Intellectual Dark Web
- Started
- Last post
- 204 Responses
- BonSeff-1
I mean Hitler spells it out in his own fucking book! But hey, Kermit, spin it anyway that suits your narrative.
- - - - -
In Mein Kampf, Hitler describes the transformation in his thinking regarding the Jews. It began with a chance meeting.
"Once, as I was strolling through the inner city, I suddenly encountered an apparition in a black caftan and black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought."
"For, to be sure, they had not looked like that in Linz. I observed the man furtively and cautiously, but the longer I stared at this foreign face, scrutinizing feature for feature, the more my first question assumed a new form: is this a German?"
To answer his own question, he immersed himself in anti-Semitic literature. Then he went out and studied Jews as they passed by.
"...the more I saw, the more sharply they became distinguished in my eyes from the rest of humanity..."
A jubilant young Hitler among the crowd celebrating the German proclamation of war on the Odeonplatz in Munich, Germany, August 2, 1914. Below: Close-up of the photo highlight showing Hitler."For me this was the time of the greatest spiritual upheaval I have ever had to go through. I had ceased to be a weak-kneed cosmopolitan and become an anti-Semite."
- Standard confirmation bias.i_monk
- no, no, the mob made him do it.BonSeff
- This is one of those "listen for things in the video that confirms what I'm thinking" situations.cannonball1978
- Read my comments in the previous post. My quotes in this post all happened in Vienna in his early 20's when he was lazy and homeless. Dude just wanted to paintBonSeff
- And was a filthy homeless person. Who BTW scraped by selling paintings thanks to a jewish store owner who hanged them in his shopBonSeff
- I downvoted the shit out of this postBonSeff
- Morning_star-2
@BonSelf
Fundamentally you seem to be confusing someone articulating the truth of a historical figure with the actual promotion of the historical figures ideology.
One of the common features of those folk deemed part of the IDW is that nothing, nothing should be excluded from discussion and debate. The discussions are difficult and often without a satisfactory conclusion.
If you can't find a coherent thread of support for Hitler's ideologies amongst Petersons myriad content that's because there isn't one. If you are content to judge the man and make a conclusion about his ideologies on 6mins of video that's cool. However, I think you are closing your mind to a broader and deeper perspective regarding subjects you seem to care about.
- I think we have various intellectuals right now, trying to unravel how we've managed to inflict so much genocide as a species.Ianbolton
- Is it evolution and part of our tribalistic nature? Or is it a bad egg in there that needs to be understood to be avoidedIanbolton
- ^ kinda simplified a bit there because there are so many facets to these debatesIanbolton
- I think the horrors of the 20thC have manifest through mundane and seemingly innocent policy and strategy. Evil creeps. It's why Peterson got his arse in his...Morning_star
- ...hands about Bill C-16 in Canada. It was the principle of enforced speech and where it can lead that enflamed his opposition. It's why he is so disturbed by..Morning_star
- ...the Ideological Left that define themselves as groups rather than individuals.Morning_star
- Peterson blew C-16 far out of proportion. And he's definitely on board with demoting certain demographics to 2nd class.i_monk
- Why are you linking Godwin's law when JP's topic was literally Hitler?BonSeff
- @ i_monk, which demographics are the ones he's demoting?
@ BonSelf 'cause you called him to a Nazi. The very definition of Godwins law.Morning_star - wrong. i called him an apologist.BonSeff
- You mean, i took what you said and misrepresented it to confirm one of my assertions. Fuck, i'm sorry, i can't imagine where i got the idea.Morning_star
- @M_s: Gays.i_monk
- Gays, trans and women.BonSeff
- ^ wow, that escalated quickly! You're saying Peterson is a Nazi apologist? That's rather untrue.Ianbolton
- "The German's had plenty of reasons to be resentful and hateful, I mean think about it"BonSeff
- his words, not mine. care to comment?BonSeff
- Yeah, because I'm resentful and hateful probably explains why I'd follow someone like Hitler. That doesn't excuse what happened you idiot.Ianbolton
- He's trying to understand why we'd follow such dictators and why they come into power in the first place. That not sympathising with their ideologiesIanbolton
- @ BonSelf. Did you listen to what he said after he uttered those words? No? Well he explains them, in terms of the fallout from WW1/hyper inflation etc.Morning_star
- Thanks for the Jordansplainin',
typical.BonSeff - wrong. those thing didn't change hitler. his time in vienna during his early 20's did.BonSeff
- wanna know how i know that? because he says it in his own fucking book. jesus christ you mutherfuckers will go to the mat for this fucking guy. bravo.BonSeff
- Sorry, could you Hitlersplain to us so we understand how less stupid you think you are than usIanbolton
- @i_monk. He tells the truth based on scientific research. He doesn't use it to justify an agenda. It is not honest to claim that we are all the same and that...Morning_star
- I'll let JP take care of that.BonSeff
- Haha, I think we have another troll on here. Keep up the good work manIanbolton
- ...there are no differences between Straight and Gay Couples when it comes to fostering kids for instance or Women and Men are stimulated by...Morning_star
- ..different careers. These are general claims born from science and you're a fool if you think you can take his utterances and apply them on an individual...Morning_star
- ...basis.Morning_star
- @ BonSelf. You seem to be quite the Nazi expert.Morning_star
- @ BonSelf. Also, he was talking about the German people NOT Hitler.Morning_star
- Balls and strikes. I call them as I see em. Flame on.BonSeff
- Have you tried SpecSavers.Morning_star
- Have you tried not swinging from a sexist, nazi apologist's ball sack?
i'm done.BonSeff - You're done? Quitter.Morning_star
- i_monk7
Morning_star,
You're confusing scientific research with pop psych assertions.
Have you seen the video? Here it is:
His argument against gay marriage:
1. If it's "backed by cultural Marxists" he's against it.
2. It must integrate gay people into mainstream society and decrease promiscuity. No mention of promiscuous heterosexuals or married heterosexuals who are otherwise not part of the mainstream.
3. Legalizing it hasn't "decreased the demands of the radical Left" so it lacks merit.
4. The model of marriage he would hold gays to ignores things like divorce and childless straight couples/infertility, and the even more historic and traditional role the extended family plays in raising children. He's basically holding up a postcard of the 1950s Nuclear Family ideal and saying "this is how it's always been" when even 10 minutes of research would demonstrate otherwise, even in the Western tradition.
How you can conclude he's NOT pushing an agenda is absolutely baffling.
- Halfway through he admits his position is confused, meaning he has a conclusion and is trying to justify it. Hardly scientific.i_monk
- For a man who is very careful about what he says, ‘confused’ is an admission that he isn’t clear about what he thinks. How can that possibly be an ‘agenda’.Morning_star
- Also I_monk, thanks for your post.Morning_star
- jp loses me on this issue. two people in love are certainly capable of raising children and being a family, regardless of gender.Gnash
- That’s pretty much what he says in the video I posted.Morning_star
- true, but it takes him so long to get there.Gnash
- so it ends up feeling forced.Gnash
- Two people in love don't need to have a kid (or plan to have one) to justify getting married. He doesn't hold straight people to that standard, ergo he believesi_monk
- homosexuals should be second class.i_monk
- If that’s the conclusion you come to, that’s cool. However I think you’re choosing to represent his view through the lens of your existing prejudice.Morning_star
- peterson fans are blinded by the smug. impossible to convince it's a just a style of debate only achievable by several iterations of climbing up your own holekingsteven
- Haters gonna hate. He provides a well needed alternative narrative. A lot of you guys seem swayed by popular opinion.robthelad
- Existing prejudice? You and he are the ones saying marriage and children must go together because that's traditional.i_monk
- You're the ones saying a historically oppressed group should remain oppressed because that's traditional.i_monk
- Safe bet your rights have never been considered debate-worthy. Prejudice indeed.i_monk
- nothing to do with the narrative rob, how the fuck is it alternative to question the motives of minority groups? there are many people pushing the same pointskingsteven
- Firstly. Just because I post something doesn't mean I agree with it. So don't assume my views are reflective of Petersons or anyone elses for that matter. I...Morning_star
- mush more sensitively... the "grievance study affair" is a populist narrative that shares many of petersons issues with gender/ sexuality but without thekingsteven
- liberal conservative bias.kingsteven
- ... meant, when i said 'existing prejudice', that you come to this with preconceived ideas about what he means. Even he doesn't know what he thinks, so...Morning_star
- ...assuming his views manifest in some kind of oppression is a step I don't think you can make. He tends to focus the family unit around the child and his ...Morning_star
- ...expert opinions based on research both his and others concluded that the optimum family uint is Dad, Mum, Child. If you have Dad, Dad, Child or Mum, Mum...Morning_star
- ...Child then issues can arise surrounding the nurturing benefits from a Male and Female perspective. However he says again and again a loving family unit is...Morning_star
- ...is far better than a Loveless or Disfunctional Family unit. Whether that be Gay, Straight and everything in between. He also doesn't give two fucks about..Morning_star
- ..who is married to who. He looks at marriages as ultimately the most productive environment for a child. For those that aren't considering children...Morning_star
- ...it doesn't matter.Morning_star
- Also, i'd rather you didn't start assuming shit about my personal situation. You know nothing.Morning_star
- @Kingsteven, how about the Ideological Socialists bias, should we ignore that too? Or maybe we listen to both and come to our own conclusions.Morning_star
- His own prejudice tying marriage to making babies, shines through. Now two men are going to produce a baby no matter how often they bang, so why should thati_monk
- factor into whether they should be allowed to marry? And if you're defending him instead of questioning him, yeah, I'll assume you agree.i_monk
- And if you can't see the danger inherent to a populist demagogue telling his followers gay people aren't equal, that's your prejudice on display.i_monk
- i-monk. Can you show me where he says that men shouldn't marry? Can you show me where he says gay people aren't equal? I'm not defending his position, i am...Morning_star
- ...attempting to explain his position rather than, as you seem to be, assuming his conclusions based on a stubborn need for him to be discredited. He clearly...Morning_star
- ...doesn't say what you're claiming.Morning_star
- Morning_star-3
i_monk
This video should add a little more illumination to what he thinks about the subject. It pretty much provides explanation and further insight to all the points you made below.
Could you explain the perception you have about an agenda, and what you think it is? I'm curious.
- He's an edgelord with tenure. That's about it.garbage
- ‘Edgelord’ ? Can provide one iota of evidence for your claim?Morning_star
- Again, what does raising kids have to do with two men or two women wanting to marry? They don't hand you a baby when you exchange rings.i_monk
- And why does he ignore the role of the extended family? That is a much older "traditional mode of being" than the model he holds up as a template.i_monk
- This is one of his Q&A sessions. They're all available on his you tube channel. He was asked "What are your thoughts on gay people raising children" which i...Morning_star
- ...am certain is the reason he talks about same sex marriage. I'd imagine the reason why he doesn't talk about extended family is because he has limited time...Morning_star
- ...and a lot of questions to get through. Why are you so hell bent on trying to explain his opinions as dangerous or sinister or manipulative. I don't get it.Morning_star
- He uses raising kids as a reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, demonstrating his agenda quite clearly.i_monk
- Whenever his position on gay marriage is pointing out, one of his followers tries to pivot the discussion to raising kids.i_monk
- Being married ≠ having kids. Having kids ≠ being married.i_monk
- It's an excuse to justify inequality.i_monk
- BonSeff1
Wrap your ears around Dave Rubin and Tucker Carlson dismissing yesterday's Cohen guilty plea in lieu the war on Christmas.
- Morning_star-2
Give it a listen. Very, very interesting.
This is an interview with Bret Weinstein about the discussion he had with Richard Dawkins (about 6 posts down). He very eloquently points out Dawkins error in the Selfish Gene.
Weinstein argues that religion, warfare, genocide etc are evolutionary features built into our genes. And that we must realise we (humans) are monsters and should adjust our direction accordingly.
- Love listening to Bret. Especially how calm and knowledgable he is. He might be my favorite among the IDW group. Always nice to listen to him explain.Boz
- Boz-5
They are all very reasonable and highly intelligent people. The reason the left hates them is because they talk about reality of biology and life in general, they point out the lunacy of identity politics and group identity over personal responsibility and freedom of speech and the lefties hate them for it because it completely destroys their bubbles of delusion.
Most of the people "criticizing" them are pretty much illiterate social justice warriors who read a few books and now have a voice thanks to social media.
Almost all of them regardless of their political leanings (Eric/Bret being liberal), Ben Shapiro conservative, Dave Rubin more libertarian than classic liberal at this point, Joe Rogan as well although a bit outside of it, are extremely well educated and well read people who talk pretty much common sense and truths and when they do anyone who identifies with group identity will hate them because it flies directly against their asinine arguments and insanity.
Also, if you haven't watched anything with Christina Hoff Sommers I highly recommend it as well.
One of the really amazing interviews Dave Rubin had was with this pretty brilliant and inspiring young man Coleman Hughes and one of my favorites among his interviews:
But also the new interview with Peterson and Shapiro was great to listen to yesterday talking about all this:
Also, Dave Rubin's talk at Oxford was spot on and his Q/A session was really great to listen to.
Joe Rogan also had Peterson for 3+ hours yesterday or the day before yesterday. Great interview!
I especially love listening to Eric and Bret Weinstein. Two brilliant brothers and even though Bret tries to be more politically correct and talk mostly about biology as it is his field, Eric discusses even some liberal ideas in a way where I get where he is coming from even though I don't necessarily agree with everything he might say.
Peterson has really tough voice to listen to but he I admire him and how intelligent he is, but mostly because he doesn't get pushed around by social justice warrior reporters and goes really deep into history/evolution/human nature in terms of psychology and biology and dismantles their asinine ideas with facts and study.
I personally think that they are stigmatized and hated because they are directly flying against this tribal, identity politics and authoritarian ideas of the left today in academia, media and social media. They are exposing the lunacy with common sense, science and facts and being the danger as a lot of people are waking up, they have to be destroyed. This is how the left today works and it's no wonder that young people, especially gen Z are realizing this more than ever.
Highly recommend you watch the videos I posted, very interesting to watch. I really only dislike Sam Harris somewhat but it's really a bit of a personal vibe and the way he presents some things rather than "hate" him. But that's the most amazing thing, it's the group of people who might even have deep intellectual disagreements but are defending the last pillars of western civilization with freedom of speech, science and facts and not through an ideological lens.
- I posted a part of the interview with Hughes, this is the full interview:
https://www.youtube.…Boz - +1
Incase you haven't heard it: Sam Harris & Coleman Hughes. https://youtu.be/gqt…Morning_star - I agree with you about Harris but i find myself listening to him a lot because of his reputation as one of the original New Atheists...Morning_star
- ..and he seems to attract the best guests to his Podcast. He can be a bit like Dawkins in a sense and that he has this unwavering confidence that he is right...Morning_star
- ...about everything. I think Peterson showed him to be a bit dismissive in their discussion series. As for Bret, you're exactly right.Morning_star
- Funny, out of the bunch I like Sam Harris the most.inteliboy
- One thing that bothers me politically, is that they whine about the left A LOT. Where the lunacy of Fox News far right babbling narratives are ignored.inteliboy
- I think it's a particular type of Left leaning character that are the objects of their criticism and the Marxist Ideology that they espouse.Morning_star
- true, though I listen to rubin recent podcast with Shapiro and Peterson - and they pretty much just complained about the left the entire time.inteliboy
- whilst also having a dig at some of Sam Harris's views whilst he wasn't there to defend himself.inteliboy
- Yeah you would expect that someone who claims to be a “classical liberal” like Dave Rubin would be all over Trump’s attacks on free speech, free trade andyuekit
- science. And yet...radio silence from that guy. Which tells me he is more interested in cultivating his right-wing audience than in genuinely promoting thoseyuekit
- issues. Meanwhile Shapiro appears to be an outright climate change denier, not very Logic and Reason is it?yuekit
- @yuekit You seem to be adding 2+2 and getting 5 as usual.Morning_star
- Well it’s true that he doesn’t criticize Trump, not sure what part you are arguing with. Of course I’m speculating about his motives, but he seems fake to me.yuekit
- Maybe he thinks that there's enough talk about the idiot in chief. Maybe he's interested in a deeper dialogue about the direction of humanity. Why must ...Morning_star
- ...he criticise trump?Morning_star
- So he’s supposedly this huge supporter of free speech and classic liberalism. You have the most anti-free speech, anti-liberal president maybe in historyyuekit
- in power, and he doesn’t think it’s worth commenting on? The global trend towards authoritarianism isn’t relevant, but a few kids on college campuses are?yuekit
- It’s not like I’m the only one who has noticed this, even Sam Harris fans are calling out his nonsense.yuekit
- https://www.reddit.c…yuekit
- Rubins tweet from 2016:1. I don't support Trump 2. I do support free speech 3. If you use free speech to stifle others use of theirs, 1 day they'll...Morning_star
- ....do same to you.
Seems reasonable to me. Although i'm sure you (Yuekit) can find something petty about it you don't like,Morning_star - Hmmm OK. Not quite clear how a quote from 2016 rebuts the one I posted from 2018 where he says he is leaning towards voting for Trump in the next election.yuekit
- Read the comments in the link I posted. Most people (in Sam Harris' own sub no less) agree with what I'm saying.yuekit
- ...whatever...********
- I posted a part of the interview with Hughes, this is the full interview:
- kingsteven0
I alluded to this project in the side notes a while back, don't know if it's been posted before but essentially a group of left leaning academics exposing 'grievance studies' (the motivation for the laundering of fringe concepts relating to race, gender through the university system). I don't particularly find any of them more likeable than Peterson et al. but as a project I find it a far more effective expose than anything I've heard from him.
I get wound up when I hear that criticism of these 'intellectual dark web' guys is "from the left". Irregardless of political interests I think it's right to be suspicious of the motivations of an individual or group challenging the rights of minority groups, particularly if they're claiming biological proof... Historically that's very dangerous territory.
Anyway, (if your goal isn't genocide) exposing the systems that lead to this shit (by submitting fake papers to academic journals) and creating terminology to describe the phenomenon seems like a far better way to stimulate public discussion and accomplish the same thing.
YouTube playlist:
https://is.gd/CHAq1V- the papers that actually got published were verging on onion territory. they were quite funny.Gnash
- while none of the journals were on the level of Science or Nature, they were considered notable in the fields of grievance studies.Gnash
- "I think it's right to be suspicious of the motivations of an individual or group challenging the rights of minority groups" Nobody is doing that.cannonball1978
- I'm referring to the hurt caused by statements like “I don’t recognise another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them” - Petersonkingsteven
- I was going to write "perceived rights" but really I don't think it's right to suggest that they're entirely fictional. ie. better to criticise the system thankingsteven
- folks enveloped in this or that doctrine because 'biology sez'kingsteven
- I'm not sensing where you come down on the issue, King, but it's nobody's right to compel the way someone expresses their perception, minority or not.cannonball1978
- its always good to have debates. These corruptions are not just in uni's, drug companies and dietary as wellmugwart
- "irregardless"imbecile
- ^ hah im not writing an academic paperkingsteven
- reminds me a of a bit by george lopezimbecile
- pr2-20
For some reason vast majority of people today somehow end up on extreme Right or Left with moderate centrists like myself in surprising minority. Neither side realizes how much they long for religious certainty. Neither side is interested in search for Truth, but rather in embracing more data that proves how their side is right (thus proliferation of those videos showing the current "heroes" of either side in "debates"). Political correctness on one side and complete embrace of biology on another as if we were some sort of ghosts detached from either mind or body (depending on which side of the barricade one chooses to stand). Both sides - including all the Petersonians of the world - fail to notice complexity of the human interactions. Sometimes our biology dominates and other times it's our mind (notice, i didn't necessarily said our intellect) and yet in their pursuit for simplistic truisms, both sides try to claim that it's one or the other.
Needless to say, there is very little "intellectual" there - rather pursuit on representatives of both side of close-minded ideology.
- You point about religious certainty is spot on. I think it was Douglas Murray the said "We may be in the throes of the discovery that the only thing worse....Morning_star
- ...than Religion, is it's absence.
It's telling that you highlight that fact that the Right and Left are always polarised yet you talk about them in exactly...Morning_star - ...those terms. It seems that you describe neither 'side' accurately by using such simple, black & white termsMorning_star
- think the problem is psychological. There has to be ONE over arching truth not millions of wee ones. Having ONE only benifits the minority in power and reasonmugwart
- we are in this state. Also we dont analyses were are thinking comes from. Tihs is another major concern. We are shaped by friends, family, community, 'Power'mugwart
- us working class has been used to fuel the machine for so long. We now have a medium to commutate throughmugwart
- I think we have been educated not to be able to agree to disagree. Work through each others points.mugwart
- How I see it 99.999999% have been in a 'tunnel' and had shit thrown into the fan.
Instead of trying to work out whom throw the shit- we are agruing whom hasmugwart - the most shit on them.
We are all unique - act it or just become some virus mindless dronemugwart - I think tribalism is a big element here...very easy on social media to fall into an echo chamber where your side is right about everything, while "they" areyoungdesigner
- wrong, evil, racist, etc.youngdesigner
- lol...how did this get to -18?yuekit
- Morning_star-3
Jonathan Haidt (moral psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership) talks to Ezra Klein (Editor-at-large at Vox)
Insight and explanation into the seeming fragility of teenagers and students.
"Teen anxiety, depression, and suicide rates have risen sharply in the last few years," he writes in The Coddling of the American Mind, co-authored with Greg Lukianoff. "The culture on many college campuses has become more ideologically uniform, compromising the ability of scholars to seek truth, and of students to learn from a broad range of thinkers."
- BonSeff5
https://twitter.com/sheckyyoungm…
ME: jordan peterson sucks. he just says dumb shit like "the vagina is an energy vacuum"
JP SUPERFAN: you're taking him out of context. what's the quote in context
[we go to the tape]
JORDAN PETERSON: "the vagina is an energy vacuum [10 mins of indecipherable sobbing]"
- - - - - - - - - -
Is there a problem between men and women in the workplace? Maybe.
Is it the women? Maybe.
Is it the men? No.
So it's the women?
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying there's a problem, and it's not the men, and I'm too chicken shit to stand by my own beliefs.
- - - - - - - - - -
JPFAN: This 15min video is out of context! You have to watch the full hour!
JPFAN: This hour is out of context! You have to watch his 3hr presentation!
JPFAN: TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT you have to watch the full series!
JPFAN: YOU CAN'T JUDGE HIM BASED ON EVERYTHING HE HAS SAID EVER
- Extraordinary, both inaccurate AND unfunny. The IDW must be doing something right to garner such ‘sophisticated’ ad hominem arguments. D+, could do better.Morning_star
- LOL********
- https://i.ytimg.com/…Gnash
- Morning, everyone knows ad-hominem is the pinnacle of debate, you cum-fluted twanger :)********
- Indeed, you rancid salt-lick. To hear it from the pustulated mouth of the worlds most renowned horse rapist is praise indeed. :)Morning_star
- I asked for consent and she said "neigh".********
- Bareback. Bridle, Dismount. Harness. Ride. Groom....so many places to go.Morning_star
- It could really run and run. Best to put this to bed now - if only to remain stable.********
- it's certainly pasture bedtimeGnash
- I shudda farmed this out to another, less sensitive herd.BonSeff
- lolSalarrue
- But hay, it is what it is.BonSeff
- The western world has become far too brittle when a softly spoken Canadian professor who says pretty ordinary things is the point of so much contention.inteliboy
- ^ the church of Social Justice zealots will come for you when you blaspheme using the words of the oppressor... or whateverArchitectofFate
- yeah. Its his very well educated opinion. He's worked hard in his life, read (it seems) extensively and he is brought onto hour plus shows to be attacked.mugwart
- why cant we have opinions. We really seem to be pushed to conform to one (very limiting) opinion.mugwart
- people laugh and attack different thinkers but it was different thinkers that brought us to where we are in culture.mugwart
- If Peterson's ideas are what will bring progress to our culture I consciously choose to be on the wrong side of history.********
- I'm not against the existence of such ideas or them being posted here. Just don't expect them to be taken seriously by everybody.********
- I enjoy them on QBN as much as I enjoyed docpoz. Make of that what you will.********
- Out of interest Sound, could you summarise your understanding of his ideas? because i don't think you have a clue what he thinks.Morning_star
- @Morning_star
I might take the time to summarise my understand in the future. For now I would like to point on how much you reinforce the joke in this post.******** - In my best Cathy Newman impression:
Are you saying that the reason I don't buy into his ideas is because I am uncapable of understanding them?******** - Nope. I'm saying that he and the others have such a wide variety of positions it would be impossible to agree with all of them BUT to dismiss his position, as..Morning_star
- ...a whole is difficult to understand. The IDW is about the exploration of rational ideas and discussion. The IDW isn't one idea.Morning_star
- I never said it was one idea, either for Peterson or the rest of the crew.
I always used the plural: ideas.******** - I also said that I wasn't against the existence of those ideas or them being posted (read discussed).********
- And I specifically to Peterson, not the rest of the crew. You came to conclusion that I didn't support his ideas because I didn't have a clue of what they were.********
- Suggesting that if I were to properly understand his ideas I would have nothing to say against them.********
- This goes against your "exploration of rational ideas and discussion" comment.********
- The idea that you can never summarize or read into the context behind someone's views is one of the silliest aspects of the "IDW" -- especially since they don'tyuekit
- follow the same rule themselves when it comes to other people.yuekit
- @Sound, You said..."If Peterson's ideas are what will bring progress to our culture I consciously choose to be on the wrong side of history".. to me that...Morning_star
- ..suggests that you've dismissed the ideas as a whole. Which is why i thought you'd be able to summarise your position.Morning_star
- @yuekit - The point i was trying to make is that, as we've seen with Harris/Peterson, they hold fundamentally apposing positions and there for sweeping dismisalMorning_star
- ...of the IDW's Ideas is just not possible because they don't agree.Morning_star
- There are certainly key views that they share. Against political correctness, the academic left etc. Regardless soundofreason was talking about Peterson.yuekit
- BTW -- modern feminism is also a broad movement with a wide range of views. Better stop critiquing them since you can't possibly summarize it all :)yuekit
- Peterson might have great ideas about brushing one's teeth but I choose to dismiss him as a whole based on the ideas he is known for.********
- I pay more attention to the interests he serves than the one's he cleverly chooses to be identified with.********
- His reactionary views, his hyper-focus on individualism only serve the ruling class. His ideas go against the people that want to stand up against injustice.********
- QBN is know for their misunderstanding of words. Just in case:
https://en.wikipedia…******** - @yuekit
Great point on that last comment!
You have no clue, man.******** - Just a brief bit of research reveals that Feminism and all it's varying facets are well defined and can be summarised to one sentence. You keep suggesting...Morning_star
- ...that the IDW and Peterson etc have a common ideology that could be summarised in a similar way. Have a look on wiki and see what it says about the IDW.Morning_star
- If you dig a bit deeper than Googling a Wikipedia article (or even if you do) I think you'll find that feminism isn't some monolithic thing.yuekit
- Nor is post-modernism for that matter. That's a very complex movement with a lot of different, often contradictory ideas.yuekit
- As opposed to, you know, a few middle aged guys on a podcast :) My point is not that you can't summarize the key tenants of a movement BTW.yuekit
- But it's certainly easier to summarize one guy's views (i.e. Peterson's in this case) than those of dozens or hundreds of academics and philosophers.yuekit
- I get it Yuekit. I understand your point completely. It's (as you point out) a matter of resolution. For instance 'Feminism = Illogical SJW Sheep' is not...Morning_star
- ...a helpful definition for anyone. In the same way, the 'comedy' in this post comes from a similar surface level analysis.Morning_star
- Morningstar -- I think that's fair. But part of my point is that JP and his pals are themselves constantly oversimplifying and caricaturing ideas such asyuekit
- post-modernism, Marxism/ socialism, feminism, etc. In particular lots of young people now equate post-modernism with identity politics which is a completelyyuekit
- reductionist view of a movement that created a lot of the great art/ music/ design of the past half century.yuekit
- religion has also motivated the creation of millennia worth of great art, music, etc. and many young people now a completely reduction view it as well.Gnash
- now *have* a...Gnash
- criticism of an ideology is always considered to be a misunderstanding of that ideology by those who adhere to it's dogmaGnash
- Yeah but I think Peterson's demonization of these terms actually does contribute to widespread misunderstanding.yuekit
- It's a classic conservative tendency, particularly in the U.S. to rant against the evils of scary new-fangled ideas like "post-modernism" without actuallyyuekit
- understanding what they are. I mean are we gonna go back to modernism? Should we discourage people from reading someone like Vonnegut because he's post-modern?yuekit
- @Morning_star
https://discord.gg/6…******** - @YK i would think the vast majority of vonneguts readers have no idea about the post-modernist attributes of some of his books.Gnash
- I think that would apply to most post-modern art - in any form.Gnash
- so most people would just experience art at face value and the either connect or not.Gnash
- But you're right that they may avoid reading baudrillard's catalogue, or books about post-modernism or critical theoryGnash
- Gnash,
You too grown for this shit.******** - Or perhaps they should simply avoid Peterson's paranoid, "commies are coming to get us" type rants on the topic instead and learn the actual history.yuekit
- well, he has spent most of his career studying the psychology oppressive regimes. when your tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nailGnash
- one could argue that there is also an irrational tendency to see 'literal nazis' around every corner.Gnash
- It's a trope that as far as I can tell he simply borrowed from earlier American fringe conservatives.yuekit
- ********1
you guys need more focault...
- focault you! ya bastardGnash
- LOL!********
- I feel like I’m introducing you to an old friend, as I’m writing this post about this fabulous, easy focaccia bread.********
- https://thecafesucre…********
- LOL!********
- Morning_star-3
Throughly recommend giving this a listen.
Eric Weinstein explains the purpose and genesis of the IDW, and how the growth of a new ideological worldview has made it necessary.
- "Rebel Wisdom" lolyuekit
- Movie trailer voice: The knowledge they don't want you to know. In a place they don't want you to see.Fax_Benson
- renderedred0
"ON THIS PAGE I HAVE MY PEACEFUL AND NONVIOLENT PRESCRIPTION FOR A WHOLE NEW WORLD ORDER OF THE AGES WITHOUT POVERTY, POLITICIANS OR WAR"
- You need to watch all the videos to even get a glimpse into the truth.
#godbless******** - If you downvote this you have no clue, man.
No clue.********
- You need to watch all the videos to even get a glimpse into the truth.
- ********0
- ********-6
- Post facts.
To debunk.******** - Have the downvoters watched the whole video though?
The truf is out there!******** - You should ax yourselfs what it is that you fear.********
- Have you considered you may be posting in the wrong thread? There is a conspiracy of the day thread.fadein11
- Why is this not true?********
- Not sure yet, It's 2.5 hours long and you only posted it half an hour ago.fadein11
- The half hour is out of context! You have to watch the 2.5hr presentation!********
- The Dr. Phil video is under 4 minutes though.********
- yep that's what I said.fadein11
- You're right. This is bullshit.********
- lol, I love these kind of vids even if I don't take them too seriously. It's cool. Just prob the wrong thread :)fadein11
- In my defense:
It's Intellectual
It's Dark
It's on the Web******** - can't argue with that.fadein11
- Post facts.
- ********-1
- ********-1
