Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Intellectual Dark Web

123578

Comments

  • #202
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    A problem I have with the "idw" is that they say stuff but don't apply their point to reality. Like the post above and that famouse interview with Jordan Peterson "So what you are saying is". Is the post above saying that "the left" got this person's tour cancelled? They support gfm and how extreme Islamists treat women? Like what is their point?

    Another example is Peterson and his makeup comments, he states lipstick is to make a woman look sexualy excited but doesn't apply that to real life.


  • #203
    cdgalwegian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭cdgalwegian


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    It seems we share more than a taste in Curtis, I have been an admirer of Helen Pluckrose(Areo owner) ever since her involvement in the grievance studies' affair.

    I’ve only occasionally dipped into articles or videos concerning identity politics, free speech etc in the past, including this IDW thing. The Areo piece is a case in point; I had never heard of Areo until yesterday. When I came across it, I just thought the piece was quite relevant to the discussion; coming from your POV, but also critical of it.
    The fact that the IDW lives almost singularly in social media (and public appearances)- rather than anything even approaching mainstream platforms, and the constant barrage of criticisms they receive- doesn’t seem to be a symptom of any concerted effort to suppress them. It’s just par for the course in engaging in contrarian views online. Their being lumped into together and billed as a group smacks of something artificial- manufactured even, that you should be wary of; the Spice Girls of the media with some shady manager.


  • #204
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    cdgalwegian wrote: »
    I had never heard of Areo until yesterday. When I came across it, I just thought the piece was quite relevant to the discussion; coming from your POV, but also critical of it.
    The fact that the IDW lives almost singularly in social media (and public appearances)- rather than anything even approaching mainstream platforms, and the constant barrage of criticisms they receive- doesn’t seem to be a symptom of any concerted effort to suppress them. It’s just par for the course in engaging in contrarian views online. Their being lumped into together and billed as a group smacks of something artificial- manufactured even, that you should be wary of; the Spice Girls of the media with some shady manager.

    Ah I have followed Helen in particular for some time now. Her work with James Lindsey and Peter Boghossian is extremely important and enlightening. Mike Nanya documents this very well on his youtube channel.

    I believe she has strong ties to the IDW so I was just preempting my critics accusing me of being trapped in a bubble, I could see the argument being made fairly. She owns the company Areo.

    I see the good point about how a movement can morph into something it set out to critique in the first place. That's why I posted the video earlier of Jon Stewart, I believe something similar happened to him and his Proteges which I witnessed first hand having had watched him for over a decade it also happened to live news long ago. Most of these guys could fairly be accused of being 'grifters' since what they do is primarily for money, since it is their full time job.

    I guess its important that adherents of the IDW properly criticize its' members that have become corrupt.

    To your other point in bold, I think there is a concerted effort. It is implicit rather than explicitly concerted. I believe the ones that criticize the likes of Peterson and Shapiro the most, have never ever watched their stuff, rather maybe clips designed for emotive response.

    Most of the criticisms I see against them are nothing more than strawmen.
    I noticed also that the the same left-wing twitter blue-check marks that espouse this crap the most appear with language that all of a sudden you notice other left-wing activists using, i.e. grifter.

    Most of the arguments made against me in this thread come from articles on the likes of the Guardian/Atlantic etc.. in the form of ' these people are not debating in good faith, why is that'. Otherwise smart people submitting to how people frame debates.


  • #205
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    20Cent wrote: »
    A problem I have with the "idw" is that they say stuff but don't apply their point to reality. Like the post above and that famouse interview with Jordan Peterson "So what you are saying is". Is the post above saying that "the left" got this person's tour cancelled? They support gfm and how extreme Islamists treat women? Like what is their point?

    Another example is Peterson and his makeup comments, he states lipstick is to make a woman look sexualy excited but doesn't apply that to real life.

    The point is that someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be free to crticize Islam without being called “hatemongering and bigoted” “ hostility and hatred towards Muslims”. By people that espouse to be progressive.

    The post is stating that the tour got cancelled one day after that Guardian article. I guess that Guardian article contributed to her tour being cancelled.
    Hit jobs like this are disgusting.

    Shouldn't they have represented her views more fairly in the 2017 article? She's a feminist, and a reformist and progressive! She's getting attacked as an anti-muslim extremist(SPLC). While also getting attacked from pretty much every other angle.

    Salman Rushdie was an earlier example of this. These are genuine cases where the left could have come in and helped, and genuinely helped culture to change.
    But as Adam Curtis puts it in 'Bitter Lake'; they prefer to retreat into their damaging over-simplified version of what is happening.


  • #206
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    Any thoughts on Peterson recently checking into a rehab centre for clonazepam withdrawal??

    A lot of people are trying to make the case that this is simply proof that he is a hypocrite ie. turning to drugs to manage himself rather than "taking responsibility" as he always talks about etc.

    It's really just a pretty despicable attempt to try and destroy a man they failed to destroy with arguments time and time again.

    Firstly the facts are that he started taking the meds to cope with the anxiety of his wife dying from cancer, he was prescribed the drugs, he tried to stop using them once his wife miraculously recovered, got withdrawal and then decided to get off them with help and supervision in a rehab centre. I fail to see how any of this negates or debunks or de-legitimises his main message.

    Is he not in fact following his own advice by doing what he has to do solve his problem before it gets out of hand?

    A lot of people are in-correctly saying that he is a drug addict. He's not a drug addict. He has a physical dependency. That's not the same as an addiction. Addiction is marked by a change in behavior caused by the biochemical changes in the brain after continued substance abuse.

    People are also saying that the very idea that he needed the meds debunks his "carnivore diet". Peterson never actually claimed that his diet cured anxiety. He claimed that it cured the chronic depression he had been suffering from his whole life. Besides, the anxiety was triggered by his wife getting cancer. Who wouldn't get anxiety from this regardless of their diet? Least of all someone who has been living Peterson's lifestyle over the past year of constant travelling and lecturing.

    Also Peterson doesn't go around flogging this diet as some sort of cure for everything. In fact he doesn't flog it at all. He only ever talks about it when someone directly asks him about it and even then he never fails to insert a disclaimer that he is not a nutritionist and his only knowledge comes from purely anecdotal evidence and messing around trying different diets.

    The final point that proves that Peterson is not a hypocrite (holding himself to a different standard than he holds others to) is that Peterson has never said that people should not use medication to fight depression and anxiety. In fact he openly advises people to try medication if nothing else is working for them. Some mental illnesses are in fact caused by a chemical imbalance that may be genetic that can only be helped through chemical means. Peterson has never railed against the use of these drugs. You may argue that he's wrong about the medication but you can't argue that he is a hypocrite.


  • #207
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    Any thoughts on Peterson recently checking into a rehab centre for clonazepam withdrawal??

    I don't know much, I posted in post#200 how vindictive people seem to be against him. I largely agree with what you have said.

    Googling Clonazepam reveals it to be a medication used to prevent and treat seizures, panic disorder, and the movement disorder known as akathisia.

    I wonder is it known whether he was prescribed these drugse?
    Also a point to note that Clonazepam withdrawal seems to be one of the worst of all drugs. So if at one point he was prescribed it, I wouldn't blame the guy for wanting to avoid this:
    Clonazepam withdrawal symptoms last three to four weeks.
    Withdrawal symptoms from Klonopin start to peak in one to two weeks from the last dose. Anxiety and irritability are typical during this time. Those who quit cold turkey may experience intense body tremors, hallucinations or seizures. Withdrawal symptoms start to fade in three to four weeks.


  • #208
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    The point is that someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be free to crticize Islam without being called “hatemongering and bigoted” “ hostility and hatred towards Muslims”. By people that espouse to be progressive.

    The post is stating that the tour got cancelled one day after that Guardian article. I guess that Guardian article contributed to her tour being cancelled.
    Hit jobs like this are disgusting.

    Shouldn't they have represented her views more fairly in the 2017 article? She's a feminist, and a reformist and progressive! She's getting attacked as an anti-muslim extremist(SPLC). While also getting attacked from pretty much every other angle.

    Salman Rushdie was an earlier example of this. These are genuine cases where the left could have come in and helped, and genuinely helped culture to change.
    But as Adam Curtis puts it in 'Bitter Lake'; they prefer to retreat into their damaging over-simplified version of what is happening.

    She should be free to say what she wants without criticism? That's not freedom of speech.


  • #209
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    20Cent wrote: »
    She should be free to say what she wants without criticism? That's not freedom of speech.

    Of course not, there are consequences to everything we do and say.

    I believe the criticism is unfair and unfounded being made by "People retreating into their damaging over-simplified version of what is happening". I'm also allowed to critique the criticism :rolleyes:.

    It comes from an emotional place rather than a logical/reasonable one.

    I was telling her story to highlight the cultural shift within the left, on this subject, within the last 15 years. There was a time when people would have got behind her.


    Don't you agree she should be free to criticize Islam in the way that she does without fear of death? That's what her partner in the movie got..
    A letter stabbed through and affixed to the body by a dagger, linked the murder to Van Gogh's film and his views regarding Islam.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/slaughter-and-submission-11-03-2005/


  • #210
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,398 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    The point is that someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be free to crticize Islam without being called “hatemongering and bigoted” “ hostility and hatred towards Muslims”. By people that espouse to be progressive.

    The post is stating that the tour got cancelled one day after that Guardian article. I guess that Guardian article contributed to her tour being cancelled.
    Hit jobs like this are disgusting.

    Shouldn't they have represented her views more fairly in the 2017 article? She's a feminist, and a reformist and progressive! She's getting attacked as an anti-muslim extremist(SPLC). While also getting attacked from pretty much every other angle.

    Salman Rushdie was an earlier example of this. These are genuine cases where the left could have come in and helped, and genuinely helped culture to change.
    But as Adam Curtis puts it in 'Bitter Lake'; they prefer to retreat into their damaging over-simplified version of what is happening.
    You've literally nothing to base that on. The article is pretty balanced. Here's her opinions, here's some people that disagree with her.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,398 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I don't know much, I posted in post#200 how vindictive people seem to be against him. I largely agree with what you have said.

    Googling Clonazepam reveals it to be a medication used to prevent and treat seizures, panic disorder, and the movement disorder known as akathisia.

    I wonder is it known whether he was prescribed these drugse?
    Also a point to note that Clonazepam withdrawal seems to be one of the worst of all drugs. So if at one point he was prescribed it, I wouldn't blame the guy for wanting to avoid this:
    Twitter is a cess pool. Nothing new there. Clonazepam was prescribed to him for anxiety over his wife being seriously ill. Takes a wise person to realise that they need help. Something a lot more people could do with realising.......


  • #212
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


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

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

    The 2004 article is far more balanced.

    I literally have something to base this on.
    In a statement Think Inc, the event organiser, said the cancellation was due to a “number of reasons including security concerns”.

    The day before the event was cancelled the guardian released a hit piece on Ayaan Hiris Ali that I already posted(2017) and is full of bull**** statements like
    • her critics say
    • A group of prominent Muslim women from playwrights to human rights campaigners, from conservative Muslims to the most progressive, don’t want this tour to proceed unchallenged.
    • due to what they say is the “hatemongering and bigotry”
    • Her views, they argue, serve to “increase hostility and hatred towards Muslims”
    • ignore the day-to-day work of many to improve social cohesion and to champion women’s rights within their faith.

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

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

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


  • #213
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,398 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    The 2004 article is far more balanced.

    I literally have something to base this on.



    The day before the event was cancelled the guardian released a hit piece on Ayaan Hiris Ali that I already posted(2017) and is full of bull**** statements like
    • her critics say
    • A group of prominent Muslim women from playwrights to human rights campaigners, from conservative Muslims to the most progressive, don’t want this tour to proceed unchallenged.
    • due to what they say is the “hatemongering and bigotry”
    • Her views, they argue, serve to “increase hostility and hatred towards Muslims”
    • ignore the day-to-day work of many to improve social cohesion and to champion women’s rights within their faith.

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


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


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


  • #214
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


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


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

    Is this a fair way to represent someone?
    Many people say xckjoo is a hateful bigot. Many of his(apologies if you are a her) most vocal critics say his opposition to women is the surest sign of this. A group of prominent liberals have disavowed him and what he says because they call it 'bigoted and mean'. His views, they argue, serve to “increase hostility and hatred towards Muslims”, and ignore the day-to-day work of many to improve social cohesion and to champion women’s rights within their faith.
    Everyday women and muslims are harassed particularly if wearing visible signs of their faith such as the hijab head covering.
    Many Australian Muslims consider Xckjoo's views simplistic and resent him being lauded as an expert in the Islamic faith
    Anyway, from the looks of the rest of your posts here, it looks like you've got some ulterior motives and are trying to goad people into something (e.g. continuously masquerading as not having watched the video others recommended while asking for a summary only to say in #150 that you had watched all 3 hrs of it) so I'll leave you to it.
    Edit to match your edit: More proof of my last statement.

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

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

    I smell hypocrisy.

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


  • #215
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


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

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

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


  • #216
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


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

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

    This is the group that they were referring to that got 458 signatures.
    We, the undersigned, would like to express our utmost disappointment that Ayaan Hirsi-Ali is being brought to Australia by Think Inc.
    This position is reflective of the huge diversity of opinion amongst Australian Muslim women. Although we are not a homogenous group, we are united in our condemnation of Hirsi-Ali's discourse which is grounded in hate-mongering and bigotry.
    Link

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


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


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

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

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

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

    Are his books like this?

    Look at this one paragraph:

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

    Jesus wept, it's tough going.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #218
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


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

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

    Are his books like this?

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

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

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

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


  • #219
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #220
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


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

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

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

    Could you please address this late point added earlier:
    Brian? wrote: »
    These manipulations of Scruton’s words had their desired effect. [...]result in people being fired before teatime.

    Jesus wept, it's tough going.

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


  • #221
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I wonder is it known whether he was prescribed these drugse?

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


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


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

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

    Could you please address this late point added earlier:

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

    Now, I'm willing to admit that could be because I can't really stand listening to him for too long. There is also a chance he is the originator of some of the ideas he speaks about, but others parrot his talking points. Either way, he isn't unique in bravely saying things others are a afraid to say.
    Would you be happy with someone manipulating your words to have you fired? I don't see what point you're making here unless you are some sort of authoritarian.

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

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

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #223
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    According to the video his daughter put on YouTube explaining the situation, he was prescribed the drugs by their family psychiatrist.

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

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

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #224
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


  • #225
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


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

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

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

    Stefan Molyneaux, Tommy Robinson, Donald Trump, Anders Brevik, Carl Benjamin, Gert Wilders, yer man in Hungary who's name I can't spell, Silivani in Italy and many more are always banging on about it.
    Sam Harris argued it like this.. (apologies for lacking his elegance)
    Think of world religions as diseases.
    Think about how diseases propagate, some better than others. Some are airborne, some waterborne, how long they live outside the host, these characteristics define how the disease propagates.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #226
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Brian? wrote: »
    But people aren't afraid to talk about it. People talk about it all the time.
    Just because people talk about things, doesn't mean other people aren't afraid to talk about things. Surely I don't need to explain this to you?
    Stefan Molyneaux, Tommy Robinson, Dona tld Trump, Anders Brevik, Carl Benjamin, Gert Wilders, yer man in Hungary who's name I can't spell, Silivani in Italy and many more are always banging on about it.
    I'll assume you're right that all these people have also spoken about it. I know there is a stigma attached to everyone of them. Do you not see how this stigma is a credible threat? Would you not agree with Murray's point that European culture is fading? Is that a racist thing to say?
    So you actually just proved your own point wrong. Sam Harris is talking about the same subject without any fear.
    So what exactly is Murray saying that other people are afraid to say?

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

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

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

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


  • #227
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


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


  • #228
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #229
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    Brian? wrote: »
    Dr Peterson is not alt right. They love him unrequitedly.

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

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

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

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

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


  • #230
    cdgalwegian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭cdgalwegian


    Brian? wrote: »
    Whether I agree with Murray or not is irrelevant right now. The subject is "The Intellectual Dark Web". My contention is it's a nonsense term because there is nothing underground about the people you are talking about.
    The term seems to have been "half-jokingly" plucked from the air, then picked up through lazy journalism, which gave it legs for a marketing ploy to squeeze money from the disaffected/alt right, aided and abetted by social media platforms- as the conspiracy to lock them out of mainstream media shows. (;))


  • #231
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    Brian? wrote: »
    Dr Peterson is not alt right. They love him unrequitedly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • #232
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


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

    It is an anti Irish rag.


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


    As such the Irishman in question cannot be a conservative !

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


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

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

    Are his books like this?

    Look at this one paragraph:

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

    Jesus wept, it's tough going.


  • #233
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


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

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

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

    What makes him a rightist ?


  • #234
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


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

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

    Not only that but many people get deplatformed.

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

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


    IMG-5190.jpg?auto=compress,enhance,format&crop=faces,entropy,edges&fit=crop&w=294&h=413
    The big problem is that people believe George Eaton(Deputy Editor New Statesman) when he wrote about those things. People didn't bother to look for the quotes in full.

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

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


  • #235
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    What's the issue with Peterson ?

    What makes him a rightist ?

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

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

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #236
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


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

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

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

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

    Ehh, I read it. That’s where we first engaged. It’s terribly written. So bad it’s hard to see if Murray actually has a point.
    IMG-5190.jpg?auto=compress,enhance,format&crop=faces,entropy,edges&fit=crop&w=294&h=413
    The big problem is that people believe George Eaton(Deputy Editor New Statesman) when he wrote about those things. People didn't bother to look for the quotes in full.

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

    And yet, here we are. With loads of people talking about the things you think people are scared to talk about. Completely mainstream to talk about in fact, as demonstrated by the sold out arenas and millions of books sold.
    The very mention of the 'Australian Tommy Robinson' in another thread was enough for one poster to exclaim "That's enough for me to never listen to this person, or to try to fairly understand what they are saying". When I hear of something like that it makes me more curious to find what what makes people think this person is so bad? If they are so bad surely I can see it for myself.

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

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #237
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


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

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

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

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

    Do you even care?


  • #238
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    Why do you care?

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

    Why are you bleating for Ireland's enemies ?

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

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

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

    Do you even care?


  • #239
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


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

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

    Thanks for the clarification.


  • #240
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    Why do you care?

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

    Why are you bleating for Ireland's enemies ?

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,560 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I have been following these people for quite sometime,

    1. Get off YouTube.

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

    3. Go outside.

    4. Talk to some real people.


  • #242
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Tony EH wrote: »
    1. Get off YouTube.

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

    3. Go outside.

    4. Talk to some real people.


    Ahh another one that seems to know all the facts.

    What's wrong with youtube exactly?
    I know what a liberal is thank you. If you believe I've been incorrect somewhere then please point it out.
    I go outside often, in fact I walk several kilometres every day. Do you?
    I talk to real people all the time :) Your insinuation is baseless.

    You seem the type of person the IDW is in existence to combat :cool:

    In retrospect I realize your post is just thank whoring like in post #2. In which case work away whatever floats your boat.


  • #243
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,560 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Ahh another one that seems to know all the facts.

    :rolleyes:
    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    What's wrong with youtube exactly?

    It's full of clickbait **** propagating the worst of childish American politics (or what passes for politics) that lead the young and the stupid astray.

    Which one are you, young or just stupid.
    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I know what a liberal is thank you. If you believe I've been incorrect somewhere then please point it out.

    Too many people today are picking up this nonsense talk from the web. You're one of them.

    The "Liberals" you're banging on about don't exist on this side of the pond and your "culture war" is pretty non-existent over here too.

    As I said get off YouTube.
    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I go outside often, in fact I walk several kilometres every day.

    Do it more often.
    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I talk to real people all the time

    The voices in your head are not real people.
    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    You seem the type of person the IDW is in existence to combat :cool:

    You have no idea what the dark web is, intellectual or otherwise.


  • #244
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Tony EH wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    It's full of clickbait **** propagating the worst of childish American politics (or what passes for politics) that lead the young and the stupid astray.
    Which one are you, young or just stupid.
    Too many people today are picking up this nonsense talk from the web. You're one of them.

    The "Liberals" you're banging on about don't exist on this side of the pond and your "culture war" is pretty non-existent over here too.

    As I said get off YouTube.
    Do it more often.
    The voices in your head are not real people.
    You have no idea what the dark web is, intellectual or otherwise.

    So many words that said so little.


  • #245
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,560 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    So many words that said so little.


    Go to bed kid. You have school in the morning. ;)


  • #246
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Go to bed kid. You have school in the morning. ;)

    I don't know what gives you the impression I'm young, but I wish I were. Just the first of your baseless accusations against me. But you're right I am getting tired- of you.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,516 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Thread starts from a BS position: massively popular talk show hosts, authors and entertainers don't belong to a 'dark' anything any more than Amazon is a dark web retailer.


  • #248
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    kowloon wrote: »
    Thread starts from a BS position: massively popular talk show hosts, authors and entertainers don't belong to a 'dark' anything any more than Amazon is a dark web retailer.

    They talk about topics that the mainstream media won't dare touch. Do you dispute this?

    Everything else is just dressing.


  • #249
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Here's a subject that flies in the face of many 'societal norms' we've established recently that if you talk about it makes you sexist and a misogynist.

    I'm sure Brian will say it's mainstream already ;)
    • 43.8% of lesbian women and 61.1% of bisexual women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, as opposed to 35% of heterosexual women.
    • 26% of gay men and 37.3% of bisexual men have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, in comparison to 29% of heterosexual men.
    Source

    Domestic abuse in heterosexual relationships seems to be about equal among the sexes, so why is it continually seen and funded as a gendered issue?


  • #250
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    cdgalwegian wrote: »
    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.

    You assume this is the only content that I watch. I watch a wide variety of content. I just checked Rubin has hundreds of videos, I've maybe watched a dozen. My only point is that it is content not available elsewhere. The reason being that stigmas get attached to conversations and they get shut down. Especially when it comes to the IDW theme of clashing with PC culture.
    Governments, corporations, academia, the arts, Hollywood, culture are all politically correct these days. To honestly criticize this is to face the wrath of the mob. Could you honestly have conversations spoken about in this thread in your everyday life? Outside of your closest friends&family?

    Especially in this day and age I think it the only way possible to get a balanced perspective is to endure the bias from both 'sides'. I read Breitbart occasionally, I read the Guardian a lot, I read the Independent online, I read Quilliam(My favourite) I listen to the IDW guys, I watch late night comics, I read newspapers occasionally, books articles opinions pieces a lot. I always try to balance my perspective and look up the argument from the otherside. On youtube I'm subscribed to
    • NYT
    • Hoover Institute
    • RT news
    • Sky news
    • Channel 4
    • CNN
    • American institute
    • TED
    • The guardian
    • Reason TV
    • Subverse
    • and 257 more, mostly science, atheist and philosophy channels including all of the IDW.

    That's why its infuriating when people assume I'm ignorant of the otherside, when usually it is them that are ignorant of my position happy to strawman me, just like they do members of the IDW. It's infuriating, as evidenced by people popping up in this thread making wild insinuations and then performing disappearing acts.


  • #251
    The One Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,339 ✭✭✭The One Doctor


    Jesus. Eventually someone is going to have to point out to people that the internet is not the same as real life.

    Why do you care about such remote and unimportant issues, OP? Single? Only child? Office job with unlimited hours on the internet?

    I bet it's the last one.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement