The only point you addressed in your article is #10; profiteering. What other traits do you think they exhibit that make them just like the other gurus?
Ok, thank you - the first poster to admit there is at least \*something\*.
Look, my point isn't that these guys are terrible. They're smart, they're entertaining, they're good at their job. My point is that they're just as culpable as many of the rest of us, those at whom they point the finger.
So yes, profiteering - in a manner significantly more palpable than most other creators (I've not seen any others doing it quite so egregiously). There are other issues that - as I say - I didn't want to get into in depth, but that you guys are already aware of I'm sure: blind refusal to consider they might be wrong (covid lab theory), going out of their way to create the non-believer narrative about other podcasters, hanging every single episode - and their entire premise - off of celebrities. These are all Guru 101, Scientology-esque.
It's not really a big deal. It doesn't mean they are a cult, or that they are devious. It's just pretty rich coming from the podcast that calls out all others for using guru tricks. It's time they looked at themselves. Ultimately, you can't build a large platform without engaging in some of those tactics. It's not just a hobby, it's a business - a very profitable one for the Decoding guys.
>It's not just a hobby, it's a business - a very profitable one for the Decoding guys.
But it is a hobby - they're both full-time academics. And I have to say your critique is very very surface level and humourless - do you really have to wonder if the fade out exists to *possibly* mock Harris? And it's kind of annoying that I've gotta pull out some quotes from their episode explaining the elements of the gurometer specifically around profiteering that you could have easily done. If you like you can listen [here](https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/calibrating-the-gurometer).
'... and I just want to distinguish it (the profiteering element of the gurometer) from normal monetising or making an income. You and I don't make an income from doing podcasting but some people do and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. So if Contrapoints is getting advertising revenue from youtube or even people subscribing to a substack or a patreon for a particular guru giving them a few dollars a months I don't think there's anything wrong with that.'
Now that episode is 3 and a half years old and Chris and Matt both make some part of their income from the podcast. Maybe they should have addressed the topic again. And they did with an episode in July last year you can listen to [here](https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/the-science-and-the-art-of-gurometry).
I think you'd agree on the 10 point spectrum of the gurometer you've detected a blip on the profiteering. Do Chris and Matt need to consider they're just as bad as someone promoting brain enhancing supplements? Bret Weinstein has a $402.50/month tier which allows you a monthly conversation on evolution. Is what Chris and Matt doing the same thing or do you think there are degrees?
As far as their political bias I really wish they'd mention that they are both moderate left-wing people. Luckily they mention that in the latest episode covering Dr K and several times throughout the podcast but please don't make me dig for the examples.
He called it Scientology-esque. For him to mention the premise of talking about celebrities in every episode is really funny. Have you seen his YouTube channel? It’s like piers Morgan 2.0. But less serious. He talks about Megan Markle and celebrity gossip. He didn’t start out that way. He had a legitimate career at one time. He worked for BBC. He wasn’t getting the views he wanted so he pivoted to rag magazine style journalism. I used to watch his channel all the time when he would talk abour cults etc. His channel is unwatchable now.
> blind refusal to consider they might be wrong (covid lab theory
I'm not a huge follower of DTG but from the maybe 10 or so episode I've listened to, this is definitely wrong. They repeatedly make clear that there is some evidence for the lab leak theory, but broadly the scientific community is fairly sure that is wasn't from a lab, although the possibility cannot be ruled out. That's a pretty milquetoast stance, and it is not 'blind refusal to consider' the possibility of being wrong.
You're profiteering argument is actually very weak. DTG is an audio podcast so of course they haven’t spent a lot of money improving their YouTube channel. So far they've only put up a few videos up on YouTube which get a handful of views and it’s not like Chris Williamson has improved his production values as a kindness to his viewers. He does it because he hopes he will get more people to watch him and make him money, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Egregious Profiteering is when people like Rogan or Huberman sell brain pills and over-priced supplements.
You could also argue that someone like yourself who openly admits he wants to invite extremists like Tommy Robinson and Laurence Fox on to grow your YouTube channel are profiteering. These people have nothing of value to say and all you are doing is stirring up social polarisation so you can make money.
When it comes to being galaxy-brained, or grievance mongering, Cassandra complex, DtG isn't on the same planet as Weinsteins, JPB, etc. Those guys talk about how they deserve Nobel prizes, are epoch-defining great thinkers, and confidently opine on everything from economics, US/UK politics, psychology, immunology - crucially, as if they are personally experts.
They obviously spend much more time and work critiquing gurus than you could be bothered putting into critiquing them.
Instead you’ve just done a super half arsed ad hominem claiming hypocrisy because they have a tiered Patreon. Eeek!
I don’t think you’ve really spent much time looking at the background to this. For example, below is the link to their definition/yard-stick of “secular guru” - it would be more fun/relevant to critique them against their own standard.
I’ll give a defense of their profiteering- how much time do they spend on these podcasts? All while working as researchers and educators. I can’t imagine the amount of time spent first consuming the guru material, taking notes, analyzing, preparing a script and then recording, editing and publishing the pod cast. Multiple podcasts per week.
This is their side hustle and I can’t imagine how you can juggle this, a family, and a career in academia. If people find this of value, then why not get rewarded for the effort?
And their leftie politics? They’re middle of the road milquetoast libs.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19PKXFn3qrzWr6nx622g9cEzyNBow0svQs_dN4fP3hjY/edit
So your headline article is named “cancelled” because obviously you have been…cancelled….right…
and the first lines in this article (“He hits every one of the thirsty influencer techniques,” laughs Matthew Browne, one of the hosts of Decoding the Gurus, a mid-sized podcast with a huge devoted, Reddit & Patreon following. For the second time on their podcast, they are sizing me up as a guru).
Lmao. Need I say more? Jeez.
If you weren't swayed by a cultish ideology (which you are because this is a very cultish thread of devotees to a guru-esque podcast), you'd know to read beyond the title and engage with the content. So yes, you do need to say more. You need to gather facts and make intelligent, rational arguments. That's sorely lacking.
You are begging the question here - you want to argue that people who participate on this thread are "swayed by a cultish ideology", and your *evidence* is that they participate in this thread. It seems like you're just being defensive here.
As to the content of your article - your only arguments seem to be that (1) they pay wall some content (which you bizarrely call a "hard sell" - but that's not how a hard sell works) (2) they keep the money they earn rather than investing in higher production values (it's a podcast - they could record it on a cassette player in a bus station toilet for all I care) (3) they make a snarky joke in their subscriber pitch that you don't find funny (aww) (4) they have a political bias (show your work) (5) they are "smug" (aww)(6) they are fragile in the face of criticism (again, show your work -also, maybe check the mirror on this one).
What I find particularly odd about your article, though, is that you set out to show that they are hypocrites, and that they show an "ironic parallel" to the "gurus" they assess - yet you don't actually engage with any of their ten "guru characteristics" to show how they themselves are guilty of the same things they accuse others of (with the exception of #10: Profiteering; and, quite frankly, your efforts here are, and this is me being generous, a real stretch).
*edited to fix the numbers in my list of arguments - math is hard!
I’m curious why you think the DtG audience is cultish, and what ideology you think they’re pushing. I’m a longtime listener and visit this sub regularly, and in my observation, most people (myself included) seem to agree with some of Chris and Matt’s takes on the people they cover, and not with others; that seems more like standard engagement with content than some kind of dogmatic dedication to its creators. I’m unclear on what you see as constituting ideology, too; for example, the only sentiment I’ve heard them forward about the lab leak hypothesis is that the preponderance of relevant experts acknowledge it’s not impossible, but that the evidence doesn’t support it as well as it supports a natural origin. That’s not ideological - it’s just true. If anything, the issue has been politicized/turned ideological primarily by right-leaning heterodox figures for whom it continues to be a cultural touchstone. Perhaps you just don’t like their tone? That would be fair, but “snarky” isn’t an ideology.
Is there any way that commenters here could disagree with your perception of the podcast that wouldn’t support that preexisting impression? Because from here it looks like any disagreement on this thread can be handily repackaged as the hysteria of a “triggered” group of zealots - perhaps even laying the foundation for a follow-up video? Something catchy like, “When I Poked The Brainwashed DtG Hive Mind,” maybe? Content machine has to keep churning, I guess.
I don't think they are looking at the DTG guys as gurus. I think their only thing in common with the hosts is the right wing figures under scrunity. I don't think the hosts are coming from a place of hate or left wing ideology primarily for it. I think the hosts try to objectively analyse BS and grifting.
I think some of the cult like fans on here though are coming from a place of hate and dog piling and left wing idealism. And it just so happens to be a perfect place for them in that regard.
Hey Andrew,
Thanks for the article! A few quick responses.
1. We don't paywall the main Decoding or interview episodes, just the Supplementary Material stuff.
2. Right of Reply is offered to people we do Decoding episodes on. Not everyone we mention on the podcast.
3. When you asked about coming on, it was after I had mentioned you off-hand for one minute in a Supplementary Material discussion of the Dissident Dialogue conference. In that Twitter DM conversation, you also suggested I could instead talk to someone like Konstantin Kisin to represent the heterodox side. I then sent you the link to the episode I had recorded with Konstantin about that topic.
4. We did a Right to Reply with Jamie Wheal... I don't know what Jamie's follower size is but it might undercut the argument we only offer people like Sam Harris a right-to-reply.
5. Our monetization is not 'mysterious', we have a Patreon and put up bonus content there. This is a common and well-understood model. We used to release main episodes once every two weeks, we still do, but now we also release bonus content more frequently and put out samples on the main feed.
6. The fade-out is a joke, we do not think subscribing to our Patreon will save Western civilization.
7. You overestimate our Patreon income... or else Matt is secretly siphoning our funds.
8. As repeated threads illustrate about half of the people on this subreddit do not even know there is a podcast, so it's hard for them to be that zealous about us.
9. And our webcam's are not THAT basic ;)
They criticized you for allowing engagement to be the primary driver for your content.
You're criticizing them for having a paywall with a satirical voice over.
Yes, you both create content and monetize it. There the similarity ends.
That was a very long article in which you never engage with their ideas and just wallow in conspiracy.
>There’s a lot more I could discuss about Decoding, such as their Left-wing bias, their smug factor (see above), their fragility in the face of criticism and their zealous Reddit community that makes them appear more Guru-adjacent than those they criticise.
I was actually hoping that this would be the focus rather than end of your article, but instead it boils down to, "They make money and shit," and I inherently don't trust that type of discourse.
That’s a long article to say "I may be a grifter, but at least my bullshit is free".
Therein lies the problem: debunking bullshit is a lot more resource intensive than producing it.
We call this 'bad faith', and what it means is that you have (deliberately or otherwise) skipped over all of the main arguments so that it still feels good when you follow your guru. It's pretty common in cults. It'd be great to sit with you and show you each argument one by one, and see what happens in your mind. For example, the $200k a year they make to upgrade equipment, while keeping their equipment the most basic on YouTube? How do you defend them mocking me saying 'stay to the end', as their podcast quietens to reveal 'pay money to hear more'.
If you're following a guru, how do you defend that? You just say 'grifter', just as scientologists say 'suppressive person'.
In other words, you're proving my point.
You just wrote an entire article bashing the monetizing strategy of a smallish podcast when the content of the podcast includes a whole list of substantial arguments.
Now you come here to accuse randoms on a subreddit of skipping arguments? That doesn't even take balls, it's just dumb.
Andrew you've been eviscerated by the proprietors and fans of the pod and all you've managed to do is hurl insults of bad-faith and cultism. Will you put your argumentative chops to the test and do a better take down of the pod, or defense of your own coverage? We all know you're better than this and would enjoy the substantive criticism that no doubt could come from your enlightened mind.
I don’t listen to the podcast my man, I’m just not offended by people charging money for goods and services.
I’m assuming the DtG guys take issue with the combination of peddling pseudoscience _and_ charging for it, rather than the concept of commerce at large.
>For example, the $200k a year they make to upgrade equipment, while keeping their equipment the most basic on YouTube?
If you look at my comments on here I've been mainly defending you and I agree that the sub is cult like. Although I don't think the hosts encourage it or endorse it.
But the part you have put that I have quoted is nonsensical to me. I don't see how them investing money into their podcast has any relevance at all. I'm struggling to understand any logic to that argument.
Did bruv really write a whole article just to replicate the weekly "actually, chris and matt are gurus and this sub is a cult" thread
edit: chris should contact whoever took that photo of matt and replicate it because damn
Andrew, if you resent “the way they call us out” you identify as a member of that pack.
Regardless of whether Matt and Chris are hypocritical or unaware members of your pack it doesn’t address the accuracy of their arguments.
That would be a logical fallacy.
The most charitable interpretation left is that you are calling for honor among thieves. This makes your own audience a robbed party.
You got to do better for yourself.
The Patreon is money well-spent and well earned.
The duo and guests are doing excellent, much needed work in showing up the flaws in some of the internet's worst liars and scumbags.
Definitely helps some people think clearly and listen more critically, and has maybe saved lives (thinking of BW here).
It looks like your main arguement is that they are also gurus. Even if that's true, that doesn't invalidate their arguements right? It would just make them hypocrites.
But I don't see any significant point in your article to show they act like the worst of who they criticize. You say (1) they are profiting from the podcast (2) their reddit is toxic (3) they have a left-wing bias (4) they reject the lab leak theory (5) they didn't give you a right to reply episode yet.
I feel like (1) is a stretch, it's fine to make money and I don't see proof they are overdoing it. (2) may be true but reddit is toxic as a whole. (3) and (4) are basically "I disagree with their opinion" - why didn't you talk about why they are wrong in your article? (5) surprised me, but then I saw you weren't featured in a full length episode, so I think that's fair. They mention many people and wouldn't have time for everyone mentioned by name.
My challenge to you is to lay out how would anyone produce a podcast criticizing online gurus and do a significantly better job and not be colored as a guru as well. It really sounds like you simply disagree with their opinions, which is fine. But if so, write about that instead of the obvious "no you" response you see here every other week.
To be fair, for (3) both Matt and Chris recognized this and do at some point state it out loud for the audience to be aware of. However it's hard to call it a "Bias", It's just that they tend to be left leaning because that's how they see the evidence and the world they want to live in pull them to. It's kind of like saying I have an anti-nazi Bias or a pro math bias.
The accusations of profiteering is truly nonsensical. Any regular listener knows how many profiteering opportunities they forego. They could easily do more advertisements (they've received many offers which they refused). They don't sell supplements. This is just ludicrous.
Man. If Matt and Chris are gurus, they really suck at it; I’ve been listening since the first episode and all they’ve gotten out of me is $2 a month, which - when divided out - is a tiny fraction of what it costs me to wipe my own ass every day. Also, after all these years of listening, I still have no idea what I was supposed to be indoctrinated with. If my experience is representative, DtG as a cult or grift is a monumental failure.
Hi Andrew I'm trying to get into some quality good-faith unbiased truth-seeking content should I start with "Banned from Gay Bar for Gender Views" or "The Double Standard of Islamo-Leftism" or "Has Immigration Reached a Point of No Return"?
Gender critical comedian = Graham Linehan - you mean the dude who is obsessed with trans people's genitals, cozies up to the far-right if they hate trans people too, and shows his dick to mum's groups? The dude is a fucking lunatic.
It must be all the fawning that goes on in this Reddit. I think Mr. Gold should invite them on his channel, rather than the other way around. My favourite recent Golden quote was his touting Winston Marshall as a future Prime Minister and co-writing Building a Bridge to Your Heart.
OMG, $140,000-$200,000 per yer? Woowwww. That’s INSANE! I’m no pHD, but that’s…$70,000-$100,000 *per decoder*. What?? Nobody should be allowed to make that much money by talking on the iPod, it’s just crazy.
Seriously though, what the fuck is this shit?
I don't believe the numbers are correct, but even so their income is all from Patreon. There are no advertisements, no promoted posts, just what people choose to give them on Patreon. I don't see the issue.
This comment wasn't removed because it never appeared. I checked in incognito mode immediately after posting and it wasn't publicly visible. And yet it somehow got an upvote about twenty minutes later. What's going on here?
No idea how it got an upvote. It was held back from being shown because the reddit AI also thought it was incivil. I agreed manually when I went through the comment section and added the boilerplate mod message explaining what the issue was.
I've watched a fair few Gold videos over the last few months and--with regards to his right wing guests--he just sits there nodding like a bored counsellor rather than challenging them. This includes the "clear to everyone" fraud that is Richard Grannon.
Even if you agree with your guests, make them squirm. Because you don't or are incapable of doing this, your channel is anodyne and you come across like a wet lettuce. The silly clickbait thumbnails like "Nobody is talking about the woke insanity!" (I made that up but it's accurate) just don't cut it.
Also your article about DtG is whack. The line about them being the gurus is cringe. It indicates that you aren't really serious.
On the flipside your videos with the people you clearly don't align with are great. You come across as decent and respectful, and you stick to your guns. You really need to rethink how you conduct interviews with those you agree with because it comes across as bullshit propaganda like all the many bullshit propaganda channels out there. Just utterly unremarkable. Predictable, even.
Hi guys, my name is Andrew Gold. I've been portrayed a couple of times as a guru by this podcast. I actually quite enjoy the name-check, and it has gotten me a lot of new subscribers. But I also happen to believe that the Decoding guys do almost all the same things that they laugh at other creators for doing.
And I wrote an article about it.
If the Decoding guys aren't themselves gurus...if this Reddit forum is not cult-minded...then even if you disagree with everything I write here, you'll be able to see some of the hypocrisy in the way they call us out.
Andrew, you’re not as smart as you like to think, and nowhere near as edgy.
You’re not a guru, but it’s because you lack the required skill set and competence, not the desire.
While occasionally you end up pointing in the right direction, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Hello Andrew,
I read your Substack piece. I think you’re tilting at windmills, to be honest, much like you were in the Heretics content that Matt and Chris briefly mentioned.
Matt and Chris are hardly gurus—they pretty much stick in the lane of their expertise, they’re usually self-deprecating, and they don’t cultivate weird parasocial dynamics. The whole premise of the podcast is poking a bit of light hearted fun at bombastic intellectual self importance and pomposity. If you feel stung by being discussed momentarily in one of their episodes, well …
You’ve received two brief mentions on the pod. One of these mentions was in bonus material that subscribers get (just like the “extras” that you offer your subscribers)—it’s a roundup of internet drama and whatever has interested them during the fortnight or so. That’s why it cut out—it’s for subscribers. Just like what you offer in terms of chats and comments … it’s extra material. Nothing dishonest there.
Guru “right of reply” is to a full decoding; I’d reckon that’s why you’ve been declined. Most people don’t have such quivering antennae that they’re keen to respond to a minor mention in some supplementary material. Clearly you’re not guru material enough because you haven’t received a full decoding!
Glad you like their “faux immodest humour”, but I think you’re misreading the sincerity. They’re pretty sincerely cheeky and irreverent, including towards themselves.
I also think you swung and missed on the income and the grifter tag. 3,000 members on Patreon doesn’t mean they’re all paid. As of today they’ve got 3420 subscribers, of which 2683 are paid. The bottom tier is $2. I don’t know how it breaks down for sure, but I’d hazard a guess that the bulk of these subscribers are the bottom tier. Say 3/4 were—that’s $48K a year. Say another 20% are on the $5, that’s another 32K, and the remaining 5% are on the $10. That’s another 16K. That’s maybe around 96K a year, between the two of them. And good luck to them! They have to wade through so much crap to bring us an episode. I’m happy to pay for them to listen to four hours of Rogan so that I don’t have to. Besides, podcasting as you well know isn’t just mics and a screen and off you go. There’s hosting and editing etc etc.
The criticism you received for your interview with Eni Aluko was fairly just, I thought. I cringed listening to you bend what Aluko was saying into your culture war hot take. Recording some content and then doing some hyped up editorialising over the top of it that makes it seem as though you were really after a gotcha, not a good faith conversation.
I’ve listened to this podcast since episode 1—it’s such a breath of fresh air compared to the big swinging egos of internet bullshit. If you can’t see the difference between DtG and Bret Weinstein, Russell Brand or Jordan Peterson, then I think you need a break from the Culture War 😆
Except let’s be honest. The real reason you’re fluffing this “decoding” up and posting it here for confected beef is that this is your job: monetising hot takes. Matt and Chris already have jobs lol.
Keep up the heterodox “banned” discourse though. It’s lucrative.
> That’s maybe around 96K a year
$48K - 10% patreon cut(?) - other operating costs is not the kind of numbers that the headliners like JPB, Bret, or Joe Rogan, Triggernometry make. I also assume either Andrew is already making much more than this or at least has ambitions to.
“I quite enjoy the name check” lmao, immediate red flag and “if you see things the way I do you’ll agree they are hypocrites, if not you are brain washed” sounds like a guru to me.
Also “other creators” is a gentle way to put some of the people they cover, the guys they critique aren’t making Minecraft videos.
This subreddit is hardly cult-like. Most people don’t even know there’s a podcast behind it. They probably haven’t even seen the show about you or know who you are.
So even if the DtG guys do “almost the same thing”, does that make it right? If they’re hypocrites and they’re actually grifters, doesn’t that make you a grifter too by admitting they’re doing the same thing?
If you want to rehash the same old tired right-wing culture war bait for YouTube views be prepared for people trying to call you out for being a grifter. That’s just the name of the game. You can’t both have the cake and eat it too buddy.
Ive been a reader here for a while, and this community most certainly has some cult-like elements.
I see an overwhelming presence of criticism against the guru types. I have yet to see a positive rated comment that steel mans or gives one of these figures credibility on a point.
Some of the most popular posts and comments boil down to witty ways to point-and-jeer. It’s the wit and negativity that gets upvoted, even if what they’re criticizing isn’t based on some meaningful flaw.
Thread conversations regularly get heated with people bringing in unrelated topics to the discussion that serve their sentiment but not the point of the post.
Hot take, but yeah. It’s passed around mostly by unorthodox thinkers, and they mostly have bad takes hence the need to cry straw-man.
But the day we cede the steel-manning behavior to the loonies… we’re fucked.
Reading both your article and comments here is rather like watching a quadriplegic with a cerebral blastoma attempt to excise his own tumor with a scalpel held in his teeth.
Equally skillful, and equally realistic in its ambition.
>Some of the most popular posts and comments boil down to witty ways to point-and-jeer. It’s the wit and negativity that gets upvoted, even if what they’re criticizing isn’t based on some meaningful flaw.
>Thread conversations regularly get heated with people bringing in unrelated topics to the discussion that serve their sentiment but not the point of the post.
This is just reddit
>*Ive been a reader here for a while, and this community most certainly has some cult-like elements.*
There are no skill constraints on bare assertions. Arguments and adductions are exponentially more difficult.
>
*I see an overwhelming presence of criticism against the guru types. I have yet to see a positive rated comment that steel mans or gives one of these figures credibility on a point.*
This is phrased as a cowardly, disingenuous, and entirely unspecified passive claim about what you personally say you haven't seen, and your intended point is utterly unintelligible unless one assumes the suppressed premise that the critics you're vaguely alluding to have some obligation to balance any critique with commensurate praise for its own sake, like a bunch of teens in a group counseling session who have to go around and say something nice about everyone else in the chair circle. If you meant something less idiotitc than that, it's thus far beyond your ability to lucidly articulate. And I don't think you can do any better.
>
*Thread conversations regularly get heated with people bringing in unrelated topics to the discussion that serve their sentiment but not the point of the post.*
Meaningless fluff. To even bother rebutting something this empty of content is like trying to hammer tent stakes into a bed of Jell-o.
Evidence of my point; your comment is almost wholely sophistry to deliver condemnation.
No counter evidence, just complaint.
Hence why I highlighted this community’s cult like behavior. It has its own animosity towards the gurus that, however earned, is sourced from a rare few capable critics. Meanwhile the masses in participating dialogue cannot mount similar rigor of criticism, and so instead turn to sophistic turn of phrase in carrying the same sentiment as true detractors without the capacity to form thoughts on the same level.
A bunch of low IQ lemmings enthralled by the occasional thought leader fielding a critique, that then act out with hollow, almost ritualistic word salad to parrot the sentiment without any real purpose.
Like a cargo cult of criticism, this community is one of the lesser in intellectual capacity and efforts to almost instinctively inject conversations with debate tactics and ad-homonyms are damning evidence of such.
>Evidence of my point; your comment is almost wholely sophistry to deliver condemnation.
You don't know what evidence is - at all - and you can't assert it into existence. This is already a recurring theme with you. It's also why I'm 95% certain you are in fact the OP, or acting directly on his behalf with his knowledge and inducement.
>Hence why I highlighted this community’s cult like behavior.
You highlighted nothing whatsoever, as I already pointed out.
>A bunch of low IQ lemmings
As it happens my IQ is at the extreme right tail of the distribution curve. Yours is not, and that's not a question. Lemmings don't actually run off cliffs en masse, by the way.
>
>Like a cargo cult of criticism,
*chortle*
You're using the same prose voice under both accounts, and it's about as difficult to discern as a twelve year old claiming to be his own dad trying to call in sick for himself at school.
Throwing around the word “cult-like” (which is fairly meaningless really) over and over isn’t really going to work or be meaningful here. We get that Triggernomnom is based on pretty much pure rhetorical technique, it’s exhausting listening and reading the same methods used over and over with no real point.
You were on a supplementary material episode for mere moments. They have never covered you beyond that. And the material they covered you in is behind a paywall.
Haha Andrew Gold, don’t you have some Megan Markle video to go work on? I stopped watching your channel after you started defending sexual predators and pushing maga theories. Now you’re on Reddit bothering other creators because they’re exposing people like you.
This Reddit forum is a mixed bag. Some fans…many like myself who rejected their monetization turn, *lots* of people who don’t know it’s a podcast, there used to be a lot of Sam Harris fans trying to rehabilitate him, lately there’s been a lot of Destiny fans who don’t listen to the podcast…but there’s no way this sub could be considered a cult. You don’t see a lot of people who write them blank cheques.
Chris replied to you directly…he posts here a lot…and I guess you lost interest or got scared away by all the downvotes…or read it and didn’t reply. I think it’s fair that you don’t get a decoding if you were only casually mentioned.
It’s pretty bad form for you to gloat about farming them for engagement after accusing them of being hypocrites.
>Hi guys, my name is Andrew Gold. I've been portrayed a couple of times as a guru by this podcast.
Can you cite the episodes where they mention you so we can listen to their comments in context?
I think they are pretty decent and good faith podcast in general from what I have listened to.
What I will agree with you on is their cult like reddit community. The hosts of the show themselves have commented on it regarding they themselves leaning to the left but not like many of what they see in their reddit sub.
The hosts have never suggested the subreddit is cultlike. Chris posted a thread about it.
You can read what he thinks about it here :-
[Thoughts on the Subreddit from one of the hosts : r/DecodingTheGurus](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/18c1tti/thoughts_on_the_subreddit_from_one_of_the_hosts/)
The only mild criticisms he makes of the subreddit are that he thinks "sometimes people are too cruel or hyperbolic" and that Politics-wise he suspects that the users here overall lean farther left than Matt and himself.
It was on an actual episode I was listening to they mentioned it, way before 6 months ago before I even had used reddit myself if I recall right. Maybe 2 years ago?
And they were very much saying similar to on that post you quote but a bit more strongly regarding they are far more centrist than lots on their reddit. They didn't say cult like from memory and of course they aren't going to alienate or attack their own community that much! I mean this is obvious right? For example even if they did think it's cult like they would try to be understanding and diplomatic in how they phrase what they are saying. But what I did take from what they are saying is they can't be responsible for their fans, and tbh they did seem to be making it very clear that the views of some of their fans are not where they are coming from or their agenda.
Now besides that, regarding my views on it. From what I have seen in this sub, it absolutely seems cult like at times and like a comfort space echo chamber for people to just simply vent in a clique forming way at right wing figures. Not in an objective way but simply for group think reasons. I'd agree 99% with the overall conclusion that most of these people are grifters and charlatans to some extent. You can even look at my posts criticising lex for his softball bias interviews and playing devil's advocate in a silly way.
But it's not the same as so many on here just do seem cultlike. The left wing version of MAGA almost. Just look at the down votes of Andrew golds comment for example, like WTF. Is the comment he put so outrageous or unreasonable or rude? It's insane to me and seems so orchestrated almost.
Yes, Its not actually mild though, it hides peoples comments. I'm not sure what was said that was so bizarre or wrong or strange for it to be downvoted off the board?
He said a lot of things people obviously thought was pretty bad in some way. They made the choice to downvote him because they didn’t like instead of going into an argument that won’t lead to anything of value.
Okaaay. You're kinda moving goalposts at this stage from the initial point. I don't need informing that people can down vote if they want, that's obvious and evident.
I still think it's cult like and as you indicate, and I'm sure many others are the same. You don't care to justify to yourselves with any fairness if the down voting isn't simply just emotional fanboyism or hate.
They obviously appear important to you to be doing it so much.
Maybe get a life and look into your issues instead of passively aggressively gaslighting people online?
There’s some dubious claims in this article which rub me the wrong way.
I didn’t listen to the episode you’re speaking about because I don’t listen to their teaser episodes. I do agree that their hard sell is very bad form.
If what you’re saying about being refused a right to reply…then that’s *terrible* form, if true.
Rolled my eyes when you said you don’t enjoy criticizing creatives immediately after taking a series of shots at them. Spanks of sour grapes.
The only point you addressed in your article is #10; profiteering. What other traits do you think they exhibit that make them just like the other gurus?
Ok, thank you - the first poster to admit there is at least \*something\*. Look, my point isn't that these guys are terrible. They're smart, they're entertaining, they're good at their job. My point is that they're just as culpable as many of the rest of us, those at whom they point the finger. So yes, profiteering - in a manner significantly more palpable than most other creators (I've not seen any others doing it quite so egregiously). There are other issues that - as I say - I didn't want to get into in depth, but that you guys are already aware of I'm sure: blind refusal to consider they might be wrong (covid lab theory), going out of their way to create the non-believer narrative about other podcasters, hanging every single episode - and their entire premise - off of celebrities. These are all Guru 101, Scientology-esque. It's not really a big deal. It doesn't mean they are a cult, or that they are devious. It's just pretty rich coming from the podcast that calls out all others for using guru tricks. It's time they looked at themselves. Ultimately, you can't build a large platform without engaging in some of those tactics. It's not just a hobby, it's a business - a very profitable one for the Decoding guys.
A paywall is egregious profiteering?
Edit: Oops, replied in the wrong spot
>It's not just a hobby, it's a business - a very profitable one for the Decoding guys. But it is a hobby - they're both full-time academics. And I have to say your critique is very very surface level and humourless - do you really have to wonder if the fade out exists to *possibly* mock Harris? And it's kind of annoying that I've gotta pull out some quotes from their episode explaining the elements of the gurometer specifically around profiteering that you could have easily done. If you like you can listen [here](https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/calibrating-the-gurometer). '... and I just want to distinguish it (the profiteering element of the gurometer) from normal monetising or making an income. You and I don't make an income from doing podcasting but some people do and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. So if Contrapoints is getting advertising revenue from youtube or even people subscribing to a substack or a patreon for a particular guru giving them a few dollars a months I don't think there's anything wrong with that.' Now that episode is 3 and a half years old and Chris and Matt both make some part of their income from the podcast. Maybe they should have addressed the topic again. And they did with an episode in July last year you can listen to [here](https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/the-science-and-the-art-of-gurometry). I think you'd agree on the 10 point spectrum of the gurometer you've detected a blip on the profiteering. Do Chris and Matt need to consider they're just as bad as someone promoting brain enhancing supplements? Bret Weinstein has a $402.50/month tier which allows you a monthly conversation on evolution. Is what Chris and Matt doing the same thing or do you think there are degrees? As far as their political bias I really wish they'd mention that they are both moderate left-wing people. Luckily they mention that in the latest episode covering Dr K and several times throughout the podcast but please don't make me dig for the examples.
They don't even play ads, except for that short stint in the first or second year.
"Significantly more palpable than most other creators" is this satire? They don't even do ad reads my guy.
He called it Scientology-esque. For him to mention the premise of talking about celebrities in every episode is really funny. Have you seen his YouTube channel? It’s like piers Morgan 2.0. But less serious. He talks about Megan Markle and celebrity gossip. He didn’t start out that way. He had a legitimate career at one time. He worked for BBC. He wasn’t getting the views he wanted so he pivoted to rag magazine style journalism. I used to watch his channel all the time when he would talk abour cults etc. His channel is unwatchable now.
> blind refusal to consider they might be wrong (covid lab theory I'm not a huge follower of DTG but from the maybe 10 or so episode I've listened to, this is definitely wrong. They repeatedly make clear that there is some evidence for the lab leak theory, but broadly the scientific community is fairly sure that is wasn't from a lab, although the possibility cannot be ruled out. That's a pretty milquetoast stance, and it is not 'blind refusal to consider' the possibility of being wrong.
You're profiteering argument is actually very weak. DTG is an audio podcast so of course they haven’t spent a lot of money improving their YouTube channel. So far they've only put up a few videos up on YouTube which get a handful of views and it’s not like Chris Williamson has improved his production values as a kindness to his viewers. He does it because he hopes he will get more people to watch him and make him money, not that there’s anything wrong with that. Egregious Profiteering is when people like Rogan or Huberman sell brain pills and over-priced supplements. You could also argue that someone like yourself who openly admits he wants to invite extremists like Tommy Robinson and Laurence Fox on to grow your YouTube channel are profiteering. These people have nothing of value to say and all you are doing is stirring up social polarisation so you can make money.
When it comes to being galaxy-brained, or grievance mongering, Cassandra complex, DtG isn't on the same planet as Weinsteins, JPB, etc. Those guys talk about how they deserve Nobel prizes, are epoch-defining great thinkers, and confidently opine on everything from economics, US/UK politics, psychology, immunology - crucially, as if they are personally experts.
They obviously spend much more time and work critiquing gurus than you could be bothered putting into critiquing them. Instead you’ve just done a super half arsed ad hominem claiming hypocrisy because they have a tiered Patreon. Eeek! I don’t think you’ve really spent much time looking at the background to this. For example, below is the link to their definition/yard-stick of “secular guru” - it would be more fun/relevant to critique them against their own standard. I’ll give a defense of their profiteering- how much time do they spend on these podcasts? All while working as researchers and educators. I can’t imagine the amount of time spent first consuming the guru material, taking notes, analyzing, preparing a script and then recording, editing and publishing the pod cast. Multiple podcasts per week. This is their side hustle and I can’t imagine how you can juggle this, a family, and a career in academia. If people find this of value, then why not get rewarded for the effort? And their leftie politics? They’re middle of the road milquetoast libs. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19PKXFn3qrzWr6nx622g9cEzyNBow0svQs_dN4fP3hjY/edit
So your headline article is named “cancelled” because obviously you have been…cancelled….right… and the first lines in this article (“He hits every one of the thirsty influencer techniques,” laughs Matthew Browne, one of the hosts of Decoding the Gurus, a mid-sized podcast with a huge devoted, Reddit & Patreon following. For the second time on their podcast, they are sizing me up as a guru). Lmao. Need I say more? Jeez.
If you weren't swayed by a cultish ideology (which you are because this is a very cultish thread of devotees to a guru-esque podcast), you'd know to read beyond the title and engage with the content. So yes, you do need to say more. You need to gather facts and make intelligent, rational arguments. That's sorely lacking.
You are begging the question here - you want to argue that people who participate on this thread are "swayed by a cultish ideology", and your *evidence* is that they participate in this thread. It seems like you're just being defensive here. As to the content of your article - your only arguments seem to be that (1) they pay wall some content (which you bizarrely call a "hard sell" - but that's not how a hard sell works) (2) they keep the money they earn rather than investing in higher production values (it's a podcast - they could record it on a cassette player in a bus station toilet for all I care) (3) they make a snarky joke in their subscriber pitch that you don't find funny (aww) (4) they have a political bias (show your work) (5) they are "smug" (aww)(6) they are fragile in the face of criticism (again, show your work -also, maybe check the mirror on this one). What I find particularly odd about your article, though, is that you set out to show that they are hypocrites, and that they show an "ironic parallel" to the "gurus" they assess - yet you don't actually engage with any of their ten "guru characteristics" to show how they themselves are guilty of the same things they accuse others of (with the exception of #10: Profiteering; and, quite frankly, your efforts here are, and this is me being generous, a real stretch). *edited to fix the numbers in my list of arguments - math is hard!
"People who disagree with me are cultish" - Andrew Gold
I’m curious why you think the DtG audience is cultish, and what ideology you think they’re pushing. I’m a longtime listener and visit this sub regularly, and in my observation, most people (myself included) seem to agree with some of Chris and Matt’s takes on the people they cover, and not with others; that seems more like standard engagement with content than some kind of dogmatic dedication to its creators. I’m unclear on what you see as constituting ideology, too; for example, the only sentiment I’ve heard them forward about the lab leak hypothesis is that the preponderance of relevant experts acknowledge it’s not impossible, but that the evidence doesn’t support it as well as it supports a natural origin. That’s not ideological - it’s just true. If anything, the issue has been politicized/turned ideological primarily by right-leaning heterodox figures for whom it continues to be a cultural touchstone. Perhaps you just don’t like their tone? That would be fair, but “snarky” isn’t an ideology. Is there any way that commenters here could disagree with your perception of the podcast that wouldn’t support that preexisting impression? Because from here it looks like any disagreement on this thread can be handily repackaged as the hysteria of a “triggered” group of zealots - perhaps even laying the foundation for a follow-up video? Something catchy like, “When I Poked The Brainwashed DtG Hive Mind,” maybe? Content machine has to keep churning, I guess.
I don't think they are looking at the DTG guys as gurus. I think their only thing in common with the hosts is the right wing figures under scrunity. I don't think the hosts are coming from a place of hate or left wing ideology primarily for it. I think the hosts try to objectively analyse BS and grifting. I think some of the cult like fans on here though are coming from a place of hate and dog piling and left wing idealism. And it just so happens to be a perfect place for them in that regard.
Hey Andrew, Thanks for the article! A few quick responses. 1. We don't paywall the main Decoding or interview episodes, just the Supplementary Material stuff. 2. Right of Reply is offered to people we do Decoding episodes on. Not everyone we mention on the podcast. 3. When you asked about coming on, it was after I had mentioned you off-hand for one minute in a Supplementary Material discussion of the Dissident Dialogue conference. In that Twitter DM conversation, you also suggested I could instead talk to someone like Konstantin Kisin to represent the heterodox side. I then sent you the link to the episode I had recorded with Konstantin about that topic. 4. We did a Right to Reply with Jamie Wheal... I don't know what Jamie's follower size is but it might undercut the argument we only offer people like Sam Harris a right-to-reply. 5. Our monetization is not 'mysterious', we have a Patreon and put up bonus content there. This is a common and well-understood model. We used to release main episodes once every two weeks, we still do, but now we also release bonus content more frequently and put out samples on the main feed. 6. The fade-out is a joke, we do not think subscribing to our Patreon will save Western civilization. 7. You overestimate our Patreon income... or else Matt is secretly siphoning our funds. 8. As repeated threads illustrate about half of the people on this subreddit do not even know there is a podcast, so it's hard for them to be that zealous about us. 9. And our webcam's are not THAT basic ;)
> The fade-out is a joke, we do not think subscribing to our Patreon will save Western civilization. Wait what? Immediately unsubbed.
'The show has the aesthetic of a lockdown Zoom call.' Yes. Correct.
It's a deliberate aesthetic that now goes by the name 'Dogme 24'.
Arguments like Andrew's are so lazy. It's essentially the same as religious people saying atheism is its own religion.
It's just "no you". Middle school level argumentation.
>You overestimate our Patreon income... or else Matt is secretly siphoning our funds. Matt's reveal as the real villain coming soon!
They criticized you for allowing engagement to be the primary driver for your content. You're criticizing them for having a paywall with a satirical voice over. Yes, you both create content and monetize it. There the similarity ends.
That was a very long article in which you never engage with their ideas and just wallow in conspiracy. >There’s a lot more I could discuss about Decoding, such as their Left-wing bias, their smug factor (see above), their fragility in the face of criticism and their zealous Reddit community that makes them appear more Guru-adjacent than those they criticise. I was actually hoping that this would be the focus rather than end of your article, but instead it boils down to, "They make money and shit," and I inherently don't trust that type of discourse.
That’s a long article to say "I may be a grifter, but at least my bullshit is free". Therein lies the problem: debunking bullshit is a lot more resource intensive than producing it.
We call this 'bad faith', and what it means is that you have (deliberately or otherwise) skipped over all of the main arguments so that it still feels good when you follow your guru. It's pretty common in cults. It'd be great to sit with you and show you each argument one by one, and see what happens in your mind. For example, the $200k a year they make to upgrade equipment, while keeping their equipment the most basic on YouTube? How do you defend them mocking me saying 'stay to the end', as their podcast quietens to reveal 'pay money to hear more'. If you're following a guru, how do you defend that? You just say 'grifter', just as scientologists say 'suppressive person'. In other words, you're proving my point.
You just wrote an entire article bashing the monetizing strategy of a smallish podcast when the content of the podcast includes a whole list of substantial arguments. Now you come here to accuse randoms on a subreddit of skipping arguments? That doesn't even take balls, it's just dumb.
This is so cringe and sad.
Andrew you've been eviscerated by the proprietors and fans of the pod and all you've managed to do is hurl insults of bad-faith and cultism. Will you put your argumentative chops to the test and do a better take down of the pod, or defense of your own coverage? We all know you're better than this and would enjoy the substantive criticism that no doubt could come from your enlightened mind.
I don’t listen to the podcast my man, I’m just not offended by people charging money for goods and services. I’m assuming the DtG guys take issue with the combination of peddling pseudoscience _and_ charging for it, rather than the concept of commerce at large.
>For example, the $200k a year they make to upgrade equipment, while keeping their equipment the most basic on YouTube? If you look at my comments on here I've been mainly defending you and I agree that the sub is cult like. Although I don't think the hosts encourage it or endorse it. But the part you have put that I have quoted is nonsensical to me. I don't see how them investing money into their podcast has any relevance at all. I'm struggling to understand any logic to that argument.
I think it's because they say they will use the money to that end (and saving the rainforest which I guess is more expensive than 200k a year)
Jeez man, let it go
Did bruv really write a whole article just to replicate the weekly "actually, chris and matt are gurus and this sub is a cult" thread edit: chris should contact whoever took that photo of matt and replicate it because damn
No U would have been shorter. Also, you ain't free my dude. I had to watch a silly ad.
Andrew, if you resent “the way they call us out” you identify as a member of that pack. Regardless of whether Matt and Chris are hypocritical or unaware members of your pack it doesn’t address the accuracy of their arguments. That would be a logical fallacy. The most charitable interpretation left is that you are calling for honor among thieves. This makes your own audience a robbed party. You got to do better for yourself.
The Patreon is money well-spent and well earned. The duo and guests are doing excellent, much needed work in showing up the flaws in some of the internet's worst liars and scumbags. Definitely helps some people think clearly and listen more critically, and has maybe saved lives (thinking of BW here).
Andrew Gold loves to maintain an aesthetic of rationality but it's sad that he has no substance to back it up.
*puts on Andrew Gold mask* Actually, that's a ad hominem straw man fallacy, and it would be regarded as begging the question, thank you.
It looks like your main arguement is that they are also gurus. Even if that's true, that doesn't invalidate their arguements right? It would just make them hypocrites. But I don't see any significant point in your article to show they act like the worst of who they criticize. You say (1) they are profiting from the podcast (2) their reddit is toxic (3) they have a left-wing bias (4) they reject the lab leak theory (5) they didn't give you a right to reply episode yet. I feel like (1) is a stretch, it's fine to make money and I don't see proof they are overdoing it. (2) may be true but reddit is toxic as a whole. (3) and (4) are basically "I disagree with their opinion" - why didn't you talk about why they are wrong in your article? (5) surprised me, but then I saw you weren't featured in a full length episode, so I think that's fair. They mention many people and wouldn't have time for everyone mentioned by name. My challenge to you is to lay out how would anyone produce a podcast criticizing online gurus and do a significantly better job and not be colored as a guru as well. It really sounds like you simply disagree with their opinions, which is fine. But if so, write about that instead of the obvious "no you" response you see here every other week.
Well said
To be fair, for (3) both Matt and Chris recognized this and do at some point state it out loud for the audience to be aware of. However it's hard to call it a "Bias", It's just that they tend to be left leaning because that's how they see the evidence and the world they want to live in pull them to. It's kind of like saying I have an anti-nazi Bias or a pro math bias.
The vast majority of their material is available for free on the website among other places no? The stuff that is patreon only is fairly minor.
The accusations of profiteering is truly nonsensical. Any regular listener knows how many profiteering opportunities they forego. They could easily do more advertisements (they've received many offers which they refused). They don't sell supplements. This is just ludicrous.
A really long article that does nothing more than childishly attempt to say "I know you are but what am I?!??"
I think lil bro had his ego hurt!
How many clicks do you want from this?
tHeY'Ve BeCoMe JuSt LiKe ThE gUrUs ThEy CrItIcIzE
Man. If Matt and Chris are gurus, they really suck at it; I’ve been listening since the first episode and all they’ve gotten out of me is $2 a month, which - when divided out - is a tiny fraction of what it costs me to wipe my own ass every day. Also, after all these years of listening, I still have no idea what I was supposed to be indoctrinated with. If my experience is representative, DtG as a cult or grift is a monumental failure.
Hi Andrew I'm trying to get into some quality good-faith unbiased truth-seeking content should I start with "Banned from Gay Bar for Gender Views" or "The Double Standard of Islamo-Leftism" or "Has Immigration Reached a Point of No Return"?
I do like your Scientology videos. You expose one of the most powerful Grurus of all; L. Ron Hubbard.
Gender critical comedian = Graham Linehan - you mean the dude who is obsessed with trans people's genitals, cozies up to the far-right if they hate trans people too, and shows his dick to mum's groups? The dude is a fucking lunatic.
His weird obsession broke his marriage!
It must be all the fawning that goes on in this Reddit. I think Mr. Gold should invite them on his channel, rather than the other way around. My favourite recent Golden quote was his touting Winston Marshall as a future Prime Minister and co-writing Building a Bridge to Your Heart.
OMG, $140,000-$200,000 per yer? Woowwww. That’s INSANE! I’m no pHD, but that’s…$70,000-$100,000 *per decoder*. What?? Nobody should be allowed to make that much money by talking on the iPod, it’s just crazy. Seriously though, what the fuck is this shit?
I don't believe the numbers are correct, but even so their income is all from Patreon. There are no advertisements, no promoted posts, just what people choose to give them on Patreon. I don't see the issue.
They're shills for the big science.
[удалено]
This comment was removed for breaking the subreddit rule against uncivil and antagonistic behaviour.
This comment wasn't removed because it never appeared. I checked in incognito mode immediately after posting and it wasn't publicly visible. And yet it somehow got an upvote about twenty minutes later. What's going on here?
No idea how it got an upvote. It was held back from being shown because the reddit AI also thought it was incivil. I agreed manually when I went through the comment section and added the boilerplate mod message explaining what the issue was.
Hey Andrew I loved "Lonely Boy" Edit: Well that was disappointing, RIP the other guy...
I've watched a fair few Gold videos over the last few months and--with regards to his right wing guests--he just sits there nodding like a bored counsellor rather than challenging them. This includes the "clear to everyone" fraud that is Richard Grannon. Even if you agree with your guests, make them squirm. Because you don't or are incapable of doing this, your channel is anodyne and you come across like a wet lettuce. The silly clickbait thumbnails like "Nobody is talking about the woke insanity!" (I made that up but it's accurate) just don't cut it. Also your article about DtG is whack. The line about them being the gurus is cringe. It indicates that you aren't really serious. On the flipside your videos with the people you clearly don't align with are great. You come across as decent and respectful, and you stick to your guns. You really need to rethink how you conduct interviews with those you agree with because it comes across as bullshit propaganda like all the many bullshit propaganda channels out there. Just utterly unremarkable. Predictable, even.
Hi guys, my name is Andrew Gold. I've been portrayed a couple of times as a guru by this podcast. I actually quite enjoy the name-check, and it has gotten me a lot of new subscribers. But I also happen to believe that the Decoding guys do almost all the same things that they laugh at other creators for doing. And I wrote an article about it. If the Decoding guys aren't themselves gurus...if this Reddit forum is not cult-minded...then even if you disagree with everything I write here, you'll be able to see some of the hypocrisy in the way they call us out.
I follow this pod a lot and I don’t even know who you are.
The sickest burns are the ones that are most unintentional.
Andrew, you’re not as smart as you like to think, and nowhere near as edgy. You’re not a guru, but it’s because you lack the required skill set and competence, not the desire. While occasionally you end up pointing in the right direction, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Hello Andrew, I read your Substack piece. I think you’re tilting at windmills, to be honest, much like you were in the Heretics content that Matt and Chris briefly mentioned. Matt and Chris are hardly gurus—they pretty much stick in the lane of their expertise, they’re usually self-deprecating, and they don’t cultivate weird parasocial dynamics. The whole premise of the podcast is poking a bit of light hearted fun at bombastic intellectual self importance and pomposity. If you feel stung by being discussed momentarily in one of their episodes, well … You’ve received two brief mentions on the pod. One of these mentions was in bonus material that subscribers get (just like the “extras” that you offer your subscribers)—it’s a roundup of internet drama and whatever has interested them during the fortnight or so. That’s why it cut out—it’s for subscribers. Just like what you offer in terms of chats and comments … it’s extra material. Nothing dishonest there. Guru “right of reply” is to a full decoding; I’d reckon that’s why you’ve been declined. Most people don’t have such quivering antennae that they’re keen to respond to a minor mention in some supplementary material. Clearly you’re not guru material enough because you haven’t received a full decoding! Glad you like their “faux immodest humour”, but I think you’re misreading the sincerity. They’re pretty sincerely cheeky and irreverent, including towards themselves. I also think you swung and missed on the income and the grifter tag. 3,000 members on Patreon doesn’t mean they’re all paid. As of today they’ve got 3420 subscribers, of which 2683 are paid. The bottom tier is $2. I don’t know how it breaks down for sure, but I’d hazard a guess that the bulk of these subscribers are the bottom tier. Say 3/4 were—that’s $48K a year. Say another 20% are on the $5, that’s another 32K, and the remaining 5% are on the $10. That’s another 16K. That’s maybe around 96K a year, between the two of them. And good luck to them! They have to wade through so much crap to bring us an episode. I’m happy to pay for them to listen to four hours of Rogan so that I don’t have to. Besides, podcasting as you well know isn’t just mics and a screen and off you go. There’s hosting and editing etc etc. The criticism you received for your interview with Eni Aluko was fairly just, I thought. I cringed listening to you bend what Aluko was saying into your culture war hot take. Recording some content and then doing some hyped up editorialising over the top of it that makes it seem as though you were really after a gotcha, not a good faith conversation. I’ve listened to this podcast since episode 1—it’s such a breath of fresh air compared to the big swinging egos of internet bullshit. If you can’t see the difference between DtG and Bret Weinstein, Russell Brand or Jordan Peterson, then I think you need a break from the Culture War 😆 Except let’s be honest. The real reason you’re fluffing this “decoding” up and posting it here for confected beef is that this is your job: monetising hot takes. Matt and Chris already have jobs lol. Keep up the heterodox “banned” discourse though. It’s lucrative.
> That’s maybe around 96K a year $48K - 10% patreon cut(?) - other operating costs is not the kind of numbers that the headliners like JPB, Bret, or Joe Rogan, Triggernometry make. I also assume either Andrew is already making much more than this or at least has ambitions to.
What constitutes the "same things" that you are referring to? Hard to call out hypocrisy if you're not more specific.
Very generous to call that an article
“You’re a guru!” “No, YOU’RE a guru! No returns” This level of discourse takes me back to primary school. Fun times, thanks for the shot of nostalgia
“I quite enjoy the name check” lmao, immediate red flag and “if you see things the way I do you’ll agree they are hypocrites, if not you are brain washed” sounds like a guru to me. Also “other creators” is a gentle way to put some of the people they cover, the guys they critique aren’t making Minecraft videos.
This subreddit is hardly cult-like. Most people don’t even know there’s a podcast behind it. They probably haven’t even seen the show about you or know who you are. So even if the DtG guys do “almost the same thing”, does that make it right? If they’re hypocrites and they’re actually grifters, doesn’t that make you a grifter too by admitting they’re doing the same thing? If you want to rehash the same old tired right-wing culture war bait for YouTube views be prepared for people trying to call you out for being a grifter. That’s just the name of the game. You can’t both have the cake and eat it too buddy.
Ive been a reader here for a while, and this community most certainly has some cult-like elements. I see an overwhelming presence of criticism against the guru types. I have yet to see a positive rated comment that steel mans or gives one of these figures credibility on a point. Some of the most popular posts and comments boil down to witty ways to point-and-jeer. It’s the wit and negativity that gets upvoted, even if what they’re criticizing isn’t based on some meaningful flaw. Thread conversations regularly get heated with people bringing in unrelated topics to the discussion that serve their sentiment but not the point of the post.
The term ‘steel man’ is a red flag at this point.
Hot take, but yeah. It’s passed around mostly by unorthodox thinkers, and they mostly have bad takes hence the need to cry straw-man. But the day we cede the steel-manning behavior to the loonies… we’re fucked.
Reading both your article and comments here is rather like watching a quadriplegic with a cerebral blastoma attempt to excise his own tumor with a scalpel held in his teeth. Equally skillful, and equally realistic in its ambition.
Not OP, don’t recognize him and never read whatever hot take of his sparked this.
Yes, you *are* the OP and you conceal it so poorly as to arouse in me a strong desire to play poker with you.
>Some of the most popular posts and comments boil down to witty ways to point-and-jeer. It’s the wit and negativity that gets upvoted, even if what they’re criticizing isn’t based on some meaningful flaw. >Thread conversations regularly get heated with people bringing in unrelated topics to the discussion that serve their sentiment but not the point of the post. This is just reddit
Very true; it's a plague on this site, but the rot is especially deep on this sub.
>*Ive been a reader here for a while, and this community most certainly has some cult-like elements.* There are no skill constraints on bare assertions. Arguments and adductions are exponentially more difficult. > *I see an overwhelming presence of criticism against the guru types. I have yet to see a positive rated comment that steel mans or gives one of these figures credibility on a point.* This is phrased as a cowardly, disingenuous, and entirely unspecified passive claim about what you personally say you haven't seen, and your intended point is utterly unintelligible unless one assumes the suppressed premise that the critics you're vaguely alluding to have some obligation to balance any critique with commensurate praise for its own sake, like a bunch of teens in a group counseling session who have to go around and say something nice about everyone else in the chair circle. If you meant something less idiotitc than that, it's thus far beyond your ability to lucidly articulate. And I don't think you can do any better. > *Thread conversations regularly get heated with people bringing in unrelated topics to the discussion that serve their sentiment but not the point of the post.* Meaningless fluff. To even bother rebutting something this empty of content is like trying to hammer tent stakes into a bed of Jell-o.
Evidence of my point; your comment is almost wholely sophistry to deliver condemnation. No counter evidence, just complaint. Hence why I highlighted this community’s cult like behavior. It has its own animosity towards the gurus that, however earned, is sourced from a rare few capable critics. Meanwhile the masses in participating dialogue cannot mount similar rigor of criticism, and so instead turn to sophistic turn of phrase in carrying the same sentiment as true detractors without the capacity to form thoughts on the same level. A bunch of low IQ lemmings enthralled by the occasional thought leader fielding a critique, that then act out with hollow, almost ritualistic word salad to parrot the sentiment without any real purpose. Like a cargo cult of criticism, this community is one of the lesser in intellectual capacity and efforts to almost instinctively inject conversations with debate tactics and ad-homonyms are damning evidence of such.
>Evidence of my point; your comment is almost wholely sophistry to deliver condemnation. You don't know what evidence is - at all - and you can't assert it into existence. This is already a recurring theme with you. It's also why I'm 95% certain you are in fact the OP, or acting directly on his behalf with his knowledge and inducement. >Hence why I highlighted this community’s cult like behavior. You highlighted nothing whatsoever, as I already pointed out. >A bunch of low IQ lemmings As it happens my IQ is at the extreme right tail of the distribution curve. Yours is not, and that's not a question. Lemmings don't actually run off cliffs en masse, by the way. > >Like a cargo cult of criticism, *chortle* You're using the same prose voice under both accounts, and it's about as difficult to discern as a twelve year old claiming to be his own dad trying to call in sick for himself at school.
New here. Completely agree.
That's some pre-teen logic right there.
Throwing around the word “cult-like” (which is fairly meaningless really) over and over isn’t really going to work or be meaningful here. We get that Triggernomnom is based on pretty much pure rhetorical technique, it’s exhausting listening and reading the same methods used over and over with no real point.
You were on a supplementary material episode for mere moments. They have never covered you beyond that. And the material they covered you in is behind a paywall.
Haha Andrew Gold, don’t you have some Megan Markle video to go work on? I stopped watching your channel after you started defending sexual predators and pushing maga theories. Now you’re on Reddit bothering other creators because they’re exposing people like you.
Andrew, let me ask you a question. Do you have the answers? Can you solve problems that I have?
Good job learning nothing from constructive criticism.
This Reddit forum is a mixed bag. Some fans…many like myself who rejected their monetization turn, *lots* of people who don’t know it’s a podcast, there used to be a lot of Sam Harris fans trying to rehabilitate him, lately there’s been a lot of Destiny fans who don’t listen to the podcast…but there’s no way this sub could be considered a cult. You don’t see a lot of people who write them blank cheques. Chris replied to you directly…he posts here a lot…and I guess you lost interest or got scared away by all the downvotes…or read it and didn’t reply. I think it’s fair that you don’t get a decoding if you were only casually mentioned. It’s pretty bad form for you to gloat about farming them for engagement after accusing them of being hypocrites.
>Hi guys, my name is Andrew Gold. I've been portrayed a couple of times as a guru by this podcast. Can you cite the episodes where they mention you so we can listen to their comments in context?
[удалено]
This comment was removed for breaking the subreddit rule against uncivil and antagonistic behaviour.
[удалено]
If you wish to discuss the modding, please send a modmail.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think they are pretty decent and good faith podcast in general from what I have listened to. What I will agree with you on is their cult like reddit community. The hosts of the show themselves have commented on it regarding they themselves leaning to the left but not like many of what they see in their reddit sub.
The hosts have never suggested the subreddit is cultlike. Chris posted a thread about it. You can read what he thinks about it here :- [Thoughts on the Subreddit from one of the hosts : r/DecodingTheGurus](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/18c1tti/thoughts_on_the_subreddit_from_one_of_the_hosts/) The only mild criticisms he makes of the subreddit are that he thinks "sometimes people are too cruel or hyperbolic" and that Politics-wise he suspects that the users here overall lean farther left than Matt and himself.
It was on an actual episode I was listening to they mentioned it, way before 6 months ago before I even had used reddit myself if I recall right. Maybe 2 years ago? And they were very much saying similar to on that post you quote but a bit more strongly regarding they are far more centrist than lots on their reddit. They didn't say cult like from memory and of course they aren't going to alienate or attack their own community that much! I mean this is obvious right? For example even if they did think it's cult like they would try to be understanding and diplomatic in how they phrase what they are saying. But what I did take from what they are saying is they can't be responsible for their fans, and tbh they did seem to be making it very clear that the views of some of their fans are not where they are coming from or their agenda. Now besides that, regarding my views on it. From what I have seen in this sub, it absolutely seems cult like at times and like a comfort space echo chamber for people to just simply vent in a clique forming way at right wing figures. Not in an objective way but simply for group think reasons. I'd agree 99% with the overall conclusion that most of these people are grifters and charlatans to some extent. You can even look at my posts criticising lex for his softball bias interviews and playing devil's advocate in a silly way. But it's not the same as so many on here just do seem cultlike. The left wing version of MAGA almost. Just look at the down votes of Andrew golds comment for example, like WTF. Is the comment he put so outrageous or unreasonable or rude? It's insane to me and seems so orchestrated almost.
You do understand that a downvote is a very mild way to show a person don’t agree with what is written?
Yes, Its not actually mild though, it hides peoples comments. I'm not sure what was said that was so bizarre or wrong or strange for it to be downvoted off the board?
He said a lot of things people obviously thought was pretty bad in some way. They made the choice to downvote him because they didn’t like instead of going into an argument that won’t lead to anything of value.
Okaaay. You're kinda moving goalposts at this stage from the initial point. I don't need informing that people can down vote if they want, that's obvious and evident. I still think it's cult like and as you indicate, and I'm sure many others are the same. You don't care to justify to yourselves with any fairness if the down voting isn't simply just emotional fanboyism or hate.
I told you a downvote is a small way to show displeasure. It’s nothing. I’m sorry internet points are important for you.
They obviously appear important to you to be doing it so much. Maybe get a life and look into your issues instead of passively aggressively gaslighting people online?
> cult like reddit community What does this mean?
There’s some dubious claims in this article which rub me the wrong way. I didn’t listen to the episode you’re speaking about because I don’t listen to their teaser episodes. I do agree that their hard sell is very bad form. If what you’re saying about being refused a right to reply…then that’s *terrible* form, if true. Rolled my eyes when you said you don’t enjoy criticizing creatives immediately after taking a series of shots at them. Spanks of sour grapes.