is, in ideological warfare, as with real warfare, you cannot send saints into battles, that's not how it works. I would define ideological warfare as the moment your collocutor has ceased to pursue a rational argument on good faith. We are way beyond that point. Yet Eric, is still pushing this nonsense that the right must be sanctimoniously perfect. Sorry but no, there's a reason jesus was nailed to a cross. Sanctimoniousness is not an adequate defense. And Eric is pushing for the same status quo that has cost the right ideological ground decade after decade.

[@adrianfortmoviereviewsbook9821]

Eric is missing the fact that you can't use chess rules when the teacher has placed you on a candyland board. The way James is making the most difference is by fracturing not only the narrative, but the means of the message. He is tearing people away from believing that ABC, for example, is credible at all. You dont put that message on ABC.

[@jumpingeezus5080]

Adrian Fort Where do you put it then?

[@andrewgraves9636]

Adrian Fort what do you mean about chess board??

[@bgilley8199]

But he's even less trustworthy than ABC, and he deliberately twists facts and context to suit his purposes, just like ABC.

[@thenneedd]

Eric needs to hold the folks and colleagues "in his circles" to a higher standard of analysis.

[@adrianfortmoviereviewsbook9821]

@@andrewgraves9636 Eric wants sophistication. CNN, ABC, etc. want their narrative instead. Which is run by simple rules to make things seemingly easy.

[@chriscook8158]

I've agreed with eric about everything in his podcast, until this one. He's on the wrong side of this argument... Comes across as arrogant and condescending.

[@Souleman561]

the reason you think this is 2 fold, you do not understand the fact that he wants james to not go after low hanging fruit which he has to state, restate and even tell James in several different ways in order for James to finally agree on camera with Eric , and Eric comes off as as condescending due in part that he had to re state his main arguement several times in several ways to get James to recognize the fact he really doesnt show any struggle when destroying a employee when he shoulkd be aimed at the employer in a very siimple example, thzt eric main arguement that doing these things takes away a much large audience of people who should see james work but will never see it due ot James method and apparent lack of ethics as James spends the first hour merely rebuffing Eric when Eric seem to refer back to this "phone call" they had where it seemed that James knew the point eric was making but was trying not ot acknowledge it here since it was now an interview and not a private personal call, really the point of the podcast is that Eric could of recorded the conversation they clearly had before the interview where it fully seems that James knew exactly what Eric complaints were, but now during the interview James is "struggling" to see Eric point when Eric could of presented a recording showing James fully acknowledge Eric point in a private convo but not willingly to accept this point when in a public furom thus showing James ethical conflict un the worst light as James would be no better then the guy who tried ot sue him for defamation....

[@andyb2339]

@@Souleman561 Haha, that's way too meta! I feel like Eric was just trying to get James to market his ethics more. Traditional media is all marketing no action, so James feels like he has to be the opposite. If he did a little more strategic marketing it would dramatically increase his viewership and impact. I feel like they never really connected on that point.

[@disaray3575]

Agreed

[@Ryan-jp3mh]

@@andyb2339 You nailed it. I enjoy Project Veritas, but there is something off-putting about the secret recordings in bars. Eric sussed it out perfectly. We can empathize with the target too much since we could just as easily get drunk and talk nonsense. But if PV spent a little time showing how their ethics prohibit that, then now I take myself out of the mental equation.

[@horsefootrot5654]

@@Ryan-jp3mh is that you Charlie Chester? How's the job hunting going?

[@CultofThings]

David, have you ever thought you’re being unfair to Goliath? I mean the way you’re throwing stones, it’s unfair to Goliath. You need to fight him sword in hand like a professional. I’m sorry I just can’t back someone that fights dirty like that. Maybe you shouldn’t provoke Goliath as much either. People are finding it hard to trust you David...

[@DrLimbic]

My feelings exactly. One proviso: Eric tries to protect the people that are employed to feed Goliath. And David doesn't kill them- just their credibility as Goliath-feeders. "Goliath feeders hate Goliath", shoufs O'Keef while Weinstein tells him to not be so loud and instead attack the Goliath (which no one can afford to because Goliath is too big to fall).

[@letsgosean]

Jeff Doe brilliant 👏🏼

[@tunnelsloth5948]

Eric's point is more like: David, why not throw stones at Goliath, instead? Why do you have to be spanking his ass and tickling his balls?

[@simulatedentropy5768]

Bingo.

[@simulatedentropy5768]

@@tunnelsloth5948 what's wrong with you degenerates?

[@Profit187]

The cognitive dissonance of Eric's friends and their inability to deal with it is not James responsibility to fix. Eric also seems to do a lot of "mind reading" a la the Scott Adams definition throughout the conversation. How does Eric know what the inner struggles and ethics debates have been for Mr. O'Keefe?

[@easternwind4435]

I don't think there's a problem with the struggle but rather with the presentation

[@BASEDinMaine]

I found his agitation goofy in this one

[@dturtles33]

I am similarly shocked. He keeps putting his friends' progressive opinions over the truth. You can't tell the truth because it offends one side? I'm surprised he's saying this.

[@keithwilliams8342]

Agreed. Not a great performance. Like many "intellectuals", eric doesnt listens but instead interrupts, insults, accuses, assumes, and maligns.

[@dolganthecute]

I get that it's not James problem that Erics friends don't get it and that in this soundbite age, gotcha/click bait/oh snap moments are important to gain a following. I think Eric wants James to step out of the red/blue paradigm and go to the next "level", so that the important work he does can't be so easily refused. Last few seconds of their interaction felt like they snapped back into the PR role. It felt strange after a very good discussion and I think It could be argued that it was a great moment as well.

[@NYCurbanLatina]

I rather watch 2.5 hrs of Mr Weinstein and his guest than 10 minutes of of Kimmel, Fallon or Oliver etc...

[@tycer9754]

Parisienne Insouciante amen to that

Pretty low bar there...I'd rather watch paint dry than any of those

[@simonheaney8721]

That is so true

[@CaptJackAubreyOfTheRoyalNavy]

Those late night shows are actually sickening. Whenever I catch clips of them and think that thousands of people are genuinely entertained by that crap every day, it makes me feel some kind of existential sickness.

[@JustimberFlake]

@roohit lal she's referring to time invested vs time wasted.

[@kentfink9509]

Eric: "You strike me as self righteous. " Eric's listeners: 🤔🤨😐😑

[@Strelnikov10]

Haha. This one gave me a chuckle.

[@lydiamalone1859]

Eric is not that self-aware.

[@robertdotson1467]

But he's missing the point!

[@kentfink9509]

@@oldnosoul4183 Eric is incredibly smug. People don't have to tell or brag that they're self righteous. They show you.

[@kentfink9509]

@@oldnosoul4183 and who gives a @#$% about your opinion good sir?

[@sircharlesnot]

Eric, I believe you're letting "Perfect be the enemy of good". And I agree with your guest at this point.

[@forzamato]

Charles Stanley I heard multiple times Eric agree that he was not seeking perfection out of James/PV (the fraction analogy). What I heard Eric asking was "Can James/PV consider protecting identities for an opportunity to A. Grow PV's audience and effect and B. Reducing harm to the individuals identified in PVs work b/c the reality is the mass audience forgets the individual but remembers the content, however there is a minority audience who has a reason to remember the individual- this is the "gated community"/ institutions - which can impact the individual greatly. IDK if James is wired to auto-defend PV, & rightly so with the unrelenting crap thrown his way, Or if James was truly not hearing the deeper question/conversation, one which would be a discussion worth having.

[@JosephGamacheKD0AHS]

@@forzamato I see James failing to latch on to the question about whether hiding identities would increase or decrease PV's efficacy (which I believe has solid points on both sides) and Eric failing to fully articulate his concerns with PV's methods with specific examples and a conversation about where he thinks the line should have been drawn.

[@ptyeueiiwjd]

The way Eric talks is annoying as hell. He talks in such wild abstract ways that are way to complicated to grasp in the moment that he says them. Idk if that feeds his intelligence ego or what but he needs to be straight to the point and concise when trying to explain his point of view. Maybe I'm just a dumb rock. But it would probably benefit the portal if he could try and just speak a little more plainly when discussing complex ideas.

[@danielsimonson3484]

I was trying to figure out how to say this. You nailed it.

[@rechargefreedom]

@@forzamato what deeper question. When confronted for Specific examples of bad reporting Eric had none. It took him FOREVER to get his point of destruction of the individual could be avoided. How many times did he beat around that, or was he just unable to say it forthrightly the first 20 times, or does he just like to interrupt and like the sound of his voice?

[@BrockNelson]

James was so patient and polite; maybe even to a fault. Eric's pomposity shines clear the more I listen to him. The constant, 'you're not getting it' and 'I can make this point for you even better than you can' before they even finish their sentence.. VERY difficult to listen to. His demeanor around certain guests creates a vibe of 'I'm the teacher, you are the student' particularly with anyone younger than him, it seems. Also, he is concerned about the individuals who are being recorded having their lives ruined.. As someone who keeps an eye on PV content, I could give a flying fuck about the name of the person in the video; I'm not going to scurry over to their personal Twitter page and harass that individual. The average viewer doesn't care about the individual on camera.. They care about the information as it relates to whatever organization it is that they are associated with. Legacy media is probably the most dangerous institution in our country. You don't bring them to their knees without a little bit of dirty work and varying levels of 'collateral damage'. The consequences of THEIR lies are MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH costlier than the consequences of PV filming a couple people without their knowledge. Legacy media lies us into wars where millions of people are killed or displaced. PV films people without their consent and maybe gets an individual here and there doxxed or harassed a bit on Twitter. BIG DEAL. This isn't as complicated as Eric is trying to make it out to be.

[@amk1689]

Brock Nelson I’ve done jobs that were completely legit that I thought were morally repugnant (working on legal cases), and if someone had got me fired from one of them, morally speaking, it would be no harm no foul. We all make a choice to what degree we are willing to sell out, these people are not victims

[@wendyw4487]

the most perfect example of left right paradigm that you will ever see/hear..............maybe eric's alarm clock will go off sooner than later...................

[@andyb2339]

I feel like they legitimately missed each other in the argument. Eric wants James to show that he's not a sociopath so people take his important message more seriously. Brock Nelson I think you are one perfectly legitimate audience who doesn't care about the collateral damage, but there is another legitimate audience that does. I feel like James needs a marketing team to round off his sharp edges so he doesn't cut us soft folks.

[@johann23]

@@andyb2339 Yep. This is the real point of Eric's argument and he obviously felt strongly enough about James to use tactics like arrogance, pomposity, paternalism, and other power-invoking phrases/postures to get James to see that.

[@martincoons823]

Well-stated exactly

[@jakobj58]

"We had pictures, we had everything. It was unbelievable, we had Clinton, we had everything", remember those words.

[@Toroidalzpe]

the palace

[@grayrob1075]

@Jakob J Time stamp?

[@AcidicMentality]

@@grayrob1075 The quote is from that leaked video of the news reporter Amy Rohrbach stating she was told to bury the Epstein story.

to be honest re. the Clintons, Chris Hitchens wrote books about this 20 years ago... and no one seemed to care...

[@Shortana]

@ books are only read by those who are genuinely interested. Television however is where news really matters and that's exactly where deception flourishes. The masses who like junk food also like their news spoon fed.

[@rhelferstay]

"You strike me as very self-righteous and insufficiently reflective" - Eric If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I'm not sure what is....

[@rumination2399]

yeah, Eric is super-arrogant but he's gentle and honest about it

[@darleneperrine4662]

Yes! So true!

[@bradspitt3896]

@@rumination2399 Would make a perfect demagogue. Or maybe not, since this demagogue lacks self awareness.

[@rumination2399]

@@bradspitt3896 I think Eric is very self-aware. I think he's just not worried about a number of people misjudging him, given the stakes and the scale of the people he's engaging. For example when he was on the Rubin Report with Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson I thought his was easily the best answer to the closing question about where each man thought his blind spots were. Ben's was really weak, I thought. But also you have to be right, a bit, too. I mean, we're all everything potentially, and he's developing that authoritative voice very loudly. And like he says, the difference between a hero and a sociopath isn't as wide as people like to imagine.

[@bradspitt3896]

@@rumination2399 If he was self-aware he'd know that arrogance/pride is irrational.

[@debrahale1815]

I agree Eric has a chip on his shoulder toward this “guest” and, to use his own term, there are points in the conversation where he presents as both haughty and “sanctimonious.” I also wish he had interrupted and lectured less. His “irritation and anger” were palpable. His show, his platform but I thought his manner was often condescending and insulting. I thought O’Keefe was quite patient and understated in absorbing and responding to the criticisms. Now to the substance of his objection. Eric’s basic criticism of O’Keefe’s methods appears to be that he lacks ethics and integrity in how he reveals the “gotcha.” It’s naive to put forth a “purer” and presumably nobler option that the identity of a source/target should be pixilated, for example. PV is held with utter disdain and disgust by the media. If the identities were masked, how much easier then would it be for the media to attack the story by alleging it was manufactured? Harsh as it may be, the disclosure of the sources makes it much more difficult to dispute and discredit. We may not fully embrace the tactic, but I get it.

[@totakad]

Eric's point of trying to find the most effective frontier is that if you haven't yet had any pushback about the credibility of your story, you don't yet have to "decimate" the person uttering the news-worthy words as they usually are not the issue itself being exposed. you ease into the final "gotcha video", causing the criticized collateral only after your less damaging version of the story has proven to not have the desired effect. they were both banging their heads against the wall for at least the last hour of the conversation, for whatever reasons. if they could have been more concrete about some case studies and just concentrate on specific examples and how they could have been handled better from the process perspective, they could've reached the conclusion or understanding faster, but i guess maybe the heat of the moment blocked that from emerging faster. at least one interesting follow-up topic would be that as dramatic news stories tend to "run out of steam" as time passes, it might be that the cheap shots are a way of trying to minimize this effect, as there is a fear that the more safe version will lose it's appeal after a while and later on the bigger video exposé will not have the same effect as it would have being the original reference to the story. James might have started to veer into this a littttle bit, but not quite clearly and if true, then definitely not enough in detail during this conversation. maybe one way to have the cake and eat it too is to start with the more safe version of the story with an original disclaimer that the juicy video or personalized damaging details will follow up the next day or after some other period. this would still have some positive amplification effects probably from the hype caused, but then you could also now argue, that you've gotten your point across, why now after the fact drag in the unrelated person. Again, this approach might lose the original impact of the story, which might seem like too great a price for the PV journalists... come to think of it, James mentioned something that is somewhat related to this, it was something about that the effect of seeing the extra details, ie the messenger's emotions, intonation, passion or whatever greatly increases the effect on the audience about the content being delivered.

[@danstar455]

Eric is very very vague. Is he playing The Glass Bead Game???

[@sevencolours5014]

James is very patient and used to these tactics applied by Eric and even much dirtier tactics that more selfish and arrogant reporters use against James, but he is using it for what it is, getting his message out, putting it out how ever he can. This interview has a lot views and exposure, James got what he came for, even if Eric played a little dirty.

[@tunnelsloth5948]

@@sevencolours5014 I don't think Eric played dirty whatsoever. I think there was just a communication barrier, here.

[@tunnelsloth5948]

@@totakad Very good points. And agreed, the fundamental issue was the lack of concrete analysis of individual cases. But this would undoubtedly turn into a multi-hour affair if it were to be fair, neutral, and objective. O'Keefe was right to bring up that these things do need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. But as Eric said, he didn't want to go there. And I think that was the right move, here. Even dipping his toe into it would basically mean they'd have to go all the way. I think he made the right choice by trying to speak in the abstract. What would probably help O'Keefe would be more people kind of like Eric who do want to take the time to really get into the weeds with all of this. Not necessarily in the form of an in-person interview, but basically taking what Eric was saying and applying it concretely and specifically, while looking at a lot of or all of his track record.

[@SPL-6]

Eric: The people in my circles are so pathetic and delusional. James: What do you want me do about that? Eric: Pixelate some faces!

[@DavidLee-js8ew]

lol

[@timjosling9298]

All that would happen with pixellation is that people would say that "it could be anyone, how do we know it's real"? Such nonsense.

[@deejaye2647]

What I love about James is all the assistance he gives whistleblowers after they come forward. Legal, financial, privacy, - whatever they need, PV has stood behind them fully. For whistleblowers, there is only ONE place they can go. Thank goodness for Project Veritas.

[@gertfredrikson4584]

Is it all kind of whistleblowers or do they tend to have something in common?

[@jeupater1429]

Totally, Eric does not get that this is only the beginning. Eric wants to go back to what it was like when he was younger. There is no going back. It's only going to get crazier and rolling over for or even giving an inch to the forces that want to topple society in its entirety is not an option. They use every tactic, beyond anything accessible to the right, and Eric is over here trying to sanctify the right. Please Eric, get a fucking clue. You don't send monks into battle. Eric is the kind of guy, where if Trump hadn't been elected, he'd be right there waving the demented banners of inter-sectionalism.

[@RandomCarrot2806]

@@gertfredrikson4584 Yeah, they have in common that they contacted Project Veritas with their information. Take your political game somewhere else.

[@gertfredrikson4584]

@@RandomCarrot2806 Where do feel at home with your political game?

[@Hands2HealNow]

Forgetting all that Wikileaks and Julian Assange have accomplished?

[@olsparkywisenheimer8239]

As a fan of Eric, this is his weakest argument to date that I've heard..

[@GrumpyOldChap]

While Eric could've given more space to O'Keefe, Eric's frustration is, I think, warranted because O'Keefe doesn't address the criticism that Eric gives him head-on, but trails off to talking about the efficacy of his methods (which Eric on multiple occasions granted him). Furthermore, O'Keefe utters provable falsehoods in the interview, for example, as he claims that Project Veritas does not edit things out of context, which certainly occurred on their part even in their ACORN endeavor (regarding e.g. the Latino guy whom they got fired). Also, in O'Keefe's earlier undertaking in which he attempted to call out Planned Parenthood he outright misrepresented the interaction he had had with a representative of PP (claiming that the aforementioned purported to want fewer black babies when the actual clip shows O'Keefe himself saying it). Like I said, Eric's frustration is warranted since O'Keefe not only refuses to respond to his criticism head-on but also lies.

[@ConsciousExpression]

@@GrumpyOldChap Yeah both of your criticisms here are why I'm very frustrated with Eric. I get that he feels he's in a completely different discussion here than the mainstream, but by ignoring the points you raise he is committing a type of malpractice on us, because it becomes our job to point these things out.

[@GrumpyOldChap]

@@ConsciousExpression I'm not sure how or why you read into my comment as a critique on Eric. I don't think Eric was necessarily guilty of conducting himself poorly, apart from overly dominating the conversation instead of humbly inquiring. I was saying that Eric's frustration with O'Keefe is merited because O'Keefe dances around the valid criticisms that Eric levels against him. Hence, I regard it as unfair to blame Eric for being biased since there's a need for holding O'Keefe to account for his demonstrable occupational misconduct.

[@ConsciousExpression]

@@GrumpyOldChap I wasn't reading that into your comment, I was talking about myself. I'm very frustrated with Eric because he almost completely failed to cover the facts you mentioned, and congratulated James for being forthcoming when he actually was utterly dishonest and defensive.

[@GrumpyOldChap]

@@ConsciousExpression I see, I see! A fair point made, I'll have to admit. Maybe there's some credit to O'Keefe's work, too, but you're correct omin asserting that Eric frames him as having more integrity than reality has proven him to have.

[@danielholm1987]

Eric: I'm irritated. James: Why? Eric: because my friends are prejudiced against you, it must be your fault. James: O.k. but my principles are not going to change Eric: You're so arrogant!

[@najif7644]

Everyone in this thread is a James fanboy that wasn't really listening to what Eric was saying. Please attempt to relisten to the conversation without your biases playing a key role in your understanding and you would be able to know how constructive and engaging this conversation was.

[@commiekim478]

@@najif7644 The 2 main things he said were 1) Show people your personal struggle with what you choose to release to the public 2) Think about the people and how they're affected by what you release. Is the information worth it? I think Eric interacts with the elitist and they are frightened by what he is releasing. If they can't buy him or blackmail him, they will kill him. Was Eric asking him if he is willing to die a veiled threat?

[@najif7644]

@@commiekim478 if you follow Eric or check out his stuff outside of this conversation you'd see that he isn't as much of a chill as he might come across. Your take on the video is a pretty accurate summation and I hope you further your understanding by checking Eric out, he's pretty interesting himself. Through that you'll understand why it's not a threat but a test of passion.

[@memyselfandi8544]

Eric- We must overcome institutions and groupthink. James - Ok, lets take down the institutions. Eric- "that's not how the game is played, and you are not acceptable to the institutions." Note Eric is completely quiet as people die because the media doesn't want to acknowledge hydroxychoriquin can help. Erics has as much testicular fortitude as Tulsi Gabbard. None.

[@tunnelsloth5948]

This conversation was a lot deeper than the way you're trying to portray it. I know it gets repetitive at some points, but I don't think this is the right interpretation. Just for one, it's not that Eric's friends hate him. Probably 50% of the country hates him. Probably more. Small *and* overall useful and self-beneficial changes could not only improve the efficacy of what he's attempting to do in and of it itself, but also increase the amount of people who would see his actions as well-intentioned, sincere, and for a broader purpose. And this would be especially impactful, because basically no one else is doing what he's doing right now. It's not merely an issue of optics, and yet it's also the case that his optics are extremely bad for a lot of people; and it's the case that his optics aren't his fault in the sense of how many institutions and organizations have portrayed him, and yet it's also the case that even in spite of that, his optics would still likely be quite bad on average. As Eric said, there's a superposition of what's going on in his situation, in my opinion. It's not simply that he's not acceptable to institutions, or their supporters, or people who believe what institutions say, or Democrats, etc. Yes, that's undoubtedly occurring, but, again, it's not just that. There's a complex combination of factors here, and as O'Keefe says himself, with great power comes great responsibility. And Eric wasn't calling him a sociopath. They both were having a good faith conversation; there wasn't any such accusation. I'd recommend watching it again if you came away with that impression. A very thorough and objective analysis of all of O'Keefe's disclosures, on a case-by-case basis, would probably make this nuanced issue clearer to him and others. As O'Keefe repeatedly referred to, the ethics need to be considered based on the circumstances of each case. But as Eric said, he wasn't trying to get into the weeds. That's not his job. This would likely be a difficult multi-hour affair. I think Eric's point may have at least somewhat struck home at the end though: this is something O'Keefe needs to seriously think about himself.

[@CaptJackAubreyOfTheRoyalNavy]

James O'Keefe is WAY smarter than I thought he was.

[@pgottsha84]

He did handle himself extremely well and honestly I lost a lot of respect for Eric after watching this discussion. James is doing exactly what needs to be done far far more and the results he has achieved are undeniable. Eric should be helping him, not maligning him and patronizing the hell out of him

[@allthemarbles5465]

James won't trade his principles for money. There is clear bias to institutions on Eric's part. Fuck em. I hate this play we watch where people in private are different then they are in Public.

[@pgottsha84]

@Chad Larson some people with that ego earn and deserve it, and I would include Eric amongst those people, but this interview was just catastrophic for Eric and the fact that he thought he won makes it that much worse

[@andyb4863]

Hate to sound cliche, but yes, I agree!

[@HBFTimmahh]

He is way smarter than Weinstains dumb papertrained ass.

[@TC-sr1qf]

Eric is very good at interrupting and not letting others interrupt him. Conversationally domineering.

[@drmedwuast]

T C MY Podcast!

[@laureldevine]

He looks like a bully here.

[@BhutanBluePoppy]

T C yes he is & it's very annoying. He's also excellent at interrupting the interviewee to say he (Eric) already knows the point the interviewee is going to make --- when in fact the interviewee is trying to make a different point that Eric doesn't want to address.

[@david8905]

He is approaching Alex Jones levels of interruption. At the same time it is his podcast, and he does know a lot about everything.

[@idahoman325]

Wait did you try and make that as a key positive point to this embarrassing interview?

[@rayz0101]

Eric's argument boils down to this: E:I respect and admire that you are willing to risk ruining your life to expose the truth but do not believe it's fair that you impose that paradigm upon the individuals you expose as they are mostly cogs in a machine not of their design which I equally detest. J: I appreciate that you acknowledge that, but by imposing their will in private forums through private means these people are eroding the public good thus effecting a public wholesale. By that standard their actions must be made public because ideas do not exist in the ether and are in actionable without the individuals to enact them. They may not choose to be in public forums but by their meddling in a public forum by private means they are relinquishing their right to privacy. E: I think that by reducing the harm to individuals you can expose and heighten the efficacy of the piece reducing harm and elevating the message. J: That sounds reasonable, but I have no method to attach accountability if not by a public exposure. E: My colleagues and friends will never acknowledge this. J: Ok.

[@curtis25920]

Thanks for saving me 2 and a half hours

[@jacquesvilar8992]

Perfect encapsulation of the conversation - thank you

[@Hahalol663]

Perfect summary

[@austindavis5865]

very accurate, well done

[@stevejohnson4079]

Well done, Sir...

[@caramelconundrum9280]

James seems like a reasonable guy to me. I support his crusade against the corrupt MSM. Eric knows that something drastic needs to happen in this country and his petty disagreements on this subject is just another obstacle.

[@unpossible4349]

The fact that Eric believes Project Veritas' methods are causing them to lose segments of their audience speaks more to Eric and his social circles than it does to Project Veritas' methods.

[@iamjurell]

Or it speaks to his views on the relative value of tactics and rigour and outcomes. Facts don't care about your feelings, sure, but feelings don't give a flying fuck about facts, and disregarding the latter issue has its own costs.

[@forzamato]

Un Possible I believe Eric's intent was to engage James on ideas to grow PVs audience and PVs effect. The idea included PVs methods which Eric is critical of (rightly) and James defended (rightly).

[@chrisc7265]

The kind of person who would ignore a video because of the Project Veritas logo does not care if the faces are pixelated or not. They take comfort in being on the side supported by cultural hegemony, and they will blindly protect the institutions that enforce that hegemony. Any threat to that is outside the echo chamber, beyond the pale --- it's not a question of ethics, it's a question of politics.

[@commiekim478]

@@iamjurell I believe that is why James shows uncut video segments. The legacy media controls the "feelings" narrative. Logical thinkers don't care where the evidence comes from as long as it's legitimate. The feelers are easily manipulated.

[@tunnelsloth5948]

@@forzamato Good summary.

[@Mike-rp6lb]

Eric: You promised there would be no Gotchas James: Right, no gotchas Eric: I disdain you, but I can't dismiss you as campy, a lightweight, not pedigreed, the wrong politics or defend the MSM and still be the even handed adult in the room, So I have to come up with a unarticulatable critique against your "methods" to resolve my cognitive dissonance and stay within my Progressive Intellectual Group's narrative that dismisses you. James: My method is just to let the camera record the truth and then show it, that is more honest and not really a gotcha Eric: I can't reconcile my dissonance, it makes me irritated and angry. 2 1/2 hrs of the camera recording the truth; Eric gotchas himself and James calmly lets him do it. Beautiful

[@KaneNexus]

Best TLDR goes to this comment. 👍

[@CarnivoreStork]

Michael Dunn Eric unconsciously agrees and admires James but cannot betray his majority left leaning locked stepped audience. Good on Eric to have a truly open mind and let This incredible interview even happen.

[@brewmastermonk9356]

Eric is slowly redpilling himself.

[@jbowen867]

@@brewmastermonk9356... The redpilling won't happen its to late. Eric was indoctrinated in the 70s. He is trying to grasp onto a liberalism that doesn't not exist anywhere in the modern world and he actually sees more of it in James then in his own crowd and beliefs and his brain can't process that.

[@jbowen867]

@@brewmastermonk9356. I also think Eric's disdain for James is because he sees his own Genesis in him. What do you mean by that is that Eric's journey of trying to keep his own house in order, "the Cathedral" the "main stream left" ect was birthed from his exact fear that somone like James was going to come along. He wanted to prevent James from ever being necessary. Now James is necessary and is here so Eric is so upset that what he warned would happened has happend. It's not the fault of James tho that the lefts house isn't in order. Such a passive agressive way of victim blaming and apologizing for the people with the fingers in their ears.

[@LawrenceAugust_]

“You’re not effectively persuading people, James” ~ Eric while not effectively persuading James

[@LawrenceAugust_]

@@oldnosoul4183 Time stamps?

[@LawrenceAugust_]

@@oldnosoul4183 Is that being persuaded? lol, okay… now I understand the type of brain I’m dealing with. O’Keefe was not persuaded whatsoever in his approach or journalistic philosophy by Weinstein during this interview.

[@LawrenceAugust_]

@@oldnosoul4183 My god, even in the link you decided to share, James completely pushes back at Eric. You’re bad at this.

[@LawrenceAugust_]

@@oldnosoul4183 LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE WORD HE SAID AFTER "yes"

[@LawrenceAugust_]

@@oldnosoul4183 And yet he hasn't changed a single thing in his approach. So... NOT persuaded. This isn't hard. Sorry.

[@boristepavcevic3323]

Eric's arrogance is what made James in control of this interview. James was very well composed while Eric had hard time realizing it was not Joe Rogan on the opposite side. Eric's ego is just unbearable......BTW, I like Joe Rogan.

[@TopherToy]

It’s worth pushing through the seeming arrogance to end up at a very thoughtful and bountiful back and forth. The brightest people are often somewhat awkward and Eric’s motives seem beyond legit. He’s getting to the damn point and thank god ✌️

[@justinmoore3121]

chris douglass Yea man. He was like that when his brother was on the show. I almost look at it as a sign of endearment. He wants to make sure the conversation moves as far as it can forward. And not get bogged down by tiny misunderstandings.

[@boristepavcevic3323]

@@TopherToy I would definitely question Eric's motives. I am surprised that Eric, at his age, does not see that if the media is independent, we would not need Wikileaks, Project Veritas, Chelsea Manning and others to blow the whistle or use "dirty" techniques to reveal what is going on behind the scene.

[@r_e_panzer4960]

But like Ye, if he didn't have that, he wouldn't be him. I feel it also, Eric's .....arrogance I guess, though I'm not sure that's exactly what it is, not sure if he is aware of it as we are. I just get the feeling he is going to curtail the normal courtesy in an exchange of dialog in order to get to his point and it comes off as arrogance. Some of it is arrogant, I'll forgive for the truth we get out of it.

[@samdunn717]

@John Smith good point. That's exactly what he's doing, he's telling the bullied kid off for finally effectively dealing with the bully.

[@LARENLM]

Eric you come across quite elitist in this interview. Unusual for you to not listen and call names. James sees the world for what it is, answered your questions and the name calling from you was hard to watch.

[@Zekian]

Could you point me to a timestamp that you would consider name calling?

[@Cyborg588]

@@Zekian I dunno calling someone's behavior, or reason for doing something sociopathic (even partly) would be considered a pejorative me thinks.

[@CultofThings]

Cat he calls him self-righteous, similar to donald trump, amateur, and a poor journalist. I don’t have the timestamps because that would mean watching it again and honestly this interview pisses me off. Eric is trying to initiate this guy into his group and telling him why he’s unacceptable for their standards.

[@dylancardenas]

eric lives in the moment and has a hard head. I absolutely enjoy these intellectual bouts. Sometimes he can be brash but . he has a way of monitoring his hostility while still allowing someone on the other side to know he is upset. isnt the first time he has done this name calling thing. but i beg please keep an open mind and dont get hung up on his verbage he likes to dish to the people he is bouting with. I agree maybe he can peel it back a little but it is in no way to even get hung up on.

[@DirkSorensby]

@@CultofThings First, let me say Eric is honest and what he is doing is admirable. As I postulated on another comment, I wonder if Eric, and same with Sam Harris, have a blind spot in that they find it difficult, or perhaps impossible, to appreciate any traits other than the intellect. James is no dummy, but like Trump, James has some other great strengths too. tenacity? Inventiveness? focus? guts? just some examples. I wonder what traits Eric has great appreciation for, other than intellect? (granted many traits interweave and are not entirely distinct)

[@LoneWolfDion]

In a nutshell: Stop being so right-wing so I can tell my left-wing friends about you.

[@666DemonCleaner]

Lone Wolf pretty much.

[@cmag8924]

@@666DemonCleaner So in a nutshell: Eric stop being so left wing, so I can tell my right wing friends about you?

[@DarrylWhiteguitar]

Eric should consider the possibility that hard right and left CAN be fruitful as long as they are minorities in a pluralistic political spectrum. The media game (perverse incentives) pushed everything to the extremes and our people have self radicalized too much.

[@gravygravyjosh]

Or maybe; stop being so partisan because your attempt to forge a narrative discredits your non-biased work

[@theconservativeliberal6967]

That’s a good take.

[@cassy_c]

I'm trying to give Eric W. a chance. Maybe he's playing devil's advocate or he truly disagrees with what James does. I must say, it's clear as day by these comments that his followers DISAGREE and so do I. What James does is necessary!

[@OlympiaMarketing]

That's why this discussion is the way it is. He doesn't want this kind of journalism to be back, or for the concept to make a come back (as we all have camera studios in our pocket now). People like Eric are playing dangerous games at the top... They don't want the public to find out.

[@danielk4553]

Partway through Eric says "Take as long as you want". But that was quite insincere. Eric repeatedly interrupted, and aborted James' point halfway through. I found it a little arrogant and disappointing. I'm talking purely about interview style. We need to do better.

[@Marmocet]

No no, stop. Let me make this point because I can make it much better than you.

[@SingleDigitDriven]

Marmocet yes!!!! God I love Eric, but to say that??? Very off putting.

[@DavidMorley123]

Eric is a poor listener.

[@garywood97]

This increased my respect for James. He's a lot smarter than he first appears.

[@lazenbytim]

'Appears'.....? what does someones look have to do with intelligence?

[@sadface7457]

@@lazenbytim It's a figure of speech. It means smarter then initial impressions. Later in the video he confides in the ethics of the operation which show deeper insight in obligation and considerations of media then just posting leaked clips to the internet.

[@ThePdeHav]

Gary Wood : yes, I agree

[@kylecrawford2153]

This made me aware how my perception of O'Keefe was dirtied by the MSM playing dirty with him. O'Keefe shot up to the highest of levels in my book. I appreciated him before, I am deeply inspired by him now. As I am by Eric Weinstein. And the audience here. This gives me life again. I feel so angry what the Left has become today. You guys can save our country's soul.

[@Sam-xg3mr]

Kyle Crawford I’m nearly two hours into this and I still couldn’t tell you exactly what Eric’s issue with O’Keefe is, or how Eric expects O’Keefe to behave in order to earn his stamp of approval.

[@kylecrawford2153]

Eric you were too much of a Mathematician here. Be a little more Rogan. I think you detracted a bit from the show. Im sorry. Please don't interrupt so aggressively. Thank you.

[@DownTheHill3]

You gotta let Eric be Eric, and Eric needs to let James be James. It’s all means to the same end we all want

[@scott96999]

Please, Eric, never be more Rogan.

[@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz]

@J A interrupting to insert what you want a guest to say so you can strawman them and make vague accusations about tone perception and displays of guilt isnt helping a single thing. It makes eric look like trash.

[@tun6006]

Eric's ego is such a turn off. If you're going invite someone on to the podcast to have a conversation then at least have the pretense that you care about what they have to say. Constantly cutting Okeef off and saying I pretty much get what you're saying so lets just move on to this topic of conversation because I think it matters more is supremely off-putting and "deceptive".

[@melanieandrejczak5279]

Tu N, that was my interpretation early on. Weinstein was condescending, interrupting, and not really listening to Eric much at all. 🧐

[@posivibez2094]

Agree 100% so condescending and patronising. Eric has got to turn the self satisfaction down like 5 notches or he's gonna end up being super unlikeable.

[@greatness8248]

He acted like a loser

[@williamharriss3363]

Eric: The problem with what you're doing is that my circle of friends don't like it.

[@pepepapy620]

Yeah that's probably what he means by "efficiency frontier"

[@BioStuff415]

yup...

[@rafal5863]

E: The methods inefficient because whatever you report on poisons the well. E: Settle legally because it is financially pragmatic and efficient.

[@jwelda1]

No one is going to talk freely anymore (at parties etc) if they think some moron at the party has a hidden mic and camera. We’re going to lose all this behind the curtain information if someone is going around trying to destroy individuals versus trying to destroy the credibility of the institutions themselves.

[@jwelda1]

Also Eric’s circle of friends influence nations...but yeah...you’re right...he should appeal to a bunch of morons on KZbin with NO influence on anything.

[@Vitalzime]

Eric's emotions got the best of him here. The arrogance is disturbing.

[@JohnSmith-gp9ut]

I was shocked at how arrogant he was in this one. Horribly off putting.

[@GiuseppeM]

Unwatchable, the whole thing sounds like an attorney coaching his client.

[@janu2997]

I mean he is an academic with a high verbal IQ. To be expected. Never liked the guy ever since he wormed his way into the "intellectual dark web", to become somewhat prominent on the coattails of his brothers' accidental involvement in a PC scandal. They're both bloody annoying.

[@FelloniousMonk22]

Wow, I didnt get that at all. O'Keefe has a swarm of bees around him, and I think Eric was just kind of antagonizing him over the fact that he could do the same job without attracting unneeded negative attention

[@Lugrer3113]

@@FelloniousMonk22 No he couldn't, and Eric didn't present a valid and defendable argument on how to do so.

[@inthefade]

Eric some times you have to let your guest finish for the viewer. I don't know if you actually know what point they are getting at, or if you are making an assumption rather than listening, but often I am certainly not sure what point they are getting at. So you should let them go. They might finish on a note that defies your expectation or elucidates something that was unclear.

[@Existence_Predicate]

He comes across a bit immature and arrogant. He believes that his thoughts/accusations are so obvious and undeniable that any disagreement comes from the guest not understanding him. I've seen this happen in many of these portal episodes and so it's not just a bad day in the office so to speak.

[@Some1.2ear]

It's because he knows exactly where the conversation is heading

[@JBHACKSAW]

@@Existence_Predicate he's not a good interviewer, but I think he will be

[@MiqelDotCom]

100%

[@Shortana]

Spot on.

[@phylliswestbury5081]

I’ve been following Okeefe for years and he deserves Pulitzer and Nobel Prize. Awesome person

[@newvocabulary]

At this point I respect James much more than either the Pulitzer or Nobel prize committees.

[@moonrock5324]

@Einstein Brown Project Veritas has released unedited footage of plenty of their massive stories. You can watch all the unedited video from the ACORN piece. Look to today and they have posted unedited video of a whistleblower being interrogated by feds. I really want you to tell me that all media has to be put out unedited... it can’t... and ruining lives ? Hardly, people that work in CNN NBC etc. are extremely well equipped to find a high paying job if they lose one; they all get swapped around anyway. And if someone in media loses their job and can’t find another, it is most likely because they were just a stooge following orders from corrupted individuals, in my opinion, why should someone even get paid serious dollars to be doing something highly unethical ?

[@Nick-yv1wy]

Watch these and return with your opinion of this con artist. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bpPYgn-vZsmKepo kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3u4YZ6emsqmpMU kzbin.info/www/bejne/bGe3XnaHhc2IgJY

[@MarillSweatshirt]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@mar-c3y]

@@Nick-yv1wy Pathetic.

[@honestlyforreal6304]

It's not up to James, to make his content more palatable to Eric's narcissistic "freinds". Maybe Eric needs to re evaluate who his friends are.

[@commiekim478]

His friends are very powerful and he will lose a lot. Jesus taught us that you have to be willing to risk everything, most will not

[@david8905]

Bullseye!

[@friarnewborg9213]

A pity Eric cannot match the courage of James. A lot of Eric's friends are on the wrong side of this important battle

[@danieldipperlosthisslipper6200]

Lol! I was yelling that exact sentiment at my phone for the last 2.5 hrs 😂

[@Strelnikov10]

Bingo! That comment cuts like a knife.

[@michaelsossi587]

The problem is your friends with their fingers in their ears, Eric, not James O'Keefe.

[@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz]

Exactly

[@gordonjohnson2497]

@james sc there is no lazy way to get someone else autonomously to accept truth. you must KNOW truth so well that to engage withyou on a topic is to surrender to said truth. TLTR: know your shit and others will listen.

[@drbobinski1]

This is the central theme of this podcast. Tough call. This kid is amazing. Eric is the heavyweight champ and James got the draw from me.

[@nomi-hiking2184]

The question then becomes: Why is taking in the truth so painful at times?

[@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz]

@@drbobinski1 what has Eric done out side of math that makes him a heavy weight on anything? Taking CBD on Joe Rogan? Eric doesnt have half the credibility he pretends to have.

[@soulfuzz368]

“Be brave and do something” I think Eric definitely has the brave part down, but it still feels like I’m waiting for him to do something. It’s almost like Eric and Bret are still having conversations about having conversations.

[@JohnAmatulli]

Eric has been very vocal about his own experiences and criticism of the gated institutions where he has encountered unethical behavior. Many of his podcasts don’t dive into this directly because they aren’t about him. A few definitely do as well as some of his interviews. It seems like his stated goal is to give a platform to this antagonism and reproach the DISC and its twisted and disturbed purveyors. He seems to be doing this pretty well. A large part of that is the “meta” conversation and how it is corrupted by institutions so I think that is completely appropriate. Now, I do agree that sometimes he is not nearly direct enough and part of that is undue public politeness out of a somewhat misplaced fear of rebuke or misinterpretation. On the other hand, to refit the old joke: “How many KZbinrs does it take to screw in a light bulb?” “Two. One to screw in the light bulb and one to kick out the ladder.”

[@captainramius790]

Many people can't be as brave as they want until more of the public becomes awake and aware. Big tech and the intelligence community have been acting like the mafia for way too long. If people start trying to blow the whistle on any number of serious issues in the world, the big tech algorithms pick it up and then the intelligence communities send men in black to silence them. I truly believe the ONLY way to fix this problem is for a mass awakening in the public happens. If hundreds of millions of people all start discussing sensitive issues, like elite pedophilia for example. Then the big tech surveillance systems will be overwhelmed and they wont be able to stop it anymore. I think we are very close to this critical mass of people being awake

[@boazblake232]

SoulfuzZ reminds me of the scene in the movie road-trip ... “too much brain - not enough balls”

[@andrewfurusawa4609]

I get the criticism but you're doing the exact same thing (so am I). There's a time and place for action, and sometimes it takes a lot of convincing and unraveling to get to a point of action. The process of releasing discussions is in-part action. It's like the adage "work hard or work smart".

[@megazeus7972]

Why do something when you can just ramble about it - academia

[@TimEngle]

Eric, it’s not that complex. Just do the right thing like James.

[@tr3624]

He does...that’s why Eric is having a hard time with it. The people who hold stamp his most cherished ideas, are being exposed as frauds. That’s painful for anyone. Eric just thinks he can find the intellectual way out of the pain of discovering his denial...

[@dennisaskeland4250]

KZbin Timbah on toast project veritas to see all of his lies

[@Kentucky_Blue]

@@tr3624 This is an outstanding observation.

[@JoshuaHole99]

James has a good moral landscape.

[@tear728]

"The truth is like a lion. You don't need to defend it; just let it out and it will defend itself." - St. Augustine

[@ChannelMath]

This is the same guy who thought he had an argument to prove God? He was dumber than I thought. If the last few years have taught us anything, it's that this statement is not true. Actually, it never has been

[@lilsweg5690]

@@ChannelMath How does the last few years show us that?

[@chriss729]

I respect this dude. He is doing important work.

[@jeffreysherman2574]

Which dude?

[@austindiver9267]

To be honest willful he doesnt choose politicians... he goes after institutions. So going after journalism hes going to hit more lefties as they tend to make up 88% of journalists. Going after PP hes going to get Democrats as most Republicans disagree with PP... Likewise going after tech companies will yield Democrats and lefties

[@mattphillips2530]

Used to think I was clever for spotting the camera in Eric's hair, until I realized I was *supposed* to notice the camera and the hair is that way to draw your eye to it.

[@Some1.2ear]

No need for fancy mechanical art here

[@jordanchiaruttiniREALTOR]

hahahahahahahha

[@nathanlovesspaceships9742]

Saw a painting in Manhattan like that once.

[@666DemonCleaner]

*touches nose*

[@gustavsvensson4025]

Comical Gold! Thank you sirs!

[@bradspitt3896]

I hope Eric still thinks highly of his listeners after reading these comments.

[@bradspitt3896]

@@alfredo1valenzuela Dunno. I never really liked him, I just like his guests. He's an idiot stuck in an incoherent, manipulative zeitgeist. That is, that whenever he's wrong or feels wrong he says, "well nuance", and exploits uncertainty because we're dealing with metaphysics (is deception ethical), which means he wants to withhold judgement on the issue. The problem is he demands you don't withhold your actions and just do what he wants.

[@paulwillisorg]

Why do you care? The commenters are right.

[@bradspitt3896]

@@paulwillisorg I don't think you read my comment right.

[@TheAlibabatree]

@@bradspitt3896 Calling Eric Weinstein an "idiot" is truly absurd. I hope you were being hyperbolic.

[@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz]

@@TheAlibabatree he wasnt and he is. Eric has done nothing but make rich weirdos richer and for all of his sanctimony he has no moral or ethical leg to stand on.

[@mikeluka5225]

Eric: James have you ever thought about making an omelette without breaking any eggs? Janes: Well that’s sort of the cost doing busine Eric: interrupting* James I love your omelettes but you’re losing credibility.

[@horsefootrot5654]

AHH but Eric I'm winning in court against the the big boys. But let's continue with your drivelling nonsense shall we.

[@TJ-xu5iv]

Eric, your immaturity here is embarrassing, to put it bluntly. Your constant eye-rolling when James finishes a thought, or, in some cases, defends himself against your charges, is beneath you. You seem to think, throughout the majority of this video, that James is misunderstanding you, when he's actually disagreeing with you. You appear to be getting irritated with him because he's not acquiescing to your charges.

[@hubertusb.137]

Take a second look - James did miss the point throughout the whole show, it is not patronizing to point it out.

[@clemsonalum98]

That’s just Eric I don’t like it either but have sort of learned to accept it.

[@clemsonalum98]

Phil Will I think it was a little of both.

[@magottyk]

@@hubertusb.137 The point is for an ideal world that does not exist. James is past the point and the morality to protect the target from their own words is dubious at best as we each own the responsibility for what we say, not a third party. It is patronising when Eric stops James from finishing his defence for reporting the statements and bragging of the target and when asked for an example Eric skips that invitation in what appears to be a blank book of specifics to exemplify the point. Eric's statement that he could explain James's point better than he can, it's not only patronising but overtly belittling.

[@hubertusb.137]

@@magottyk He was only unterrupting because James switched the topic as soon as he started to reply. That was a sign of good guidance, and as the host of the podcast he decides what should be pointed out. Eric never stopped to reach out his hand, but James did admit he was not able to follow. He had all the time necessary to find a reply and consider some points - and he didn't. Thing is, Eric and the listeners learned a lot during the session, and Eric insisted in the point that James sabotages his own work - James learned nothing and will continue to do so. Morality is not the point - it is all about the craft and the results that are produced. These kind of results have an inherent fallacy. That makes James an activist, but not a journalist.

[@MikeM-ne1hk]

Eric is a bit too antagonistic, pedantic and critical towards a figurehead who represents simply recording people dropping bombshells that the people ought to hear. Period. This isn't complicated and it doesn't need to be. I just find it absurd the roadblocks he's putting up to diminish what James is doing. You either agree with it ethically or don't. It's clear he struggles with it ethically but he can't write off how damning and beneficial some of the bombshells have been. He wants his cake and to eat it too.

[@LibertarianLatina]

Mike M bingo!!!! Well said

[@jumpingeezus5080]

Mike M Who does not want to eat the cake they have paid for?

[@bgilley8199]

That's bullshit, Project Veritas twists facts and context to suit their purpose just as badly as any mainstream news. They are less trustworthy than even Fox or CNN.

[@grayrob1075]

@b gilley No, Project Veritas is just more threatening and damning to the narrative msm chose to create. Something you bought into, which it why it threatens you.

[@thetankgarage]

So what you're saying is that Eric is a human and not a robot? Your statement is cliche conservatism. If you're not a cliche or a robot, you should have no problem seeing not only O'Keefe's side but Eric's as well

[@MyCrispLettuce]

"I can make your point better for you, so let me do it." Well, obviously you can't. Eric seems like the guy who has been sitting around in a room sniffing his own fart jokes far too long.

[@Galdring]

Lol... I completely agree with you, but don't judge Eric on this alone; maybe you aren't. He's at times arrogant, and he overestimates the depth of his insights relative to his guests', but he _is_ very insightful, has a very unusual and creative perspective, and he tends to mean well. I think he's a relative sensitive guy, so if he keeps getting pushback on his interruptions and condescendance, I believe he will adapt. And the community all seems to agree that Eric has these problems! That's a sign of fitness. Eric isn't revered as a Guru, and this isn't an echo chamber.

[@MyCrispLettuce]

@@Galdring I don't hold any bad feelings towards him! I just see a consistent theme in his approach to conversation and at some point it needs to be addressed

[@andyb2339]

@@MyCrispLettuce Love your avatar.

[@710slicknick]

You wont lose viewers from having him on your channel. You may though from being completely biased and not taking any of his views into his account. You didnt seem to add anything to the conversation, and this discussion was lost time. Maybe its your affiliations on the left, but you didnt give this guy a fair chance to change your mind.

[@DavidMorley123]

Eric is a poor listener.

[@buddhablack3316]

What James is doing makes sense at this point in time. We need real reporting.

[@HiThere.ItsTom]

But he’s pointing his gun in only one direction which is inherently disingenuous

[@JerseySlayer]

Tom there are those among us that would point the gun at our side too, if only, in every avenue of our lives, we didn't already see others doing it. And doing it too much. And doing it incessantly. And if only, as Peterson puts it, extremes of both sides were condemned. If I walked into a college classroom and Mussolini was being praised I'd have something to say. It doesn't usually happen.

[@ericl1421]

@@HiThere.ItsTom James is an activist investigative journalist, this is no secret. You aren't required to do your opponents work for them. And since this is known up front, you have all the information you need to accurately slot his journalism into your mental model of the world. Compare this to corporate media, who say they are objective when they are just as activist and no investigative depth (anonymous sources, citing each other in circles). They lie about their intentions and that poisons the public's mental model.

[@andybaldman]

@@HiThere.ItsTom You're exactly right. Eric's entire point is that the gun would be much power effective if he pointed it at more than one direction, and at the institutions, not the people. And most people in this comment section don't seem to get that.

[@Closetscholar]

Eric: "I dont want to hold you to the standards of Jesus." *Continues to hold James to the standards of Jesus.*

[@gertfredrikson4584]

He hold's him to a sociatal standard rather then a partisan one.

[@Closetscholar]

​@@gertfredrikson4584 What societal standard would that be and from which society?

[@doghousereily]

Hahahahahahahaha

[@andrew20146]

@@Closetscholar Do you think the average person would be happy to be on the receiving end of O'Keefe's camera? How do you think that might make them perceive what he does? Why make the lefty scalps he collects into objects of empathy when the goal is to direct ire at the institution?

[@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz]

@@andrew20146 I dont care what people who help cover up pedo rings feel or think about being on camera. Why do you?

[@Tanner1776]

James handled this exceptionally well. His composure to not only take Eric's criticism in good faith, but to really commit to trying to find an answer and understand the question that Eric was asking over and over again was impressive.

[@realMaverickBuckley]

*Please read this.* Out of interest, are there any of Eric's followers that are in between the two Parties but would vote Trump because of how the Democrats are so arrogant that they dont even care about their own base as well as being in cahoots with such institutions as the Main stream media and the Universities that Eric loathes currently. Thumbs up if you'd vote Trump the next general election. I'm just interested as I think Eric's followers arent as anti Trump as he is but we put that aside because, among other things he's (Eric) a great Thinker, Orator and Interviewer.

[@Trollificusv2]

Hell, I don't even like Trump but would have voted for him over Hillary in 2016. NOW I fully intend to vote for him because the Democrats lack any commitment to the truth, and seem, in many cases to be completely delusional.

[@scottstevens6380]

Green party...

[@thurstonxander]

I'm voting for you maverick🤩

[@Argrouk]

What I want to know, is does that mean he would vote for the evil Hillary?

[@CaptJackAubreyOfTheRoyalNavy]

I consider myself a centrist who has lots of problems with both parties. Here's the thing. At the end of the day, a Biden presidency wouldn't be much different from a Trump presidency. They're both establishment creatures. (Yes, despite Trump's rhetoric, he's an establishment creature; look who he packed his cabinet with.) So they would basically do the same things as president. But Trump will be better for the stock market. And I have substantial investments. That's literally it. It's plain, ugly, pragmatic self-interest. I see almost no difference between a Biden/Trump presidency, but Trump will be better for my portfolio.

[@nathanholbrook1693]

I'm trying to see Eric's point but it hasn't happened yet.

[@Qweertyyuiiop]

He wanted James to say it. And he kind of did. It was a good talk

[@IzabelParis]

Nathan Holbrook same here! He doesn’t have one as far as I can see.

[@stereoreviewx]

Eric is just word salad here

[@wabbittv8923]

@@seatecastronomy7427 Good point! I think Eric was trying to find a way to "help"James O'Keefe pander to the Left in order to increase his credibility and thus his audience.

[@billtthatsme]

It's almost as if he's telling James his brand of reporting is low brow. What he refuses to admit is there wouldn't be a need for James if journalists actually reported the truth.

[@s-g-j]

It's clear to me that James has thought deeply about what he does and how he does it and he has come to the conclusion that it HAS to be that way. Eric, it seems, wants him to change his methods to make the message more palatable to his left-leaning friends. Eric, if James is going to make an omelet, he's going to have to break a few eggs and you're going to have to just work on getting people to listen instead of sticking their head in the sand.

[@cononiconium5059]

Despite Eric's emotional irrationality, this was a great interview! He admits multiple times that he is "pissed off and angry" but James played this so well and promoted the value of TRUTH in society!

[@Laremy]

Bro has serious issues. I applaud James for sitting through this and pretending to care about his non-point.

[@fhoofe3245]

Eric has come a long way in the past three years, and I think he realizes that he was a typical bourgeois, university, liberal intellectual, and that almost everything he believed about the world was wrong

[@kenhiett5266]

Eric can be absolutely exhausting. I like Eric and I enjoy his show but Eric is far too often not looking for AN answer, but he is looking to hear HIS answer from someone else.

[@douglasmackinnon7026]

I think sometimes he just wants to get to the point faster but sometimes it turns into a siloquiy.

[@gertfredrikson4584]

What I get he is wanting, is an answer from him self or from James O’Keefe, an answer that is novel, he keeps them in this uncomfortable space just to remind us that we need more helpful answers to this question. And for what it is worth O’Keefe seemed to receive that passing at the end.

[@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz]

@@brow4840 I've never seen someone praised for derailing conversation let alone be praised as if it is some how "real talk" and be serious about it

[@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz]

@@X9523-z3v or at least make a coherent argument outside of tone and displays of public guilt from James.

[@tpage8051]

This. 100%. He's gets in this whiny condescending tone and won't consider that maybe he's wrong. Just tell me what I want to hear! aww

[@temite80]

Eric seems to spend a significant amount of each episode talking in a condescending way to his guest, telling them repeatedly "You're missing the point.". Is every guest an idiot or is Eric communicating/thinking in too much of a roundabout over-complicated way on some matters that are just simple.

[@tiffanysmith0607]

YUPPPPP

[@DavidMorley123]

Eric is a poor listener.

[@artandculture5262]

When I worked with PhDs in math, they often knew what I was saying before I finished saying it, but we had the unspoken agreement that I was allowed to finish my sentences. And this is some of the syndrome of a bubble. James is the expert here in something that Eric wishes he could do. So he could enter the conversation as a student. It reminds me of Jordan Peterson speaking to Joe Rogan, and at one point Peterson says, “You are really intelligent Joe”, and artists and comedians, and likely many people who practice their fields for many years, may be smarter than a PhD can realize because the credential doesn’t match •their• map of who is supposed to be intelligent. The bag of marbles is open more than some people realize.

[@aikonatsumi5611]

@@artandculture5262 Well said. The dichotomy between credentials and presentable outcome is huge. Humbling even to many when they experience it. I love when people listen to someone for what they're saying and not who they are.

[@TedKidd]

We all have a tendency to blame the listener for our poor explanation skills...

[@jonnyw82]

Eric’s main problem with James is he doesn’t see him “wrestling with the ethics”? What exactly should James have done to show this? Does Eric hold CNN to this standard as well?

[@TheAbsoluteSir]

Of course he does. You should have gotten that from the first few minutes of this podcast.

[@daniellove162]

Jonathan - He has NO expectations of CNN, just like he has no expectations of Hitler.

[@jonnyw82]

Alex Hamilton not proportionally especially considering James is exposing institutional deceit at the highest order. Let’s call out the media that’s trying to lie to us rather than clutching pearls over the ethical minutiae of someone EXPOSING the lies.

[@projectnemesi5950]

@rockster10101 Spoken like an antifa member. yuck

[@NikoBased]

This is a 2.5 hour long interview of Eric asking James to modify his methodology, because Eric wishes he could link to Project Veritas. Eric actually believes his left wing friends denounce Project Veritas because they don't like his journalistic methodology. However, this is just an excuse. Why don't Eric's left wing friends denounce CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post etc? The real reason your friends denounce Project Veritas, is because they know James is a conservative. That's really all there is to it. Eric doesn't care if somebody is a conservative, libertarian or a liberal. He doesn't care if you're a communist or a fascist. He cares about your ideas, and he cares about the truth. If you want your friends to pay attention to stories James covers, you have to tell them to grow up. This isn't James's problem.

[@George-hl4fu]

In this episode of The Portal, Eric concern-trolls for two hours and twenty five minutes. Eric, you need to learn to control your impulse to concern-troll. See? Two can play at this game.

[@questor55]

Although I completely agree, I'm not sure the tone of your post lends anything constructive to the discourse. Three can play at this game, ha.

[@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz]

And did you hear his TONE? Did he not consider the optics? If he wants my friends who absolutely despise and ignore everything he says to like him he needs to settle down straighten up and fly right.

[@sevencolours5014]

If you look closely, his used other tactics in addition to concern-trolling. I can count at least 5.

[@marmoset3]

Eric, no amount of finesse will make James palatable to your left of centre friends.

[@simplyafederalist]

This cant be said enough. No amount of evidence will change their minds.

[@pondopondo1497]

dude, this comment should be pinned for everyone and esp Eric to see. THESE PEOPLE WILL NEVER LIKE YOU NO MATTER WHAT! FFS

[@richardm8807]

@@simplyafederalist you are ignoring your own blindspot though. the knife cuts both ways.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

It's basically just tone policing.

[@wojakwoes3970]

this is the top comment and should have far more upvotes.

[@Zersetzor]

I haven't listened to all episodes. But this has to be the most frustrating one I've heard so far. I am convinced that this whole discussion could have been much more effective if Eric had stopped using mathematical metaphors. Not to cast undue shade on James, but I think whenever Eric mentions "interior points" and the "efficient frontier", it bypasses him. When what is really trying to be communicated is "How your ethics are perceived harms the effectiveness of your output. Make it known and obvious that you do your utmost to avoid destroying your marks' lives." This mismatch is especially evident when the issue of protecting the identity of people comes in. It is clear to me that Eric is referring mainly to the marks' identities, but James instinctively seems to think about the sources' / insiders' identities. Yet this difference is never simply stated. Overall it strikes me that Eric is much more comfortable with thinking in abstractions and generalizations (which is evident not only from this episode of course), while James seems to much prefer to stick to examples and specifics. I think it would have been much more fruitful to simply run through one example and for Eric to state what decisions by Veritas he thinks hurt the distribution of that story, while James lays out his reasoning for those decisions. I don't follow Veritas closely, but in my opinion the best result from this podcast would be some sort of unmistakable publication of their ethical principles, and possibly sort of preambles to each of their releases in which they explain why they disclose however much they choose to. I think a simple (possibly overly so) strategy could be to release a preliminary version of a story, in which as much personal information as possible is withheld (pixelation, voice alteration, whatever). See what traction that version gets, and what criticisms it gets. If people claim it is faked, or that the alteration change the content too much, release a less altered version. repeat this process until either people believe the story as much as can be expected or until the full unedited version is out there (hopefully the former case will be the more likely). That way it should be quite without doubt that Veritas doesn't release personal details gratuitously.

[@richlinlaw]

Since these terms are left undefined you have two people completely shooting past each other. Also the intention of correcting someone else is a little bit presumptuous unless invited or authorized for example in the case of an instructor parent or coach. My favorite part was the touching of the fact that the guest enjoys sticking it to the man. Word up thanks for reading good program

[@PazkalTheRazkal]

Zersetzor gute Zusammenfassung. Stimme zu.

[@tycer9754]

It does seem to me like Eric is living in the abstract/intellectual/I want to follow the rules and James is living in the real dirty world where rules have little to no meaning anymore

[@nealorr5086]

@@tycer9754 I don't know. I think they both have hypothesis, neither of which has been tested. Eric is basically saying "You'll get more support from the liberal intellectuals if you don't get people fired" - There's no evidence to support his idea, other than his own personal opinion. James is saying " That shit won't make 1 whit of difference. Even when we have anonymous sources, Disney spends hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to hunt down those sources for termination and blacklisting." No one got fired for running or not running the Evergreen story, yet the DISC still prevented it from being run and Brett was cast as a racist by disassociation. From the evidence we have, James is correct, and Eric is wallowing in his idealized universe, but I don't see the harm in using the next 6 PV stories to test each of their hypothesis.

[@tycer9754]

Neal Orr great way to put it!

[@TimEngle]

Eric, keep working with mice and James will keep working as a man with balls.

[@argmeg5825]

Terrible interview. Eric says to James in the beginning "It's your show too" then when he doesn't win the argument says "Hey, it's my show". Unhinged Eric has some issues.

[@r.t.5425]

You’re the only person who pointed this obvious hypocrisy out!

[@jstnnnnn]

2:05:40

[@cutter6900]

One of the best things about Eric's interviews is how he acts as an antagonist, pressing his interviewees past their own preconceptions. "No, this is not a normal interview. My audience can handle the truth - and they're smart." The West, in general, has forgotten the art form of polite antagonism, which is central in the public forum of ideas.

[@Riosgirl98]

Excellent comment, Eric is a gentle powerhouse and challenges people's idea's not the person themselves. He is a true inspiration in this regard as it is a pleasure to watch his discussions.

[@dr.johnpaladinshow9747]

Eric is the 21st century William F. Buckley for progressive thought. Check out his interview with Bob Woodward. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gomWooKHbtGXm80

[@fredotcho]

You are so right on this one. Here in France we used to have that level of conversation from « journalists » that are nos in their eighties. It takes a brain and culture to punch up an interview like that. Seeing a great mathematician like Weinstein dedicate time and passion to this art is just a marvel of motivation for a guy like me that gave up on journalism twenty years ago for the same reasons that are discussed here.

[@markd2209]

It also shows his ego, and blindness that he should be interviewing for ALL people, not just “his” audience.

[@dr.johnpaladinshow9747]

@Willful Mystic I'm old too. My comparison only goes as far as to be an example of civil discourse (and the use of "Big Words" ;-) which only exists these days in the IDW as far as I can tell.

[@zeppefan]

Deceiving the deceivers is a dangerous game, and James O'Keeffe is a Master at beating them at their own game.🙉🙊🙈

[@AJ-zy9jf]

Credit to James for acting professional, Eric was pretty silly in this one

[@Laremy]

Nearly unwatchable, holy shit. So rude too

[@williamrobinson8151]

I love the guy i really do but sometimes..... Thats why he is great.

[@JoshJr98]

Eric: we need to slip the disk James: *exposes the disk and slips it Eric: dont do that ??

[@mindasb]

I'm getting increasing disinterested with Eric. The romance lasted for about 1.5 years. His emotions are in the way for him to think clearly.

[@dtzyYT]

I know this could be more of a joke but when exactly did Eric mentioned don't do that? He is basically arguing in quite a roundabout way that James could slip the disc more effectively.

[@710slicknick]

@@dtzyYT Why have such a problem with someone if they are already succeeding? Seems like Eric just doesnt like the guy.

[@yodythewoadie]

@@710slicknick Eric is simply dealing with this mass-trauma in his own traumatized way. Eric has every right to fear that James may easily be exposed to capitalization of his own (James') liabilities. I haven't fully finished this episode yet, but from the first half it would seem that they are just getting to really know each other.

[@kutark]

@@mindasb I honestly think he just quite hasn't reached the stage where he is ready to shed the leftist/progressive part of himself because of a sunk cost fallacy. He is getting more emotional because his logical and rationalist parts of himself are telling A, but his historical belief structure and brainwashing are telling him B, and he is having difficulty trying to reconcile the two because they are irreconcilable... But since he is so logically minded he knows intrinsically that A is the truth, but doesn't want it to be the truth.

[@RhythmicCarnage]

32 minutes in THANK YOU! Treating the audience like adults is rare, which makes this high quality source material.

[@maryhenri3254]

Eric - stop interrupting. You've lost a bit of credibility with me.

[@PudelsRule]

Eric won't shut up - thumbs down and I am off before 20 mins with an "unsavory tinge" of what is most likely a case of acid reflux caused by the droning arrogance! So not worth my time. Keep up the great work James O'Keefe!!

[@PudelsRule]

Figured it out - just before I jumped - simply fast forward to each of the talking points by James. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[@KnockManJo]

For being such a smart guy Eric seemed completely blinded by a condescending unwillingness to discuss nuance here, fascinating

[@usssanjacinto1]

People who have a lot to hide, are highly critical of O'Keefe's methods

[@BernardTiekieBritz]

Brief summary: Everyone thinks Eric smoked something and he doesn't get to his point. James is a hero.

[@sevencolours5014]

@@jcclarkeru That's just the a thing he thought would work against James, if he could attack him in some other way while looking neutral and reasonable he would do that.

[@ChrisMinorOfficial]

@@jcclarkeru I think you're missing what Eric was actually trying to do here. It is of my opinion that we will actually see the two working together in the future on exposing certain corruptions in our society. This podcast wasn't made to vilify James - it was Eric seeing if he could trust James and to show James that he could trust Eric. He knows what James can do - he is impressed by James - he was seeing if James could be a potential ally - to do so he needed to see if James was willing to consider that he could be wrong - which James I believe eventually understood.

[@kalash_nikov]

@@ChrisMinorOfficial I'd agree with you if not for Eric obvious emotional state during this interview. I don't think he's THAT intelligent and in perfect control of his emotions and being able to fake them, he's not an anime character. He might have invited James for the reason you stated and I think (hope) they will indeed work together, but Eric obviously got irritated for real (which he even admitted here), for reasons I won't try to speculate, other people have already done it.

[@BhutanBluePoppy]

@@jcclarkeru To illustrate the old adage: "Point a figure at me, you've got 3 pointing back at yourself"

[@ChrisMinorOfficial]

@@kalash_nikov oh I dont doubt he's sincerely upset with him at points - I Just believe the reason he is upset isn't a malicious one - its one of almost someone wanting to be on the same team and being frustrated that he can't communicate his point clearly (sometimes even unreasonably frustrated haha). I just dont think it was frustration meant in anyway to see malicious towards James ya know?

[@Adama_Now]

Eric at the beginning of episode: "it's your show too" 00:46:40 Eric at the ending of the episode: "it's my show" 02:05:43 😂😂😂

[@danielhuddleston3567]

That was insufferable

[@themysticfedora]

He really needs to stop trying to be so cavalier all the time. He's intelligent enough to have earned the right to be, of course, but it seems he gets too comfortable trying to project that persona that he comes off just arrogant a lot of the time.

[@nomi-hiking2184]

@@themysticfedora Granted, Eric could enforce holding the reigns on his channel more elegantly, but hey, he's good at Maths, so i guess we can't have everything..

[@TimEngle]

Eric, let James tell the truth. Stop cutting him off.

[@nasdan5000]

James, you did good, Eric as much as I appreciate you, you failed

[@DanailaAndrei]

true to an extent. Also when we analyze this, we need to keep in mind that Eric still does not have a lot of experience with taking interviews, but he is used to dominating in a way the discussion. So it is annoying, but I would put a lot of the issues in this on his lack of experience in the field of taking interviews (not participating in interviews).

[@sweetdangerzack]

Eric can pontificate all he wants on his semi-utopian vision for journalism while James is out in the field getting results like no one else. Sorry Eric, I love you man, but you sound like the socialite who's never spent a day in a crop field lecturing a farmer about how much more productive he could be if only he adopted X, Y, and Z methods.

[@Jewcas770]

@@sweetdangerzack excellent analogy

[@URAWESOME94]

Passey's Perspective I enjoy both of these gents and I see why Eric is a bit hostile. Project Veritas has a history of somewhat skewing and selectively leaking exposures. It’s human nature of course. No biggie when placed in an isolated fashion. That said, when it’s put into the context of both undercover and in efforts to expose individuals/companies it’ll invoke some anger. Eric is trying to say by blurring out faces and distorting voices, you’re still getting the information out while not totally betraying the person you’ve managed to coax into trust and frank conversation. I can respect that on Eric’s end, but I can also appreciate the justification argument by James because if you’re some regional field supervisor of production working for a corporation you know broadcasts lies, perhaps being filmed exposing it isn’t the worst for you. Perhaps you need to leave the corporate news life and do something where you’re not such a sellout. Some of the discussions show just how either wicked or depressed these people are. In the end, the company is exposed and the people are either humanized or humiliated while the truth is spoken nonetheless. Justified. Context be damned.

[@unreal513]

Eric, you came off condescending for no good reason multiple times in this interview. It honestly sounds like you have powerful friends that are afraid of O'Keefe and have voiced that concern to you which affected this interview.

[@OolTube02]

The problem isn't just powerful friends. He's making the point that your average viewer might identify with the people exposed. It isn't just powerful people who can be destroyed by this type of journalism. In fact most of the time it's just average people who work in a place whose lives get upended.

[@robertdiggins7578]

@@OolTube02 That might be because those people are used to it and are only getting the information through a framed filter. I don't think Eric appreciates just how corrupt our authoritarian society is. Yes, he knows a lot, but he's still thinking about the need for conformist ethics in an authoritarian culture. Every one of those who got ruined is a domino, and their ruin has the potential to knock down more. And this isn't a Hollywood Bond Film where only the mastermind in the cave is the target that matters. These "regular" people are COMPLICIT and WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE CONFORMITY IN OUR SOCIETY. Regular people just need to see more "normal" people at Google and Disney and the NYT go down. They will get the picture. And they will discover, not only the evil of the institution, but the evil acts by the complicit employees who ARE more effective, than you seem to give credit, in the accomplishment of the evil things being done. Do you know how many of these"normal" people are willing to dogpile on their peers who blow the whistle? Our situation is more dire than we can conceive.

[@Kentucky_Blue]

This is maybe the most perceptive comment out here. This interview was a measurement and a warning. But I wonder if Eric’s positions haven’t changed since the election as so much comes to light. Some level of dread must set in if he’s as honest as we all think.

[@joeblow1942]

@@robertdiggins7578 Eric is a statist and atheist which means faith in a god has been supplanted by faith in the state. It’s uncomfortable for statists to see their god becoming more authoritarian by the day because it upends their entire belief system.

[@robertdiggins7578]

@@joeblow1942 What would Lysander Spooner do?

[@seepooha]

Honestly I didn't get what exactly was the Eric's complain/objection. Dirty job has to be done by someone, otherwise we all drown in crap together.

[@virtuousvillain9874]

He doesn't want to lower himself to the effective tactics of the enemy. There are a subset of people who when they know the other person is cheating still play by the rules and lose while patting themselves on the back and feeling morally superior. He is uncomfortable with the reality of effective tactics and wants reality to be different than it is.

[@andybaldman]

Eric is trying to say that O'Keefe would remove one of his weaknesses (about being slandered) if he wasn't perceived as being on one side or the other. He'd effectively immunize himself against his main weakness.

[@masonwalton7526]

james sc the

[@nealorr5086]

@james sc Yes and no. Sometimes who is doing the speaking is important. Sometimes, like with the Bernie employee fantasizing about gulags it's not. There was no reason to out that guy, other than to make fact checking more easy.

[@realMaverickBuckley]

@Chad Larson Who does? Oman and Swaziland are the only two I can think of.

[@GodofDisco]

I respect Eric. That being said, I believe he's wrestling with the fact that there is absoloute moral good and James is clearly a better person than the type of poeple he typically associates with and it brings credibility to the idea that some of his leftist notions are not actually founded in ethics.

[@taz0k2]

I respect you Eric! But... the more I see of this interview the more "pissed off" I get. This is so backward. James pisses you off. You probably piss people off with this. James acts humble. You act very arrogant. James seems to speak clearly. You are very non-concrete. You accuse James being inefficient. You are not communicating efficiently here. James does not interrupt. You interrupt. You say James ruins the reputation of what he uncovers. You are hurting the reputation of your project with this behavior. You say that James needs to aim higher. This is hopefully your low water mark. You stand on no moral high ground. If you are on a moral high ground you must first prove it by acting with example. I respect you, but you can do soo much better than this.

[@TheMiracleMatter]

*[OOF]*

[@tikmaanboksouwe]

Eric seemed really angry and Im not sure why, but I like that he has a civil convo with a person he strongly disagrees with. Conversation is the answer! Thx James, and thanks Eric!

[@codymoore1765]

I was going to comment but I cant say it any better than this comment.

[@Raven7744]

His method of journalism should be applauded and not criticized, he is the best

[@Raven7744]

Yes maybe you are right, but I mean more his general methodology. Investigative journalism that just let's people be themselves.

[@Caspaah151]

I thought James O'keefe was just a kid with a camera. But he is actually smart.

[@JC-zo9xy]

Look up Andrew Brietbart

[@Muscleupsanddangles]

And a sociopathic narcissist

[@Thisisahandle701]

@@Muscleupsanddangles That's the impression I get too. There's a bit of; glib, superficial charm about him.

[@olsparkywisenheimer8239]

@@Muscleupsanddangles I actually thought Eric showed more disorders during this conversation..

[@tr3624]

olsparky wisenheimer I agree with you. Eric should, for his own growth, look at the perception non-ideologues are presenting him in the comments. Although I would never demand he do that, like the demands he makes of James.

[@Strelnikov10]

"You don't know my audience. I've got the best audience in all of podcasting...." - Eric Weinstein emulating his hero, Donald J. Trump

[@collinblatchford]

👌 the greatest audience of all time 👌

[@josephoberholtzer2429]

Eric, saying "I can make your point better so let me do it" multiple times to your guest is not the way to get great future conversations... Disappointed in Eric's discipline here... he really had a lot of emotions cover his ears to what James was saying. I know this is a "conversation" rather than an "interview" but most viewers know what Eric thinks by now (and if they don't this display did not earn him much) and it became very clear he had a rigid agenda, rather like an "interview", that he very much wanted to execute rather than let the conversation create value organically. A line of questions that was never asked and should have been: "James, how much do you care about convincing people like me and my friends and others on the left? What if it takes 15 years under your current methods? What if there was a way to do it more quickly without losing current followers? Wouldn't that be better?"

[@sevencolours5014]

He was constantly trying to come up with ways to cut him off, this "I can make it better" was used to cut James off.

[@adrianfortmoviereviewsbook9821]

I'm so glad I'm not the only person who got tired of that, haha.

[@kyleg90]

probable had the conversation already on the phone

[@lisashea4956]

Couldn't make it to the end. Eric's constant interrupting and telling James "what your problem is" got tiring after 2 hours. We get it, you want him to do it your way.

[@susanharmony3361]

Absolutely, the WORDY Eric wants to let us know he vast knowledge of the DICTIONARY. its like reading a book, you have to skip ahead because the author looses you in his inane usage of words to describe every little detail, unnecessary!

[@ladyj3173]

@@susanharmony3361 loses*

[@BunnyMan456]

The real answer, Eric, is that it takes all kinds. Diversify your strategy. Down and dirty in some places. Calm and collected in others.

[@richardm8807]

I don't disagree but please tell me you are not a trump apologist.

[@andrew20146]

Kind of like saying in war, you want some people firing bullets into the air or into the ground, and some people actually aiming at the enemy.

[@Closetscholar]

@@richardm8807 Please tell me you are not a socialist.

[@Bruhaha9]

Maybe O'Keefe could too though: Down and dirty in some places. Calm and collected in others.

[@cononiconium5059]

James admits to accepting to bear his cross and Weinstein admits to not accepting it... enough said.

[@Joshkie2]

1:43:29 You are asking him to live up to some standard, if you know how he can do it, then just tell him. You say you’re not asking him to live up to an if Jesus was a reporter standard but to me that seems to be exactly what you are asking of him.

[@deejaye2647]

Precisely - I could not put it into words; thank you for doing so.

[@ablinder]

Eric, kudos for allowing diverse voices on your channel.

Sasha Spector and then holding them to a ridiculous standard....

[@yodythewoadie]

@ the standards are getting ridiculous these days. Both men have been traumatized by a system. Eric likely more so emotionally.

[@rafal5863]

@@yodythewoadie Cognitive dissonance cuts deep.

[@yodythewoadie]

@@rafal5863 what do you mean exactly? I would say that cognitive dissonance IS the deep cut, and is liable to be capitalized upon if not stitched up.

[@dr.johnpaladinshow9747]

Eric is the 21st century William F. Buckley for progressive thought. Check out Bill's interview with Bob Woodward. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gomWooKHbtGXm80

[@kodimah8577]

Eric: I didn't sign up to play this game, I question your ethics James. Also Eric: I have skeletons in my closet James, I need you to not disturb them. It's not O'Keef's responsibility to dance around your past misdeeds while he's literally doing the work you merely talk about.

[@Gmoney0311]

Eric: Deceiving people to get the truth is immoral. Pedophiles everywhere-👏👏👏👏👏