Intellectual Dark Web

Veritas Libertas

xckjoo wrote: »

You've literally nothing to base that on. The article is pretty balanced. Here's her opinions, here's some people that disagree with her.

Dunno why I'm replying. The post pattern indicates either someone slightly unhinged or with an alternative agenda.

The 2004 article is far more balanced.

I literally have something to base this on.

In a statement Think Inc, the event organiser, said the cancellation was due to a “number of reasons including security concerns”.

The day before the event was cancelled the guardian released a hit piece on Ayaan Hiris Ali that I already posted(2017) and is full of bull**** statements like

• her critics say
• A group of prominent Muslim women from playwrights to human rights campaigners, from conservative Muslims to the most progressive, don’t want this tour to proceed unchallenged.
• due to what they say is the “hatemongering and bigotry”
• Her views, they argue, serve to “increase hostility and hatred towards Muslims”
• ignore the day-to-day work of many to improve social cohesion and to champion women’s rights within their faith.

Your referral to this article as fair is quite ridiculous. Only goes to show your bias or your unwillingness to apply proper rational thought.

What if I wrote an article about you how The Guardian wrote about Hiris Ali? It would go something like this.

Many people say xckjoo is a hateful bigot. Many of his(apologies if you are a her) most vocal critics say his opposition to women is the surest sign of this. A group of prominent liberals have disavowed him and what he says because they call it 'bigoted and mean'. His views, they argue, serve to “increase hostility and hatred towards Muslims”, and ignore the day-to-day work of many to improve social cohesion and to champion women’s rights within their faith.
Everyday women and muslims are harassed particularly if wearing visible signs of their faith such as the hijab head covering.
Many Australian Muslims consider Xckjoo's views simplistic and resent him being lauded as an expert in the Islamic faith

xckjoo

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

The 2004 article is far more balanced.

I literally have something to base this on.



The day before the event was cancelled the guardian released a hit piece on Ayaan Hiris Ali that I already posted(2017) and is full of bull**** statements like

• her critics say
• A group of prominent Muslim women from playwrights to human rights campaigners, from conservative Muslims to the most progressive, don’t want this tour to proceed unchallenged.
• due to what they say is the “hatemongering and bigotry”
• Her views, they argue, serve to “increase hostility and hatred towards Muslims”
• ignore the day-to-day work of many to improve social cohesion and to champion women’s rights within their faith.

Your referral to this article as fair is quite ridiculous. Only goes to show your bias or your unwillingness to apply proper rational thought.

Nah bud. You're referring to them reporting what the opposition groups said about her. It's not The Guardian saying these things. Tis literally reporting both sides of the story like a media source should. The Guardian is left leaning, but you're fairly stretching to try and get this article into your argument. You've taken an article and retrofitted a motive to match an outcome. If this is the most biased thing you can find on The Guardian, then maybe it's more balanced than I thought.


Anyway, from the looks of the rest of your posts here, it looks like you've got some ulterior motives and are trying to goad people into something (e.g. continuously masquerading as not having watched the video others recommended while asking for a summary only to say in #150 that you had watched all 3 hrs of it) so I'll leave you to it.
Edit to match your edit: More proof of my last statement.

Veritas Libertas

xckjoo wrote: »

Nah bud. You're referring to them reporting what the opposition groups said about her. It's not The Guardian saying these things.

I'm happy to listen/read criticisms of Hirisi Ali. What I'm not happy with is people saying "some people say Hirisi Ali is ...." without every referring to a person, a group or a quote.

Is this a fair way to represent someone?

Many people say xckjoo is a hateful bigot. Many of his(apologies if you are a her) most vocal critics say his opposition to women is the surest sign of this. A group of prominent liberals have disavowed him and what he says because they call it 'bigoted and mean'. His views, they argue, serve to “increase hostility and hatred towards Muslims”, and ignore the day-to-day work of many to improve social cohesion and to champion women’s rights within their faith.
Everyday women and muslims are harassed particularly if wearing visible signs of their faith such as the hijab head covering.
Many Australian Muslims consider Xckjoo's views simplistic and resent him being lauded as an expert in the Islamic faith

Anyway, from the looks of the rest of your posts here, it looks like you've got some ulterior motives and are trying to goad people into something (e.g. continuously masquerading as not having watched the video others recommended while asking for a summary only to say in #150 that you had watched all 3 hrs of it) so I'll leave you to it.
Edit to match your edit: More proof of my last statement.

Jesus there Sherlock you are so close! Indeed I had watched the first twenty minutes of the video , and before post 200 watched the rest.

Would you summarize his greatest charge as being a gate-way to the alt-right? Could you please answer this question? Or if you haven't also watched the video, how would you know I'm so wrong?

I smell hypocrisy.

Its clear what you are doing here. You are muddying the water with previous arguments made by the likes of Tom. I expect a few more replies from you talking about the video, without ever discussing the merits of the argument within the video. I hope I'm wrong.

Veritas Libertas

xckjoo wrote: »

Nah bud. You're referring to them reporting what the opposition groups said about her. It's not The Guardian saying these things. Tis literally reporting both sides of the story like a media source should. The Guardian is left leaning, but you're fairly stretching to try and get this article into your argument. You've taken an article and retrofitted a motive to match an outcome. If this is the most biased thing you can find on The Guardian, then maybe it's more balanced than I thought.

If you're not able to recognize the anatomy of a modern hit job, then please take a look at this fine article by Douglas Murray.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/the-scruton-tapes-an-anatomy-of-a-modern-hit-job/

Veritas Libertas

xckjoo wrote: »

Nah bud. You're referring to them reporting what the opposition groups said about her. It's not The Guardian saying these things.

The Guardian reported:

"A group of prominent Muslim women, from playwrights to human rights campaigners, from conservative Muslims to the most progressive, don’t want this tour to proceed unchallenged."

This is the group that they were referring to that got 458 signatures.

We, the undersigned, would like to express our utmost disappointment that Ayaan Hirsi-Ali is being brought to Australia by Think Inc.
This position is reflective of the huge diversity of opinion amongst Australian Muslim women. Although we are not a homogenous group, we are united in our condemnation of Hirsi-Ali's discourse which is grounded in hate-mongering and bigotry.

Link

Do you believe a petition in Australia with 458 signatures deserved so much attention and vitriol from the Guardian?

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

If you're not able to recognize the anatomy of a modern hit job, then please take a look at this fine article by Douglas Murray.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/the-scruton-tapes-an-anatomy-of-a-modern-hit-job/

Serious question, how does Douglas Murray make money out of writing? It's awful.

I have no idea whether the content is correct, it's so tough to read. I don't mean intellectually challenging, I mean it's so badly written I can't read it.

Are his books like this?

Look at this one paragraph:

These manipulations of Scruton’s words had their desired effect. In a way, the Scruton case offers a parable of our times. For generations, interviewers have sought to make mischief with quotes — but before, they tended not to result in people being fired before teatime. There is now an established pattern. Once an ostensibly reputable source spins a line, the Twittersphere finds its latest object of outrage. As soon as prominent people join the mob (celebrities, activists), the campaign against the individual intensifies. Weak politicians who want to be seen to be reacting fast try not to get caught behind developments. As Henry Kissinger said recently: ‘Information threatens to overwhelm wisdom.’

Jesus wept, it's tough going.

Veritas Libertas

Brian? wrote: »

Serious question, how does Douglas Murray make money out of writing? It's awful.

I have no idea whether the content is correct, it's so tough to read. I don't mean intellectually challenging, I mean it's so badly written I can't read it.

Are his books like this?

I've heard a few extracts from his new book "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" seems quite interesting, is kind of a play on a book from the Charles Mackay(1841) which was an early study on crowd philosophy. It is currently #1 best seller in ethical issues on Amazon(New release)

I find Murray to be enlightening and he makes arguments that others are too afraid to make.

His book "Strange Death of Europe" Got 87% 5star reviews on Amazon. I haven't read it, but have heard Murray talk about large parts of it.

I must say I always enjoy his work, even if I don't fully agree with it.

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I've heard a few extracts from his new book "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" seems quite interesting, is kind of a play on a book from the Charles Mackay(1841) which was an early study on crowd philosophy. It is currently #1 best seller in ethical issues on Amazon(New release)

I find Murray to be enlightening and he makes arguments that others are too afraid to make.

His book "Strange Death of Europe" Got 87% 5star reviews on Amazon. I haven't read it, but have heard Murray talk about large parts of it.

I must say I always enjoy his work, even if I don't fully agree with it.

Here's the thing horse. Murray doesn't make arguments other people are afraid to make. He trots out the same arguments plenty of other people do.

Which was my point at the start of this thread. These people are incredibly popular, not brave underground warriors.

Murray, Harris and Peterson did a sold out arena tour. That's hardly hiding in the shadows fighting the good fight .

Veritas Libertas

Brian? wrote: »

Here's the thing horse. Murray doesn't make arguments other people are afraid to make. He trots out the same arguments plenty of other people do.

You can change my mind if you supply evidence that he only trots out arguments others make.
I see him make arguments that others don't make. Here is an example of how he talks criticizes the left fairly in my eyes.

This clip is very close to the point I'm trying to make in this thread.

Could you please address this late point added earlier:

Brian? wrote: »

These manipulations of Scruton’s words had their desired effect. [...]result in people being fired before teatime.

Jesus wept, it's tough going.

Would you be happy with someone manipulating your words to have you fired? I don't see what point you're making here unless you are some sort of authoritarian.

Sean.3516

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I wonder is it known whether he was prescribed these drugse?

According to the video his daughter put on YouTube explaining the situation, he was prescribed the drugs by their family psychiatrist.

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You can change my mind if you supply evidence that he only trots out arguments others make.
I see him make arguments that others don't make. Here is an example of how he talks criticizes the left fairly in my eyes.

This clip is very close to the point I'm trying to make in this thread.

Could you please address this late point added earlier:

You made the assertion that he says things others are afraid to say. The burden of proof is on you. He may take longer to say it, but i see nothing unique about what he's saying.

Now, I'm willing to admit that could be because I can't really stand listening to him for too long. There is also a chance he is the originator of some of the ideas he speaks about, but others parrot his talking points. Either way, he isn't unique in bravely saying things others are a afraid to say.

Would you be happy with someone manipulating your words to have you fired? I don't see what point you're making here unless you are some sort of authoritarian.

It's not the content I was referring to. It was the way the text is written. It's awful.

And no, I'm anti authoritarian. Very much so.

Brian?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

According to the video his daughter put on YouTube explaining the situation, he was prescribed the drugs by their family psychiatrist.

Unlike a lot of darlings of the alt right, Dr Peterson is a wholly decent human being. I hope he makes a good recovery. I'm very sorry to hear he's suffering.

Before the outrage, Dr Peterson is not alt right. They love him unrequitedly.

Veritas Libertas

Brian? wrote: »

You made the assertion that he says things others are afraid to say. The burden of proof is on you.

He wrote a book about how in his view" European civilization as we have known it will not survive."

This is one such thing that people are afraid to talk about. Any suggestion in our multi-cultural environment that European culture is dying is met with "racist" "mass migration conspiracy theorist!" etc..

Sam Harris argued it like this.. (apologies for lacking his elegance)
Think of world religions as diseases.
Think about how diseases propagate, some better than others. Some are airborne, some waterborne, how long they live outside the host, these characteristics define how the disease propagates.

Consider how Judaism propagates. They are for small families, and place a high emphasis on education. It is not easy to simply become a Jew. It requires a formal conversion process where things must be done/achieved. There are only about 20 million worldwide. Judaism as a faith doesn't propagate very well.

Now consider how Islam propagates. They are for big families, against birth control. They label people who leave their religion as apostates and have social stigmas attached. It is very easy to become a Muslim by simply declaring as such. You cannot marry a non Muslim.

Christianity used to experience a lot of similar problems, before they stopped condemning birth control. They have also lost the stigma surrounded with leaving or criticizing a religion.

Why have we lost the ability to fairly criticize Islam? I would argue because people are afraid to talk about such things for fear of stigma attached.


Just look at the Charlie Hebdo affair. No-one was willing to print those cartoons.

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

He wrote a book about how in his view" European civilization as we have known it will not survive."

This is one such thing that people are afraid to talk about. Any suggestion in our multi-cultural environment that European culture is dying is met with "racist" "mass migration conspiracy theorist!" etc..

But people aren't afraid to talk about it. People talk about it all the time.

Stefan Molyneaux, Tommy Robinson, Donald Trump, Anders Brevik, Carl Benjamin, Gert Wilders, yer man in Hungary who's name I can't spell, Silivani in Italy and many more are always banging on about it.

Sam Harris argued it like this.. (apologies for lacking his elegance)
Think of world religions as diseases.
Think about how diseases propagate, some better than others. Some are airborne, some waterborne, how long they live outside the host, these characteristics define how the disease propagates.

Consider how Judaism propagates. They are for small families, and place a high emphasis on education. It is not easy to simply become a Jew. It requires a formal conversion process where things must be done/achieved. There are only about 20 million worldwide. Judaism as a faith doesn't propagate very well.

Now consider how Islam propagates. They are for big families, against birth control. They label people who leave their religion as apostates and have social stigmas attached. It is very easy to become a Muslim by simply declaring as such. You cannot marry a non Muslim.

Christianity used to experience a lot of similar problems, before they stopped condemning birth control. They have also lost the stigma surrounded with leaving or criticizing a religion.

Why have we lost the ability to fairly criticize Islam? I would argue because people are afraid to talk about such things for fear of stigma attached.


Just look at the Charlie Hebdo affair. No-one was willing to print those cartoons.

So you actually just proved your own point wrong. Sam Harris is talking about the same subject without any fear.

So what exactly is Murray saying that other people are afraid to say?

Veritas Libertas

Brian? wrote: »

But people aren't afraid to talk about it. People talk about it all the time.

Just because people talk about things, doesn't mean other people aren't afraid to talk about things. Surely I don't need to explain this to you?

Stefan Molyneaux, Tommy Robinson, Dona tld Trump, Anders Brevik, Carl Benjamin, Gert Wilders, yer man in Hungary who's name I can't spell, Silivani in Italy and many more are always banging on about it.

I'll assume you're right that all these people have also spoken about it. I know there is a stigma attached to everyone of them. Do you not see how this stigma is a credible threat? Would you not agree with Murray's point that European culture is fading? Is that a racist thing to say?

So you actually just proved your own point wrong. Sam Harris is talking about the same subject without any fear.
So what exactly is Murray saying that other people are afraid to say?

No I haven't.
You have moved the goalposts from me saying:
People should be allowed to make genuine criticisms of the excesses of the left with fear of having their argument mis-represented
To:
Some people talk about these things therefore how could anybody be scared to talk about these things.

Douglas Murray has admitted the amount of credible threats on his life because of what he talks about. How can you say he's never scared? Seriously?

Murray, Harris, et al are lucky that they are popular enough so that when they say things they can't be maligned as easily as your regular Joe Soap. They have an audience that can help defend them from attacks on their character, smears etc..

Your regular Joe has absolutely no chance against an enraged mob happy to mis-represent and smear to make their position tenable. They get support from their mindless base from people reacting to emotion rather than reason, because if they reacted with reason they wouldn't allow such character assassinations as Roger Scruton to take place.

20Cent

Could someone tell me what these.folks are afraid to talk about because I can't watch 20 hours of videos, read their books, articles or frequent media interviews. Poor guys being silenced.

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Just because people talk about things, doesn't mean other people aren't afraid to talk about things. Surely I don't need to explain this to you?

Your statement was that Douglas Murray is talking about things that others are afraid to talk about. The clear meaning of that is they are afraid and remain silent. If this is not what you meant, please elaborate.

I asked what makes Murray so unique. The clear answer is nothing.

He's so un-unique he's actually quite mainstream. Huge book sales, appearances on TV, an arena tour and so on.

He's doing pretty great for someone everyone wants to silence.

I'll assume you're right that all these people have also spoken about it. I know there is a stigma attached to everyone of them. Do you not see how this stigma is a credible threat? Would you not agree with Murray's point that European culture is fading? Is that a racist thing to say?

There's a "stigma" attached to some of them for good reason. This supposed stigma, what could it possibly be a credible threat to? They are free to express their ideas and others are free to critique their ideas. You're free to critique the critique and I'm free to critique your critique of the critique. And on it goes.

Whether I agree with Murray or not is irrelevant right now. The subject is "The Intellectual Dark Web". My contention is it's a nonsense term because there is nothing underground about the people you are talking about.

No I haven't.
You have moved the goalposts from me saying:
People should be allowed to make genuine criticisms of the excesses of the left with fear of having their argument mis-represented
To:
Some people talk about these things therefore how could anybody be scared to talk about these things.

Douglas Murray has admitted the amount of credible threats on his life because of what he talks about. How can you say he's never scared? Seriously?

Murray, Harris, et al are lucky that they are popular enough so that when they say things they can't be maligned as easily as your regular Joe Soap. They have an audience that can help defend them from attacks on their character, smears etc..

Your regular Joe has absolutely no chance against an enraged mob happy to mis-represent and smear to make their position tenable. They get support from their mindless base from people reacting to emotion rather than reason, because if they reacted with reason they wouldn't allow such character assassinations as Roger Scruton to take place.

I think you need to restate your proposal here to be honest.

He's saying things other people are scared to say. But lots of people say all the time. I cannot see your point.

Sean.3516

Brian? wrote: »

Dr Peterson is not alt right. They love him unrequitedly.

To be quite fair the Alt Right have been extremely unhappy with Peterson for quite some time now.

When he first rose to prominence they thought he was their guy for about five minutes as he appeared to give scientific credence to their beliefs.

They went off him rapidly when it became clear that Peterson was basically a centrist politically and an ardent individualist who despised everything the Alt Right stood for. I mean he openly berates them whenever he encounters them. He was asked about the “Jewish Question” at a Q and A once and he chastised the questioner for using such a term and proceeded to explain why Jewish high performance has little to do with inherent genetic factors.

Milo Yannopaulis turned off Peterson rapidly in 2018 and started criticizing him. Vox Day of the Alt-Right wrote a book called Jordanetics explaining how he’s some sort of tool of the globalist elite or some such nonsense.

The only reason anyone on the Alt Right could ever have been a fan of Peterson is because they didn’t understand what his positions were. Naturally enough, this decreased over time.

cdgalwegian

Brian? wrote: »

Whether I agree with Murray or not is irrelevant right now. The subject is "The Intellectual Dark Web". My contention is it's a nonsense term because there is nothing underground about the people you are talking about.

The term seems to have been "half-jokingly" plucked from the air, then picked up through lazy journalism, which gave it legs for a marketing ploy to squeeze money from the disaffected/alt right, aided and abetted by social media platforms- as the conspiracy to lock them out of mainstream media shows. (;))

Brian?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

Dr Peterson is not alt right. They love him unrequitedly.

To be quite fair the Alt Right have been extremely unhappy with Peterson for quite some time now.

When he first rose to prominence they thought he was their guy for about five minutes as he appeared to give scientific credence to their beliefs.

They went off him rapidly when it became clear that Peterson was basically a centrist politically and an ardent individualist who despised everything the Alt Right stood for. I mean he openly berates them whenever he encounters them. He was asked about the “Jewish Question” at a Q and A once and he chastised the questioner for using such a term and proceeded to explain why Jewish high performance has little to do with inherent genetic factors.

Milo Yannopaulis turned off Peterson rapidly in 2018 and started criticizing him. Vox Day of the Alt-Right wrote a book called Jordanetics explaining how he’s some sort of tool of the globalist elite or some such nonsense.

The only reason anyone on the Alt Right could ever have been a fan of Peterson is because they didn’t understand what his positions were. Naturally enough, this decreased over time.

Fair enough. I wasn't aware of that. I saw his displeasure at being asked about jews several times, which is to his credit.

My initial point was he's a thoroughly decent human being I disagree with. I hope he recovers well.

marieholmfan

Murray is a grifter.
The spectator is for lunatics and charlatans and exists to influence the barking mad wing of the Tory party.

It is an anti Irish rag.


Any Irish person who treats it as a source is a deracinated nothing , a rootless cosmopolitan , a citizen of nowhere.


As such the Irishman in question cannot be a conservative !

(Of course one can be an Irish UNIONIST and coherently quote the spectator but then why assume good faith?)

Brian? wrote: »

Serious question, how does Douglas Murray make money out of writing? It's awful.

I have no idea whether the content is correct, it's so tough to read. I don't mean intellectually challenging, I mean it's so badly written I can't read it.

Are his books like this?

Look at this one paragraph:

These manipulations of Scruton’s words had their desired effect. In a way, the Scruton case offers a parable of our times. For generations, interviewers have sought to make mischief with quotes — but before, they tended not to result in people being fired before teatime. There is now an established pattern. Once an ostensibly reputable source spins a line, the Twittersphere finds its latest object of outrage. As soon as prominent people join the mob (celebrities, activists), the campaign against the individual intensifies. Weak politicians who want to be seen to be reacting fast try not to get caught behind developments. As Henry Kissinger said recently: ‘Information threatens to overwhelm wisdom.’

Jesus wept, it's tough going.

marieholmfan

Brian? wrote: »

Here's the thing horse. Murray doesn't make arguments other people are afraid to make. He trots out the same arguments plenty of other people do.

Which was my point at the start of this thread. These people are incredibly popular, not brave underground warriors.

Murray, Harris and Peterson did a sold out arena tour. That's hardly hiding in the shadows fighting the good fight .

What's the issue with Peterson ?

What makes him a rightist ?

Veritas Libertas

Brian? wrote: »

Your statement was that Douglas Murray is talking about things that others are afraid to talk about. The clear meaning of that is they are afraid and remain silent. If this is not what you meant, please elaborate.

I'm saying specifically there are unfair stigma attached to talking about certain subjects. (I'm sure you don't know this as you are always on the right side of the discussion)

Not only that but many people get deplatformed.

Look at "The Spectator's" piece written by Douglas Murray , "An Anatomy of a Modern Day Hit Job". A journalist from a competing magazine purposefully got Roger Scruton to talk about these subjects and then took his quotes wildly out of context and presented them as arguments that Scruton didn't make.

All of this so far is fine; people playing dirty tricks etc..



The big problem is that people believe George Eaton(Deputy Editor New Statesman) when he wrote about those things. People didn't bother to look for the quotes in full.

Can you not see how an environment such as this can lead to people being scared to talk about things? How things can be taken out of context to suit the person presenting the quotes?

The very mention of the 'Australian Tommy Robinson' in another thread was enough for one poster to exclaim "That's enough for me to never listen to this person, or to try to fairly understand what they are saying". When I hear of something like that it makes me more curious to find what what makes people think this person is so bad? If they are so bad surely I can see it for myself.

Brian?

marieholmfan wrote: »

What's the issue with Peterson ?

What makes him a rightist ?

I don’t agree with Peterson. I don’t have an issue with him. Why do you think I have?

I was merely pointing out how main stream and popular Murray etc. are.

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I'm saying specifically there are unfair stigma attached to talking about certain subjects. (I'm sure you don't know this as you are always on the right side of the discussion)

And there is an entirely fair stigma to talking about some subjects. What do you mean about me always being on the “right” side of discussions? You wouldn’t believe the abuse I’ve gotten on here for standing up to transphobia and being a radical socialist. I don’t mean criticism, I mean actual abuse.

Not only that but many people get deplatformed.

Again, that’s up to the people who run the platforms. Their business, their choice.

Look at "The Spectator's" piece written by Douglas Murray , "An Anatomy of a Modern Day Hit Job". A journalist from a competing magazine purposefully got Roger Scruton to talk about these subjects and then took his quotes wildly out of context and presented them as arguments that Scruton didn't make.

All of this so far is fine; people playing dirty tricks etc..

Ehh, I read it. That’s where we first engaged. It’s terribly written. So bad it’s hard to see if Murray actually has a point.

The big problem is that people believe George Eaton(Deputy Editor New Statesman) when he wrote about those things. People didn't bother to look for the quotes in full.

Can you not see how an environment such as this can lead to people being scared to talk about things? How things can be taken out of context to suit the person presenting the quotes?

And yet, here we are. With loads of people talking about the things you think people are scared to talk about. Completely mainstream to talk about in fact, as demonstrated by the sold out arenas and millions of books sold.

The very mention of the 'Australian Tommy Robinson' in another thread was enough for one poster to exclaim "That's enough for me to never listen to this person, or to try to fairly understand what they are saying". When I hear of something like that it makes me more curious to find what what makes people think this person is so bad? If they are so bad surely I can see it for myself.

Some people on boards are idiots. It is what it is.

Veritas Libertas

Brian? wrote: »

And yet, here we are. With loads of people talking about the things you think people are scared to talk about. Completely mainstream to talk about in fact, as demonstrated by the sold out arenas and millions of books sold.

If this is the opinion you have formulated; you will remain willfully ignorant. That Roger Scruton has the bravery to talk about such subjects is beside the point. Others are certainly afraid to talk about it. People with audiences are the ones most immune from this bull****, as they have audiences to help stop people mis-representing them.

The point is what message does it send to the world that someone like Scruton can so wildly be taken out of context, and taken as gospel by those idiots of which you speak. It means people will be scared about what they say for fear of it being quote-mined or taken out of context.

Roger Scruton lost his job within 4 hours of the New Statesman's article. Did he deserve to lose his job?

Do you even care?

marieholmfan

Why do you care?

Are you so deracinated , so disconnected from your society that you care about someone who works for this country 's enemies?

Why are you bleating for Ireland's enemies ?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

If this is the opinion you have formulated; you will remain willfully ignorant. That Roger Scruton has the bravery to talk about such subjects is beside the point. Others are certainly afraid to talk about it. People with audiences are the ones most immune from this bull****, as they have audiences to help stop people mis-representing them.

The point is what message does it send to the world that someone like Scruton can so wildly be taken out of context, and taken as gospel by those idiots of which you speak. It means people will be scared about what they say for fear of it being quote-mined or taken out of context.

Roger Scruton lost his job within 4 hours of the New Statesman's article. Did he deserve to lose his job?

Do you even care?

marieholmfan

Brian? wrote: »

I don’t agree with Peterson. I don’t have an issue with him. Why do you think I have?

I was merely pointing out how main stream and popular Murray etc. are.

Thanks for the clarification.

Veritas Libertas

marieholmfan wrote: »

Why do you care?

Are you so deracinated , so disconnected from your society that you care about someone who works for this country 's enemies?

Why are you bleating for Ireland's enemies ?

Who are Ireland's enemies and who decides this. I never got the memo..

Free speech is a human right. When you start denying human rights to your enemies you start down a slippery slope. I see many people at the bottom of this slope already.

Tony EH

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I have been following these people for quite sometime,

1. Get off YouTube.

2. Learn what a "Liberal" is on this side of the Atlantic before opening your mouth and shaming yourself.

3. Go outside.

4. Talk to some real people.