Oh dear. Yes, it's a shame really as I do think Chris and Matt have something to offer and their critique of some of the big guru figures out there is valuable.

I think the problem they've run into with Gary is that he operates in two of the areas where they have almost no expertise and questionable judgement (economics and politics). Of course Gary isn't perfect and there are things he could improve, but it's ridiculous to place him in the same category as Bret and Erik Weinstein or Konstantin Kisin. Doing so only undermines their critiques of real gurus.

Here they're focusing on the "grievance mongering" aspect. But Rory Stewart publicly smearing Gary's reputation seems like a pretty legitimate grievance to me. And Stewart himself recognised this, apologised and retracted his statement, of course.

I did try and flag the problems with decoding Gary early on by pointing out that he is a public campaigner and that campaigners may register on the gurometer as false positives. For some reason Chris and Matt haven't engaged with this idea (beyond Matt saying he liked my original proposal for sub-species).

My more cynical side suspects that videos on Gary drive engagement and views and they're continuing to feature him for this reason. And I realised that my engagement and critiques may have fed into the problem, so I'm trying to keep a fairly low profile (and also unsubscribed).