Intellectual Dark Web

ELM327

No one is pro abortion, referring to it as such shows your inherent anti choice bias.

Chris_Heilong

What happens in America trickles down to us, we absorb so much of their media that reading/watching anything they produce influences peoples thinking and if they want to spread a skewed ideology and present it as truth, good and moral, you will find lots of useful idiots here in Ireland ready to jump on board.

ELM327

OT: Chris, mate long time no see! Do you still have the chaser? (We spoke at a few boards meets and I loved that car!)

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

What happens in America trickles down to us, we absorb so much of their media that reading/watching anything they produce influences peoples thinking and if they want to spread a skewed ideology and present it as truth, good and moral, you will find lots of useful idiots here in Ireland ready to jump on board.

Agree. There are certainly plenty of idiots here, Gemma O Doherty springs to mind

Chris_Heilong

ELM327 wrote: »

OT: Chris, mate long time no see! Do you still have the chaser? (We spoke at a few boards meets and I loved that car!)

Agree. There are certainly plenty of idiots here, Gemma O Doherty springs to mind

Sold the Chaser,I then got a Supra then sold that and got an MR2.:)

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

No one is pro abortion, referring to it as such shows your inherent anti choice bias.

You give out about people using the phrase "pro-abortion" and then claim THEY are showing their bias all the while using the phrase "anti-choice".

Impressive.

Veritas Libertas

Deleted User wrote: »

You give out about people using the phrase "pro-abortion" and then claim THEY are showing their bias all the while using the phrase "anti-choice".

Impressive.

Exactly, it is just this kind of stuff I'm alluding to. Just by presenting abortion as a debate shows my bias...

Do you remember the discourse that surrounded that entire referendum(repeal the 8th)? The way google and facebook influenced that referendum by targeting one side politically?

It was disgusting.

Somedaythefire

Deleted User wrote: »

You give out about people using the phrase "pro-abortion" and then claim THEY are showing their bias all the while using the phrase "anti-choice".

Impressive.

What's wrong with "anti choice"? Abortion being legal gives women the choice to have an abortion. Abortion being illegal removes that choice.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Exactly, it is just this kind of stuff I'm alluding to. Just by presenting abortion as a debate shows my bias...

Do you remember the discourse that surrounded that entire referendum(repeal the 8th)? The way google and facebook influenced that referendum by targeting one side politically?

It was disgusting.

Think that's all in your head, mate.

Somedaythefire

Somedaythefire wrote: »

What's wrong with "anti choice"? Abortion being legal gives women the choice to have an abortion. Abortion being illegal removes that choice.

The opposite of being "anti-abortion" would be being "pro-abortion".

It's all semantics really. I just found it amusing that you would think that "pro-abortion" shows bias whereas "anti-choice" doesn't.

James Brown

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

What happens in America trickles down to us, we absorb so much of their media that reading/watching anything they produce influences peoples thinking and if they want to spread a skewed ideology and present it as truth, good and moral, you will find lots of useful idiots here in Ireland ready to jump on board.

I think we're more savvy. Casey and Gallagher were the closest we've come to that. Leo tried it on but was too much of a gilly to make it work.

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Exactly, it is just this kind of stuff I'm alluding to. Just by presenting abortion as a debate shows my bias...

Do you remember the discourse that surrounded that entire referendum(repeal the 8th)? The way google and facebook influenced that referendum by targeting one side politically?

It was disgusting.

I thought your OP was all about left conspiracy written by a pro Israeli zionist who thought Kavanaugh was guilty of rape but it shouldn't count because he was 17 when he did it?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

The opposite of being "anti-abortion" would be being "pro-abortion".

It's all semantics really. I just found it amusing that you would think that "pro-abortion" shows bias whereas "anti-choice" doesn't.

Except the anti-abortion people are also, and more importantly, anti-choice. You’ll struggle to find a pro-choice person who advocates for abortion when a woman has a choice in the matter. They’re hardly pro-abortion. Pro-choice advocates tend to keep their oar out of the whole business once there’s a choice, and provision, available, whereas anti-choice advocates seem to believe they can hassle women making their own choice.

It’s not a like-for-like equation.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Except the anti-abortion people are also, and more importantly, anti-choice. You’ll struggle to find a pro-choice person who advocates for abortion when a woman has a choice in the matter. They’re hardly pro-abortion. Pro-choice advocates tend to keep their oar out of the whole business once there’s a choice, and provision, available, whereas anti-choice advocates seem to believe they can hassle women making their own choice.

It’s not a like-for-like equation.

I dunno man. Its a very difficult situation. I don't think it's fair to demonise people who are anti-abortion/pro-life/anti-choice.

I think your framing of them as anti-choice rather than the other two is a little disingenuous if you are riled by people who are in favour of allowing abortion being referred to as "pro-abortion".

alastair

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Do you remember the discourse that surrounded that entire referendum(repeal the 8th)? The way google and facebook influenced that referendum by targeting one side politically?

No. I remember the anti-choice campaign initially running a pretty disingenuous Facebook ad campaign out if the US initially, until Facebook stopped foreign referendum ads from all sides. I remember the whole fake UK nurse campaign that certainly undermined the credibility of anti-repeal PR effort, but mostly I recall the regard that most Irish people had for women making up their own minds what they did with their own bodies, and the lack of influence, either direction, that any social media had in that regard.

20Wheel

rogan, intellectual?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno man. Its a very difficult situation. I don't think it's fair to demonise people who are anti-abortion/pro-life/anti-choice.

I think your framing of them as anti-choice rather than the other two is a little disingenuous if you are riled by people who are in favour of allowing abortion being referred to as "pro-abortion".

I’m not demonizing anyone. If you are opposed to abortion, the best of luck to you - I respect your personal position. But the anti-choice advocates still harass women at clinics. I’ve never encountered ‘pro-abortion’ activism in a scenario where choice and provision is available.

Too Tough To Die

20Wheel wrote: »

rogan, intellectual?

Intellectually curious.

James Brown

It's a great example of the bull**** goes on. Anti choice/anti abortion would be seen as right wing, especially in the context of this thread, but I'm damn sure many a Republican congressman has been involved in many the intern having one.

cdgalwegian

Morgans wrote: »

Good. You admit your ignorance.

Its a grift that these people are on. Most of their opinions are hired, paid for by libertarian interests.

The OPs list of arseholes are only popular because a) funds from right wing propogandists, b) they amplify their own reach by backslapping each other on their shows c) internet boards like this. Contributing to threads like this, even critical, increases their popularity.

Its a money making enterprise that reels in new blood with a soft soapy "I'm only interested in a frank exchange of ideas" "Can't we all agree to disagree" etc etc. "The left called me a nazi". Now, let me speak to Katie Hopkins, or Tommy Robinson, Stefan Molyneaux about their well thought out ideas. Isn't it weird how you are classed as racist?

Its a tired routine, and boards is now a target for some of the hucksters supporters. All of the above people listed have been exposed to one degree or another as being shysters, who amplify each others profile by appearing on the same programmes repeatedly.

You mention how transgenderism issues are on the rise. Only if you listen to the same people repeating the same nonsense over and over again. How much of a social issue is it really causing. I'll post this here again of the dynamic of how it gets air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvjHn6QEgh4

Also, that youtuber does a good loooooong breakdown of Dave Rubin's nonsense, if you are interested. I don't like Jimmy Dore but the above clip in this thread is also instructive at how Bari Weiss talks about stuff she has NO clue about but it feels right to lots of the arsehole fans.

It doesnt take long to find evidence of grift that is being played, if you want to search for it. It also doesnt take long to find out how while they claim they love free speech, how sensitive they are to any criticism. However, they chime in with what a lot of disaffected young men (nearly always men) feel and they are happy with the reassurance.

The Majority Report would be a good starting point. (If you are actually interested).

Thanks; it's actually the general feeling I've got about the IDW. I had known it's original term was Eric Weinstein's, but not that it was popularized by Weiss, who I had never heard of; Art Fonzarelli's youtube post of her was both hilarious and cringy.
However, even though they seem to be a tiny disparate group of anti-progressives (rather than simply disaffected liberals, in the main), they are obviously tapping into something - some undercurrent of disaffection- that has resonance with a lot of people, and is part of the hollowing out of political centres, pushing many nation states into more polarised politics and cultural stances. Rather than ignoring them, are they not a symptom of something that should be looked at a bit more closely? Obviously, you feel this is falling into their trap; this isn't controversy for controversy's sake- it's for money's sake, as controversy sells. I'll have a look at the Majority Report some time to see his/their take on what it's about. Here's a quick article supporting your view:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-I-Escaped-the/243399
In my ignorance though, there's something needling me about what this supposed IDW is trying to say (while making lots of cash in doing so)- I think it's something along the lines of: people need an anchor, and in this complex postmodern world of ours, this is where conservativism has it's appeal, but progressivism is a powerful force- quite rightly- unsettling conservative ways. But there needs to be a balance; a paradoxical 'conservative progressivism'. It seems though, that there is a lot vitriol against those that want to call a halt to excessive progressivism whereby it can be, paradoxically again, illiberal.

Veritas Libertas

Somedaythefire wrote: »

What's wrong with "anti choice"? Abortion being legal gives women the choice to have an abortion. Abortion being illegal removes that choice.


Think that's all in your head, mate.

I remember watching a lot of the 8th amendment committee in the Dail, some witnesses against tried to give their testimony in writing because of the stigma attached with the debate. They were refused.

Catherine Noone invites members to propose other witnesses after anti-abortion speaker withdraws


All in my head, hilarious. You must be willfully ignorant.


This is exactly what this thread is about. People being afraid to speak their minds for fear of stigma/repercussions

Morgans

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Thanks; it's actually the general feeling I've got about the IDW. I had known it's original term was Eric Weinstein's, but not that it was popularized by Weiss, who I had never heard of; Art Fonzarelli's youtube post of her was both hilarious and cringy.
However, even though they seem to be a tiny disparate group of anti-progressives (rather than simply disaffected liberals, in the main), they are obviously tapping into something - some undercurrent of disaffection- that has resonance with a lot of people, and is part of the hollowing out of political centres, pushing many nation states into more polarised politics and cultural stances. Rather than ignoring them, are they not a symptom of something that should be looked at a bit more closely? Obviously, you feel this is falling into their trap; this isn't controversy for controversy's sake- it's for money's sake, as controversy sells. I'll have a look at the Majority Report some time to see his/their take on what it's about. Here's a quick article supporting your view:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-I-Escaped-the/243399
In my ignorance though, there's something needling me about what this supposed IDW is trying to say (while making lots of cash in doing so)- I think it's something along the lines of: people need an anchor, and in this complex postmodern world of ours, this is where conservativism has it's appeal, but progressivism is a powerful force- quite rightly- unsettling conservative ways. But there needs to be a balance; a paradoxical 'conservative progressivism'. It seems though, that there is a lot vitriol against those that want to call a halt to excessive progressivism whereby it can be, paradoxically again, illiberal.

Yeah. If it was that, it would be harmless however it's a soft soap attempt to ally yourself with the right wing 'anti progressive' stance.

Weiss's table initially was to show not how progressive the 'idw' is but to show how rabid the liberals are for hating in these good guys. OP calls Rubin the nicest guy - check his history from left wing - The young Turks - to now hosting a show with Glenn Beck, check the idw support for Tommy Robinson, and Katie Hopkins, Check Sam Harris's defence of torture and saying that all Muslims should be viewed as terrorists.

They look good fighting unprepared college students, suitably edited but cherry pick who they debate. Check Dave Rubin running away from Sam Seder or Jordan Petersen running away from Richard Wolff. These fools went on stadium tours, claiming that their free speech is under threat. Snowflakes.

Joe Rogan shouldn't be on the list and was insulted to be used as part of their gang. He has whitewashed them, giving them the platform (as he did for Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes) it's one of the reasons he kicked back Vs Bari Weiss - who assumed she was going to get an easy ride from one of her friends. He has lately interviewed some progressives in an attempt to put distance between himself and the toxic idw. What you won't find from any of them is coming out as supporters of gun control, Palestinian rights, abortion, climate change, fair immigration, health care or anything that strays too far from the topics dear to their paymasters hearts. It's not good business. It's a grift.

On all the universally accepted biggest issues, the most you will hear is some wishy washy position to possibly provide cover, but they will try to convince you that individuals asking to be referred to by their preferred pronouns is the real threat to society. Ben Shapiro yesterday said that it was impossible to believe any of republican supreme court judge kavanagh accusers of his secual assault as he hasnt heard them describe his genitals. It's what his paymasters would want him to say. Intellectually rigorous. NYT calls him the 'cool kids philosopher'. If you think he is in any way worth following you are a gullible fool. There is absolutely no point pointing these things out to the fanboys. You may be one wasting my time but it would appear you are open to exploring their scam. So benefit of the doubt is given.

The OP knows this but is eager to amplify on people who don't know the grift. Either that or he is one of those idiots.

Veritas Libertas

The OP knows this but is eager to amplify on people who don't know the grift. Either that or he is one of those idiots

It is evident from the language you are using you are trying to smear these people.

OP calls Rubin the nicest guy - check his history from left wing - The young Turks - to now hosting a show with Glenn Beck, check the idw support for Tommy Robinson, and Katie Hopkins, Check Sam Harris's defence of torture and saying that all Muslims should be viewed as terrorists.

With Dave Rubin, are you saying people's politics can't change? Do you not agree TYT became far-left, there was a time when I used to watch them.. long.. long ago. Wasn't he right to leave them?
Why do you use this as a way to smear him I fail to understand. Seems his biggest crime is having a conversation with Glenn Beck. What did he say in this conversation that was so bad?
The IDW support for Tommy Robinson? The IDW supports anyone's rights to free speech. So if advocating people have a right to be on social media is support for Tommy Robinson, you are strangely deluded. The ACLU also support the right's of NAZI's at the Unite the right rally, does that make them Nazis?

If Sam Harris writes an article 'in defence of torture' this means we should no longer listen to him about other things? This is exactly what the IDW is about having conversations about difficult subjects with people you disagree with. He is not so brutish to make a statement like all Muslims should be seen as terrorists this is ridiculous.

I'm sure if a loved one close to you were in trouble you might be tempted to torture someone you knew had information. Its easy to talk from a comfortable position.

They look good fighting unprepared college students, suitably edited but cherry pick who they debate. Check Dave Rubin running away from Sam Seder or Jordan Petersen running away from Richard Wolff. These fools went on stadium tours, claiming that their free speech is under threat. Snowflakes.

Gross caricature. They claim the topics they talk about are under threat of hate speech laws etc.. You seem to advocate not to listen to Harris because he advocates torture. Marx was a rapid anti-Semite, doesn't stop people adoring him.
Apparently the biggest crimes these people have is having conversations with other people.

I bet you never watched an episode of the Rubin show in your life, would I be right?

but they will try to convince you that individuals asking to be referred to by their preferred pronouns is the real threat to society.

Why are you such an expert at the intentions of the IDW, seems weird considering your disdain for them. Jordan Peterson rose to fame because they were legislating UNDER LAW that preferred pronouns be MANDATED. Grossly disingenuous.

Joe Rogan shouldn't be on the list and was insulted to be used as part of their gang.

He absolutely practices the principles of the IDW by having conversations with everyone, even people he disagrees with. That's why he's called a 'part' of it, even if he doesn't expressly admit it.

What do you think binds the IDW exactly? They are grifters that just want to make money? Really?
I'm sure you wouldn't insist on smearing and maligning these people if you truly knew.

Morgans wrote: »

Also, that youtuber does a good loooooong breakdown of Dave Rubin's nonsense, if you are interested. I don't like Jimmy Dore but the above clip in this thread is also instructive at how Bari Weiss talks about stuff she has NO clue about but it feels right to lots of the arsehole fans.

Ahhh.. I see how it works now. You only believe people you disagree with when it suits you! Otherwise you pin intentions on them that suit your narrative.

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote:

Gross caricature. They claim the topics they talk about are under threat of hate speech laws etc.. You seem to advocate not to listen to Harris because he advocates torture. Marx was a rapid anti-Semite, doesn't stop people adoring him. Apparently the biggest crimes these people have is having conversations with other people.

I follow a couple of self confessed Marxists, I find no evidence of anti-Semitism in their work, as I suspect marxs himself wasn't either, can you give direct evidence of of anti-Semitism in marxs work?

Veritas Libertas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I follow a couple of self confessed Marxists, I find no evidence of anti-Semitism in their work, as I suspect marxs himself wasn't either, can you give direct evidence of of anti-Semitism in marxs work?

'On the Jewish Question'

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.-Marx

https://www.philosophersmag.com/opinion/30-karl-marx-s-radical-antisemitism

Just replace the word 'huckstering' with 'grifting' the new buzz word of today!

Very similar to what we're seeing on the far-left today. Self hating white people, men in particular.

Apparently he was just being witty and ironic... To me it looks like double standards!

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote:

Very similar to what we're seeing on the far-left today. Self hating white people, men in particular.

You keep mentioning the far left, but really it's just the left, the centre left in many cases, if you go to that festival, you're gonna be very upset, as most are lefties, and no, they're not far left Marxists, just regular centre lefties such as myself. I think I'm starting to see slavoj zizeks point while he debated with jordan peterson over this a couple of months ago.

What do you mean by self hating white people?

sk8erboii

Mental Illness: The thread

Veritas Libertas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You keep mentioning the far left, but really it's just the left, the centre left in many cases, if you go to that festival, you're gonna be very upset, as most are lefties, and no, they're not far left Marxists, just regular centre lefties such as myself. I think I'm starting to see slavoj zizeks point while he debated with jordan peterson over this a couple of months ago.

What do you mean by self hating white people?

Personally I think Peterson was found out in conversation with Harris, but I still agree with his protest against mandating pronoun use under threat of law.

I have also listened to a lot Zizek, to see Peterson argue with his quote twitter account was pretty hilarious.

I mean white guilt. I have never been a fan of vicarious sin/absolution.

What is it you're saying we see in the centre left that I see in the far left I don't think I follow.

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote:

I have also listened to a lot Zizek, to see Peterson argue with his quote twitter account was pretty hilarious.

I think peterson came off very well with the debate with zizek, he was very articulate, but I think zizek had the upper hand.

Veritas Libertas wrote:

I mean white guilt. I have never been a fan of vicarious sin/absolution.

I'm still not sure what you mean here, can you explain further, thank you?

Veritas Libertas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I think peterson came off very well with the debate with zizek, he was very articulate, but I think zizek had the upper hand.

I'm still not sure what you mean here, can you explain further, thank you?

White guilt is the individual or collective guilt felt by some white people for harm resulting from racist treatment of ethnic minorities by other white people both historically and currently in the United States and to a lesser extent in Canada, South Africa, France and the United Kingdom.

I think individuals should be responsible for their own actions :eek:

Morgans

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

It is evident from the language you are using you are trying to smear these people.


With Dave Rubin, are you saying people's politics can't change? Do you not agree TYT became far-left, there was a time when I used to watch them.. long.. long ago. Wasn't he right to leave them?
Why do you use this as a way to smear him I fail to understand. Seems his biggest crime is having a conversation with Glenn Beck. What did he say in this conversation that was so bad?
The IDW support for Tommy Robinson? The IDW supports anyone's rights to free speech. So if advocating people have a right to be on social media is support for Tommy Robinson, you are strangely deluded. The ACLU also support the right's of NAZI's at the Unite the right rally, does that make them Nazis?

If Sam Harris writes an article 'in defence of torture' this means we should no longer listen to him about other things? This is exactly what the IDW is about having conversations about difficult subjects with people you disagree with. He is not so brutish to make a statement like all Muslims should be seen as terrorists this is ridiculous.

I'm sure if a loved one close to you were in trouble you might be tempted to torture someone you knew had information. Its easy to talk from a comfortable position.



Gross caricature. They claim the topics they talk about are under threat of hate speech laws etc.. You seem to advocate not to listen to Harris because he advocates torture. Marx was a rapid anti-Semite, doesn't stop people adoring him.
Apparently the biggest crimes these people have is having conversations with other people.

I bet you never watched an episode of the Rubin show in your life, would I be right?


Why are you such an expert at the intentions of the IDW, seems weird considering your disdain for them. Jordan Peterson rose to fame because they were legislating UNDER LAW that preferred pronouns be MANDATED. Grossly disingenuous.


He absolutely practices the principles of the IDW by having conversations with everyone, even people he disagrees with. That's why he's called a 'part' of it, even if he doesn't expressly admit it.

What do you think binds the IDW exactly? They are grifters that just want to make money? Really?
I'm sure you wouldn't insist on smearing and maligning these people if you truly knew.



Ahhh.. I see how it works now. You only believe people you disagree with when it suits you! Otherwise you pin intentions on them that suit your narrative.

A long time ago I heard the term sealioning for what you are doing? Didn't think I'd need to use it , but here we are. Gas. I have no Interest in wasting my time addressing your questions.

Except for the Dave Rubin bit...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u3TPxQao3m0

Veritas Libertas

Morgans wrote: »

A long time ago I heard the term sealioning for what you are doing? Didn't think I'd need to use it , but here we are. Gas. I have no Interest in wasting my time addressing your questions.

Except for the Dave Rubin bit...

I have no idea what weird animal fetishes your into but please leave me out of it.

So Dave Rubin is a 'Gate-way drug' to the far right. Lame... Care to summarize your video otherwise?