Intellectual Dark Web

sk8erboii

sk8erboii wrote: »

has to be mental illness at this point. As if the Liberal boogieman actually exists when every policy maker in the planet from the US to Saudi to China are all conservative old men.

Not in Western democracies they aren't "Conservative old men". Trump is the exception rather than the rule. And Theresa May held sway in the UK until recently. And Angela Merkel, Christine Lagarde, Nancy Pelosi, Leo Varadkar, Justin Trudeau .... Not saying it should be Conservative old men, but this is factually incorrect. Lumping in Saudi and China with the West is ridiculous.

Veritas Libertas

Deleted User wrote: »

Not in Western democracies they aren't "Conservative old men". Trump is the exception rather than the rule. .

This is a list of incumbent women:

• Mercedes Aráoz(Peru)
• Mette Frederiksen(Denmark)
• Zuzana Čaputová(Slovakia)
• Maia Sandu(Moldova)
• Brigitte Bierlein(Austria)
• Salome Zurabishvili(Georgia)
• Sahle-Work Zewde(Ethiopia)
• Đặng Thị Ngọc Thịnh(Vietnam)
• Mia Mottley(Barbados)
• Paula-Mae Weekes(Trinidad and Tobago)
• Viorica Dăncilă(Romania)
• Katrín Jakobsdóttir(Iceland)
• Jacinda Ardern(New Zealand)
• Halimah Yacob(Singapore)
• Ana Brnabić(Serbia)
• Kersti Kaljulaid(Estonia)
• Tsai Ing-wen(Taiwan)
• Aung San Suu Kyi(Myanmar)
• Hilda Heine(Marshall Islands)
• Bidhya Devi Bhandari(Nepal)
• Saara Kuugongelwa(Namibia)
• Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović(Croatia)
• Erna Solberg(Norway)
• Sheikh Hasina(Bangladesh)
• Angela Merkel(Germany)

Here is a map of countries that have female leadership since the 1950's


Yellow: Female head of government
Light Blue: Female head of state
Light Green: Female head of state/government as the only elective position
Dark Green: Both female head of state and female head of government
(separate posts)
Brown: Female prime minister or state counselor as deputy to the combined head of state and government

Veritas Libertas

marieholmfan wrote: »

The British Tories most obviously.

Why are they the enemy?

I can well believe you never got the memo - you seem completely disconnected from this society (so much that I don't believe that you are Irish).

What difference does this make? You brought nationalism into this not me. At least state your case. What makes a person Irish?

Ireland has never been a free speech society. Never ever. We do not have a right to free speech in this country.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Do you not also see why it is morally right to have freedom of speech?
Wasn't it morally right for catholics to practise their religion under british rule when they outlawed it?

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."- Thomas Jefferson

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Why are they the enemy?

Much like the Republican's they are in the pocket of big business and have no regard for society.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What difference does this make? You brought nationalism into this not me. At least state your case. What makes a person Irish?


Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Do you not also see why it is morally right to have freedom of speech?
Wasn't it morally right for catholics to practise their religion under british rule when they outlawed it?

You ever hear of Blasphemy law?

Veritas Libertas

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Explain why? of course it does. Its a human right just like the right not to be discriminated. Or do you choose your human rights like at a buffet? His book was initially accepted; and then denied based on seeking legal advise. Isn't the crux of the issue what legal advice was offered? And what law this was understood to break? Nobody wants to address these points though.

The argument that the people 'of the dark web' aren't the dark web because they have platforms is ridiculous to the point of being formulated by an infant.

In reality the topics they discuss are increasingly becoming polarized to the point of wild labels and accusations being thrown around; people are acting on emotion in these debates rather than on reason:

• Islam
• Feminism
• Immigration
• Abortion
• Free speech
• etc..

You don't have freedom of speech on this site, no business is required to give anyone this.

"The argument that the people 'of the dark web' aren't the dark web because they have platforms is ridiculous to the point of being formulated by an infant"

Where did I say this Kim? I said that people who claim to be about free speech are just in it for the money and aren't dark web as amply shown by most of your posts on here. If they are removed from Twitter, Facebook YouTube etc there are platforms for them to share their ideas they just won't be paid by these platforms, but that shouldn't matter if they believe in what they are supposed to believe in.

Veritas Libertas

DubInMeath wrote: »

You don't have freedom of speech on this site, no business is required to give anyone this.

You're right. But the book was accepted initially. Then they decided to reject it later once legal advice was sought. I then argue that his free speech is being infringed(which it is by the understanding of the legal counsel that was sought).

Then people argue, the book doesn't have to be published. I hope you see the vast oversimplification here.

Isn't what's important is what the legal counsel said to the publisher, and what laws they thought they would break?

Unfortunately they did not release this information.

20Cent

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You're right. But the book was accepted initially. Then they decided to reject it later once legal advice was sought. I then argue that his free speech is being infringed(which it is by the understanding of the legal counsel that was sought).

Then people argue, the book doesn't have to be published. I hope you see the vast oversimplification here.

Isn't what's important is what the legal counsel said to the publisher, and what laws they thought they would break?

Unfortunately they did not release this information.

Sounds like you have a problem with libel laws rather than freedom of speech.

Veritas Libertas

20Cent wrote: »

Sounds like you have a problem with libel laws rather than freedom of speech.

Libel laws as currently understood in the UK and Ireland do infringe on Freedom of speech.

Under the new rules, [...]someone making a libel claim must demonstrate that a defamatory statement will cause "serious harm".

It used to be you had to prove malice on the part of the person saying it. This change happened in 2015.

That's why there were serious challenges to the documentary "Going Clear" revealing the disturbing practices of Scientologists.

A damning documentary about alleged abuse within the Church of Scientology has been shelved due to legislation that could leave it open to defamation action.

Source

Veritas Libertas

Turns out Antifa have showed up in number warranting the addition of 10x the amount of security. These guys really hate Rubin.

Dave Rubin has covered the increased costs to host the event. What a guy.

Here is Lauren Chen reporting:

"Fighting for freedom is fighting for real debates. We don't have that in Canada right now or the university either. There are too many taboo subjects. When we are starting a discussion sometimes the other party(the left) don't want to jump in that discussion with real arguments, and that's what I don't like in politics right now-Maxime Bernier"

Penn

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Turns out Antifa have showed up in number warranting the addition of 10x the amount of security. These guys really hate Rubin.

Dave Rubin has covered the increased costs to host the event. What a guy.

You don't need to be Antifa to hate Dave Rubin. You can just be someone who has heard of Dave Rubin.

Veritas Libertas

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Source

As far as I know that was absolute bull****. Scientology isn't a recognised religion in Ireland so therefore wouldn't be covered under the blasphemy law.

Sir Guy who smiles

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Here is a map of countries that have female leadership since the 1950's


Yellow: Female head of government
Light Blue: Female head of state
Light Green: Female head of state/government as the only elective position
Dark Green: Both female head of state and female head of government
(separate posts)
Brown: Female prime minister or state counselor as deputy to the combined head of state and government

That map doesn't prove as much as it seems; France is glowing like a Canary, but had one female prime minister for eleven months.

Veritas Libertas

Penn wrote: »

You don't need to be Antifa to hate Dave Rubin. You can just be someone who has heard of Dave Rubin.

What makes people that have heard of Dave Rubin hate Dave Rubin?

Veritas Libertas

Deleted User wrote: »

As far as I know that was absolute bull****. Scientology isn't a recognised religion in Ireland so therefore wouldn't be covered under the blasphemy law.

You're right it did air in the end, but it has less to do with blasphemy laws and more to do with hate laws.

It did have a serious challenge to being aired. The case was made that more offence would be caused than public good. In the end public good won out.

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Penn wrote: »

You don't need to be Antifa to hate Dave Rubin. You can just be someone who has heard of Dave Rubin.

What makes people that have heard of Dave Rubin hate Dave Rubin?

He's a ****?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

He's a ****?

Is that hate speech?

20Cent

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What makes people that have heard of Dave Rubin hate Dave Rubin?

Sniveling little wheezel, such an obvious con man. Why do the right keep falling for these grifters.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is that hate speech?

Possibly.

Penn

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What makes people that have heard of Dave Rubin hate Dave Rubin?

Most people's brains don't need to go into recovery mode from hearing a new idea.

Veritas Libertas

Penn wrote: »

Most people's brains don't need to go into recovery mode from hearing a new idea.

There's far more people spreading far worse ideas out there, the level of hate for this guy is only explained by a coordinated campaign to smear him.

Everyone knows he's a [insert expletive].
But nobody can justify why he's a [insert expletive].

It is quite a curious case.

Dave Rubin:

• Used to host the Young Turks
• Still considers himself liberal
• Is gay and married to a man
• Lives in San Fransisco
• Promotes Free Speech
• Promotes having discussions with people you disagree with

What a ****!

xckjoo

I've nothing to add except that I don't think I've ever seen a thread with so little support for the OP and their premise :pac:

Veritas Libertas

xckjoo wrote: »

I've nothing to add except that I don't think I've ever seen a thread with so little support for the OP and their premise :pac:

And yet only a couple proposed some form of an argument in the train of 'look at this video'

That video then describes Rubin's bad interviewing practices, and that he repeats himself, and he's a gateway to the alt-right.

Everyone else just calls him names or smear people, just like you're doing to me.

Penn

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

There's far more people spreading far worse ideas out there, the level of hate for this guy is only explained by a coordinated campaign to smear him.

Everyone knows he's a [insert expletive].
But nobody can justify why he's a [insert expletive].

It is quite a curious case.

Dave Rubin:

• Used to host the Young Turks
• Still considers himself liberal
• Is gay and married to a man
• Lives in San Fransisco
• Promotes Free Speech
• Promotes having discussions with people you disagree with

What a ****!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3TPxQao3m0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3h9YyzqBxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LOvoDCPS8

Long three part series analysing Rubin's schtick.

Also just for the laugh

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

Veritas Libertas

Penn wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3TPxQao3m0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3h9YyzqBxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LOvoDCPS8

Long three part series analysing Rubin's schtick.

Welcome to the thread. This was posted up earlier and addressed, earlier.

If you are willing to formulate an opinion of your own i'd be willing to talk to you about it.

It seems this one mini series from Timbah.On.Toast is enough for everyone to take up pitch forks against Rubin. Its quite hilarious and fascinating.

Veritas Libertas

Remember the context here guys. Antifa were calling Rubin "Nazi Scum off our streets"!

So now he's both a fascist (because antifa opposed him) and a nazi.

Proving his interviewing style is weak and he repeats himself is no longer enough.

Can someone supply evidence that he's a fascist or a nazi now because he wants to have discussions with people?

Penn

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

If you are willing to formulate an opinion of your own i'd be willing to talk to you about it.

Why spend time typing out my own opinion when those videos analyse (with examples) so much of what I already agreed with prior to seeing those videos. I don't agree with everything in the videos (been a while since I watched), but on the whole they're absolutely spot on.

Also, it's rich that you say "If you are willing to formulate an opinion of your own i'd be willing to talk to you about it" while defending Rubin, when the fact that he can't formulate an opinion of his own is one of the biggest complaints people have against him. Being gay and living in San Francisco doesn't excuse him from that.

Veritas Libertas

Penn wrote: »

Why spend time typing out my own opinion when those videos analyse (with examples) so much of what I already agreed with prior to seeing those videos. I don't agree with everything in the videos (been a while since I watched), but on the whole they're absolutely spot on.

I have watched that video series. His biggest charges from timbah were that he repeats himsef, has a weak interview style and he's a gateway to the alt right. Does this excuse antifa labelling him a nazi? and the sheer amount of vitriol and hate from him? No it certainly does no such thing.

Also, it's rich that your say "If you are willing to formulate an opinion of your own i'd be willing to talk to you about it" while defending Rubin, when the fact that he can't formulate an opinion of his own is one of the biggest complaints people have against him. Being gay and living in San Francisco doesn't excuse him from that.

Its rich to allege on the one hand you don't agree with everything Timbah says, and yet you assume I agree with everything of Dave Rubin.

He's trying to have a conversation about free speech in Canada, and Antifa tried to shut him down as a nazi. You need some perspective. Now all the antifa supporters will automatically believe Rubin is a fascist, because antifa only fight fascists!

Penn

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I have watched that video series. His biggest charges from timbah were that he repeats himsef, has a weak interview style and he's a gateway to the alt right. Does this excuse antifa labelling him a nazi? and the sheer amount of vitriol and hate from him? No it certainly does no such thing.

Its rich to allege on the one hand you don't agree with everything Timbah says, and yet you assume I agree with everything of Dave Rubin.

He's trying to have a conversation about free speech in Canada, and Antifa tried to shut him down as a nazi. You need some perspective. Now all the antifa supporters will automatically believe Rubin is a fascist, because antifa only fight fascists!

Firstly, I was saying I don't agree with everything Timbah (whoever he is) says in his videos about Rubin. Some of it is grasping at straws imo and from what I can remember, even if it is being used to form a whole rather than taken in isolation. However, I would say I agree with the vast majority of the videos.

Secondly, can you point out where I defended, agreed or made any positive affirmation of Antifa calling Rubin a Nazi or a Fascist, or indeed where I might have called him such?

Veritas Libertas

Penn wrote: »

Secondly, can you point out where I defended, agreed or made any positive affirmation of Antifa calling Rubin a Nazi or a Fascist, or indeed where I might have called him such?

You first replied to my post where I asking why this level of hate for Rubin, which a 4h+ video series that describes how he repeats himself a lot. This does not justify the hate he gets not even close.

A lot of people now do believe he's a fascist and a nazi because of Timbah's video series which is a fair critique in parts of his interviewing style.

But it does not lend itself to the hate he actually gets. It is in fact far and beyond. The reason is; the woke left have put up a full front attack on free speech, and they won't even admit it.
But if you pay close attention to their actions, any proponent of free speech is labelled a nazi and a fascist by them.

They won't admit it because they know it will lose them massive amounts of support, so they must invent other reasons to hate people like Rubin. The coordinated smear campaign has been happening for quite some time.

xckjoo

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

And yet only a couple proposed some form of an argument in the train of 'look at this video'

That video then describes Rubin's bad interviewing practices, and that he repeats himself, and he's a gateway to the alt-right.

Everyone else just calls him names or smear people, just like you're doing to me.

I hadn't actually done either or addressed you at all. Merley commented on the unusual response pattern in the thread. But here you go. I'll give your ego a little stock. Any attention is good and all that.

Your whole premise is flawed and that's been pointed out repeatedly since you started the thread. Maybe you didn't express it right to begin with and maybe you're still not communicating correctly what you're trying to say, but the fact that so few (if any) people have agreed with you should make you stop and consider that there's a flaw in something you're doing. You're highly unlikely to be some kind of savant that sees a truth no one else can. I'd say the probability is vanishingly small. Trying to compensate with information dumps isn't really changing things either.



Anyway. I'm off now. Won't be following the thread. This curio has run its course for me