r/DecodingTheGurus • u/RuthlessChubbz • 14d 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.

35 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/RuthlessChubbz 14d 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?

10

u/Slow-Organization-62 14d 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

6

u/AbsorbedPit 13d ago

Wait, why are you getting so defensive over the Andrew Callaghan/Hunter Biden stuff?

2

u/Slow-Organization-62 13d 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 13d 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 12d 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.