INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: El on May 14, 2018, 06:20:16 AM
-
Anyone here already frequent/follow this site? (I would assume so.)
Here are some things that you will hear when you sit down to dinner with the vanguard of the Intellectual Dark Web: There are fundamental biological differences between men and women. Free speech is under siege. Identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart. And we’re in a dangerous place if these ideas are considered “dark.”
I was meeting with Sam Harris, a neuroscientist; Eric Weinstein, a mathematician and managing director of Thiel Capital; the commentator and comedian Dave Rubin; and their spouses in a Los Angeles restaurant to talk about how they were turned into heretics. A decade ago, they argued, when Donald Trump was still hosting “The Apprentice,” none of these observations would have been considered taboo.
Today, people like them who dare venture into this “There Be Dragons” territory on the intellectual map have met with outrage and derision — even, or perhaps especially, from people who pride themselves on openness.
It’s a pattern that has become common in our new era of That Which Cannot Be Said. And it is the reason the Intellectual Dark Web, a term coined half-jokingly by Mr. Weinstein, came to exist.
What is the I.D.W. and who is a member of it? It’s hard to explain, which is both its beauty and its danger.
Most simply, it is a collection of iconoclastic thinkers, academic renegades and media personalities who are having a rolling conversation — on podcasts, YouTube and Twitter, and in sold-out auditoriums — that sound unlike anything else happening, at least publicly, in the culture right now. Feeling largely locked out of legacy outlets, they are rapidly building their own mass media channels.
You have 3 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
The closest thing to a phone book for the I.D.W. is a sleek website that lists the dramatis personae of the network, including Mr. Harris; Mr. Weinstein and his brother and sister-in-law, the evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying; Jordan Peterson, the psychologist and best-selling author; the conservative commentators Ben Shapiro and Douglas Murray; Maajid Nawaz, the former Islamist turned anti-extremist activist; and the feminists Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christina Hoff Sommers. But in typical dark web fashion, no one knows who put the website up.
EDITORS’ PICKS
On Social Media’s Fringes, Extremism Targets Women
A Simple Way to Improve a Billion Lives: Eyeglasses
An Orchestra Adopts a City, One Kid at Time
Image
Christina Hoff SommersCreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
The core members have little in common politically. Bret and Eric Weinstein and Ms. Heying were Bernie Sanders supporters. Mr. Harris was an outspoken Hillary voter. Ben Shapiro is an anti-Trump conservative.
But they all share three distinct qualities. First, they are willing to disagree ferociously, but talk civilly, about nearly every meaningful subject: religion, abortion, immigration, the nature of consciousness. Second, in an age in which popular feelings about the way things ought to be often override facts about the way things actually are, each is determined to resist parroting what’s politically convenient. And third, some have paid for this commitment by being purged from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought — and have found receptive audiences elsewhere.
“People are starved for controversial opinions,” said Joe Rogan, an MMA color commentator and comedian who hosts one of the most popular podcasts in the country. “And they are starved for an actual conversation.”
[Receive the day’s most urgent debates right in your inbox by subscribing to the Opinion Today newsletter.]
That hunger has translated into a booming and, in many cases, profitable market. Episodes of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” which have featured many members of the I.D.W., can draw nearly as big an audience as Rachel Maddow. A recent episode featuring Bret Weinstein and Ms. Heying talking about gender, hotness, beauty and #MeToo was viewed on YouTube over a million times, even though the conversation lasted for nearly three hours.
Image
Joe RoganCreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
Ben Shapiro’s podcast, which airs five days a week, gets 15 million downloads a month. Sam Harris estimates that his “Waking Up” podcast gets one million listeners an episode. Dave Rubin’s YouTube show has more than 700,000 subscribers.
Offline and in the real world, members of the I.D.W. are often found speaking to one another in packed venues around the globe. In July, for example, Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray and Mr. Harris will appear together at the O2 Arena in London.
But as the members of the Intellectual Dark Web become genuinely popular, they are also coming under more scrutiny. On April 21, Kanye West crystallized this problem when he tweeted seven words that set Twitter on fire: “I love the way Candace Owens thinks.”
Candace Owens, the communications director for Turning Point USA, is a sharp, young, black conservative — a telegenic speaker with killer instincts who makes videos with titles like “How to Escape the Democrat Plantation” and “The Left Thinks Black People Are Stupid.” Mr. West’s praise for her was sandwiched inside a longer thread that referenced many of the markers of the Intellectual Dark Web, like the tyranny of thought policing and the importance of independent thinking. He was photographed watching a Jordan Peterson video.
808
Comments
The Times needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise.
All of a sudden, it seemed, the I.D.W. had broken through to the culture-making class, and a few in the group flirted with embracing Ms. Owens as their own.
Yet Ms. Owens is a passionate Trump supporter who has dismissed racism as a threat to black people while arguing, despite evidence to the contrary, that immigrants steal their jobs. She has also compared Jay-Z and Beyoncé to slaves for supporting the Democratic Party.
Opinion | Michelle Goldberg
How the Online Left Fuels the RightMay 11, 2018
Many others in the I.D.W. were made nervous by her sudden ascendance to the limelight, seeing Ms. Owens not as a sincere intellectual but as a provocateur in the mold of Milo Yiannopoulos. For the I.D.W. to succeed, they argue, it needs to eschew those interested in violating taboo for its own sake.
“I’m really only interested in building this intellectual movement,” Eric Weinstein said. “The I.D.W. has bigger goals than anyone’s buzz or celebrity.”
And yet, when Ms. Owens and Charlie Kirk, the executive director of Turning Point USA, met last week with Mr. West at the Southern California Institute of Architecture, just outside of the frame — in fact, avoiding the photographers — was Mr. Weinstein. He attended both that meeting and a one-on-one the next day for several hours at the mogul’s request. Mr. Weinstein, who can’t name two of Mr. West’s songs, said he found the Kardashian spouse “kind and surprisingly humble despite his unpredictable public provocations.” He has also tweeted that he’s interested to see what Ms. Owens says next.
This episode was the clearest example yet of the challenge this group faces: In their eagerness to gain popular traction, are the members of the I.D.W. aligning themselves with people whose views and methods are poisonous? Could the intellectual wildness that made this alliance of heretics worth paying attention to become its undoing?
There is no direct route into the Intellectual Dark Web. But the quickest path is to demonstrate that you aren’t afraid to confront your own tribe.
The metaphors for this experience vary: going through the phantom tollbooth; deviating from the narrative; falling into the rabbit hole. But almost everyone can point to a particular episode where they came in as one thing and emerged as something quite different.
A year ago, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying were respected tenured professors at Evergreen State College, where their Occupy Wall Street-sympathetic politics were well in tune with the school’s progressive ethos. Today they have left their jobs, lost many of their friends and endangered their reputations.
All this because they opposed a “Day of Absence,” in which white students were asked to leave campus for the day. For questioning a day of racial segregation cloaked in progressivism, the pair was smeared as racist. Following threats, they left town for a time with their children and ultimately resigned their jobs.
“Nobody else reacted. That’s what shocked me,” Mr. Weinstein said. “It told me that a culture that told itself it was radically open-minded was actually a culture cowed by fear.”
Sam Harris says his moment came in 2006, at a conference at the Salk Institute with Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson and other prominent scientists. Mr. Harris said something that he thought was obvious on its face: Not all cultures are equally conducive to human flourishing. Some are superior to others.
“Until that time I had been criticizing religion, so the people who hated what I had to say were mostly on the right,” Mr. Harris said. “This was the first time I fully understood that I had an equivalent problem with the secular left.”
After his talk, in which he disparaged the Taliban, a biologist who would go on to serve on President Barack Obama’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues approached him. “I remember she said: ‘That’s just your opinion. How can you say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong?’ But to me it’s just obvious that forcing women to live their lives inside bags is wrong. I gave her another example: What if we found a culture that was ritually blinding every third child? And she actually said, ‘It would depend on why they were doing it.’” His jaw, he said, “actually fell open.”
Image
Sam HarrisCreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
“The moral confusion that operates under the banner of ‘multiculturalism’ can blind even well-educated people to the problems of intolerance and cruelty in other communities,” Mr. Harris said. “This had never fully crystallized for me until that moment.”
Before September 2016, Jordan Peterson was an obscure psychology professor at the University of Toronto. Then he spoke out against Canada’s Bill C-16, which proposed amending the country’s human-rights act to outlaw discrimination based on gender identity and expression. He resisted on the grounds that the bill risked curtailing free speech by compelling people to use alternative gender pronouns. He made YouTube videos about it. He went on news shows to protest it. He confronted protesters calling him a bigot. When the university asked him to stop talking about it, including sending two warning letters, he refused.
While most people in the group faced down comrades on the political left, Ben Shapiro confronted the right. He left his job as editor at large of Breitbart News two years ago because he believed it had become, under Steve Bannon’s leadership, “Trump’s personal Pravda.” In short order, he became a primary target of the alt-right and, according to the Anti-Defamation League, the No. 1 target of anti-Semitic tweets during the presidential election.
Other figures in the I.D.W., like Claire Lehmann, the founder and editor of the online magazine Quillette, and Debra Soh, who has a Ph.D. in neuroscience, self-deported from the academic track, sensing that the spectrum of acceptable perspectives and even areas of research was narrowing. Dr. Soh said that she started “waking up” in the last two years of her doctorate program. “It was clear that the environment was inhospitable to conducting research,” she said. “If you produce findings that the public doesn’t like, you can lose your job.”
When she wrote an op-ed in 2015 titled “Why Transgender Kids Should Wait to Transition,” citing research that found that a majority of gender dysphoric children outgrow their dysphoria, she said her colleagues warned her, “Even if you stay in academia and express this view, tenure won’t protect you.”
Nowadays Ms. Soh has a column for Playboy and picks up work as a freelance writer. But that hardly pays the bills. She’s planning to start a podcast soon and, like many members of the I.D.W., has a Patreon account where “patrons” can support her work.
These donations can add up. Mr. Rubin said his show makes at least $30,000 a month on Patreon. And Mr. Peterson says he pulls in some $80,000 in fan donations each month.
Mr. Peterson has endured no small amount of online hatred and some real-life physical threats: In March, during a lecture at Queen’s University in Ontario, a woman showed up with a garrote. But like many in the I.D.W., he also seems to relish the outrage he inspires.
“I’ve figured out how to monetize social justice warriors,” Mr. Peterson said in January on Joe Rogan’s podcast. On his Twitter feed, he called the writer Pankaj Mishra, who’d written an essay in The New York Review of Books attacking him, a “sanctimonious prick” and said he’d happily slap him.
And the upside to his notoriety is obvious: Mr. Peterson is now arguably the most famous public intellectual in Canada, and his book “12 Rules for Life” is a best-seller.
The exile of Bret Weinstein and Ms. Heying from Evergreen State brought them to the attention of a national audience that might have come for the controversy but has stayed for their fascinating insights about subjects including evolution and gender. “Our friends still at Evergreen tell us that the protesters think they destroyed us,” Ms. Heying said. “But the truth is we’re now getting the chance to do something on a much larger scale than we could ever do in the classroom.”
“I’ve been at this for 25 years now, having done all the MSM shows, including Oprah, Charlie Rose, ‘The Colbert Report,’ Larry King — you name it,” Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, told me. “The last couple of years I’ve shifted to doing shows hosted by Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Sam Harris and others. The I.D.W. is as powerful a media as any I’ve encountered.”
Mr. Shermer, a middle-aged science writer, now gets recognized on the street. On a recent bike ride in Santa Barbara, Calif., he passed a work crew and “the flag man stopped me and says: ‘Hey, you’re that skeptic guy, Shermer! I saw you on Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan!’” When he can’t watch the shows on YouTube, he listens to them as podcasts on the job. On breaks, he told Mr. Shermer, he takes notes.
“I’ve had to update Quillette’s servers three times now because it’s caved under the weight of the traffic,” Ms. Lehmann said about the publication most associated with this movement.
Image
Michael ShermerCreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
Yet there are pitfalls to this audience-supported model. One risk is what Eric Weinstein has called “audience capture.” Since stories about left-wing-outrage culture — the fact that the University of California, Berkeley, had to spend $600,000 on security for Mr. Shapiro’s speech there, say — take off with their fans, members of the Intellectual Dark Web may have a hard time resisting the urge to deliver that type of story. This probably helps explain why some people in this group talk constantly about the regressive left but far less about the threat from the right.
“There are a few people in this network who have gone without saying anything critical about Trump, a person who has assaulted truth more than anyone in human history,” Mr. Harris said. “If you care about the truth, that is quite strange.”
Emphasis is one problem. Associating with genuinely bad people is another.
Go a click in one direction and the group is enhanced by intellectuals with tony affiliations like Steven Pinker at Harvard. But go a click in another and you’ll find alt-right figures like Stefan Molyneux and Milo Yiannopoulos and conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich (the #PizzaGate huckster) and Alex Jones (the Sandy Hook shooting denier).
It’s hard to draw boundaries around an amorphous network, especially when each person in it has a different idea of who is beyond the pale.
“I don’t know that we are in the position to police it,” Mr. Rubin said. “If this thing becomes something massive — a political or social movement — then maybe we’d need to have some statement of principles. For now, we’re just a crew of people trying to have the kind of important conversations that the mainstream won’t.”
But is a statement of principles necessary to make a judgment call about people like Mr. Cernovich, Mr. Molyneux and Mr. Yiannopoulos? Mr. Rubin has hosted all three on his show. And he appeared on a typically unhinged episode of Mr. Jones’s radio show, “Infowars.” Mr. Rogan regularly lets Abby Martin — a former 9/11 Truther who is strangely sympathetic to the regimes in Syria and Venezuela — rant on his podcast. He also encouraged Mr. Jones to spout off about the moon landing being fake during Mr. Jones’s nearly four-hour appearance on his show. When asked why he hosts people like Mr. Jones, Mr. Rogan has insisted that he’s not an interviewer or a journalist. “I talk to people. And I record it. That’s it,” he has said.
Mr. Rubin doesn’t see this is a problem. “The fact is that Jones reaches millions of people,” he said. “Going on that show means I get to reach them, and I don’t think anyone is a lost cause. I’ve gotten a slew of email from folks saying that they first heard me on Jones, but then watched a bunch of my interviews and changed some of their views.”
Image
Dave RubinCreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
The subject came up at that dinner in Los Angeles. Mr. Rubin, whose mentor is Larry King, insisted his job is just to let the person sitting across from him talk and let the audience decide. But with a figure like Mr. Cernovich, who can occasionally sound reasonable, how is a viewer supposed to know better?
Of course, the whole notion of drawing lines to keep people out is exactly what inspired the Intellectual Dark Web folks in the first place. They’re committed to the belief that setting up no-go zones and no-go people is inherently corrupting to free thought.
“You have to understand that the I.D.W. emerged as a response to a world where perfectly reasonable intellectuals were being regularly mislabeled by activists, institutions and mainstream journalists with every career-ending epithet from ‘Islamophobe’ to ‘Nazi,’” Eric Weinstein said. “Once I.D.W. folks saw that people like Ben Shapiro were generally smart, highly informed and often princely in difficult conversations, it’s more understandable that occasionally a few frogs got kissed here and there as some I.D.W. members went in search of other maligned princes.”
But people who pride themselves on pursuing the truth and telling it plainly should be capable of applying these labels when they’re deserved. It seems to me that if you are willing to sit across from an Alex Jones or Mike Cernovich and take him seriously, there’s a high probability that you’re either cynical or stupid. If there’s a reason for shorting the I.D.W., it’s the inability of certain members to see this as a fatal error.
What’s more, this frog-kissing plays perfectly into the hands of those who want to discredit the individuals in this network. In recent days, for example, Mr. Harris has been labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a bridge to the alt-right: “Under the guise of scientific objectivity, Harris has presented deeply flawed data to perpetuate fear of Muslims and to argue that black people are genetically inferior to whites.”
That isn’t true. The group excoriated Mr. Harris, a fierce critic of the treatment of women and gays under radical Islam, for saying that “some percentage, however small” of Muslim immigrants are radicalized. He has also estimated that some 20 percent of Muslims worldwide are Islamists or jihadis. But he has never said that this should make people fear all Muslims. He has defended the work of the social scientist Charles Murray, who argues that genetic differences may explain differences in average IQ across racial groups — while insisting that this does not make one group inferior to another.
But this kind of falsehood is much easier to spread when other figures in the I.D.W. are promiscuous about whom they’ll associate with. When Mr. West tweeted his praise for Ms. Owens, the responses of the people in the network reflected each person’s attitude toward this problem. Dave Rubin took to Twitter to defend Ms. Owens and called Mr. West’s tweet a “game changer.” Jordan Peterson went on “Fox and Friends” to discuss it. Bret Weinstein subtweeted his criticism of these choices: “Smart, skeptical people are often surprisingly susceptible to being conned if a ruse is tailored to their prejudices.” His brother was convinced that Mr. West was playing an elaborate game of chess. Ms. Heying and Mr. Harris ignored the whole thing. Ben Shapiro mostly laughed it off.
Mr. West is a self-obsessed rabble-rouser who brags about not reading books. But whether or not one approves of the superstar’s newest intellectual bauble, it is hard to deny that he has consistently been three steps ahead of the zeitgeist.
So when he tweets “only freethinkers” and “It’s no more barring people because they have different ideas,” he is picking up on a real phenomenon: that the boundaries of public discourse have become so proscribed as to make impossible frank discussions of anything remotely controversial.
“So many of our institutions have been overtaken by schools of thought, which are inherently a dead end,” Bret Weinstein said. “The I.D.W. is the unschooling movement.”
Am I a member of this movement? A few months ago, someone suggested on Twitter that I should join this club I’d never heard of. I looked into it. Like many in this group, I am a classical liberal who has run afoul of the left, often for voicing my convictions and sometimes simply by accident. This has won me praise from libertarians and conservatives. And having been attacked by the left, I know I run the risk of focusing inordinately on its excesses — and providing succor to some people whom I deeply oppose.
I get the appeal of the I.D.W. I share the belief that our institutional gatekeepers need to crack the gates open much more. I don’t, however, want to live in a culture where there are no gatekeepers at all. Given how influential this group is becoming, I can’t be alone in hoping the I.D.W. finds a way to eschew the cranks, grifters and bigots and sticks to the truth-seeking.
“Some say the I.D.W. is dangerous,” Ms. Heying said. “But the only way you can construe a group of intellectuals talking to each other as dangerous is if you are scared of what they might discover.”
-
When you say 'this site' do you mean I2?
-
When you say 'this site' do you mean I2?
No, I mean this: http://intellectualdark.website/
-
Sounds very angry stuff.
-
Does this mean Joe Rogan is considered an intellectual? :zoinks:
-
Fucking fedora tippers lol.
-
This episode was the clearest example yet of the challenge this group faces: In their eagerness to gain popular traction, are the members of the I.D.W. aligning themselves with people whose views and methods are poisonous? Could the intellectual wildness that made this alliance of heretics worth paying attention to become its undoing?
I didn't read the whole thing (fuck me that was long), but I got as far as this comment, which seems fairly stupid. Being concerned about aligning oneself with people whose views and methods are "poisonous" is what these people set out to oppose in the beginning. Why would they suddenly become concerned about it because people who are popular and thoughtlessly controversial started agreeing with them?
-
I didn't read the whole thing (fuck me that was long), but I got as far as this comment...
I could tell it was long without reading any of it.
-
I didn't read the whole thing (fuck me that was long), but I got as far as this comment...
I could tell it was long without reading any of it.
That's what she said.
-
I read most of it.
Seems like they are holding up that 3rd rate intellectual Sam Harris, famous only for his great achievement of not believing in God, as some kind of hero. That's where they lost me. I actually agree that he is a bridge to the alt right, that's the best bit in the whole article even though the article didn't agree.
-
I read most of it.
Seems like they are holding up that 3rd rate intellectual Sam Harris, famous only for his great achievement of not believing in God, as some kind of hero. That's where they lost me. I actually agree that he is a bridge to the alt right, that's the best bit in the whole article even though the article didn't agree.
He's no Joe Rogan. That's for sure. :zoinks:
-
I didn't read the whole thing (fuck me that was long), but I got as far as this comment...
I could tell it was long without reading any of it.
That's what she said.
Not quite. She said she got partway in.
-
I read most of it.
Seems like they are holding up that 3rd rate intellectual Sam Harris, famous only for his great achievement of not believing in God, as some kind of hero. That's where they lost me. I actually agree that he is a bridge to the alt right, that's the best bit in the whole article even though the article didn't agree.
Who do you mean by alt-right? None of these guys are aligned or aligning themselves with Far Right Fundamentalists, so who exactly do you mean?
-
Anyone here already frequent/follow this site? (I would assume so.)
When you say 'this site' do you mean I2?
No, I mean this: http://intellectualdark.website/
I only recently found out about this site but almost everyone there is someone that I've been following for years (in the case of Michael Shermer, over 15 years).
The one thing that these people have in common is that they are all advocates of free inquiry and believe that "taboo" subjects are something that should be openly discussed, which is to say they all have an anti-authoritarian mindset.
The fact that such a "group" exists shows that distinctions between political left and right no longer matter. The only distinctions that matter are between authoritarianism and (small L) libertarianism.
At least the NYT article you quoted wasn't as bad as the hit pieces put out by the Guardian and other neo-Marxist rags.
-
This episode was the clearest example yet of the challenge this group faces: In their eagerness to gain popular traction, are the members of the I.D.W. aligning themselves with people whose views and methods are poisonous? Could the intellectual wildness that made this alliance of heretics worth paying attention to become its undoing?
I didn't read the whole thing (fuck me that was long), but I got as far as this comment, which seems fairly stupid. Being concerned about aligning oneself with people whose views and methods are "poisonous" is what these people set out to oppose in the beginning. Why would they suddenly become concerned about it because people who are popular and thoughtlessly controversial started agreeing with them?
:indeed:
-
I read most of it.
Seems like they are holding up that 3rd rate intellectual Sam Harris, famous only for his great achievement of not believing in God, as some kind of hero. That's where they lost me. I actually agree that he is a bridge to the alt right, that's the best bit in the whole article even though the article didn't agree.
Who do you mean by alt-right? None of these guys are aligned or aligning themselves with Far Right Fundamentalists, so who exactly do you mean?
MOSW is just shit posting. At least I don't think s/h/it is that stupid but I may be wrong. :dunno:
-
I read most of it.
Seems like they are holding up that 3rd rate intellectual Sam Harris, famous only for his great achievement of not believing in God, as some kind of hero. That's where they lost me. I actually agree that he is a bridge to the alt right, that's the best bit in the whole article even though the article didn't agree.
Who do you mean by alt-right? None of these guys are aligned or aligning themselves with Far Right Fundamentalists, so who exactly do you mean?
Do you require a definition of the alt-right? It's a fairly commonly used label these days.
And where did I say that these guys are aligned or aligning themselves with Far Right Fundamentalists? If you can't point that out can you please restate your question, as I'm not going to answer such a blatant misrepresentation.
-
I read most of it.
Seems like they are holding up that 3rd rate intellectual Sam Harris, famous only for his great achievement of not believing in God, as some kind of hero. That's where they lost me. I actually agree that he is a bridge to the alt right, that's the best bit in the whole article even though the article didn't agree.
Who do you mean by alt-right? None of these guys are aligned or aligning themselves with Far Right Fundamentalists, so who exactly do you mean?
MOSW is just shit posting. At least I don't think s/h/it is that stupid but I may be wrong. :dunno:
Hi Pappy, long time no see!
-
Do you require a definition of the alt-right? It's a fairly commonly misused label these days.
FYP.
Alt-Right was a term that is often attributed to Richard Spencer who is a self described white nationalist which means that in the truest sense, alt-right refers to those aligned with white nationalist and European identitarian movements.
In popular use, it's merely used as a smear tactic by dumbshit leftists and their low information followers.
The fact that you agreed that Sam Harris is a gateway to the alt-right puts you in the latter category. Sam Harris is anything BUT a white nationalist and has repeatedly denounced them. The SPLC is no longer a credible source of information.
And where did I say that these guys are aligned or aligning themselves with Far Right Fundamentalists? If you can't point that out can you please restate your question, as I'm not going to answer such a blatant misrepresentation.
That's not actually a misrepresentation at all. White nationalists fall well within the umbrella of far right fundamentalists.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
Thanks Pappy, that was an interesting history lesson. But since English is one of them things called a language and words change meaning all the time.... I'll still go with the broadly accepted current meaning rather than the original meaning. I hope that doesn't make your head explode.
And, once again, where did I say that Harris or anyone else was aligning themselves with the far right of the alt right or whatever? Not interested in more etymology lessons.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
Thanks Pappy, that was an interesting history lesson. But since English is one of them things called a language and words change meaning all the time.... I'll still go with the broadly accepted current meaning rather than the original meaning.
There is no "broadly accepted current meaning", just leftist morons misusing it to the point of meaninglessness.
From the Wiki article: "The scope of the term "alt-right" is, as of February 2018, still in flux. The Associated Press advises its journalists to not use the term without providing an internal definition, due to its vagueness."
And, once again, where did I say that Harris or anyone else was aligning themselves with the far right of the alt right or whatever?
:fp:
Seems like they are holding up that 3rd rate intellectual Sam Harris, famous only for his great achievement of not believing in God, as some kind of hero. That's where they lost me. I actually agree that he is a bridge to the alt right, that's the best bit in the whole article even though the article didn't agree.
-
Thank you for pointing out that I never fucking said he was aligned with the alt right. I knew that watching excessive YouTube affects your ability to read and comprehend shit but you are taking it to a whole other level.
And yes, alt right does not have a single clear definition. That just means I go with what it appears to mean given the context and who says it. Like a lot of fucking words. If I say "I went for a walk in the park yesterday" you would probably guess I'm talking about a public space with grass and trees and not one of the other definitions of "park". Any other obvious shit you want me to waste my time spelling out for you?
-
Thank you for pointing out that I never fucking said he was aligned with the alt right.
I never said that YOU said he was aligned with the alt-right YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE HALFWIT!!
I said this:The fact that you agreed that Sam Harris is a gateway to the alt-right puts you in the latter category.
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
-
Fuck. I made Pappy's head explode.
-
:pentagram:
-
Fuck you Pappy. I'm not allowed to laugh out loud where I am now.
-
:dick:
-
** silently guffaws **
-
Another bizarre thread. Thanks, Scrap.
-
Another bizarre thread. Thanks, Scrap.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
Thanks Pappy, that was an interesting history lesson. But since English is one of them things called a language and words change meaning all the time.... I'll still go with the broadly accepted current meaning rather than the original meaning. I hope that doesn't make your head explode.
And, once again, where did I say that Harris or anyone else was aligning themselves with the far right of the alt right or whatever? Not interested in more etymology lessons.
C'mon now, we all know exactly what you do mean and you do not mean.
Alt-Right is who you mean when you speak of Anti-Semitic/racist/White Supremacists. The Neo-Nazi and Daily Stormer Fringe element. Far Right and alt-Right are used interchangeably for these people and it is estimated that they represent a population of somewhere between 15000-25000.
Now you can make different judgements as to how vast up to 25000 people is. Put 25000 radical fringe arseholes together being arseholes and this will be huge. But look at it another way and say even amoung the Conservatives that voted last election for Trump and you will likely be looking at about 50 million people (given some voting will be Independents or Liberals). Given that 25 000 from 50 000 000 we are looking at a drop in the ocean and they are after all a fringe element and an element that is not condoned, supported or encouraged by the mainstream Right.
Both are reasonable positions.
What is not a reasonable position is to play loose with definitions to broaden your tent to include people who clearly are NOT alt-right nor are not appealing to or encouraging the alt-right and pretending they are or that the alt-right is loosely defined as something else to smear people on the Right or who are Liberatarian or perhaps Centrist or non-progressive liberals.
We know what you are doing. It is dishonest.
-
Broadening definitions? Like where you conflate "bridge" with "align"?
-
Broadening definitions? Like where you conflate "bridge" with "align"?
No more like "I want to associate a Classical Liberal soft-spoken intellectual who is against religion and feel the biggest threat facing the world today is in Islam and the fundamentalist terrorism and cultural clashes coming out of this. How can I do it? I know, I will pretend that alt-Right is a group a little left of Far Right extremists associated with that word. If I can stretch the meaning some I can include people right of centre. Now that I have shifted close to him and I am speaking about people who may be interested in what he is saying and who are closer in political alignment than the every more radical Far Left Progressives, now I will say he is catering to these people who are right of Centre (now deemed "alt-right") and all the nasty connotations that come with the extremism that comes with these racist, White Supremacists is all on these people who likely hold none of the alt-rights views, and now imply that he encourages alt-right and is supported by alt-right". Two-fer.
Except of course, it is dishonest as fuck.
It is the same trick as when you take the crime of rape and all the disgust and reprehension associated with that act and loosely define other things under the same umbrella. Doing the same with Harassment (remember Donglegate).
-
I read most of it.
Seems like they are holding up that 3rd rate intellectual Sam Harris, famous only for his great achievement of not believing in God, as some kind of hero. That's where they lost me. I actually agree that he is a bridge to the alt right, that's the best bit in the whole article even though the article didn't agree.
Who do you mean by alt-right? None of these guys are aligned or aligning themselves with Far Right Fundamentalists, so who exactly do you mean?
Your claim, bolded. Where did I say that these guys were aligned or aligning themselves with Far Right Fundamentalists.
-
I read most of it.
Seems like they are holding up that 3rd rate intellectual Sam Harris, famous only for his great achievement of not believing in God, as some kind of hero. That's where they lost me. I actually agree that he is a bridge to the alt right, that's the best bit in the whole article even though the article didn't agree.
Who do you mean by alt-right? None of these guys are aligned or aligning themselves with Far Right Fundamentalists, so who exactly do you mean?
Your claim, bolded. Where did I say that these guys were aligned or aligning themselves with Far Right Fundamentalists.
Alt-Right is a synonym for Far Right and alt-right is a term used to smear ALL Conservative talking heads. Milo Alt-right. Jordan Peterson alt-Right. Tucker Carlson alt-right. Candace Owen alt-right.
So you could choose to be honest or you could push a narrative that when you same alt-right, you do not mean far Right and you do not use alt-right to mean Far right Fundamentalist racist, white Supremacists. You could try that. You could pretend that the term that has been used for decades to be describe these people.
-
**crickets chirping**
-
Getting back on topic, I think Larry Elder, Tommy Sotomayor and Janice Fiamengo should be added.
There's others that should be added too, just can't think of them off the top of my head.
-
Getting back on topic, I think Larry Elder, Tommy Sotomayor and Janice Fiamengo should be added.
There's others that should be added too, just can't think of them off the top of my head.
Agreed. Karen Straughan?
-
https://forward.com/opinion/400698/no-dark-web-intellectuals-like-sam-harris-and-jordan-peterson-are-not/
Reading the New York Times’ op-ed page, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the most dangerous threat to free speech is leftist totalitarians who criticize or protest against the right. Bret Stephens chastises leftists for criticizing right wing commentator Kevin Williamson; David Brooks bemoans leftist campus protests, and Bari Weiss often does the same. The Times seems obsessed with finding victims of so called silencing.
The latest foray into this redefinition of free speech can be found in Weiss’ most recent piece in the New York Times Magazine, about a self-styled group of pseudo-intellectuals dubbed the “Intellectual Dark Web.”
The I.D.W., as it is referred to throughout the piece, is a loose affiliation of very successful left-hating pundits who strenuously claim to be oppressed. Among those Weiss cites as members are the conservative writer and speaker Ben Shapiro, whose podcast gets 15 million downloads a month; the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose self-help book is a bestseller and whose youtube videos get millions of views; New Atheist Sam Harris, who also has a very successful podcast; and critic of feminism, Christina Hoff Sommers, who has a sinecure at AEI.
These are people with large platforms, successful careers, and scads of cash. They are also people who, Weiss claims, are frequently and harshly criticized. For expressing beliefs such as “the existence of fundamental biological differences between men and women” or believing that “identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart,” these authors “have met with outrage and derision — even, or perhaps especially, from people who pride themselves on openness.”
Weiss presents the criticism of this counter-cultural vanguard as unfair, stifling, and obviously hysterical.
And yet, there’s an internal paradox in her criticism. Surely if you believe in free speech, then you should believe in the right of people to freely deride viewpoints they disagree with and find harmful, even when the derision is misguided.
I'd say this is a more intelligent and balanced article about the IDW. But then again, you'd expect me to say that.
-
https://forward.com/opinion/400698/no-dark-web-intellectuals-like-sam-harris-and-jordan-peterson-are-not/
Reading the New York Times’ op-ed page, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the most dangerous threat to free speech is leftist totalitarians who criticize or protest against the right. Bret Stephens chastises leftists for criticizing right wing commentator Kevin Williamson; David Brooks bemoans leftist campus protests, and Bari Weiss often does the same. The Times seems obsessed with finding victims of so called silencing.
The latest foray into this redefinition of free speech can be found in Weiss’ most recent piece in the New York Times Magazine, about a self-styled group of pseudo-intellectuals dubbed the “Intellectual Dark Web.”
The I.D.W., as it is referred to throughout the piece, is a loose affiliation of very successful left-hating pundits who strenuously claim to be oppressed. Among those Weiss cites as members are the conservative writer and speaker Ben Shapiro, whose podcast gets 15 million downloads a month; the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose self-help book is a bestseller and whose youtube videos get millions of views; New Atheist Sam Harris, who also has a very successful podcast; and critic of feminism, Christina Hoff Sommers, who has a sinecure at AEI.
These are people with large platforms, successful careers, and scads of cash. They are also people who, Weiss claims, are frequently and harshly criticized. For expressing beliefs such as “the existence of fundamental biological differences between men and women” or believing that “identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart,” these authors “have met with outrage and derision — even, or perhaps especially, from people who pride themselves on openness.”
Weiss presents the criticism of this counter-cultural vanguard as unfair, stifling, and obviously hysterical.
And yet, there’s an internal paradox in her criticism. Surely if you believe in free speech, then you should believe in the right of people to freely deride viewpoints they disagree with and find harmful, even when the derision is misguided.
I'd say this is a more intelligent and balanced article about the IDW. But then again, you'd expect me to say that.
You are right that I would expect you to say that.
None of these people say THEY are oppressed or victimsed but they say that the Conservatives collectively are and that male centric groups such as the MRAs are. This is hardly without basis and has NOTHING to do with simply deriding points. It is hardly the strawman paradox of their confused imaginations.
To pretend this kind of equivalency is not ridiculous it is outright dishonesty.
Balanced? That was a good one.
-
Getting back on topic, I think Larry Elder, Tommy Sotomayor and Janice Fiamengo should be added.
There's others that should be added too, just can't think of them off the top of my head.
Agreed. Karen Straughan?
Absolutely! :thumbup: I'd also add Thunderf00t.
-
I'd say this is a more intelligent and balanced article about the IDW. But then again, you'd expect me to say that.
In other words, it's a leftist hit-piece. Let's go through the things it gets wrong, shall we??
https://forward.com/opinion/400698/no-dark-web-intellectuals-like-sam-harris-and-jordan-peterson-are-not/
Reading the New York Times’ op-ed page, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the most dangerous threat to free speech is leftist totalitarians who criticize or protest against the right. Bret Stephens chastises leftists for criticizing right wing commentator Kevin Williamson; David Brooks bemoans leftist campus protests, and Bari Weiss often does the same. The Times seems obsessed with finding victims of so called silencing.
The latest foray into this redefinition of free speech can be found in Weiss’ most recent piece in the New York Times Magazine, about a self-styled group of pseudo-intellectuals dubbed the “Intellectual Dark Web.”
The I.D.W., as it is referred to throughout the piece, is a loose affiliation of very successful left-hating pundits who strenuously claim to be oppressed. Among those Weiss cites as members are the conservative writer and speaker Ben Shapiro, whose podcast gets 15 million downloads a month; the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose self-help book is a bestseller and whose youtube videos get millions of views; New Atheist Sam Harris, who also has a very successful podcast; and critic of feminism, Christina Hoff Sommers, who has a sinecure at AEI.
These are people with large platforms, successful careers, and scads of cash. They are also people who, Weiss claims, are frequently and harshly criticized. For expressing beliefs such as “the existence of fundamental biological differences between men and women” or believing that “identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart,” these authors “have met with outrage and derision — even, or perhaps especially, from people who pride themselves on openness.”
Weiss presents the criticism of this counter-cultural vanguard as unfair, stifling, and obviously hysterical.
And yet, there’s an internal paradox in her criticism. Surely if you believe in free speech, then you should believe in the right of people to freely deride viewpoints they disagree with and find harmful, even when the derision is misguided.
The I.D.W., as it is referred to throughout the piece, is a loose affiliation of very successful left-hating pundits
Bret Weinstein, his wife Heather Heying, his brother Eric Weinstein and Lindsay Shepard are all self professed liberals and only Eric is particularly wealthy. This line is a lie.
These are people with large platforms, successful careers, and scads of cash.
Again this only applies to some of them. The problem comes when these people attempt to speak on college campuses when they are invited by student groups. ANTIFA and their dipshit acolytes consistently try to shut these events down so no one can hear an alternative viewpoint.
For expressing beliefs such as “the existence of fundamental biological differences between men and women”
This isn't a belief, it's scientific consensus. Heather Heying pointed this out at a speech at Portland State University and the snowflakes in the audience went balistic. They called her a Nazi then wrecked the sound equipment. So tolerant, so open minded. :tard:
believing that “identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart,”
Another fundamentaly true statement.
these authors “have met with outrage and derision — even, or perhaps especially, from people who pride themselves on openness.”
Yeah, we've all seen their definition of "openness". Physically attacking people they disagree with, shouting down speakers they don't like. So tolerant, so open minded. :tard:
-
Video evidence of said snowflake dumbfuckery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=116&v=n5D_ltpw7CI
-
The IDW are primarily a bunch of pseudo-intellectual man-babies who get butthurt if people disagree with them.
I see it elsewhere on the web all the time, stupid regressives who feel "educated" because they managed to sit through a couple of hours of Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris or some other tosser on YouTube. And now they're gonna school the lefties with their superior knowledge.
But, of course, the IDW-inspired arguments that they regurgitate don't stand up to actual scrutiny and they resort to insults when presented with facts and solid rational arguments to the contrary. But the one thing they've learned very, very well from the IDW is that when someone disagrees with you and makes you look stupid... they're violating your free speech. WAAAAAAH!!!
Showing them up as idiots and making their heads explode isn't much sport. I like to play "what IDW pseudo-intellectual does is this particular manbaby going to invoke as proof that they are right". You can tell from which particular dumb-arse arguments they present. And, sure enough, once you've poked a few holes in their arguments and pseudo-facts, they start posting Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris videos as "proof" that they are right.
-
^^^ Posting in the mirror again... :wanker:
-
^^^ Posting in the mirror again... :wanker:
Is that the IDW equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"?
-
^^^ Posting in the mirror again... :wanker:
Is that the IDW equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"?
No, it's the I2 equivalent of "you're psychologically projecting your faults on to others". :hahaha:
-
^^^ Posting in the mirror again... :wanker:
Is that the IDW equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"?
No, it's the I2 equivalent of "you're psychologically projecting your faults on to others". :hahaha:
So that's a yes
-
The IDW are primarily a bunch of pseudo-intellectual man-babies who get butthurt if people disagree with them.
I see it elsewhere on the web all the time, stupid regressives who feel "educated" because they managed to sit through a couple of hours of Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris or some other tosser on YouTube. And now they're gonna school the lefties with their superior knowledge.
But, of course, the IDW-inspired arguments that they regurgitate don't stand up to actual scrutiny and they resort to insults when presented with facts and solid rational arguments to the contrary. But the one thing they've learned very, very well from the IDW is that when someone disagrees with you and makes you look stupid... they're violating your free speech. WAAAAAAH!!!
Showing them up as idiots and making their heads explode isn't much sport. I like to play "what IDW pseudo-intellectual does is this particular manbaby going to invoke as proof that they are right". You can tell from which particular dumb-arse arguments they present. And, sure enough, once you've poked a few holes in their arguments and pseudo-facts, they start posting Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris videos as "proof" that they are right.
Do you think the notables that are the "Intellectual Dark Web" are all on the Right?
They are not like the so-called Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who all have pretty much the same conversation point -Atheism. This is not the case with this loose collective of people. There are purported Progressives, Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives. They are not exclusively pushing one talking point like Atheism, it is a number of talking points. There is some intersection on Free Speech and some are focused more than others on that but all are challenging the status quo and the encroaching freedoms given away for "protection".
I hardly see them presenting differing opinions as being whiny but I do see it as expressing themselves.
I tend to err on the side of freedom of expression and being able to go toe to toe in expressing yourself. I am not an anarchist but I think government should not too tightly regulate. I do not want people regulating me too much. I think freedom of choice is a good thing. I think the ability to make and learn from mistakes is positive and understanding that life is a bitch and will hurt you is a good takeaway. Going into things saying the world has to bend around my insecurities and vulnerabilities and never harm me and if it does that is a terrible thing, is crazy.
There is a sense of this commonality of thought with these people. The sense that they are not whining nor begging for exclusions or special treatment. In fact, they are saying equal treatment for all and all includes people who do not share a collective ideology. For example if you are prepared to riot and pull fire alarms rather than let others hear opinions you personally do not care for, it is NOT unreasonable to have people like these folk say that is unacceptable and it would be foolish to pretend that either this does not happen and too regularly OR that bringing up stuff like this is whining.
Of course you telling us that these people are either unwilling or unable to engage in debate or to defend their positions is curious mental.
Not one of these people is stupid or without skills to argue effectively and none I have seen seeks to shut down opponents. Some are better than others but none of them are slouches. Not to say you will agree with every point they make. I don't. But your caricature seems a little off the mark braindead.
-
^^^ Posting in the mirror again... :wanker:
Is that the IDW equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"?
No, it's the I2 equivalent of "you're psychologically projecting your faults on to others". :hahaha:
So that's a yes
Fail at reading, you do. :yoda:
-
Avowed progressive liberal, Lindsay Shepherd, calls the SJW's out as poisonous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cfp91GmHCg
-
The IDW are primarily a bunch of pseudo-intellectual man-babies who get butthurt if people disagree with them.
I see it elsewhere on the web all the time, stupid regressives who feel "educated" because they managed to sit through a couple of hours of Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris or some other tosser on YouTube. And now they're gonna school the lefties with their superior knowledge.
But, of course, the IDW-inspired arguments that they regurgitate don't stand up to actual scrutiny and they resort to insults when presented with facts and solid rational arguments to the contrary. But the one thing they've learned very, very well from the IDW is that when someone disagrees with you and makes you look stupid... they're violating your free speech. WAAAAAAH!!!
Showing them up as idiots and making their heads explode isn't much sport. I like to play "what IDW pseudo-intellectual does is this particular manbaby going to invoke as proof that they are right". You can tell from which particular dumb-arse arguments they present. And, sure enough, once you've poked a few holes in their arguments and pseudo-facts, they start posting Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris videos as "proof" that they are right.
(1) Do you think the notables that are the "Intellectual Dark Web" are all on the Right? NO
They are not like the so-called Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who all have pretty much the same conversation point -Atheism. This is not the case with this loose collective of people. There are purported Progressives, Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives. They are not exclusively pushing one talking point like Atheism, it is a number of talking points. There is some intersection on Free Speech and some are focused more than others on that but all are challenging the status quo and the encroaching freedoms given away for "protection".
I hardly see them presenting differing opinions as being whiny but I do see it as expressing themselves.
I tend to err on the side of freedom of expression and being able to go toe to toe in expressing yourself. I am not an anarchist but I think government should not too tightly regulate. I do not want people regulating me too much. I think freedom of choice is a good thing. I think the ability to make and learn from mistakes is positive and understanding that life is a bitch and will hurt you is a good takeaway. Going into things saying the world has to bend around my insecurities and vulnerabilities and never harm me and if it does that is a terrible thing, is crazy.
There is a sense of this commonality of thought with these people. The sense that they are not whining nor begging for exclusions or special treatment. In fact, they are saying equal treatment for all and all includes people who do not share a collective ideology. For example if you are prepared to riot and pull fire alarms rather than let others hear opinions you personally do not care for, it is NOT unreasonable to have people like these folk say that is unacceptable and it would be foolish to pretend that either this does not happen and too regularly OR that bringing up stuff like this is whining.
(2) Of course you telling us that these people are either unwilling or unable to engage in debate or to defend their positions is curious mental. Where did I say that?
Not one of these people is stupid or without skills to argue effectively and none I have seen seeks to shut down opponents. Some are better than others but none of them are slouches. Not to say you will agree with every point they make. I don't. But your caricature seems a little off the mark braindead.
I'm sorry that you missed my point. My fault for posting word salad with some thinly veiled attempts to trigger Pappy.
I'm pretty sure that most of those who are considered part of the IDW are smarterer than I am. That's a pretty safe bet.
I was referring to the stupid regressives who have watched their YouTube videos in isolation from other knowledge and data and information and opinions. But, because it somehow made sense to them, they can regurgitate a loose interpretation of what Harris or Peterson said and that makes them an intellectual too.
-
I'm pretty sure that all of those who are considered part of the IDW are smarterer than I am, especially Harris and Peterson. That's a pretty safe bet.
fyp.
-
I'm pretty sure that all of those who are considered part of the IDW are smarterer than I am, especially Harris and Peterson. That's a pretty safe bet.
fyp.
F**k, I think you're right. That would make my IQ about 11.
I'm going to focus on finding a YouTube video that explains how to tie my shoes. And how to walk and chew at the same time.
-
I'm pretty sure that all of those who are considered part of the IDW are smarterer than I am, especially Harris and Peterson. That's a pretty safe bet.
fyp.
F**k, I think you're right. That would make my IQ about 11.
I'm going to focus on finding a YouTube video that explains how to tie my shoes. And how to walk and chew at the same time.
:lolhit:
-
The "creator" of the IDW, Eric Weinstein, talks about why he proposed the IDW and why he gave it it's name.
He also discusses its purpose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr0OX6ai4Qw
-
I can't get past the hair. He's as old as I am and not a single grey hair.
-
I'm guessing he uses dye.
His younger brother Bret has the same Jew-fro but it's salt and pepper.
-
I'm guessing it's his real hair, but it sure as heck looks like a rug.
-
I'm guessing it's his real hair, but it sure as heck looks like a rug.
...or a roadkill.
That's some really bad hair. :laugh:
I honestly had a boss back in the 90's that had a rug that was shockingly similar.
Looked like a dyed dead possum sitting on top of his head.
His wife ended up destroying it and blaming it on the dog. It was THAT bad.
-
Yes, it's somewhat difficult to take a self-proclaimed intellectual very seriously when they look like they've glued a dead creature to their head.
-
Eric Weinstein is far from "self-proclaimed", he IS next level genius. :M
-
Well obviously the "next level genius" isn't bright enough to know he looks like a dork with that silly hair.
He looks like one of those creepy guys with a used panty collection at home.
-
Well obviously the "next level genius" isn't bright enough to know he looks like a dork with that silly hair.
Uuum, yeaaah. Someone should've told his DNA not to look so dorky. ::) ::) ::)
-
Yes. That is what you do rather than cut your hair.
-
It looks like a cat coughed it up.
-
Yes. That is what you do rather than cut your hair.
He has a Jew-fro FFS, can't be fixed by cutting it.
Of course, at this point, odeot has had so many Arabic dicks stuffed into his mouth and anus that it's no wonder he makes Jew hating comments like this. ::)
-
I love that guy's hair. If I met him I'd probably offer his hair a dog biscuit.
-
I love that guy's hair. If I met him I'd probably offer his hair a dog biscuit.
I'd slip some little kid a $20 if they would go up and yank on it.
-
Yes. That is what you do rather than cut your hair.
He has a Jew-fro FFS, can't be fixed by cutting it.
Of course, at this point, odeot has had so many Arabic dicks stuffed into his mouth and anus that it's no wonder he makes Jew hating comments like this. ::)
The irony. You can't make this shit up.
-
Yes. That is what you do rather than cut your hair.
He has a Jew-fro FFS, can't be fixed by cutting it.
Of course, at this point, odeot has had so many Arabic dicks stuffed into his mouth and anus that it's no wonder he makes Jew hating comments like this. ::)
The irony.
I was quoting both Eric and Bret who have said this about their own hair.
You can't make this shit up.
Actually, you did just make this shit up.
Oh, and #6 again. ::)
-
Lindsay Shepherd is now suing her former University for $3.6M.
I hope she takes them to the cleaners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssh4URpbR9o
-
Lindsay Shepherd is now suing her former University for $3.6M.
I hope she takes them to the cleaners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssh4URpbR9o
I'd love them forcing the Professors to admit they were wrong
-
Yes. That is what you do rather than cut your hair.
He has a Jew-fro FFS, can't be fixed by cutting it.
Of course, at this point, odeot has had so many Arabic dicks stuffed into his mouth and anus that it's no wonder he makes Jew hating comments like this. ::)
The irony.
I was quoting both Eric and Bret who have said this about their own hair.
You can't make this shit up.
Actually, you did just make this shit up.
Oh, and #6 again. ::)
You're sort of dense, aren't you?
-
Yes. That is what you do rather than cut your hair.
He has a Jew-fro FFS, can't be fixed by cutting it.
Of course, at this point, odeot has had so many Arabic dicks stuffed into his mouth and anus that it's no wonder he makes Jew hating comments like this. ::)
The irony.
I was quoting both Eric and Bret who have said this about their own hair.
You can't make this shit up.
Actually, you did just make this shit up.
Oh, and #6 again. ::)
You're sort of dense, aren't you?
(https://theaimn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/gaslighting1-e1510355547354.jpg)
#1 :M
It's almost like this chart can be used to predict your posts with 100% accuracy. :hahaha:
-
You really are dense, then.
-
You really are dense, then. You have a very little brain and my brain is huuuge, possibly the biggest brain ever and smart too, my brain is big.
:M
-
Is that #5 or #6 you're attempting there?
-
No, it's just the odeot using #1 again. ::)
-
Jordan Peterson has joined Lindsay Shepherd in suing Wilfrid Laurier University for a few million dollars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OyhfcxSxwM
-
No, it's just the odeot using #1 again. ::)
That's "both", then. Gotcha.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2018/nov/01/pity-jordan-peterson-lobster-analogy-replace-sense-humour
Anyway, Peterson is also a leading member of the arseoisie, or the “intellectual dark web”, as they prefer it. Again, are you familiar with the “intellectual dark web”? I do hope not. It’s a self-styling by a loose group of soi-disant intellectuals you’d cross continents to avoid having a pint with (although they didn’t go with that tagline in the end). There isn’t space for a full passenger manifest, but they include Peterson, talkshow host Dave Rubin, Newsweek columnist and perma-pundit Ben Shapiro and a bunch of other people bizarrely obsessed with what students do, even though we’ve known since time immemorial that students often act like idiots, and mostly grow out of it unless they’re Hamlet or whatever. Think of the intellectual dark web as a very whiny superhero team. Marvel’s A-Whingers. Guardians of the Galaxy Brains. The League of Extraordinarily Fragile Gentlemen.
Like the rest of the gang, Peterson apparently imagines himself “locked out” of the mainstream media, despite having sold 2m books and being interviewed every 10 minutes by actual international media outlets. I can’t help feeling that Jordan is “locked out” of the mainstream media in the same way that Justin Bieber is “locked out” of pop music.
As I am given to understand it, all these chaps ply their trade in the “marketplace of ideas”, which largely seems to be grown men shrieking “Not the face! Not the face!” at their detractors. Truly, to watch their online arguments is to clamber inside the Athenian agora simulator.
The whole article is brilliant, although I'd recommend Pappy not read it as he would likely burst something.
-
::) :facepalm2:
Just a bunch of NPC wankery.
It's a shit-talking, fact free article, the kind that even MOSW can understand. :tard:
-
Ridicule is a useful tool against the likes of Jordan Peterson. Largely due to his inability to make intelligible arguments that can be debated on merit.
-
Ridicule is a useful tool against the likes of Jordan Peterson. Largely due to my inability to make intelligible arguments that can be debated on merit.
fyp
-
I'm a stupidhead.
fyp
-
Da derp de derp da teetley derpee derpee dumb
fyp
-
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2018/nov/01/pity-jordan-peterson-lobster-analogy-replace-sense-humour
Anyway, Peterson is also a leading member of the arseoisie, or the “intellectual dark web”, as they prefer it. Again, are you familiar with the “intellectual dark web”? I do hope not. It’s a self-styling by a loose group of soi-disant intellectuals you’d cross continents to avoid having a pint with (although they didn’t go with that tagline in the end). There isn’t space for a full passenger manifest, but they include Peterson, talkshow host Dave Rubin, Newsweek columnist and perma-pundit Ben Shapiro and a bunch of other people bizarrely obsessed with what students do, even though we’ve known since time immemorial that students often act like idiots, and mostly grow out of it unless they’re Hamlet or whatever. Think of the intellectual dark web as a very whiny superhero team. Marvel’s A-Whingers. Guardians of the Galaxy Brains. The League of Extraordinarily Fragile Gentlemen.
Like the rest of the gang, Peterson apparently imagines himself “locked out” of the mainstream media, despite having sold 2m books and being interviewed every 10 minutes by actual international media outlets. I can’t help feeling that Jordan is “locked out” of the mainstream media in the same way that Justin Bieber is “locked out” of pop music.
As I am given to understand it, all these chaps ply their trade in the “marketplace of ideas”, which largely seems to be grown men shrieking “Not the face! Not the face!” at their detractors. Truly, to watch their online arguments is to clamber inside the Athenian agora simulator.
The whole article is brilliant, although I'd recommend Pappy not read it as he would likely burst something.
The humour is not that clever or witty. Though I can see your appeal
One thing I've noticed around here is that my jokes invariably go down like a lead balloon.
Initially I figured I wasn't trying hard enough or that I was using the wrong sort of jokes. I've since figured out an uncomfortable truth: I'm simply not funny.
-
I can see how, if you're so far up Jordan Peterson's arse that you've got brown shoulders and you are one of his legions of adoring but dim witted fans, you may not enjoy this article as much as I did.
-
Hilarious article. :laugh:
-
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2018/nov/01/pity-jordan-peterson-lobster-analogy-replace-sense-humour
The whole article is brilliant, although I'd recommend Pappy not read it as he would likely burst something.
I had the chance to read this at work while my chamber was purging with argon.
I feel sorry for this author as she is obviously educated beyond her intelligence. Peterson, the modern Diogenes?? Fuck she's ignorant as all fucking get out. Peterson is if anything, the opposite. It takes a special kind of lack of self awareness to write shit like this.
I also feel sorry for any dimwit who thought this was funny, it's 3rd rate smack talking at best.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2018/nov/01/pity-jordan-peterson-lobster-analogy-replace-sense-humour
The whole article is brilliant, although I'd recommend Pappy not read it as he would likely burst something.
I had the chance to read this at work while my chamber was purging with argon.
I feel sorry for this author as she is obviously educated beyond her intelligence. Peterson, the modern Diogenes?? Fuck she's ignorant as all fucking get out. Peterson is if anything, the opposite. It takes a special kind of lack of self awareness to write shit like this.
I also feel sorry for any dimwit who thought this was funny, it's 3rd rate smack talking at best.
It doesn't need to be 100% accurate to your standards and satisfaction to be funny.
Peterson is an idiot. Taking the piss out of him is funny.
-
I can see how, if you're so far up Jordan Peterson's arse that you've got brown shoulders and you are one of his legions of adoring but dim witted fans, you may not enjoy this article as much as I did.
I do not agree with his views on Kavanaugh. I also think he is given to strange abstractions on occasion. Unlike you though I am able to agree and disagree with all kind of people. The fact that you and Odeon find something is hilarious is generally a good indicator that it is bereft of humour. Spin all you like though.
-
I can appreciate sophisticated humour as much as the next guy. I laugh until my sides ache during repeat episodes of Family Guy for example.
-
It doesn't need to be 100% accurate to your standards and satisfaction to be funny.
Most of it doesn't even contain a single grain of truth. Good comedy is always based on something truthful so it can connect with a general audience. This is "comedy" based on propaganda so it only appeals to NPC types like you. :hahaha:
Peterson is an idiot. Taking the piss out of him is funny.
Yes, any idiot can write a book that sells 2 million copies and counting. How many copies have your books sold?? :apondering:
-
I can appreciate sophisticated humour as much as the next guy. I laugh until my sides ache during repeat episodes of Family Guy for example.
Jesus Christ!
See that was funny. Well done.
-
It doesn't need to be 100% accurate to your standards and satisfaction to be funny.
Most of it doesn't even contain a single grain of truth. Good comedy is always based on something truthful so it can connect with a general audience. This is "comedy" based on propaganda so it only appeals to NPC types like you. :hahaha:
Peterson is an idiot. Taking the piss out of him is funny.
Yes, any idiot can write a book that sells 2 million copies and counting. How many copies have your books sold?? :apondering:
Jordan Petersen is no fool.
-
Jordan Petersen is no fool.
I know that and you know that but MOSW is having delusions of adequacy. :laugh:
-
Google or duck duck go "the stupid man's smart person". Nuff said.
-
^^^ That just means that there's been an effective smear campaign against him. ::)
-
^^^ That just means that there's been an effective smear campaign against him. ::)
No smear campaign required. JP openly parades his stupid for the world to see.
-
^^^ That just means that there's been an effective smear campaign against him. ::)
No smear campaign required. JP openly parades his stupid for the world to see.
You just became the lowest denominator again. It was a brief interlude.
-
^^^ That just means that there's been an effective smear campaign against him. ::)
Stupid supporters help, too. :P
-
I feel left out of this argument. >:(
-
I feel left out of this argument. >:(
:hug:
-
^^^ That just means that there's been an effective smear campaign against him. ::)
Stupid supporters help, too. :P
You mean like Norwegians??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCHhgwRkY3Y
-
Stupid knows no borders. But you'll have to summarise the video for me, you know I don't watch any here.
-
Stupid knows no borders. But you'll have to summarise the video for me, you know I don't watch any here.
Yes this is one of the reasons you are stupid. You take hardline positions on things you fuck all about and after inferring others you know more than you about a topic are stupid, you ask THEM to break it down into bite sized chucks for you. This is the mindset of those that watch news clips and think that they have a balanced view. It is quite egotistical but then that is no real surprise.
-
Stupid knows no borders. But you'll have to summarise the video for me, you know I don't watch any here.
Yes this is one of the reasons you are stupid. You take hardline positions on things you fuck all about and after inferring others you know more than you about a topic are stupid, you ask THEM to break it down into bite sized chucks for you. This is the mindset of those that watch news clips and think that they have a balanced view. It is quite egotistical but then that is no real surprise.
Because I don't watch Scrap's Youtube clips? :rofl:
You should try reading a book, Al.
-
When someone asks me to watch youtube clips, I give them a couple of shots to point me at something enlightening that is worth watching.
If it turns out to be mindless crap, I take it that their judgement of what is worth watching is somewhat flawed, and generally don't bother after that.
In the case of some of the clips that Scrap has shared, they can be quite entertaining, but generally not for the reasons he thinks they are. The middle aged guy with the dead animal glued to his head was a great example. Seriously fucking funny.
I tend to prefer reading stuff as well.
It is rare that I share a video on a forum. When I do I will try to include a synopsis on why I think it might be worth watching. The whole point of a forum is to learn to express your own opinions convincingly and to enlighten others as to where you stand and why. If you're relying on the stupid man's smart person to do that for you.....
-
I tend not to watch videos on here, especially when offered by people I know usually disregard any facts but their own.
-
I'll watch videos here if they're short. My attention span can't handle much. :hahaha:
-
When someone asks me to watch youtube clips, I give them a couple of shots to point me at something enlightening that is worth watching.
If it turns out to be mindless crap, I take it that their judgement of what is worth watching is somewhat flawed, and generally don't bother after that.
In the case of some of the clips that Scrap has shared, they can be quite entertaining, but generally not for the reasons he thinks they are. The middle aged guy with the dead animal glued to his head was a great example. Seriously fucking funny.
I tend to prefer reading stuff as well.
It is rare that I share a video on a forum. When I do I will try to include a synopsis on why I think it might be worth watching. The whole point of a forum is to learn to express your own opinions convincingly and to enlighten others as to where you stand and why. If you're relying on the stupid man's smart person to do that for you.....
You probably can't comprehend it and thus call it mindless. Good defence mechanism.
-
When someone asks me to watch youtube clips, I give them a couple of shots to point me at something enlightening that is worth watching.
If it turns out to be mindless crap, I take it that their judgement of what is worth watching is somewhat flawed, and generally don't bother after that.
In the case of some of the clips that Scrap has shared, they can be quite entertaining, but generally not for the reasons he thinks they are. The middle aged guy with the dead animal glued to his head was a great example. Seriously fucking funny.
I tend to prefer reading stuff as well.
It is rare that I share a video on a forum. When I do I will try to include a synopsis on why I think it might be worth watching. The whole point of a forum is to learn to express your own opinions convincingly and to enlighten others as to where you stand and why. If you're relying on the stupid man's smart person to do that for you.....
You probably can't comprehend it and thus call it mindless. Good defence mechanism.
I'm an expert at detecting mindless crap. In fact, I'm detecting it right now.
-
When someone asks me to watch youtube clips, I give them a couple of shots to point me at something enlightening that is worth watching.
If it turns out to be mindless crap, I take it that their judgement of what is worth watching is somewhat flawed, and generally don't bother after that.
In the case of some of the clips that Scrap has shared, they can be quite entertaining, but generally not for the reasons he thinks they are. The middle aged guy with the dead animal glued to his head was a great example. Seriously fucking funny.
I tend to prefer reading stuff as well.
It is rare that I share a video on a forum. When I do I will try to include a synopsis on why I think it might be worth watching. The whole point of a forum is to learn to express your own opinions convincingly and to enlighten others as to where you stand and why. If you're relying on the stupid man's smart person to do that for you.....
You probably can't comprehend it and thus call it mindless. Good defence mechanism.
I'm an expert at detecting mindless crap. In fact, I'm detecting it right now.
No doubt. You were typing at that very moment weren't you?
-
I tend not to watch videos on here, especially when offered by people I know usually disregard any facts but their own.
(http://www.concordecinema.com/medias/images/stock-footage-an-antique-mm-film-projector-projects-a-blank-movie-with-a-dust-and-hair-texture-lifted-from.jpg)
-
I tend not to watch videos on here, especially when offered by people I know usually disregard any facts but their own.
(http://www.concordecinema.com/medias/images/stock-footage-an-antique-mm-film-projector-projects-a-blank-movie-with-a-dust-and-hair-texture-lifted-from.jpg)
This was a more charitable way of saying "idiots like Scrap and Al".
Happy now?
-
When someone asks me to watch youtube clips, I give them a couple of shots to point me at something enlightening that is worth watching.
If it turns out to be mindless crap, I take it that their judgement of what is worth watching is somewhat flawed, and generally don't bother after that.
In the case of some of the clips that Scrap has shared, they can be quite entertaining, but generally not for the reasons he thinks they are. The middle aged guy with the dead animal glued to his head was a great example. Seriously fucking funny.
I tend to prefer reading stuff as well.
It is rare that I share a video on a forum. When I do I will try to include a synopsis on why I think it might be worth watching. The whole point of a forum is to learn to express your own opinions convincingly and to enlighten others as to where you stand and why. If you're relying on the stupid man's smart person to do that for you.....
You probably can't comprehend it and thus call it mindless. Good defence mechanism.
I'm an expert at detecting mindless crap. In fact, I'm detecting it right now.
No doubt. You were typing at that very moment weren't you?
Beep beep beep beep beep.
-
Seldom was a subject title more apt. :laugh:
-
The original site is down but this one is now up.
https://www.idwnews.org/
-
Was referring to the discussion in this thread.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/03/milo-yiannopoulos-more-than-2m-in-debt-australian-promoters-documents-show
Seems like Milo spent all his money on blow and rent boys.
-
Wow, TOTALLY not a biased source. ::)
-
Did you expect Breitbart?
-
Did you expect Breitbart?
Yes Odeon there really are biases in News that are on the Progressive Left and mentioning Breitbart as the counter to any bias of any online publication and Fox News as the counter to any News Network or channel is beyond weak. The fact that you can really only do it with these two Right wing outlets as MOST outlets are Progressive is lost on no one.
-
Scrap's comment about bias is as laughable as is your pitiful defence of it. One would think that you'd be more interested in presenting an alternative story on Milo, one that didn't quite paint him as the sad little boy he is, but I guess neither of you found one.
-
Scrap's comment about bias is as laughable as is your pitiful defence of it. One would think that you'd be more interested in presenting an alternative story on Milo, one that didn't quite paint him as the sad little boy he is, but I guess neither of you found one.
What exactly did I say about Milo?
Milo as far as I can make I'd a young 30 something that is making a lot of money and living the high live.
He does have various income sources including a real estate portfolio.
He has enough for a frugal person to retire on. It has always been the case though that if you spend more than you receive and that if some of your income sources dry up and you do not tighten your belt? You are going to wind up in trouble.
None of these opinion are likely to rock your world and you are likely to agree with them.
But there was actually NOTHING in my previous comment of bias that is untrue. It is only laughable for those too stupid or ideologically blinded to realise and so THEY laugh condescendingly to themselves, in their own palpable ignorance.
The truth is Fox News is big. It is absolutely Right leaning. Breitbart is big and is Right Leaning take those two exampleseparate of right wing outlets with right wing bias and what are the other big outlets with right wing bias? Now try the experiment on the left. Take away Fox'S biggest competitor, the left wing outlet with left wing bias, MSNBC, and you have CNN, take away that and you ABC...and for Breitbart, NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today and so it goes.
It is hardly alike or the same.
-
Milo was briefly on Patreon begging for money, until they booted him off for hate speech.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/811121/milo-yiannopoulos-call-birthday-pay-750-month
That's a real shame. I was gonna sign up for the $750 per month where he calls you on your birthday.
I get the impression that his expensive lifestyle continued on after he got widely de-platformed and his income stream dried up.
Poor Milo, maybe we should take up a collection for him here at I^2? I've got some old knee pads he could use while he's getting back on his feet. Anyone else?
-
He can have my used toilet paper. :zoinks:
-
Milo was briefly on Patreon begging for money, until they booted him off for hate speech.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/811121/milo-yiannopoulos-call-birthday-pay-750-month
That's a real shame. I was gonna sign up for the $750 per month where he calls you on your birthday.
I get the impression that his expensive lifestyle continued on after he got widely de-platformed and his income stream dried up.
Poor Milo, maybe we should take up a collection for him here at I^2? I've got some old knee pads he could use while he's getting back on his feet. Anyone else?
Patreon is not a money begging site. He probably did get booted off for something. They are very left leaning and a home for many on the Left and it is no surprise as it is based around the Patronages of old whereby the up and coming creative artists and writers would look for wealthy patrons to pay them to dedicate their time to ply their trade.
As a rule people are more likely to be actors and artists and writers and this easily explains Hollywood and why it explains why the propensity of Patreon's customers are on thew Left and further why so many both on Patreon and paying Patreon customers would find offence of Milo being on their too and wish to de-platform him. That is the way of the Progressive.
-
Scrap's comment about bias is as laughable as is your pitiful defence of it. One would think that you'd be more interested in presenting an alternative story on Milo, one that didn't quite paint him as the sad little boy he is, but I guess neither of you found one.
What exactly did I say about Milo?
Milo as far as I can make I'd a young 30 something that is making a lot of money and living the high live.
He does have various income sources including a real estate portfolio.
He has enough for a frugal person to retire on. It has always been the case though that if you spend more than you receive and that if some of your income sources dry up and you do not tighten your belt? You are going to wind up in trouble.
None of these opinion are likely to rock your world and you are likely to agree with them.
But there was actually NOTHING in my previous comment of bias that is untrue. It is only laughable for those too stupid or ideologically blinded to realise and so THEY laugh condescendingly to themselves, in their own palpable ignorance.
Blah bla blubba blah bla blub blah...
Sorry. I tried to parse your reply but this is all I got out of it.
-
Scrap's comment about bias is as laughable as is your pitiful defence of it. One would think that you'd be more interested in presenting an alternative story on Milo, one that didn't quite paint him as the sad little boy he is, but I guess neither of you found one.
What exactly did I say about Milo?
Milo as far as I can make I'd a young 30 something that is making a lot of money and living the high live.
He does have various income sources including a real estate portfolio.
He has enough for a frugal person to retire on. It has always been the case though that if you spend more than you receive and that if some of your income sources dry up and you do not tighten your belt? You are going to wind up in trouble.
None of these opinion are likely to rock your world and you are likely to agree with them.
But there was actually NOTHING in my previous comment of bias that is untrue. It is only laughable for those too stupid or ideologically blinded to realise and so THEY laugh condescendingly to themselves, in their own palpable ignorance.
Blah bla blubba blah bla blub blah...
Sorry. I tried to parse your reply but this is all I got out of it.
Yes, you have shit comprehension. It is not something worth celebrating.
-
I guess you didn't understand what you wrote either.
-
I guess you didn't understand what you wrote either.
I do think have shot comprehension I understood it fine
-
Let's not lose sight of the big picture here. Poor Milo, the conservatives don't want him and more and the far right never really wanted him for several obvious reasons. The lefties certainly don't want him. So far we have collected some knee pads and some used Gopher toilet paper. Surely we can do more than that?
-
I'm going to thrown in a pair of bootstraps. Apparently conservatives think bootstraps can help anyone who is down on their luck.
-
Let's give him Al.
-
Let's give him Al.
Al. In a gimp suit.
-
Let's give him Al.
Al. In a gimp suit.
Keep dreaming. But share less.
-
Milo was briefly on Patreon begging for money, until they booted him off for hate speech.
Patreon boots people off for questioning Leftist orthodoxy. Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) recently got booted off with no warning or explanation.
This has been the trend with silicon valley tech giants as of late, de-platform the heretics. ::)
-
I guess they didn't fall for his "get a Milo ringtone" scheme. :zoinks:
-
https://youtu.be/aDMjgOYOcDw
Ben Shapiro, exposed as the diminutive bullshit artist he is.
-
this I.D.K stuff seems weird, like its a meme that butt hurt lefties came up with to try and make right wing people sound scary. guess it didnt work...
-
I'm pretty sure that you are a member of the IDK Reggie.
As for the IDW, they came up with that themselves because they think they're intellectual and edgy.
-
As for the IDW, they came up with that themselves
proof?
-
Dude, it's no secret. The following is from Wikipedia. Eric Weinstein is a tosser who wears a dead cat or something on his head.
Eric Weinstein, the director of an American venture capital firm, stated that when he coined the term he was "half-joking".[1][7] This occurred after Weinstein's brother, biologist Bret Weinstein, was forced to resign in 2017 from his position as professor of biology at Evergreen State College in response to protests against his criticism of a campus event that asked white students to stay off campus, as opposed to the previous annual tradition of black students voluntarily absenting themselves.[8] The website Big Think has argued that other controversies, dating back to 2014, should also be viewed as antecedents to the IDW. These include a debate between Sam Harris and Ben Affleck on Real Time with Bill Maher in October 2014, the publication of Google's Ideological Echo Chamber by James Damore in August 2017, and Cathy Newman's interview of Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 News in January 2018, each of which related to controversial topics such as Islamic extremism and workplace diversity policies.