Intellectual Dark Web

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.

You seem a very reasonable person willing to engage in ideas, even if we don't agree. Certainly not the type of person I'm referring to in this thread. I'm happy to disagree with people, I'm just not happy them assuming people's intentions or smearing them with labels saying 'don't listen to that person because ...'

The type I'm referring to are the ones obscuring argument by smearing people instead of their arguments. They look for 'gotcha' style quotes out of context, for example look what happened to Roger Scruton and how his conversation was grossly taken out of context in such a disgusting manner.

The Scruton tapes: an anatomy of a modern hit job

Morgans

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-sealioning

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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

Some people should be afraid to speak their minds. All ideas are not equal. I don't know where this notion comes from that everyone should feel free to express themselves with zero repercussions.

Freedom of speech, which is not a right in Ireland, means the ability to speak freely without fear of government action. Not the right to speak freely without some consequences.

I am aware of the consequences of what I say. Bigots and religious zealots should be too.

Morgans

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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?

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

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.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiZhYj_VK8s

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.

Ironicname

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.

Ah sealioning. The go to response of someone who knows that answering the questions asked will undermine their position

Morgans

Ironicname wrote: »

Ah sealioning. The go to response of someone who knows that answering the questions asked will undermine their position

All the answers are there. If people concerned found boards, I can presume that they are familiar with search engines. This isn't the first discussion on the culture wars (it is nice to see someone new act as if it is) If you, or the OP was genuinely interested in the topic, ye'd have found the answer already. But me contributing to this only further adds to the noise. I'm out.

Art Fonzarelli

I think, other than Rogan, all of those in the OP list - including Weiss herself - are to various degrees disingenuous, reactionary, prostitutes. However, they should be debated, confronted and brought into the light at every opportunity by honest brokers.

Brian?

Art Fonzarelli wrote: »

I think, other than Rogan, all of those in the OP list - including Weiss herself - are to various degrees disingenuous, reactionary, prostitutes. However, they should be debated, confronted and brought into the light at every opportunity by honest brokers.

They're also quite well known. I'm a bit bamboozled by the term "Intellectual Dark Web" if everyone on the list get millions of views on YouTube.

cdgalwegian

Morgans wrote: »

All the answers are there. If people concerned found boards, I can presume that they are familiar with search engines. This isn't the first discussion on the culture wars (it is nice to see someone new act as if it is) If you, or the OP was genuinely interested in the topic, ye'd have found the answer already. But me contributing to this only further adds to the noise. I'm out.

Pity. Despite the shoutiness, I took on board what Morgans was saying. Watched the first Timbah video posted. Very good. Was hoping for more of the sort; haven't looked at latest videos posted yet. Learning a lot as I have stayed out of echo chambers/opinion bubbles, but this thread piqued my interest.
Morgan's condescending shoutiness with tinge of ironic fanaticism aside, quite illuminating posts for the sceptic in me.

alastair

Brian? wrote: »

They're also quite well known. I'm a bit bamboozled by the term "Intellectual Dark Web" if everyone on the list get millions of views on YouTube.

It’s just another variation on the crass strategy of calling your ideological opponents ‘elites’. Because reactionaries are the new resistance don’cha know?

Brian?

alastair wrote: »

It’s just another variation on the crass strategy of calling your ideological opponents ‘elites’. Because reactionaries are the new resistance don’cha know?

I never got that one either. You know who I want managing my country, intelligent and well educated people. Elites.

Vote for me, I'm slightly above average!!!

pjohnson

Brian? wrote: »

I never got that one either. You know who I want managing my country, intelligent and well educated people. Elites.

Vote for me, I'm slightly above average!!!

I think its just aiming to try and impress the ones who never got educated and are thick as bricks.

More "Hey I'm just as s-m-r-t as you guys".

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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:

what do you mean by this statement exactly?

spend some time around people who have complex disorders which causes them to behave in a very irrational and spontaneous manner, then this statement starts to lose meaning

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what do you mean by this statement exactly?

spend some time around people who have complex disorders which causes them to behave in a very irrational and spontaneous manner, then this statement starts to lose meaning

I assume what the poster meant is that collective guilt is something which shouldn't be "a thing".

I have no reason to feel any "white guilt" as I am not a racist. I think that anyone who wants to attempt to make me feel feel guilty for being white should not judge me on my skin colour but my actions because otherwise, that's kinda racist.

Sir Guy who smiles

Brian? wrote: »

Some people should be afraid to speak their minds. All ideas are not equal. I don't know where this notion comes from that everyone should feel free to express themselves with zero repercussions.

Freedom of speech, which is not a right in Ireland, means the ability to speak freely without fear of government action. Not the right to speak freely without some consequences.

I am aware of the consequences of what I say. Bigots and religious zealots should be too.

Exactly, as Kevin Myers found out to his cost a few years ago..
No-one forcibly stopped Kevin Myers from writing his bilious rants.
However, when he finally turned his "wit" on a group that bought a lot of advertising in Newspapers, or his "wit" offended people who bought advertising, no-one was willing to pay him, or pay to print his "wit" any more.

20Cent

The bar for what passes as an intellectual must have dropped a long way.

Don't know most of them but these three definitely aren't.
Joe Rogan
Dave Rubin
Ben Shapiro

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

I assume what the poster meant is that collective guilt is something which shouldn't be "a thing".

I have no reason to feel any "white guilt" as I am not a racist. I think that anyone who wants to attempt to make me feel feel guilty for being white should not judge me on my skin colour but my actions because otherwise, that's kinda racist.

I'm back in for this one. Hurray!

You should not feel white guilt. Its perfectly sensible that if you do nothing racist that you shouldnt have to apologise.

However, you should recognise who as a white male, Irish society treats you as the norm, and your lived experience is different to that experienced by perhaps a traveller, or an immigrant, or a disabled person. It has nothing to do with you being racist or otherwise.

Having an awareness that by being white (or a male or able-bodied or catholic for example,) gives you some advantages in a society where they are seen as the norm. Some things you can take for granted, being the norm, which others are forced to deal with on a daily basis. These are advantages that you did nothing to earn. Disadvantaged people are having to work a lot harder just to get what you get without noticing.

Having an awareness that others do not share in the dominant privileged position seems to be an important point.

When becoming aware of this, some understand how they have these advantages and see the efforts made by those aiming to equalise society's playing field as just and worth accommodating. Others see the clear advantages of white male homosexual binary individual (in most anglophone countries) as under threat from those disadvantaged looking to be treated more equally. A smaller number of these people, prodded by demogogues, media and online arseholes, for their own personal or political gain, choose to go down the line of demonising the less fortunate. Those who might start out being decent people, under a perceived threat, progress to being racist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/mysoginist/bigoted etc from this position of insecurity.

I guess its up to everyone to make the choice they make.

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

I'm back in for this one. Hurray!

You should not feel white guilt. Its perfectly sensible that if you do nothing racist that you shouldnt have to apologise.

However, you should recognise who as a white male, Irish society treats you as the norm, and your lived experience is different to that experienced by perhaps a traveller, or an immigrant, or a disabled person. It has nothing to do with you being racist or otherwise.

Having an awareness that by being white (or a male or able-bodied or catholic for example,) gives you some advantages in a society where they are seen as the norm. Some things you can take for granted, being the norm, which others are forced to deal with on a daily basis. These are advantages that you did nothing to earn. Disadvantaged people are having to work a lot harder just to get what you get without noticing.

Having an awareness that others do not share in the dominant privileged position seems to be an important point.

When becoming aware of this, some understand how they have these advantages and see the efforts made by those aiming to equalise society's playing field as just and worth accommodating. Others see the clear advantages of white male homosexual binary individual (in most anglophone countries) as under threat from those disadvantaged looking to be treated more equally. A smaller number of these people, prodded by demogogues, media and online arseholes, for their own personal or political gain, choose to go down the line of demonising the less fortunate. Those who might start out being decent people, under a perceived threat, progress to being racist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/mysoginist/bigoted etc from this position of insecurity.

I guess its up to everyone to make the choice they make.

I disagree with the bolded points. My lived experience is different to all other white people too. Not just from someone who YOU perceive to be disadvantaged. And no, they don't need to work harder.

Being white, straight and a man does not give me any dominant privilege.

Can I assume that you are in favour of gender/race quotas and positive discrimination?

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree with the bolded points. My lived experience is different to all other white people too. Not just from someone who YOU perceive to be disadvantaged. And no, they don't need to work harder.

Being white, straight and a man does not give me any dominant privilege.

Can I assume that you are in favour of gender/race quotas and positive discrimination?

An able bodied child access to a suitable education is far easier than an autistic child. A catholic child is privileged in primary school entry. A married couple have more rights than a cohabiting one etc etc. Being the norm is cool.

Just saying it doesn't exist doesn't mean that it doesn't. Yes they do. Getting bogged down in the weeds of this is why these debates are so tiresome and a wast of time. As if you missed the fight to equalise gay marriage, gay adoption etc. Everyone of these rights have had to be fought for.

I don't know if gender/race quotas are the answer, however, 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. Not sure how many barristers or judges come from the travelling community or have a disability even. Any in the Dail? 100% inheritance tax would be required for a true meritocracy.

If there was equality of opportunity for all to gain access to the best schools and have sufficient support to allow everyone freedom to do their best without having to worry about persistent poverty etc, then there would be no need for quotas. As it stands, I would favour measures to reduce the inequality in society and while I dont think quotas are the solution long-term. It should help break down any prejudice that might be there and normalise other groups being present in those positions.

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

Being the norm is cool.

Yeah. We are such a regressive society. We have gay marriage, we have a gay man from immigrant descent as head of government, we have legalised abortion, it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of religion, race etc.

Yes, these had to be fought for, but what has that got to do with the perceived "white privilege" that you assume I have. Are black people not allowed attend school?

In a country that Catholicism is the most common religion, it makes sense that there is a demand for catholic primary schools. There are however educate together schools for people who don't want to go there.

Same as able bodied children. Thankfully, most kids are able bodied so there are more teachers equipped to teach able bodied children. There are however specially trained teachers that are trained specifically to deal with autistic children.

How many travellers want to become a barrister? Are the same avenues not open for them if they wanted it? We have no transgendered, midget, Asian barristers either. I think we should fight for that too!

I can't tell whether you are advocating for a 100% inheritance tax but even the idea of it is ridiculous. People work their whole lives to be able to provide for their children when they are gone.

There will always be persistent poverty in all societies, but we have one of the most generous social welfare systems in the world.

You are advocating that people should be discriminated against in order to stop discrimination. That is ridiculous. For example, if your child was sick, would you want him to be operated on by the best person for the job, or a black woman, who while not as qualified or competent as the white male candidate, jot the job anyway as they had to fill their quotas?

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah. We are such a regressive society. We have gay marriage, we have a gay man from immigrant descent as head of government, we have legalised abortion, it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of religion, race etc.

Yes, these had to be fought for, but what has that got to do with the perceived "white privilege" that you assume I have. Are black people not allowed attend school?

In a country that Catholicism is the most common religion, it makes sense that there is a demand for catholic primary schools. There are however educate together schools for people who don't want to go there.

Same as able bodied children. Thankfully, most kids are able bodied so there are more teachers equipped to teach able bodied children. There are however specially trained teachers that are trained specifically to deal with autistic children.

How many travellers want to become a barrister? Are the same avenues not open for them if they wanted it? We have no transgendered, midget, Asian barristers either. I think we should fight for that too!

I can't tell whether you are advocating for a 100% inheritance tax but even the idea of it is ridiculous. People work their whole lives to be able to provide for their children when they are gone.

There will always be persistent poverty in all societies, but we have one of the most generous social welfare systems in the world.

You are advocating that people should be discriminated against in order to stop discrimination. That is ridiculous. For example, if your child was sick, would you want him to be operated on by the best person for the job, or a black woman, who while not as qualified or competent as the white male candidate, jot the job anyway as they had to fill their quotas?

The above is a selection of the same right wing talking points that impress those who want to be impressed. The last one is a doozie. I've seen them for years, and there is no point rebutting them. You've missed the point but aren't interested in listening to the point, but seeing the game as a point scoring exercise. Good luck to you on your journey.

Sir Guy who smiles

Morgans wrote: »

Being the norm is cool.

Especially when you walk into Cheers, and everyone shouts out "Norm!"

Morgans

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

Especially when you walk into Cheers, and everyone shouts out "Norm!"

The "NORM"

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

The above is a selection of the same right wing talking points that impress those who want to be impressed. The last one is a doozie. I've seen them for years, and there is no point rebutting them. You've missed the point but aren't interested in listening to the point, but seeing the game as a point scoring exercise. Good luck to you on your journey.

I haven't missed any point and have addressed most of yours with my opinion.

I don't see anything particularly "right wing" in anything I have said.

I believe that positive discrimination is not positive at all. It is discrimination.

And as for my last point being a "doozie", I think that if you were honest, you would answer it and say that, "yes, I would prefer the best and most qualified person operate on my child".

But if you did that, your whole argument smacks of nothing except NIMBYism, sure, you want to live in your positive discrimination uptopia, but when it could negatively affect your child, you wouldn't be as progressive.

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't missed any point and have addressed most of yours with my opinion.

I don't see anything particularly "right wing" in anything I have said.

I believe that positive discrimination is not positive at all. It is discrimination.

And as for my last point being a "doozie", I think that if you were honest, you would answer it and say that, "yes, I would prefer the best and most qualified person operate on my child".

But if you did that, your whole argument smacks of nothing except NIMBYism, sure, you want to live in your positive discrimination uptopia, but when it could negatively affect your child, you wouldn't be as progressive.

Jaysus, so much nonsense.

Its a doozie. I would want a qualified doctor to treat my child.

I would not choose a plumber to complete surgery on my child, why a plumber/cleaner/farmer/lawyer/accountant could end up passing a medical qualification and end up as an option for me to choose, I couldn't tell you.

Any system that would allow a plumber/cleaner/farmer/lawyer/accountant without the required medical training to operate on any sick child, not just mine, would need to get a very serious slap on the wrist, at the very least.

Morgans

Do you know of an instance where positive discrimination led to an unqualified doctor operating on a sick child? Is this in Ireland?

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

Do you know of an instance where positive discrimination led to an unqualified doctor operating on a sick child? Is this in Ireland?

That's not what I said though. I didn't even allude to it.

I'm sure both would be qualified. I just said that I would want the MOST qualified person to get the job. Not someone getting the job based on their skin colour/ethnicity/sexual orientation/ablebodiedness

If you needed a plumber and both were the same price, would you pick one who had the better reviews, the better word of mouth but happened to be white or would you pick the other one because, although his reviews weren't half as good, he would still be able to get the job done but he happened to be a one legged, gay, Asian.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not what I said though. I didn't even allude to it.

I'm sure both would be qualified. I just said that I would want the MOST qualified person to get the job. Not someone getting the job based on their skin colour/ethnicity/sexual orientation/ablebodiedness

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.

Matt Barrett

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.

Jesus! Screenshot this.

I actually think we agree!