I think it's fair to have some admiration for a lot of his interesting ideas, but at the same time he's not beyond criticism and the people we admire - in any field - remain people all the same, mostly flawed individuals a lot of the time. We should be more than willing to criticise what they said that's incorrect because that's how we move forward and discover newer, better ideas.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
I think it's fair to have some admiration for a lot of his interesting ideas, but at the same time he's not beyond criticism and the people we admire - in any field - remain people all the same, mostly flawed individuals a lot of the time. We should be more than willing to criticise what they said that's incorrect because that's how we move forward and discover newer, better ideas.
Now I know that it was a good idea to waste my work time hearing his voice and driving myself mad
The atheist answer - I was unsure about it too - but a quick wiki search confirms he is very wrong. He deleted the answer after comments.
I don't think the statement "Nazism was atheist" was wrong and I'm surprised he actually deleted it.
As someone in the reddit comments already pointed out the Nazis threw the church a bone with the "Reichskonkordat" treaties. To stay out of each others business. They couldn't take on as big an instution from the very beginning so they secured that front asap after gaining power, but that was a practical compromise because their priorities where elsewhere. From what I remember reading they immediately tried to put a Nazi spin on christianity as a short term measure. Hitler wasn't particulalry religious and Himmler actually tried to establish some sort of pagan cult within the SS leadership. I don't think they would have tolerated a spiritual authority like a/the church in the long term.
But I guess that's kinda off-topic.
I get where you're coming from and I'm all for arguments based on facts, it's the reflexive name-calling in an attempt to dismiss something without even touching the subject, which some other people practice, that annoys me and that I don't think achieves anything.
we know that's not true
You should shag each other plus never bring me into this awful thread again
Checks out
These people's popularity comes down to racists, sexists and homophobes requiring an intellectual vineer for their beliefs, instead of just accepting the fact that they are racists, sexists or homophobes.
Agreed. A lot of that on the internet, you find a well spoken educated guy online with whom you agree, and their intelligence becomes your intelligence.
If I can give an example from my con law classes. People opposing same sex marriage because they're homophobic. Then read Scalia's dissent in Obergefell. And now it's not a case of admitting "I just hate the gays" but rather they can hide behind "this isn't for 9 people to decide/the legal implication of marriage is a positive right not negative liberty."
It's an ex post facto justification for bigotry
Exactly his target audience
It depends on how open minded you are. If you are already suspicious of let's say Harris, then you are simply going to search for and inevitably find selective things he says that validate the conclusion you want to be true. In this case - all alternative views are simply a trojan horse that contradict my preferred outcome, therefore I'm reflexively against them.
Last edited:
I hope that's not his office, otherwise the trolls will never let him hear the end of it.
thought Petersen was alright on Rogan the other day, only caught the first hour or so but enjoyed it
I saw a few clips of it. He made some interesting comments on the need for left wing politics. I would class what I saw as "better than usual."
There was one great YouTube comment I'll find, I've a screenshot on my laptop
I'm not talking about selectively finding things to support my conclusions. Though that happens too. I mean someone hates X because they do. Intellectual comes along and gives a 'smart' reason for hating X. You then say "the smart reason is why I hate X," I think that's a little different to "this supports why I hate X."
There’s a surprise.
Of course, you’d probably get similar results from reddit as a whole. Single white men in spending too much time online shocker.
Yeah that's true to be fair. Pretty much 90% of the subreddits are the hive mind of young, white males. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing but you should always remember it.
I have to remind myself when I'm reading reviews of things from posters there (films/novels etc).
I'd be interested to hear this thread's point of view on this...
https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2018/0702/975772-here-come-the-lobsters/
Entire article blah blah blah but
https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2018/0702/975772-here-come-the-lobsters/
Entire article blah blah blah but
There are some absolutely outrageous deductive leaps in his lobster-serotonin-hierarchy theory, that’s for damn sure.
The first paragraph makes him seem a bit less mental, mind you, and explains why not every who gets something from his self help stuff is necessarily a nazi or an idiot.
I think his enthusiastic advocacy for hierarchy will lead people to dark places - but it's worth noting that he is under pressure (which he is resisting) from his Nazi fans to answer "The Jewish Question", not with "they have higher IQs", but with "shadowy cabal".
He then also has lines like this. I think he is giving his followers certain political avenues, all far-right, but he himself isn't going to advocate for the classical Nazi stuff.
Joe Rogan's reaction is exactly mine but more polite
"how the feck is that possible!" I had serious insomnia at one point in my life. Nothing to do with cider though.
its such a cringey, terrible group name
Dave Rubin and those Weinstein guys are the cringiest creepiest smuggest self-congratulating circle-jerking cnuts out there. Rubin especially is just completely void of anything of any substance by any measure of a man. Those guys in particular seem to be clinging onto the name the most, imo to associate themselves with the other guys in the 'group'. You're right it's so cringey to see.
Weinstein invented the term so its not surprising he uses it from time to time. Rubin is merely coopting it as a marketing slogan to help build his youtube brand.
I thought some journalist invented it in an article a couple months back? I remember as it went semi-viral and Creepstein kept quoting it ever since like it's an actual thing.
If he actually invented it himself he's even more creepy than I imagined and I didn't think that was possible.
She merely used Weinstein's term to market the headline of her article.
: puke:
I'll take your word for it, I can't watch him
I can almost forgive the creation of it as there is a degree of reason to it but all of them lose me when they perpetuate it beyond that one-off time.