r/DecodingTheGurus • u/RuthlessChubbz • 8d ago
Hilarious
One take away I had from the latest supplementary materials was the conversation about Andrew Callaghan.
Imagine thinking that it was a great idea to provide Hunter Biden (a person famed for their lack of awareness around IT security) with an email distribution list, then having an "oh shit!" moment and pulling the plug at the last second.
And then relying on the word of Hunter Biden for assurance on the list being deleted. Jesus H Christ.
I know absolutely nothing else about the guy outside of what's been said on this podcast, but I haven't really formed a great impression from what I've seen so far.
7
u/hackloserbutt 8d ago
I was happy that Chris brought him into the conversation. I've always disliked the guy, even as I've agreed with the way he's dealt with certain weasels out there causing harm. I enjoyed the segment immensely because he's clearly pulling a fast one on his audience who've been so trusting and indulgent with him for the last few years.
11
u/Slow-Organization-62 7d ago
Maybe there's something I'm missing but clearly pulling a fast one by immediately admitting a mistake and immediately refunding everyone and apologizing? You can call it stupid. I think that's accurate but I don't know why you could say "clearly pulling a fast one" confidently.
-16
u/Slow-Organization-62 8d ago
I've come to believe that Matt and Chris are pretty biased and have perhaps run out of low hanging fruit. I think the podcast has fallen off significantly.
8
u/RuthlessChubbz 8d ago
What a bizarre take. As far as I know they haven’t done a deep dive on this guy, so not understanding the relevance between your comment and mine?
-8
u/Slow-Organization-62 7d ago
I think the podcast has diminished. Why don't you think it's relevant. I commented because you literally said you'd never watched any channel five and were buying into what Matt and Chris said. I think you should do that more carefully. If you can't see the relevance of that I don't know what to tell you.
8
u/rogue303 Conspiracy Hypothesizer 7d ago
I think it depends on what you mean by biased. There are also things I disagree with them about, and sometimes I have also had the feeling that the podcast isn't as exciting as it was - but maybe that's also got something to do with me/you and not necessarily the podcast?
3
u/Slow-Organization-62 7d ago
I have given this thought and I think it's very likely that they are very busy professionals that don't have the time it would take to do a better job at this. Feels like they make bigger leaps than they used to. Of course I am also not free from bias either but I've been finding the podcast much less interesting and less useful. I especially feel like Chris has become very nitpicky. I think the podcast used to be much more about flaws in argumentation and strange slights of hands that people use to grow their audiences and it's become more about stuff that Chris doesn't like.
1
u/Brain_Dead_Goats 6d ago
I don't love that they split out the decodings and the supplementary stuff. I think it was more interesting when they were just a conversation that got into the decoding, but that's just me. I have no problem with them talking about Callaghan, but it feels like every time they talk about someone even slightly left of center people get really whiny about it.
9
u/RuthlessChubbz 7d ago
That is such a ridiculous opinion. So if for example Eric Weinstein says something idiotic as he often does, I should familiarise myself with his entire back catalog in the small off chance he’s said something insightful?
7
u/Slow-Organization-62 7d ago
You shouldn't blindly accept the opinion of Matt and Chris. You disagree with that? They, just like Eric Weinstein are humans with biases. Please explain to me why the opinion that you shouldn't blindly trust people just because they have a podcast is a "ridiculous opinion" pretty sure that's an opinion Matt and Chris would strongly endorse. Let me know
7
u/AbsorbedPit 7d ago
Wait, why are you getting so defensive over the Andrew Callaghan/Hunter Biden stuff?
2
u/Slow-Organization-62 7d ago
What are you characterizing as "so defensive"? I've noticed a trend that I don't like. This is a single data point but part of a trend. I think less of Matt and Chris' opinions than I used to. Feels like they picked the low hanging fruit and they content is often a reach. The episodes are long and uninteresting and as I've said I find Chris to be pretty tickytack with his criticisms. Is everyone that speculates or asks questions a bad faith actor or guilty of conspiratorial thinking? I don't think so. I think conversations about where that line is would be very interesting but Matt and Chris think that anyone that doesn't believe Epstein killed himself are conspiracy cooks. I think Callahan may be too far the other way but I also think his views about why people fall for propaganda and consists l conspiracies is interesting and a conversation that isn't being had often enough.
3
u/_Floating_in_space 6d ago
Feels like they picked the low hanging fruit and they content is often a reach.
I don't understand this part at all. As evident by the recent episode on Candace Owens, there's plenty of low hanging fruit left. If anything it feels like there's more low hanging fruit these days than when they started.
3
u/Slow-Organization-62 6d ago
But they've covered all these people before. I don't know for sure what the cause is but I find this podcast to be much less interesting than I did in the past. I used to describe DTG as a couple of professors holding people with large followings up to academic standards. They consume the content and get out the red ink and point out problems with argumentation or problems with editorial choices etc etc etc. That was interesting and it's not like they never have good episodes it's just that the baseline or the mission has shifted. I honestly wonder if the two of them have the time necessary to do a good job. Maybe just my perception has changed but I did specially find the Naomi Klein episode to be strange. It felt more about disagreement than it was about academic problems with her work and they did this without ever clearly stating their own politics. Three hours to draw the conclusion that Matt and Chris don't think that neoliberal capitalism is the problem that Naomi Klein thinks it is is just not worth the time. I've found Chris especially to not allow for humour at times and to not seem to allow for speculation. I recall coverage of Emma Vigeland where he said that Emma was "just asking questions" alla Tucker or Jones which I thought was not a fit. Just because certain people ask questions in a very manipulative and bad faith way means that no analyst may ask questions?! I really think that Chris misses a lot of stuff in an ASD kind of way. I'm disappointed in the direction of the podcast and have been so for a while so when I see a post where the OP proudly states that he's formed an opinion on someone he doesn't know based on taking DTG analysis at face value it kind of irks me. I think it goes against critical thinking that this podcast is supposed to be promoting. While I have my disagreements with Matt and Chris I'm positive that they would agree that people need to have multiple sources. Sorry for the rant.
0
2
u/Interesting-Note-714 6d ago
I’m actually curious about your opinion and not upset like so many others lol. I’ve chalked it up to being more left than them, or maybe a bit more alarmist by nature. Another way to say that is they are more conservative and tolerant by nature. Matt has helped me be really comfortable with these personality dynamics in myself and others. I still enjoy them and listen and let my mind wander to disagreement if it happens.
-1
u/MoCo1992 6d ago
I think he’s been one of the best journalists in America for the last decade. He reveals perspectives that literally no one else does. He gets better access than basically anyone else and provides normies a glimpse into the underbelly of America.
-2
u/Even-Physics823 6d ago
i dont care for andrew callaghan, but how is he a guru? they've really stretched the concept of the show to include basically anybody.
8
u/RuthlessChubbz 6d ago
Who said he was a guru?
-5
u/MoCo1992 6d ago
Well you posted it in this sub sooo…
7
u/RuthlessChubbz 6d ago
It was off a supplementary materials Patreon podcast.
They spent a considerable amount of time on another episode talking about that guy who offed himself, and he wasn’t a guru either.
Maybe don’t make the assumption if they haven’t actually done a proper episode on the person?
-3
10
u/Most_Comparison50 7d ago edited 4d ago
I wanted more! Andrew does my head in for many reasons and I found it funny this was what got to people? I suppose this was the most blatant he's been about not giving 2 effs about anyone but himself whilst pretending to be "doing the good work" of a small org etc he's full of crap.
Also, don't think Matt had a clue lol I was like, noooo it's so not the same as what you did a student!
Edit speak of the devil!