Peterson, Harris, etc....

I thought this was a really good video:


It is a decent intro to the main trends of western philosophy (modernism, pomo) for people like me who have very little actual training in all that (from 9:45-19:30 and 23:30-26:30).
 
berbatrick said:
I thought this was a really good video:

It is a decent intro to the main trends of western philosophy (modernism, pomo) for people like me who have very little actual training in all that (from 9:45-19:30 and 23:30-26:30).
Click to expand...

Started watching Contra Points videos a while back and found them to be quite good. She's stated that she's moved further to the left since she started uploading videos, but I've found them to be quite honest compared to other content creators where there's a definite agenda in place.

Will give it a watch later.
 
JohnLocke said:
Started watching Contra Points videos a while back and found them to be quite good. She's stated that she's moved further to the left since she started uploading videos, but I've found them to be quite honest compared to other content creators where there's a definite agenda in place.

Will give it a watch later.
Click to expand...
Think she takes herself much more seriously than most (you know... apart from when she's getting it on with manikins with Jordan Peterson's face attached...) and as a result is much keener to engage with any potential criticism than others are. Which makes her very interesting and is also why I'm sure she'll drive herself insane before long.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Think she takes herself much more seriously than most (you know... apart from when she's getting it on with manikins with Jordan Peterson's face attached...) and as a result is much keener to engage with any potential criticism than others are. Which makes her very interesting and is also why I'm sure she'll drive herself insane before long.
Click to expand...

I seen that she'd been critiquing her previous videos and seems to do so in good humour, and to say where she's maybe been wrong or even just that her opinion has changed.

She used to be a Philosophy lecturer so a lot of her content has a solid base. Not saying you need to be an academic to make good videos, but it's good to know that she's not just waffling half baked ideas and has a really sound understanding of the larger picture.

Started watching videos by a German guy, his channel is called Three Arrows, he was on her related channels or vise-versa. He's not an academic, just a guy who's hobby is learning about history. Doesn't have many videos but I enjoyed watching them.
 
JohnLocke said:
I seen that she'd been critiquing her previous videos and seems to do so in good humour, and to say where she's maybe been wrong or even just that her opinion has changed.

She used to be a Philosophy lecturer so a lot of her content has a solid base. Not saying you need to be an academic to make good videos, but it's good to know that she's not just waffling half baked ideas and has a really sound understanding of the larger picture.

Started watching videos by a German guy, his channel is called Three Arrows, he was on her related channels or vise-versa. He's not an academic, just a guy who's hobby is learning about history. Doesn't have many videos but I enjoyed watching them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I like his stuff so far. Seems pretty thorough in his research.
 
I'm a big fan of Peterson. Agree with him wholeheartedly on the idea that young males are given very little public support in life, which goes hand in hand with the brewing narrative that white males come from a place of oppressiveness and have it significantly easier than all minorities. Although I do agree that his 'deep' stuff is actually very basic and not particularly deep at all. That I struggle to get into.

I like Shapiro, lacks charisma and is a serious point scorer but I enjoy watching his stuff.

I'd say the same about Steven Crowder who probably doesn't fall into the same category as these people but he has some very cool things on his channel. Particularly the 'Change my Mind' segment. Only issue is that he claims to push for an open, honest and intellectual conversation until he starts to feel intellectually inferior to someone, at which point he turns into one of the weak little SJW's that he constantly berates.

As for Sam Harris, well he kind of puts me to sleep. Maybe I'm just not at a high enough intellectual level for his craic, but I just really struggle to stay engaged.

Really like that video above, the ContraPoints one. Will definitely look more into that.
 
I'm more amused by someone admitting they watch Steven Crowder. Another failed comedian like Rubin and about as funny as cancer diagnosis.
 
Minimalist said:
I'm more amused by someone admitting they watch Steven Crowder. Another failed comedian like Rubin and about as funny as cancer diagnosis.
Click to expand...
I think he's extremely funny. Along with the other 1.9 million subs!

Comedy is subjective y'know?

As for the Shapiro thing, horrific statement! Was it an isolated tweet or was it part of a chain? In any case, I hope he's wised up since he wrote that 8 years ago!
 
GDaly95 said:
I think he's extremely funny. Along with the other 1.9 million subs!

Comedy is subjective y'know?

As for the Shapiro thing, horrific statement! Was it an isolated tweet or was it part of a chain? In any case, I hope he's wised up since he wrote that 8 years ago!
Click to expand...

And that's your issue. Living in some YouTube bubble.
 
Raoul said:
This is pretty much my view. He seems to be pretty knowledgable about the subject matter he talks about, which can at times be very interesting and at others a bit tedious. The main problem as I see it isn't Peterson, its the people who have latched on to him as some sort of guru of all things anti-liberal orthodoxy/victimhood culture/post-modernism etc. Those are all very interesting arguments from his end, but the fact that so many members of the right have suddenly gravitated towards him is bound to make him more controversial than problem solving.
Click to expand...
Good post. I have more issues with his followers than him. One may ask why they support him I guess. And what that says about him.

Slightly related, I hate how so many people online will support an intelligent person (like Peterson) and then act as though his intelligence is their intelligence. Agreeing with or having the same political stance as a smart person doesn't make you smart
 
GDaly95 said:
Incredible shout. Where are you getting that from? You're suggest it's embarrassing or factually incorrect for me to find a person funny. It's bizarre.
Click to expand...

No, that you splurted out his sub count like that matters (justifies his shite).
 
GDaly95 said:
I think he's extremely funny. Along with the other 1.9 million subs!

Comedy is subjective y'know?

As for the Shapiro thing, horrific statement! Was it an isolated tweet or was it part of a chain? In any case, I hope he's wised up since he wrote that 8 years ago!
Click to expand...
I don't find Crowder funny at all personally. A left wing college student saying something stupid might be funny. But him showing that on the internet doesn't make him personally funny IMO. It has nothing to do with him. When his comedy requires any input from him, or when he adds his own commentary, I find it falls flat on its face. To each their own I guess. Different people laugh at different things.
 
Minimalist said:
No, that you splurted out his sub count like that matters (justifies his shite).
Click to expand...
Well you made it sound like its ludicrous to enjoy his stuff, bringing up his huge popularity is just one way of saying of course it isn't.

Anyway, go on, elaborate on my YouTube bubble that I'm living in or whatever.

Charlie Foley said:
I don't find Crowder funny at all personally. A left wing college student saying something stupid might be funny. But him showing that on the internet doesn't make him personally funny IMO. It has nothing to do with him. When his comedy requires any input from him, or when he adds his own commentary, I find it falls flat on its face. To each their own I guess. Different people laugh at different things.
Click to expand...
I think his additional commentary adds to it massively!
Charlie Foley said:
Did he?
Click to expand...

I shouldn't have used those choice of words, but stating that I'm "admitting" to liking his stuff is an implication in that direction and at the very least is very obnoxious and unnecessary.
 
God right-wingers are sensitive snowflakes.

FYI, PewDiePie and Zoella wouldn't be known by 80-90% of people asked on the street, so not sure what subscriber count matters beyond a decent bit of YouTube cash.
 
Charlie Foley said:
Slightly related, I hate how so many people online will support an intelligent person (like Peterson) and then act as though his intelligence is their intelligence. Agreeing with or having the same political stance as a smart person doesn't make you smart
Click to expand...
Yes, a lot of this ultimately boils down to identity. One outcome is youtube vids of the "xyz DESTROYS radical feminist" kind, made for those fans to bask in the supposed "win" of their identification figure. The WWE version of intellectual engagement.

All of which isn't really surprising, as I think a lot (most?) of today's culture is based on identity, way beyond that particular group.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
1.9m can't be wrong in a world of 7.6 billion people.
Click to expand...
Pointless
Minimalist said:
God right-wingers are sensitive snowflakes.

FYI, PewDiePie and Zoella wouldn't be known by 80-90% of people asked on the street, so not sure what subscriber count matters beyond a decent bit of YouTube cash.
Click to expand...
Don't know who the above are.

Also disagree with Crowder and Shapiro on pretty much everything other than their disapproval of the mentality largely displayed on the left.

So yeah, the right wing thing is wrong. I'm also not offended by anything. Although admittedly I'm not as left as I used to be, but I think it's normal for political views to make shape differently when one transitions from college to the real world. Different environment, different people etc. Fun intellectual journey figuring it out
 
GDaly95 said:
Pointless

Don't know who the above are.

Also disagree with Crowder and Shapiro on pretty much everything other than their disapproval of the mentality largely displayed on the left.

So yeah, the right wing thing is wrong. I'm also not offended by anything. Although admittedly I'm not as left as I used to be, but I think it's normal for political views to make shape differently when one transitions from college to the real world. Different environment, different people etc. Fun intellectual journey figuring it out
Click to expand...

Thanks for assisting my point.
 
Article about the likes of Harris, Shapiro, Peterson et al. Expecting Glenn Greenwald and his posse to be in full on drama queenish meltdown over this at some point.

 
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: this is the greatest photoshoot ever

merlin_136770159_4a1c28e6-cb88-47fa-be87-54a6327fdbe5-superJumbo.jpg


merlin_136770150_dc74f305-b32f-4bb0-a82c-2783c50bbb05-superJumbo.jpg




you know your article sucks when even paul krugman is going in on it

 
Eboue said:
*posts a stupid article*
*article gets called stupid*

"hehe, ive proved my point. triggered the lefties"
Click to expand...

You may not like the article but its entirely appropriate to this thread. You're just going to have to deal with the reality that this narrative is going to get national attention, and rightfully so.
 
Eboue said:
I'm dealing with it by pointing out how stupid it is.
Click to expand...

That's not dealing with it, that's dismissing it. But give it about 24 hours and maybe the Guardian will do a similar piece on the plight of Glenn Greenwald, his Brazilian lover and their 50 dogs who reside in the Brazilian rain forrest.
 
Raoul said:
That's not dealing with it, that's dismissing it. But give it about 24 hours and maybe the Guardian will do a similar piece on the plight of Glenn Greenwald, his Brazilian lover and their 50 dogs who reside in the Brazilian rain forrest.
Click to expand...

It's how people deal with articles that are incredibly stupid.
 
Eboue said:
It's how people deal with articles that are incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

That's obviously subjective. The broader topic is very relevant to this thread and is receiving the sort of coverage it deserves.
 
Raoul said:
That's obviously subjective. The broader topic is very relevant to this thread and is receiving the sort of coverage it deserves.
Click to expand...

Give us your interpretation of the broader subject then. Because my interpretation is that anyone claiming their ideas are marginalized and suppressed whilst writing an op ed for the most influential paper in the world is incredibly stupid.
 
Eboue said:
Give us your interpretation of the broader subject then. Because my interpretation is that anyone claiming their ideas are marginalized and suppressed whilst writing an op ed for the most influential paper in the world is incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

Its exactly what its always been - an attempt to shut down speech related to controversial topics we don't want to address in public. These can be issues related to everything from race, gender, culture, and politics etc. And by in public, I mean on major news networks and in major publications like the NY Times. These are ideas that need to be debated in the mainstream media and not in compartmentalized twitter feuds between the likes of Harris and Greenwald.
 
"this idea is fecking moronic, it completely ignores the historical context and promotes an extreme ethnocentric ideology that is dangerous"

"yeah, well, it's not literally illegal to say it so stop treading on my free speech"

"what the feck are you talking about, you're constantly on major news outlets no one is treading on your free speech"

"but someone was mean to me on the internet which is worse than literal stalinism"
 
Raoul said:
Its exactly what its always been - an attempt to shut down speech related to controversial topics we don't want to address in public. These can be issues related to everything from race, gender, culture, and politics etc. And by in public, I mean on major news networks and in major publications like the NY Times. These are ideas that need to be debated in the mainstream media and not in compartmentalized twitter feuds between the likes of Harris and Greenwald.
Click to expand...


these people are always on tv and in major publications. they arent being shut down in any way
 
Eboue said:
these people are always on tv and in major publications. they arent being shut down in any way
Click to expand...

They aren't on very often. But they should be, and they should be debating their critics like Greenwald, Hasan, and friends. Competing ideas need to be fleshed in the broadest public domain possible out and that process should be publicized in the mainstream media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.