What a strange man. His backtracking on his Kavanaugh tweet was spineless.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Is @Raoul still a big fan of reading all his stupid dragon doodle books just to be 100% sure he’s not an idiot?
the intellectual dark web is just so damn intellectual
Is Rubin considered part of the IDW? He seems like a massive pillock.
stop repeating yourself dude
Peterson sounds like he's got a behavioural defect to me.
He certainly shouldn't be indulged for it, rather he should be receiving as much help as possible.
He certainly shouldn't be indulged for it, rather he should be receiving as much help as possible.
Mainly by himself, while he masturbates.
I largely agree to the opinions of Harris, Nawaz and the like, especially on their views on Islam, but I don't think you could categorise Sargon as part of the so-called intellectual dark web. Sargon is spineless, dangerous and is ultimately a slippery twat; he says one thing to progressive pundits such as Kyle Kulinski and something else entirely, oftentimes ridiculously abhorrent and downright racist, to his right-wing nutcase audience.
And all this time he claims to be left of centre. Yeah, right.
If Popper and Kuhn were around now they'd both be shitposting each other in twitter dms.
You've described Shapiro perfectly here and he's part of the "intellectual" dark web. So being a spineless slippery twat is definitely not grounds for exclusion from that group.
I don't understand how people are impressed by Ben Shapiro's debating skills. He just tries to overwhelm opponents with memorised statistics and really doesn't have anything interesting to say - or an interesting way to say it for that matter. He's basically a conservative version of Zakir Naik debating-wise.
Fair point, Shapiro does come across as full of shit each time I see him debating. To be honest with you I don't really know who could be categorised as part of the so-called IDW. I watch these guys sparingly and only follow the likes of Harris, Nawaz and Hirsi Ali for their critiques of Islam, which I find especially refreshing in this day and age.
They need an intellectual basis to explain their racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc. That way they don't have to accept that they are arseholes
Yeah you really don't hear anyone criticising Islam these days
The problem is not listening to these guys, the problem is to be a fanboy who will automatically agree with them or just listen to them because they want validation for what they already think.
Yeah you really don't hear anyone criticising Islam these days
I think they do it the right way, especially Harris (Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are well-intentioned but they can be condescending wankers at times). The likes of Sargon and Shapiro propagate plain anti-Muslim bigotry of very little substance with a clear intention to dehumanise Muslims.
The difference between the two approaches is significant.
Haha yeah, I was kind of joking with that
She's right, though.
Thought Peterson was good on Question Time the other day
The 1930s progressives are back.
Well without reading the paper it depends what its arguing there's nothing necessarily wrong with the subject. We already practice eugenics. We allow women to abort baby's if they have down syndrome for example, do you think that's wrong? It's perfectly justifiable to think that's the case, but almost every person with who's screened with a down's syndrome baby abort it so we're very much through the looking glass as far as Eugenics is concerned.
If you could have a baby and fix any genes that would otherwise lead to certain diseases would you? Could you morally justify letting a baby be born with Huntington's disease, knowing that you could have prevented that?
Clearly the kind of forced eugenics of the past is not something up for debate, but as a subject its something that is relevant, and will be even more relevant going forward. It's something we already do, its something that will become more widespread as science improves, discussions over where the lines are drawn are important.
Last edited:
The article isn't about diseases, it's about birth rates of lesser people.
The rest of the paper is about designing the perfect way to allow the state to coerce or convince or prohibit reproduction of the unworthy, with him ending by saying he doesn't know if it's possible.
Just a little aside - despite the implications of his data, the average IQ worldwide and within western countries with low birthrates has been increasing for the past century.
Specifically about what you were talking about- Down's syndrome and other medical abortions, this is what the paper has to say:
If you follow the new right, like many of the public figures discussed on this thread do, the logical conclusion is that either climate-induced genocide or a massive eugenics problem is the only way forward. I can talk about this logic at length when I have more time.
Edit - I'm actually curious about what the openly Christian JP thinks about eugenics, since he does about IQ gaps.
Last edited:
I don't expect this to be very popular round here but Stossel has been my favourite pundit for a long time. Well, I agree with him on basically eveything so I'm biased. Still think it's an interesting conversation.
Stossell is a well known libertarian who tends to cherry pick pieces of information to support his views that government should play almost no role in a vast majority of things in society, so obviously everything from global warming to Medicare for all to any number of things requiring robust government involvement is going to be viewed as bad.
Has there been any response from Harris on the 20 pages Foreign Affairs critique so far?
Shapiro interviews Stephen Harper, former Prime Minister of Canada.
I remember thinking the term intellectual dark web was ridiculous given its members prominence in open public discourse. That was based on their impact on popular culture, where they remain dominant. They have in fact grown from that too (also seen in the post just above):
For those that don't know, the Trilateral Commission, the heart of many conspiracy theories, is a body founded by the Rockerfeller Foundation members including future NSA Brezinski and future Fed Chairman Greenspan, that includes all first-world countries and now, some lesser representatives. Its report in the 70s on the problem of too much democracy stands alongside the Powell memo (written by a future SC justice) as the intellectual foundation of the fightback by corporations against western social democracy, especially in the US.
In any case, my point is that the framing of the IDW as some underground dissident movement was false then, and is increasingly ridiculous now- Peterson is an invited guest in a centre of power.
For those that don't know, the Trilateral Commission, the heart of many conspiracy theories, is a body founded by the Rockerfeller Foundation members including future NSA Brezinski and future Fed Chairman Greenspan, that includes all first-world countries and now, some lesser representatives. Its report in the 70s on the problem of too much democracy stands alongside the Powell memo (written by a future SC justice) as the intellectual foundation of the fightback by corporations against western social democracy, especially in the US.
In any case, my point is that the framing of the IDW as some underground dissident movement was false then, and is increasingly ridiculous now- Peterson is an invited guest in a centre of power.
He's had some videos with Jordan Peterson (partly about IQ I think), and it's something Harris talks about too, which is why I thought it was relevant here.
He's a very popular youtube libertarian (almost a million subscribers) with, let's say, strong feelings about the free market, and the role of women in society. (linked 2 long responses to his even longer videos about Roman history and uhhh Star Wars).
I thought the IDW was against faux-outrage...
Honestly, Peterson shoots himself in the foot when he comes up with false equivalences like that. I don't think there is any evidence to support his claim.
Honestly, Peterson shoots himself in the foot when he comes up with false equivalences like that. I don't think there is any evidence to support his claim.
Seen a thing showing Rubin and Peterson attending that right-wing wankathon Turning Shite USA or whatever it's called.
Totally not 'right wingers'. Just for freeze peach.
Totally not 'right wingers'. Just for freeze peach.
Peterson isn’t ring wing. Just because he isn’t left wing doesn’t mean he’s right. Although it does seem that there’s this ‘if you’re not with us you’re the enemy’ mentality that’s increasingly prevalent.
It’s crazy to me how podcasts and online circle jerks, coupled with some strong opinions on hot button issues has been enough to propel Peterson into a position of being among «the most important intellectuals» right now.
No wonder Chomsky shuns the label, it’s all a load of hot air.
Peterson makes a lot of sense in his own field, but it’s so obvious that he’s starting from a conclusion and seeks to bolster it, rather than whittling his way to truth.
No wonder Chomsky shuns the label, it’s all a load of hot air.
Peterson makes a lot of sense in his own field, but it’s so obvious that he’s starting from a conclusion and seeks to bolster it, rather than whittling his way to truth.