Intellectual Dark Web

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus! Screenshot this.

I actually think we agree!

I loved you in Dad's Army and Grandpa

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I loved you in Dad's Army and Grandpa

I think your boyfriend has nice socks

20Cent

Heard that Jordan Peterson is boycotting the movie IT because the clown is clearly a male and he refuses to use incorrect pronouns.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Heard that Jordan Peterson is boycotting the movie IT because the clown is clearly a male and he refuses to use incorrect pronouns.

booooooooooooooooooooooo

Veritas Libertas

Morgans wrote: »

As if you missed the fight to equalise gay marriage, gay adoption etc. Everyone of these rights have had to be fought for.

Lets take for example.. I don't know let's say domestic abuse? Apparently it is a man on women only problem, yet why is it the highest rate of domestic abuse are found in lesbian relationships? This is something we're not allowed to talk about, otherwise its misogynist.

Or how about the fact that only 25% of candidates that stand for election are female, or the about 25% of the cabinet are female... does this equate to sexism in your eyes?

Equality does not mean exactly the same percentage wise.

There is more variability in men than women, that's why you see more men at the top and the bottom. In every single metric you can think of men display more variability.

I do believe that the way society is structured what is called meritocracy is just another method for those with the power in society to maintain it.

Ah finally your mask slips. Now I get you. Take a look at this video, it might educate you about your opinion on privilege.

White middle aged men account for 7/10 souls lost to suicide. I guess they just couldn't get on board with their privilege. Or how about the fact that men live shorter lies. How exactly do you measure your privilege?

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Lets take for example.. I don't know let's say domestic abuse? Apparently it is a man on women only problem, yet why is it the highest rate of domestic abuse are found in lesbian relationships? This is something we're not allowed to talk about, otherwise its misogynist.

Or how about the fact that only 25% of candidates that stand for election are female, or the about 25% of the cabinet are female... does this equate to sexism in your eyes?

Equality does not mean exactly the same percentage wise.

There is more variability in men than women, that's why you see more men at the top and the bottom. In every single metric you can think of men display more variability.



Ah finally your mask slips. Now I get you. Take a look at this video, it might educate you about your opinion on privilege.

White middle aged men account for 7/10 souls lost to suicide. I guess they just couldn't get on board with their privilege. Or how about the fact that men live shorter lies. How exactly do you measure your privilege?

You come across like you have issue with women gaining more equality. Before you lose the run of yourself, I'm not saying you can't be critical of how society works and how after many many generations women are slowly becoming equal and you might be a little scared, but with this and the against choice regarding abortions, that's how it reads to me.
I'd measure privilege as lack of empathy for people in a situation you've never had to deal with and fail to understand.

quokula

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No professional organisation should hire someone less qualified than another purely based on skin colour. Rather than setting race/gender quotas we should ensure everyone gets a good start in education and then let the chips fall were they may. If a company is rife with nepotism or racism, that's a different issue.

But we live in a world where everyone doesn't get a good start in education and that's not going to be magically fixed overnight.

If you ignore race and take two white people, someone from a poor background and someone from a rich background who have roughly similar qualifications, it is likely that the person from a poor background had to work harder to attain those qualifications and will go on to be a better worker. The same can often apply when you replace "poor" with "immigrant". I believe I read about a study that supports this a few months ago, though I haven't checked for any links so I may be wrong.

Other studies show unconscious bias among interviewers against minorities even when they are equally or more qualified than other interviewees. Also, depending on the industry you're talking about the existence of a multicultural, mixed gender workforce is in itself an advantage to the business if it wants to for example create products that appeal to a wide variety of consumers.

In most cases positive discrimination, which is generally very limited, is just a way of slightly balancing out discrimination the other way that already exists. The kind of strawman arguments being made about one legged unqualified doctors being hired just because they're Asian really have no relationship to reality.

Veritas Libertas

Morgans wrote: »

First 10 mins of this relates to Dave Rubin and Tommy Robinson - free speech warrior and what Dave Rubin does. I doubt you are actually interested in any education on this.

Can you please make the argument yourself? You've posted some long videos... at least please summarize them in one sentence?

It was especially funny when Joe Rogan had to ask David Pakman if it was mean or fair to go after Dave Rubin just because he wasnt intelligent.

So rubin isn't intelligent. Gotcha. What relevance does this have to the discussion?

Of the list you have in the OP, he is the worst. And is now on an ultra conservative network having pretended to be a libertarian previously. Again, I dont believe you are remotely interested in adjusting your position. It really doesnt take long to see if there is criticism online for the shysters.

Shyster does sound awfully like grifter and huckster.

So the charge(i'll grant you) he's on an ultra conservative network(His own?) pretending to be a libertarian. That's the guys biggest crime? That's why he receives so much hate?

quokula

quokula wrote: »

If you ignore race and take two white people, .

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Veritas Libertas

quokula wrote: »

In most cases positive discrimination, which is generally very limited, is just a way of slightly balancing out discrimination the other way that already exists. The kind of strawman arguments being made about one legged unqualified doctors being hired just because they're Asian really have no relationship to reality.

Even if I grant you everything else (which I don't agree with all) how will you know when positive discrimination becomes negative discrimination?

What happens if you have too many Travellers applying for and getting positions?

Take for example the 'students vs fair admissions' Asian students brought against Harvard.

The case will hinge on questions about discrimination and the role that race plays in Harvard’s evaluations of applicants. Judge Burroughs must decide what to make of the fact that Asian-American applicants received lower personal ratings (one of four ratings Harvard uses) than did applicants of other races in the university’s admissions process.

Harvard purposefully lowered the number of Asian-Americans because they had too many. They were outperforming every other demographic, and they had their legs taken out from under them.

This is where 'positive' discrimination takes you. It's about chopping peoples legs off to make everyone the same.

James Brown

quokula wrote: »

But we live in a world where everyone doesn't get a good start in education and that's not going to be magically fixed overnight.

If you ignore race and take two white people, someone from a poor background and someone from a rich background who have roughly similar qualifications, it is likely that the person from a poor background had to work harder to attain those qualifications and will go on to be a better worker. The same can often apply when you replace "poor" with "immigrant". I believe I read about a study that supports this a few months ago, though I haven't checked for any links so I may be wrong.

Other studies show unconscious bias among interviewers against minorities even when they are equally or more qualified than other interviewees. Also, depending on the industry you're talking about the existence of a multicultural, mixed gender workforce is in itself an advantage to the business if it wants to for example create products that appeal to a wide variety of consumers.

In most cases positive discrimination, which is generally very limited, is just a way of slightly balancing out discrimination the other way that already exists. The kind of strawman arguments being made about one legged unqualified doctors being hired just because they're Asian really have no relationship to reality.

Forcing companies or political parties to have a quota is not fair IMO.
I would only have it in regard to education/scholarships and the like.
Despite what the conservatives would like us to believe generations of the same people aren't poor or rich based on genetics. When you come from money you have less obstacles. It's easier for a kid from a wealthy family to coast by than it is for someone from a working class family.
I would want the best person for the job every time.

quokula

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Even if I grant you everything else (which I don't agree with all) how will you know when positive discrimination becomes negative discrimination?

What happens if you have too many Travellers applying for and getting positions?

Take for example the 'students vs fair admissions' Asian students brought against Harvard.



Harvard purposefully lowered the number of Asian-Americans because they had too many. They were outperforming every other demographic, and they had their legs taken out from under them.

This is where 'positive' discrimination takes you. It's about chopping peoples legs off to make everyone the same.

The Harvard case is not what you think it is.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-underlying-attack-in-the-harvard-admissions-lawsuit

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-14/harvard-judge-wants-to-know-where-all-the-asian-americans-are

As for the scenario you just made up about a company being overloaded with Travellers because of positive discrimination, again that has never happened and is not in any way remotely related to how affirmative action works in the real world, which is to look at where groups are unfairly under represented and to see how that bias can be reduced slightly.

Veritas Libertas

quokula wrote: »

The Harvard case is not what you think it is.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-underlying-attack-in-the-harvard-admissions-lawsuit

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-14/harvard-judge-wants-to-know-where-all-the-asian-americans-are

As for the scenario you just made up about a company being overloaded with Travellers because of positive discrimination, again that has never happened and is not in any way remotely related to how affirmative action works in the real world, which is to look at where groups are unfairly under represented and to see how that bias can be reduced slightly.

The Harvard case certainly is what I think. That's why it's drawn so much attention world-wide. What is in question is not what Harvard are doing to discriminate, its whether what they are doing is discriminatory.
They are not denying doing what they are doing...(Lowering asian american scores purposefully).

“The most important question in the case is, Why is this happening?” said Adam K. Mortara, a lawyer for Students for Fair Admissions.

What good reason could you provide for lowering of Asian American scores to places like Harvard?

As for the scenario I made up, yes this is called a thought experiment. Apparently it'll never happen so let's not worry about it. Fair enough keep your head in the sand if you like.

Red Herring
The in-person absence of rejected Asian-American student applicants is a red herring because their appearance would have added nothing to the damning statistical evidence offered by the plaintiffs. That is true because, among other reasons, their individual cases were, in fact, present in abundance.

Junkyard Tom

Lots of fallacies and goalpost shifting. The main problem with these talking points is that they're largely a waste of time - get the proles squabbling with each other while the system that recreates inequality remains unchallenged.

That's why a toxic little elf-boy like Ben Shapiro will tell you that your inability to earn more is a 'you problem' and the fact that millions of Americans are one pay slip away from the street is just how it is.

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Lots of fallacies and goalpost shifting. The main problem with these talking points is that they're largely a waste of time - get the proles squabbling with each other while the system that recreates inequality remains unchallenged.

That's why a toxic little elf-boy like Ben Shapiro will tell you that your inability to earn more is a 'you problem' and the fact that millions of Americans are one pay slip away from the street is just how it is.

You started with rhetoric like this mixed in with some good interesting points but now that you are out of argument is really telling.

I have not moved any goal posts. I'm just paying close attention to their dimensions. I asked why all the hate for dave rubin. You replied with some good reasons to hate the guy, but the hate is not nearly justified by what you have provided, or anything else that I have seen.
This is a level of hate way and above.. you must admit this...

Veritas Libertas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You come across like you have issue with women gaining more equality. Before you lose the run of yourself, I'm not saying you can't be critical of how society works and how after many many generations women are slowly becoming equal and you might be a little scared, but with this and the against choice regarding abortions, that's how it reads to me.
I'd measure privilege as lack of empathy for people in a situation you've never had to deal with and fail to understand.

That's your opinion, but I can tell you its untrue. I see myself as very liberal in respect of rights for all people.

I however see (as one of the topics of the IDW,Anti-feminism) as one of the subjects that can't be discussed for fear of horrible stigma(like you imposed on me in your first sentence that I have issues with women)

Please take my example earlier and address this point:
Look at how domestic abuse is treated as a woman only issue. Then look at the stats and see who really perpetrates domestic violence.
In this respect, we're completely devoid from reality.

Among the debates in the field of domestic violence, none is more acrimonious than the debate around female initiated violence — a debate that has been troubling for feminists since the first U.S. National Family Violence Survey of 1975 found women to be as violent as men. Because this finding contradicts feminist theory, it has been suppressed, unreported, reinterpreted, or denied. Attempts to explain away or diminish female initiated violence in intimate aggression and Violent Behavior relationships has resulted in violent women being portrayed as engaging in self-defensive violence, less serious
violence, or being the victims of gender biased reporting differences (i.e., women are more credible in their reports of
violence). In fact, rates of female initiated violence in intimate relationships are equivalent to or exceed male rates; they
include female violence against non-violent males, even when analyzed for level of severity (Stets & Straus, 1992) and
they have serious consequences for males (Archer, 2000; Laroche, 2005; Stets & Straus, 1992). Currently, women
offenders constitute the fastest growing segment of the criminal justice system and the National Institute of Justice
estimates that the increase in the incarceration rate for women is double that of men (Ferraro & Moe, 2003; Mullings,
Hartley, & Marquart, 2004).

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

That's your opinion, but I can tell you its untrue. I see myself as very liberal in respect of rights for all people.

I however see (as one of the topics of the IDW,Anti-feminism) as one of the subjects that can't be discussed for fear of horrible stigma(like you imposed on me in your first sentence that I have issues with women)

Please take my example earlier and address this point:
Look at how domestic abuse is treated as a woman only issue. Then look at the stats and see who really perpetrates domestic violence.
In this respect, we're completely devoid from reality.

I'm all for respecting the rights of all people right up until they infringe upon somebody else's rights or freedoms.

Telling you that your opinions give me that impression is oppressing you is it? It's often very ironic that the people who brought us words like 'snowflake' are very sensitive when those opinions are questioned.

We have to consider that for generations wife beating was ignored. Now in the relatively recent time where actions are taken you are worried about it going to far their way? I agree with spousal abuse men get a rough go of it and males do commit suicide a lot, but I think we've a long way to go for a level playing field and it shouldn't involve dragging one section of society down to raise another or complaining the minorities are getting too much attention over those who've often no idea what it's like to be a minority.

Veritas Libertas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm all for respecting the rights of all people right up until they infringe upon somebody else's rights or freedoms.

Telling you that your opinions give me that impression is oppressing you is it? It's often very ironic that the people who brought us words like 'snowflake' are very sensitive when those opinions are questioned.

We have to consider that for generations wife beating was ignored. Now in the relatively recent time where actions are taken you are worried about it going to far their way? I agree with spousal abuse men get a rough go of it and males do commit suicide a lot, but I think we've a long way to go for a level playing field and it shouldn't involve dragging one section of society down to raise another or complaining the minorities are getting too much attention over those who've often no idea what it's like to be a minority.

The first sentence was looking so promising... Then you went back into sjw mode. Pity.

Not all domestic abuse is wife-beating. Not even half of it.

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

The first sentence was looking so promising... Then you went back into sjw mode. Pity.

Thanks for the confirmation

Veritas Libertas

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

Noam Chomsky

cdgalwegian

Actually, I think that's the charge against you; that you've fallen for the Rubin echo chamber, If I'm reading all this correctly. Isn't it?

Veritas Libertas

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Actually, I think that's the charge against you; that you've fallen for the Rubin echo chamber, If I'm reading all this correctly. Isn't it?

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize that.

On what basis though? Do you think it has merit?

E.g. I bring up domestic violence, suddenly it becomes a conversation about wife-beaters

Junkyard Tom

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

that you are out of argument is really telling.

I couldn't be bothered going back and pointing out fallacies and rhetoric because it's a waste of time and it's getting drawn into the mudpit just how the 'intellectuals' from the dark web would like it.

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered going back and pointing out fallacies and rhetoric because it's a waste of time and it's getting drawn into the mudpit just how the 'intellectuals' from the dark web would like it.

You always find the time to smear people though. IMO you haven't added much to this thread except mud.

suicide_circus

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Actually, I think that's the charge against you; that you've fallen for the Rubin echo chamber, If I'm reading all this correctly. Isn't it?

which came first? the echo chamber or the echo chamber?

cdgalwegian

suicide_circus wrote: »

which came first? the echo chamber or the echo chamber?

I hadn't heard that before... before...fore..ore

Veritas Libertas

Another example:

The abortion debate is not really a debate in favour or against of abortion..

Few people I've heard say they would be against early abortion, and similarly most people are against abortion a day before due date.

It's nearly always about when the window is open and what circumstances for an abortion to take place.

But the emotional vitriol involved in the conversation becomes about rights freedoms etc.. all red herrings.

Similar with that of immigration, very few people want completely closed borders, and very few want them completely open. It's all a matter of how much and by what standards.

cdgalwegian

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize that.

On what basis though? Do you think it has merit?

E.g. I bring up domestic violence, suddenly it becomes a conversation about wife-beaters

I watched the first 2 videos from one of Morgans' earlier post : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u3TPxQao3m0. I'd actually take the time to watch even just the first one; it gives a good breakdown of how Rubin's style of interviewing has evolved. From what little I've seen of these not particularly intellectual and easily accessed so-called 'dark webbers', who often feature on the Rubin Report, they rely heavily on a niche sector of society involving emotive issues, which often relies on creating false enemies. I think you would recognise this from Adam Curtis' documentaries.
The Rubin Report appears to be a coalescence of validating these views. Validation, rather than authentic challenging, is the structure of echo chambers; your quote above shows how this is reinforced by the semblance of challenging views. Much of mainstream material is obviously biased, but resorting to this particular non-mainstream bunch seems the wrong answer to it. It's only going to reinforce what you may already believe. It's not easy to find 'balanced' reporting, but that's life.

Veritas Libertas

cdgalwegian wrote: »

I watched the first 2 videos from one of Morgans' earlier post : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u3TPxQao3m0. I'd actually take the time to watch even just the first one; it gives a good breakdown of how Rubin's style of interviewing has evolved. From what little I've seen of these not particularly intellectual and easily accessed so-called 'dark webbers', who often feature on the Rubin Report, they rely heavily on a niche sector of society involving emotive issues, which often relies on creating false enemies. I think you would recognise this from Adam Curtis' documentaries.

I watched the first twenty minutes the other day and found myself agreeing with Timbah a lot except the part about Rubin being a gate-way to the far-right which seems to the most significant charge laid out against him.

Red Herrings
He should support the rights of protesters to protest just as much as the speakers right to speak. This is ridiculous considering the tactics by these protesters are to deplatform and silence speakers. No-one has a problem with protesters until they stop a talk from happening or whatever.
Jordan Peterson refusing to use gender pronouns: He is against the MANDATED used of pronouns under penalty of law. There is a grand canyon size difference between these two things.



I have only watched a few episodes of Rubin ever, he repeats the same information a lot, and he's not very interesting. Sometimes he has interesting guests on. The part I find myself agreeing with him is his opposition to political correctness.

I just don't see how this can stoke so much hate for the guy, could you-honestly? The give you an example of the hate :
Try watching this clip (its tough, skip to about 30mins20sec)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knv7ZwIBmvs

The Rubin Report appears to be a coalescence of validating these views. Validation, rather than authentic challenging, is the structure of echo chambers; your quote above shows how this is reinforced by the semblance of challenging views. Much of mainstream material is obviously biased, but resorting to this particular non-mainstream bunch seems the wrong answer to it. It's only going to reinforce what you may already believe. It's not easy to find 'balanced' reporting, but that's life.

I'd agree a lot, but it's how I got introduced to the likes of Eric Weinstein, Debrah Soh, Janice Fiamengo.. etc.. surely its only a good thing that people offer platforms on their shows to get to know more interesting people? I think he gets so much hate because he is so similar to the people he gets the hate from... that he speaks out from 'within'. He lives in San Francisco.

I used to watch a lot more liberal media/news but since Trump got elected it has changed into something much different.

For example John Oliver and John Stewart in particular was my favourite comedian for a long time. It's such a great shame what a tragedy he has spawned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPI0UwHGp3M

markodaly

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

For example John Oliver and John Stewart in particular was my favourite comedian for a long time. It's such a great shame what a tragedy he has spawned.

My view on late night 'talk' shows that passes of as comedy.