Peterson, Harris, etc....

Raoul said:
Cherry pick away then.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean? :lol:

You said people on the left hate/dislike these people because they are primarily afraid of their ideas spreading. That is a broad generalisation in and of itself. Maybe just consider the fact that most lefties just find them repulsive?
 
Fridge chutney said:
Yeah, I agree. There's not much balance, optically. You'd need Maher or John Oliver or some 'progressive leftists' (for lack of a better description) there to balance it out. Otherwise it looks like a homogenous crew. Maybe that's the direction they're heading, deliberately. That would be a shame.
Click to expand...

:lol: neither of those two are leftists
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
What does this even mean? :lol:

You said people on the left hate/dislike these people because they are primarily afraid of their ideas spreading. That is a broad generalisation in and of itself. Maybe just consider the fact that most lefties just find them repulsive?
Click to expand...

I said there's a fear that the ideas some of them espouse may take flight among broader, more contemporary audiences which is why we are seeing all these twitter troll accounts that cherry pick random quotes from the likes of Peterson and Harris in an attempt to discredit them. If there was no concern that their views are reaching an audience and thus challenging mainstream views then no one would bother attempting to discredit them. They would simply be ignored.
 
Its a weird collection and i cant really see the benefit of lumping themselves together. If its meant to be some kind of philosophical super group like the avengers then its pretty lacking and a bit rubbish. Maybe its just good marketing? Get Ben Shapiros viewers to check out Sam Harris and vice versa.
 
caid said:
Its a weird collection and i cant really see the benefit of lumping themselves together. If its meant to be some kind of philosophical super group like the avengers then its pretty lacking and a bit rubbish. Maybe its just good marketing? Get Ben Shapiros viewers to check out Sam Harris and vice versa.
Click to expand...
It'll be a bit that and a bit of doing events together (I think Peterson and Harris have been doing live shows together recently).

'Come see 'Intellectual Dark Web LIVE!' - $200 a ticket, with a free IDW hat'
 
caid said:
Its a weird collection and i cant really see the benefit of lumping themselves together. If its meant to be some kind of philosophical super group like the avengers then its pretty lacking and a bit rubbish. Maybe its just good marketing? Get Ben Shapiros viewers to check out Sam Harris and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Its definitely the latter bit - a self-reinforcing marketing clique that Rubin jumped all over after the Bari Weiss piece in early May that used the Weinstein term "Intellectual Dark Web". Rubin seems to be using it to build his podcast brand by having all the guests on his show, who are in turn using Rubin's show to amplify their own books, public talks etc.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
It'll be a bit that and a bit of doing events together (I think Peterson and Harris have been doing live shows together recently).

'Come see 'Intellectual Dark Web LIVE!' - $200 a ticket, with a free IDW hat'
Click to expand...

Aye, Peterson was on Joe Rogans show today. I presume its more of the same, did anyone watch it?
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
It'll be a bit that and a bit of doing events together (I think Peterson and Harris have been doing live shows together recently).

'Come see 'Intellectual Dark Web LIVE!' - $200 a ticket, with a free IDW hat'
Click to expand...

Precisely. Its a marketing thing for the most part imo.
 
Harris and Rogan I'd probably separate from Peterson and Shapiro (and each other), but they're naturally going to become closely associated with them if they're all hanging out all the time. Although I think Rogan's fairly libertarian so probably agrees with plenty of what they say even if he dislikes their larger ideals.
 
Raoul said:
If there was no concern that their views are reaching an audience and thus challenging mainstream views then no one would bother attempting to discredit them. They would simply be ignored.
Click to expand...

It's a part of the grander debate between left and right and not specific to these people. The idea that they espouse something new or interesting is bollocks. When Peterson cries about transgender pronouns or Harris advocates for airport profiling against Muslims, they involved themselves in the public discourse on those matters on the side of the right wingers, thus making themselves targets for people who disagree with them.

The fact that they found a niche audience that's particularly loud on the internet distorts the picture. It's a bit like how for New Atheist followers Hitchens would be a great thinker of the age but for the whole population he's just one of many public speakers/journalists.
 
Eboue said:
the odd one out is joe rogan who is just not very smart and easily manipulated. i think hes basically a reactionary but not nearly as contemptible as the rest of these guys.
Click to expand...

Unlike the others to be fair, I don't think he's particularly marketing himself as an intellectual. More just a perpetually stoned type who likes to go on long inane rambles that occasionally contain decent points but are mostly a bit silly.
 
Eboue said:
i assume this means you dont see "anything that controversial" in the tweet
Click to expand...

It's a moronic and disgusting tweet, but if that was the worst you could offer up I'd say you've proven my point. Conservative commentators say stupid, vile shit on a daily basis in the US, and as dumb as that one is, it doesn't particularly stand out, and it certainly doesn't explain your apparent obsession with plowing through these guys' twitter history.
 
Why do they call it the dark web? Their main channel of consumption is YouTube for goodness sake. One of the most popular sites on the internet.
 
Eboue said:
the odd one out is joe rogan who is just not very smart and easily manipulated. i think hes basically a reactionary but not nearly as contemptible as the rest of these guys.
Click to expand...

That weinstein guy didn't seem that bad from the little i've seen from him
 
Cheesy said:
Harris and Rogan I'd probably separate from Peterson and Shapiro (and each other), but they're naturally going to become closely associated with them if they're all hanging out all the time. Although I think Rogan's fairly libertarian so probably agrees with plenty of what they say even if he dislikes their larger ideals.
Click to expand...

Rogan is just a dumb dumb with a lot of time on his hands, so he knows a little bit about a lot of stuff. Every once in awhile he is confronted with someone dumber than he is on his show spouting idiocy that even he can navigate through and shut down. However, for the most part, he tends to bend whichever way his guest is blowing, because he isn't intellectually equipped to deal with them, or, because his level of understanding in virtually everything is bro science.
 
caid said:
Aye, Peterson was on Joe Rogans show today. I presume its more of the same, did anyone watch it?
Click to expand...

The bit I watched involved Peterson rambling about how cool new media (podcasts, youtube etc) is and how its the biggest leap since Gutenberg.
 
Nucks said:
Rogan is just a dumb dumb with a lot of time on his hands, so he knows a little bit about a lot of stuff. Every once in awhile he is confronted with someone dumber than he is on his show spouting idiocy that even he can navigate through and shut down. However, for the most part, he tends to bend whichever way his guest is blowing, because he isn't intellectually equipped to deal with them, or, because his level of understanding in virtually everything is bro science.
Click to expand...

exactly. especially the bolded part
 
Nucks said:
Rogan is just a dumb dumb with a lot of time on his hands, so he knows a little bit about a lot of stuff. Every once in awhile he is confronted with someone dumber than he is on his show spouting idiocy that even he can navigate through and shut down. However, for the most part, he tends to bend whichever way his guest is blowing, because he isn't intellectually equipped to deal with them, or, because his level of understanding in virtually everything is bro science.
Click to expand...

But still better than Schaub right ? ;)
 
Bit strange calling Rogan dumb when it's not like he even claims to be an intellectual. He's probably above average intelligence and even if he wasn't, who cares? He's just having fun getting high on his podcast and I doubt he cares what anyone thinks of his opinions unlike the rest of these guys.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
What?

Progressive or conservative we all believe some things are positive for society and others aren't and we advocate for the positive. Should we never suggest anything's better than the other because that's believing we're the arbiter of what's positive for society?
Click to expand...

Of course not. We all have our opinions, but you've seemed to suggest that it's some indisputable fact that a few young men watching clips of a quirky clinical psychologist with some unorthodox (and perhaps mildly crazy) views on youtube will inevitably (or even potentially) yield an avalanche of negative consequences for society. And that's a) giving Peterson far, far too much credit as an influencer, b) making him out to be a boogeyman that he's not, and c) not supported by a shred of evidence.
 
Eboue said:
thats a good point steven. anyone on the fence about these clowns should look up petersons quote on "enforced monogomy"
Click to expand...
Yep. Or, more directly, have the misfortune to read Rodger's pathetic 'justification'.
 
Eboue said:
thats a good point steven. anyone on the fence about these clowns should look up petersons quote on "enforced monogomy"
Click to expand...
Why? I genuinely don't know what a random Peterson quote would tell me about Sam Harris, or the fat bloke sitting beside Peterson (I don't know who that is), for example.
 
“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. ‘The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges,’
Click to expand...

As someone else in this thread pointed out, not only is he a massive piece of shit, he's a psychologist who is somehow unaware of domestic violence.
 
Anyone on the fence about the left should read about how John Edwards cheated on his wife and had a baby with his mistress while his wife was dying of cancer though.
 
Fridge chutney said:
Why? I genuinely don't know what a random Peterson quote would tell me about Sam Harris, or the fat bloke sitting beside Peterson (I don't know who that is), for example.
Click to expand...

Surely who someone associates with is quite important in determining their character?
 
Borden said:
Anyone on the fence about the left should read about how John Edwards cheated on his wife and had a baby with his mistress while his wife was dying of cancer though.
Click to expand...

Don't think any reasonable leftist would try to argue that the left doesn't have plenty of people who are massive cocks and hypocrites in their own right.
 
Borden said:
Of course not. We all have our opinions, but you've seemed to suggest that it's some indisputable fact that a few young men watching clips of a quirky clinical psychologist with some unorthodox (and perhaps mildly crazy) views on youtube will inevitably (or even potentially) yield an avalanche of negative consequences for society. And that's a) giving Peterson far, far too much credit as an influencer, b) making him out to be a boogeyman that he's not, and c) not supported by a shred of evidence.
Click to expand...
You're not the arbiter of any of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.