I just finished watching Pakman's interview with Chu and it was a frustrating experience on one hand, and a delightful on the other. Frustrating, to me personally, due to Chu's stance on free speech, or lack thereof, and his "trigger-happy" attitude in limiting it, severely, based on very loose definitions of what constitutes as hurting other people. "You are acting as if this is a debate of two sides"? What "progressive" individual hears such a statement and doesn't feel there is something shockingly twisted about it? Also, in the specific context of Pakman's show... TotalBiscuit and Milo are an "angry mob"? And this is just the tip of the iceberg in Arthur's very irrational claims.
If Chu is a lesson in how to not participate in a debate and what is a very poor structure for an argument, Pakman is the opposite. I'm introduced to him only through GamerGate context and in each of the four interviews of his I've seen, he utterly impressed me. In his calm, his common sense, his level headedness, his professionalism, in his willingness to correct himself, to challenge those interviewed... and the list of his virtues goes on and on. I'm subscribing to his channel because he's a prime example of critical thinking and openness. He himself calls himself a progressive but he doesn't let that label automatically position him in this or that side of the barricade.
Edit: I'm not fond of using the term "progressive". It in itself is very biased. Most people don't like to think of themselves as the antonym, and they don't hold medieval ideals. Somehow a certain side adopted that headline for themselves, however, and - like sexism and misogyny - it's also being stripped of its meaning in recent months.
Edit 2: Do I have a crush on Pakman?
:wat: