Intellectual Dark Web

James Brown · 19-09-2019 5:47pm

quokula wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

quokula · 19-09-2019 5:59pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

The Harvard case is not what you think it is.

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

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

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

Veritas Libertas · 19-09-2019 6:05pm

quokula wrote: »

The Harvard case is not what you think it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Junkyard Tom · 19-09-2019 6:10pm

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

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

Veritas Libertas · 19-09-2019 6:16pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Veritas Libertas · 19-09-2019 6:23pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

James Brown · 19-09-2019 7:04pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veritas Libertas · 19-09-2019 7:08pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

James Brown · 19-09-2019 7:11pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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

Thanks for the confirmation

Veritas Libertas · 19-09-2019 8:24pm

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

Noam Chomsky

cdgalwegian · 19-09-2019 8:32pm

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

Veritas Libertas · 19-09-2019 8:50pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Junkyard Tom · 19-09-2019 9:04pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

that you are out of argument is really telling.

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

Veritas Libertas · 19-09-2019 9:05pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

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

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

suicide_circus · 19-09-2019 9:08pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

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

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

cdgalwegian · 19-09-2019 9:11pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

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

Veritas Libertas · 19-09-2019 9:12pm

Another example:

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

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

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

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

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

cdgalwegian · 19-09-2019 9:34pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Veritas Libertas · 19-09-2019 9:54pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

markodaly · 20-09-2019 7:37am

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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

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

9223783c3b043f2fedd61b43ce5939c01339bce9144bd7d9575e8697a31d5c41_1.jpg

markodaly · 20-09-2019 7:41am

Morgans wrote: »

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.

I think you need to actually read the views and opinions of all those referenced in the OP, not just cherry-pick the odd few that conforms into your nice confirmation bias.

But I guess, its easier to stay ignorant.

Brian? · 20-09-2019 12:35pm

markodaly wrote: »

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

Well that’s pretty definitive, if Rob Schneider said it’s indisputable.

Morgans · 20-09-2019 1:39pm

markodaly wrote: »

I think you need to actually read the views and opinions of all those referenced in the OP, not just cherry-pick the odd few that conforms into your nice confirmation bias.

But I guess, its easier to stay ignorant.

What makes you think I havent?

Most aren't actually to be read - but viewed on youtube channels. But obviously, you are the expert on this.

James Brown · 20-09-2019 2:36pm

markodaly wrote: »

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

Rob 'wouldn't have worked since the early 90's if not for Adam Sandler' Schneider?

James Brown · 20-09-2019 2:39pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Noam Chomsky

So SJW is a compliment? Here's me thinking it was an attempt to censor and belittle those seeking equality and fairness for people or groups you don't like. In that case, I'm no 'warrior', but thanks.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

...

For example John Oliver and John Stewart in particular was my favourite comedian for a long time. It's such a great shame what a tragedy he has spawned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPI0UwHGp3M

Who's worthy? Who do you find funny? Just curious.
FYI: You know these guys jobs are being politically satirical and Trump is President right? Should they go after Jimmy Carter for balance?

markodaly · 20-09-2019 4:05pm

Brian? wrote: »

Well that’s pretty definitive, if Rob Schneider said it’s indisputable.

You just put your foot into a fallacy there Brian. Why not actually engage with the point made rather than throw out an ad hominem.

markodaly · 20-09-2019 4:10pm

Morgans wrote: »

What makes you think I havent?

Because if you actually read anything by Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris or either of the Weinstein's then you will realise that your 'factual' statement is false, thus you would not have made it.

Well, maybe you still would have, but perhaps you wanted to present a black and white argument to try and make your point appear more valid and decided to forgo any nuance and subtlety, but that is just a sign of incompetence and laziness.

So, you were either lazy and incompetent or plain wrong. You choose.

Chris_Heilong · 20-09-2019 4:29pm

Douglas Murray is very good at highlighting some of the problems many of us are noticing, especially with the hyperbolic reactionaries that hold PC in a positive light.

20Cent · 20-09-2019 4:39pm

So sick of these privileged folk whinging that society is falling because someone criticised them on twitter. Imagine they felt actual discrimination even just for one day they'd shut up quickly.

Veritas Libertas · 20-09-2019 4:42pm

20Cent wrote: »

So sick of these privileged folk whinging that society is falling because someone criticised them on twitter. Imagine they felt actual discrimination even just for one day they'd shut up quickly.

You clearly have powers of observation that I don't. Care to link me?

Brian? · 20-09-2019 5:27pm

markodaly wrote: »

You just put your foot into a fallacy there Brian. Why not actually engage with the point made rather than throw out an ad hominem.

Why not throw out an ad hominem against a quote from Rob Schneider? Because he's a terrible actor and comedian and his opinion is worth nothing.

As for the actual point being made, it's nonsense. Late night talk shows give people what they want, they're a ratings business. It's clear people want to watch satire if they don't, they watch something else.

James Brown · 20-09-2019 5:30pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You clearly have powers of observation that I don't. Care to link me?

There's a lad called Donald Trump. Keyboard warrior. Thinks tweets from individuals is liberals or media or Hollywood elites out to get him. He's mental.

Donald Trump on Wednesday took a brief respite from ginning up fear over immigrants, threatening Iran, and lying about Robert Mueller to discuss another issue near and dear to his heart: His Twitter account. In a rambling interview with the Fox Business network, the extremely online president whined that he was being censored on the social media platform, claiming—naturally without evidence—that shadowy forces are making it “very hard for people to join me on Twitter,” and that he’s lost followers because the company is “biased toward Democrats.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/trump-claims-hes-being-disappeared-on-twitter-fox-business-interview

Veritas Libertas · 20-09-2019 5:31pm

Brian? wrote: »

Why not throw out an ad hominem against a quote from Rob Schneider? Because he's a terrible actor and comedian and his opinion is worth nothing.

That's what this whole thread is about, engaging with ideas instead of the character of the person saying it.

As for the actual point being made, it's nonsense. Late night talk shows give people what they want, they're a ratings business. It's clear people want to watch satire if they don't, they watch something else.

Indeed that was the point I was trying to make. That there are echo chambers everywhere that sell. I was being charged with being part of the 'rubin' echo chamber, I was giving examples of late night comedy turning into a left echo chambers aswell. They exist everywhere now.

James Brown · 20-09-2019 5:33pm

Brian? wrote: »

Why not throw out an ad hominem against a quote from Rob Schneider? Because he's a terrible actor and comedian and his opinion is worth nothing.

As for the actual point being made, it's nonsense. Late night talk shows give people what they want, they're a ratings business. It's clear people want to watch satire if they don't, they watch something else.

He is pretty bad.

He basically said comedy today is very liberal but referenced an extreme right wing group to make a funny.

Veritas Libertas · 20-09-2019 5:59pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's a lad called Donald Trump. Keyboard warrior. Thinks tweets from individuals is liberals or media or Hollywood elites out to get him. He's mental.

We were talking about members of the IDW, I'm not sure if you purposefully are throwing out Donald Trump as a Red Herring, or have lost a grasp on the thread.

But either way let me re-iterate the challenge,

So sick of these privileged folk whinging that society is falling because someone criticised them on twitter. Imagine they felt actual discrimination even just for one day they'd shut up quickly.

Can you link me to any of the people I've listed or anyone else even loosely affiliated with the IDW that makes this claim? No, because none of them have...

I expect further straw-men replies from the usual suspects.

Morgans · 20-09-2019 6:11pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

We were talking about members of the IDW, I'm not sure if you purposefully are throwing out Donald Trump as a Red Herring, or have lost a grasp on the thread.

But either way let me re-iterate the challenge,

Can you link me to any of the people I've listed or anyone else even loosely affiliated with the IDW that makes this claim? No, because none of them have...

I expect further straw-men replies from the usual suspects.

There is a whole section on it in the video that I provided you but you refused to watch, highlighting how Dave Rubin starts all interviews with people who have been criticised on twitter. You didnt notice this in your Rubin fandom but rather than watch the videos you asked for a one line summary.

Its not my job to educate you.

Anyway, Im surprised just how quickly this turned into a dumpster fire, and everyone, including me, and those critical of the IDW really should do something better with their time.

Veritas Libertas · 20-09-2019 6:16pm

Morgans wrote: »

There is a whole section on it in the video that I provided you but you refused to watch, highlighting how Dave Rubin starts all interviews with people who have been criticised on twitter. You didnt notice this in your Rubin fandom but rather than watch the videos you asked for a one line summary.

Its not my job to educate you.

Anyway, Im surprised just how quickly this turned into a dumpster fire, and everyone, including me, and those critical of the IDW really should do something better with their time.

The IDW isn't claiming society is failing because somebody criticized them on twitter. This is a gross straw-man that those attacking the IDW are happy to profilerate.

Timbah from your videos was highly bias in his presentation; its telling there are only 4 videos on his entire youtube channel. He seems just as happy as you to attack self-constructed strawmen.

Why don't you try steel-manning and attack that argument instead? Or I guess you don't like Sam Harris so you don't like his techniques either...

Morgans · 20-09-2019 6:22pm

Why is it telling that there are only 4 videos on his channel?

Junkyard Tom · 20-09-2019 6:26pm

Morgans wrote: »

the video that I provided you

It really is a very thorough exposition of Rubin's show - its creator must have put an awful lot of hours into it.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Timbah from your videos was highly bias in his presentation

He does a very good job of exposing Rubin's bias. You should give it a watch - you might learn something.

Morgans wrote: »

Why is it telling that there are only 4 videos on his channel?

I think young Libbers there might be confusing volume/popularity with rigour.

James Brown · 20-09-2019 7:15pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

We were talking about members of the IDW, I'm not sure if you purposefully are throwing out Donald Trump as a Red Herring, or have lost a grasp on the thread.

But either way let me re-iterate the challenge,

Can you link me to any of the people I've listed or anyone else even loosely affiliated with the IDW that makes this claim? No, because none of them have...

I expect further straw-men replies from the usual suspects.

Wasn't clear he was talking about liberal or IDW liberals. I was under the impression he was referring to the kind of folk you'd admire.
IDW is just more newspeak created by right wing conspiracy theorists designed to brainwash the weak minded into keeping the old guard and railing against equality.
I can pick anyone and you could say they don't meet the criteria. Trump is the kingpin figurehead of the right, so I used him.
As I've said before boards and youtube is rife with right wing/alt right 'truth tellers' banging on about the liberal media, liberal agenda and calling anyone critical an SJW or snowflake, the irony being there's far more folk outraged at the liberal outrage than their is actual liberal outrage. Just look at the threads on boards you frequent and the conspiracy about Greta.
The only cultural invasion I see is coming from the Americanised right and far right with the juvenile spoilt brat with a gripe terminology. It's sickening.

20Cent · 20-09-2019 9:36pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You clearly have powers of observation that I don't. Care to link me?

Tell me what form all this abuse they get comes from?
As far as I can tell it's twitter/social media.

Hours of them moaning that they are being "censored" or that their ideas are too hot to handle. They do it on nearly every platform so tedious.

Veritas Libertas · 20-09-2019 11:45pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It really is a very thorough exposition of Rubin's show - its creator must have put an awful lot of hours into it.

He does a very good job of exposing Rubin's bias. You should give it a watch - you might learn something.

I think young Libbers there might be confusing volume/popularity with rigour.

Why not summarize the arguments instead of saying 'watch the video'. Obfuscation is what this thread is about, and you continue to do it.

Timbah's biggest argument seems to be that Dave Rubin is gate-way to the alt-right, would you or anyone else that has watched Timbah's video agree with this?

If you want to post 'watch the video' again you're just wasting everybodys time

Veritas Libertas · 20-09-2019 11:48pm

20Cent wrote: »

Tell me what form all this abuse they get comes from?
As far as I can tell it's twitter/social media.

Hours of them moaning that they are being "censored" or that their ideas are too hot to handle. They do it on nearly every platform so tedious.

Its not just social media and its not just the IDW. There are numerous subjects that there is a stigma attached to talking about.

Immigration-racist
Feminism-Misogynist
Islam-Racist

Just look to these boards, anytime someone tries to criticize currently policies surrounding these subjects are duly called racists and misogynists.

Veritas Libertas · 20-09-2019 11:51pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wasn't clear he was talking about liberal or IDW liberals. I was under the impression he was referring to the kind of folk you'd admire.
IDW is just more newspeak created by right wing conspiracy theorists designed to brainwash the weak minded into keeping the old guard and railing against equality.
I can pick anyone and you could say they don't meet the criteria. Trump is the kingpin figurehead of the right, so I used him.
As I've said before boards and youtube is rife with right wing/alt right 'truth tellers' banging on about the liberal media, liberal agenda and calling anyone critical an SJW or snowflake, the irony being there's far more folk outraged at the liberal outrage than their is actual liberal outrage. Just look at the threads on boards you frequent and the conspiracy about Greta.
The only cultural invasion I see is coming from the Americanised right and far right with the juvenile spoilt brat with a gripe terminology. It's sickening.

It was perfectly clear to the poster I was asking the question. The cheek of jumping into to answer a question for someone else and then claiming it wasn't clear. Hilarious stuff.
Why are you still talking about Trump exactly?

Who is talking about a cultural invasion?

Are you sure you're posting in the right thread?

Veritas Libertas · 20-09-2019 11:54pm

Morgans wrote: »

Why is it telling that there are only 4 videos on his channel?

Because the author of the video series is completely hidden about what their politics and their agenda is.

Even though a lot of what he says is true, the things that are true are not a crime. It's a hatchet job plain and simple. Plenty of his 'crimes' are equally committed by liberal media/night-time comedy.

The whole video series is full of strawmen and red-herrings.

I have watched enough of Rubin to know when he's being maligned.

20Cent · 20-09-2019 11:54pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Its not just social media and its not just the IDW. There are numerous subjects that there is a stigma attached to talking about.
Immigration-racist

Feminism-Misogynist

Islam-Racist

Just look to these boards, anytime someone tries to criticize currently policies surrounding these subjects are duly called racists and misogynists.

Poor dears truly the most oppressed people ever.
Its called debate, the "other side" will reply with their opinion. It's freedom from criticism they want.

Veritas Libertas · 20-09-2019 11:58pm

20Cent wrote: »

Poor dears truly the most oppressed people ever.
Its called debate, the "other side" will reply with their opinion. It's freedom from criticism they want.

Who mentioned oppressed? Oh wait you did.. why?

Do you think smearing people is good debate to have? Would you not agree it has added to the polarization around the topics the IDW try to discuss?

Junkyard Tom · 21-09-2019 12:12am

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Why not summarize the arguments instead of saying 'watch the video'.

In a nutshell, and no doubt doing Timbah's trojan exposition a disservice, Rubin may have started out with good intentions but quickly realised who was paying the bills and what they wanted in return i.e. reactionaries who wanted to have their reactionary views confirmed.

Veritas Libertas · 21-09-2019 12:14am

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

In a nutshell, and no doubt doing Timbah's trojan exposition a disservice, Rubin may have started out with good intentions but quickly realised who was paying the bills and what they wanted in return i.e. reactionaries who wanted to have their reactionary views confirmed.

Duh duh duh duh, exactly the same as the video I posted about the late night comics under Stewart. Why are we going backwards?

I bet you still watch at least one of these comics, am I right?

I bet you don't hate Jon Oliver as much as you do Dave Rubin... Could you explain why?

Just in case you missed this short clip here it is again.

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

It's much shorter than the 3hour crap you put me through.

20Cent · 21-09-2019 12:19am

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Who mentioned oppressed? Oh wait you did.. why?

Do you think smearing people is good debate to have? Would you not agree it has added to the polarization around the topics the IDW try to discuss?

They do. They constantly go on about how they can't say what they really think or that some topic is "off limits". If you want to discuss controversial topics then criticism etc is to be expected. Put on some big boy pants suck it up.

Intellectual Dark Web

Comments