Peterson, Harris, etc....

Raoul said:
I'm not for denying any of the people you cited. Let them all speak.
Click to expand...

They are speaking - to science outlets and college educational videos. After all, they have a lot more expertise in fields where non-exerts like Shapiro and Murray and JBP operate. And yet they are barely talked about in mainstream media.

For an analogy, would you rather hear a biologist or a climate scientist be cited in news stories about climate change? And when that hypothetical biologist disagrees with the climate scientist, do you think it is "good" that the biologist is getting mainstream exposure?
You are in favour of editorial discretion in political views to the extent that you are fine that the views of the elected US president and the most popular US politician aren't represented in the paper of record. I don't see you complaining that Greenwald has lost his MSNBC slots.
So obviously neither popularity or diversity is the criteria by which you think access should be granted. Being for editorial discretion against views you find crazy, why do you think charlatans and non-experts deserve mainstream space?
 
berbatrick said:
They are speaking - to science outlets and college educational videos. After all, they have a lot more expertise in fields where non-exerts like Shapiro and Murray and JBP operate. And yet they are barely talked about in mainstream media.

For an analogy, would you rather hear a biologist or a climate scientist be cited in news stories about climate change? And when that hypothetical biologist disagrees with the climate scientist, do you think it is "good" that the biologist is getting mainstream exposure?
You are in favour of editorial discretion in political views to the extent that you are fine that the views of the elected US president and the most popular US politician aren't represented in the paper of record. I don't see you complaining that Greenwald has lost his MSNBC slots.
So obviously neither popularity or diversity is the criteria by which you think access should be granted. Being for editorial discretion against views you find crazy, why do you think charlatans and non-experts deserve mainstream space?
Click to expand...

You're complicating simplicity here. I want the likes of Greenwald and Harris (and their respective posses) to be on equal footing on a grander stage beyond the compartmentalized muppet show that is social media. They should be on national TV so ordinary people who don't spend their lives online are exposed to their views.
 
Raoul said:
You're complicating simplicity here. I want the likes of Greenwald and Harris (and their respective posses) to be on equal footing on a grander stage beyond the compartmentalized muppet show that is social media. They should be on national TV so ordinary people who don't spend their lives online are exposed to their views.
Click to expand...

And why is that? What good is that?
 
Raoul said:
Broader debate about ideas in contemporary society.
Click to expand...

Well I don't personally believe all opinions are worthy of a platform.

Beyond my own personal feelings on these people - alot of this is boring as feck to the average person (Harris as an example could put me to sleep). There's no surprise it's not on mainstream television.
 
Minimalist said:
Well I don't personally believe all opinions are worthy of a platform.

Beyond my own personal feelings on these people - alot of this is boring as feck to the average person (Harris as an example could put me to sleep). There's no surprise it's not on mainstream television.
Click to expand...

I don't think all opinions are worthy of a platform either, but in the current situation, the ideas we view as orthodox are too narrow. We need a broader swath of ideas from disparate sources to challenge the orthodoxy.

As for it being boring - there's a reason for that. The general public are spoonfed a very narrow, dumbed down debate between left and right when they should be introduced to a set of competing ideas instead.
 
PedroMendez said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I'm referring to - he is probably the leading human geneticist and after years of original research he got 1 NYT article (and a followup). Sarah Tishkoff who is (IMO) in terms of visibility in human genetics his only equal hasn't got a single one.
All the other names I've mentioned who use genetics in their arguments have got much more, and moreover they even claim to speak for the field at times.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think all opinions are worthy of a platform either, but in the current situation, the ideas we view as orthodox are too narrow. We need a broader swath of ideas from disparate sources to challenge the orthodoxy.

As for it being boring - there's a reason for that. The general public are spoonfed a very narrow, dumbed down debate between left and right when they should be introduced to a set of competing ideas instead.
Click to expand...

Is there money in that?

I feel like we're talking about some alternative reality now.
 
Minimalist said:
Is there money in that?

I feel like we're talking about some alternative reality now.
Click to expand...

If you build it, they will come.

Channels like CNN have been doing "town hall" debates for decades, but the scope is generally too narrow and related to elections or gun control. They should instead branch out a bit into the Intelligence Squared style debates and incorporate more controversial speakers who challenge the existing status quo.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think all opinions are worthy of a platform either, but in the current situation, the ideas we view as orthodox are too narrow. We need a broader swath of ideas from disparate sources to challenge the orthodoxy.
.
Click to expand...

Why are you in favour of this challenge to orthodoxy (orthodoxies like women and men can work in the same workplace, racial differences in traits are either overshadowed by individual differences or minor, postmodernism is a philosophical reaction to modernism rather than a West-destroying conspiracy theory, both hierarchy and cooperation can explain human behaviour) coming from people like Murray and JBP rather than people who know what they're talking about?

And don't you think it's suspicious that when Bari Weiss was listing her renegades, she didn't pick, for example, any leftist professor (examples here) who got fired or denied tenure? How does that article have credibility given her overt selection of interviewees?
 
berbatrick said:
Why are you in favour of this challenge to orthodoxy (orthodoxies like women and men can work in the same workplace, racial differences in traits are either overshadowed by individual differences or minor, postmodernism is a philosophical reaction to modernism rather than a West-destroying conspiracy theory, both hierarchy and cooperation can explain human behaviour) coming from people like Murray and JBP rather than people who know what they're talking about?

And don't you think it's suspicious that when Bari Weiss was listing her renegades, she didn't pick, for example, any leftist professor (examples here) who got fired or denied tenure? How does that article have credibility given her overt selection of interviewees?
Click to expand...

Its not a particularly complicated position - get more diverse ideas on the table so that broader set of viewpoints are represented, and in the process, the views of more people are heard. This as opposed to the narrow, groupthink, herd behavior orthodoxy that is currently pushed as axiomatic. I think Weiss' article was half of the equation - the other half is the give the critics of the so called "IDW" their say as well. That way Greenwald won't feel the need to melt down like a nine year old girl on twitter next time.
 
Last edited:
I was going to respond but fortunately Nathan Robinson did my work for me

Weiss says that “offline and in the real world, members of the I.D.W. are often found speaking to one another in packed venues around the globe,” such as the O2 Arena, where they dare to say “That Which Cannot Be Said,” offering “taboo” thoughts like “There are fundamental biological differences between men and women. Free speech is under siege. Identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart.” (Gosh, perhaps it’s just the fringe conservative circles I move in, but I seem to hear that stuff constantly!)

Well, are they right? Are they being “purged” as part of a “siege” on free speech by the illiberal left? It’s interesting that Weiss chooses to use the formulation “feeling locked out of legacy outlets,” since I seem to remember a great philosopher once saying that Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings. These people may feel as if they are persecuted renegades, suppressed at every turn by Postmodern Neo-Marxists. But there are a lot of facts to say otherwise.

First, even from the evidence in Weiss’ article, we can see that freely speaking about the “siege on free speech” is impressively lucrative. Dave Rubin’s show “makes at least $30,000 a month on Patreon” while Jordan Peterson “pulls in some $80,000 in fan donations each month” and recently released a bestseller. Ben Shapiro gets 15 million downloads a month and has published five books, Sam Harris gets a million listeners per episode and has published seven books. Though Joe Rogan insists “he’s not an interviewer or a journalist” (I wouldn’t disagree) his three-hour podcast conversations are among the most downloaded in the world. These dissident “intellectuals” each seem to make about as much money in a month, with far larger audiences, than is made annually by the critical race theorists and gender studies professors they think are keeping them from being heard.

But perhaps it is still true that they are “shut out” of the mainstream media. It might be true that you can get rich from the Dangerous Truths and sell out the O2 Arena, but maybe newspapers and television won’t give you a voice. Why, just look at what happened to Kevin Williamson: he was hired by The Atlantic, but the moment they found out he held a Dangerous opinion (in this case, the opinion that women who get abortions should be hanged and that little black boys can be appropriately described as “primates”), he was fired. Why are mainstream institutions punishing heterodox thinking?

Williamson is an instructive case, though. Immediately after The Atlantic dropped him, the Wall Street Journal published Williamson’s long account of “When The Twitter Mob Came For Me” as its featured weekend essay, and Bret Stephens spoke up for him in the New York Times. (Even The Atlantic published a defense of him!) This often seems to be what happens. A major publisher offered Milo Yiannopoulos a $250,000 advance for his book on how dangerous his opinions were to the establishment. The book instantly ascended to #1 on Amazon, and Simon & Schuster only withdrew Yiannopoulos’s contract when conservatives turned on him after he appeared to endorse pedophilia.

In fact, all of the persecuted intellectuals appear constantly in major outlets with huge reach. Whether it’s Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson appearing on HBO’s Real Time, Christina Hoff Sommers writing for Slate, The Atlantic, and the New York Times, Milo going on CNN, Bret Weinstein being interviewed on FOX News, Andrew Sullivan being racist in New York magazine, Peterson getting invited on the NBC Nightly News, or Ben Shapiro being profiled in the New York Times, not one of these individuals ever seems to lack for a mainstream perch from which to squawk. It’s a strange kind of oppression in which silenced dissidents keep getting book deals, op-eds, sold-out speaking tours, lucrative Patreons, millions of YouTube views, and sympathetic profiles in the world’s leading newspapers. How much more attention do they want? How much freer can speech be? Weiss’ article itself pushes the absurdity to its limits. It features half a dozen staged photographs of its subjects moodily lurking amidst topiaries, and is the longest piece yet in Weiss’ ongoing series on the illiberalism and repressiveness of the left. As one commenter put it, Weiss’ argument is “that unseen forces are preventing her and those like her from making the exact arguments that she’s making, right now, in the exact venue where she’s making them, right now.”

Weiss says members of the Intellectual Dark Web have been “purged” from institutions. It’s not clear, though, which institutions she means. Peterson is a full professor at one of the world’s top research universities. Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt, who have similarly spent time condemning campus leftists, have positions at Harvard and NYU, respectively. Charles Murray spoke at Harvard and Yale last year. Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying did choose to resign from Evergreen State after the protests there, but Weiss doesn’t mention that they took half a million dollars with them after filing a $3.8 million lawsuit against the university for failing to protect them from the Social Justice Warriors. (What kind of snowflake files a lawsuit because they can’t handle a little free speech?)

The members of the Intellectual Dark Web are attacked, supposedly, for their “ideas,” which they are eager to discuss “civilly” but which the left will not debate because it hates rational discourse. It’s a strange definition of civility, though. Shapiro’s speeches contain such civil remarks as “you can all go to hell, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackasses,” and he has repeatedly made vile racist remarks about Arabs. Peterson, when criticized in the New York Review of Books, did not respond with an extended rebuttal, but by calling the writer a “son of a bitch” and a “sanctimonious prick” on Twitter, and threatening to slap him in the face. (Not the first time that criticism has caused genteel conservative “civility” to give way to threats of violence.) Sam Harris goes from cool reason to angry denunciation and accusations of bad faith when people dare to suggest to him that Charles Murray is a racist. For men who care about facts, they sure have a lot of feelings!

Here’s another reason why I’m skeptical that our national Martyrs for Free Speech and Rational Debate are uninterested in actually debating ideas: I’ve tried to get them to do it. I wrote a long explanation of why I thought Ben Shapiro’s logic was poor and his moral principles heinous. Shapiro mentioned me when we both gave speeches at the University of Connecticut. Did he rebut my case? No. He said he hadn’t heard of me and that my crowd was smaller than his. (I admit to being obscure and unpopular, but I’d ask what that says about which speech is mainstream and which is marginal.) When I wrote about Charles Murray, explaining in 7,000 words why I think his work is bigoted, Murray dismissed it with a tweet. When I wrote 10,000 words meticulously dissecting Jordan Peterson’s laughable body of work, Peterson responded with about three tweets, one misunderstanding a joke and another using fallacious reasoning. (See if you can spot it!) The wonderful ContraPoints recorded a highly intelligent 30-minute explanation of why Peterson is wrong. Peterson’s only reply: “No comment.” So much for wanting a debate with the left.
Click to expand...

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/pretty-loud-for-being-so-silenced
 
What exactly are these towering intellectuals offering to ‘challenge the othordoxy’? Arabs are bad, the left is regressive, white males are marginalized, women should feel some gratitude etc... aren’t thought provoking arguments. They are the same old shite being pushed for decades now by the mainstream Fox News, conservative editorials like WSJ, National Review etc. Leaving aside the highly laughable suggestion that these ideas are worth given limelight in the bastions of liberal media, which btw have no problem censoring leftist views (when has a bona fide communist for instance be allowed to make a case for a different form of governance? Right, last time they tried, the Supreme Court shit all over the 1st Amendment and ban them all), what exactly are new or challenging about them?
 
berbatrick said:
That is exactly what I'm referring to - he is probably the leading human geneticist and after years of original research he got 1 NYT article (and a followup). Sarah Tishkoff who is (IMO) in terms of visibility in human genetics his only equal hasn't got a single one.
All the other names I've mentioned who use genetics in their arguments have got much more, and moreover they even claim to speak for the field at times.
Click to expand...

That's the difference between social commenter/policy advocates and most scientists. Someone like Reich is one phone call away from getting a well-paid job as policy analyst/commentator if he'd fancy that. Additionally the super-majority of all commentators, journalists, policy wonks, policy analysts, advocates, activists or whoever else one wants to call them, are cherry-picking those aspects of scientific discovery that they like, while ignoring/dismissing everything else.

At any controversial topic how many people who discuss them in public are genuinely willing to represent the complete picture of the scientific debate? All the shenanigans that have happened in context of the Sam Harris+Murray podcast have been a prime example of that problem. Even most scientists stop making much sense once they are dragged (or chose to engage) into public conversations.
The NYT op-ed from David Reich is a positive and encouraging exception. The Nathan Robinson article is sadly the usual tribal and one sided way of arguing.

I’m waiting for Shapiro/Peterson/Murray/Rubin to call and ask me (and/or a certain other leftist who is known to be perfectly willing to engage conservative ideas) to come and clean their clock in a debate.
Click to expand...

After constantly calling them odious, racist, evil, ill intentioned and every other possible insult at almost every single opportunity, he wonders why they don't want to discuss their ideas.

Quoting him from another article:

One thing that has always fascinated me about Charles Murray is just how incapable he is of understanding why people do not like him.
Click to expand...
I guess this also seems to apply to himself. Total lack of self-awareness and a total inability to understand different viewpoints.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
What exactly are these towering intellectuals offering to ‘challenge the othordoxy’? Arabs are bad, the left is regressive, white males are marginalized, women should feel some gratitude etc... aren’t thought provoking arguments. They are the same old shite being pushed for decades now by the mainstream Fox News, conservative editorials like WSJ, National Review etc. Leaving aside the highly laughable suggestion that these ideas are worth given limelight in the bastions of liberal media, which btw have no problem censoring leftist views (when has a bona fide communist for instance be allowed to make a case for a different form of governance? Right, last time they tried, the Supreme Court shit all over the 1st Amendment and ban them all), what exactly are new or challenging about them?
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
PedroMendez said:
That's the difference between social commenter/policy advocates and most scientists. Someone like Reich is one phone call away from getting a well-paid job as policy analyst/commentator if he'd fancy that. Additionally the super-majority of all commentators, journalists, policy wonks, policy analysts, advocates, activists or whoever else one wants to call them, are cherry-picking those aspects of scientific discovery that they like, while ignoring/dismissing everything else.

At any controversial topic how many people who discuss them in public are genuinely willing to represent the complete picture of the scientific debate? All the shenanigans that have happened in context of the Sam Harris+Murray podcast have been a prime example of that problem. Even most scientists stop making much sense once they are dragged (or chose to engage) into public conversations.
The NYT op-ed from David Reich is a positive and encouraging exception. The Nathan Robinson article is sadly the usual tribal and one sided way of arguing.



After constantly calling them odious, racist, evil, ill intentioned and every other possible insult at almost every single opportunity, he wonders why they don't want to discuss their ideas.

Quoting him from another article:


I guess this also seems to apply to himself. Total lack of self-awareness and a total inability to understand different viewpoints.
Click to expand...

I take your point about experts versus public intellectuals, but that still leaves means that editorial discretion is key and handing out platforms to every passerby is stupid.

On to the rest:
I think you've accepted his argument that the people in the "intellectual dark web" have wide platforms. That in itself is enough to invalidate the Bari Weiss article.

So focusing on the single paragraph about debating NJR, and whether he is too rude to debate:
Ben Shapiro calls Arabs violent people who prefer to live in sewage. He was an idol for a mosque-shooter in Canada.
JBP says he wants to punch the guy who criticised him, has said that "women who wear makeup and complain about sexual harassment are hypocrites ", and that "the birth control pill has enabled women to compete equally with men, which is a problem."
Charles Murray has said African-Americans are "intractably" less intelligent than white Americans by a margin that is "large enough that it should not be ignored". In a century with a secular rise in IQ for all groups, Charles Murray has said that "demographic changes have a dysgenic pressure on society" in the context of IQ scores.

Am I to understand that the regulation of this marketplace is that calling people racist is outside the rules of this debate, but questioning their intelligence or humanity is fine? I can think of one group of people who would be happy with that arrangement.
 
Surely not even Nathan J. Robinson thinks Nathan J. Robinson would be a match in a debate with any of the people mentioned in this thread?

Having seen his presentation and delivery, even before we get to some of his batshit ideas, he'd get absolutely savaged.
 
berbatrick said:
I take your point about experts versus public intellectuals, but that still leaves means that editorial discretion is key and handing out platforms to every passerby is stupid.

On to the rest:
I think you've accepted his argument that the people in the "intellectual dark web" have wide platforms. That in itself is enough to invalidate the Bari Weiss article.

So focusing on the single paragraph about debating NJR, and whether he is too rude to debate:
Ben Shapiro calls Arabs violent people who prefer to live in sewage. He was an idol for a mosque-shooter in Canada.
JBP says he wants to punch the guy who criticised him, has said that "women who wear makeup and complain about sexual harassment are hypocrites ", and that "the birth control pill has enabled women to compete equally with men, which is a problem."
Charles Murray has said African-Americans are "intractably" less intelligent than white Americans by a margin that is "large enough that it should not be ignored". In a century with a secular rise in IQ for all groups, Charles Murray has said that "demographic changes have a dysgenic pressure on society" in the context of IQ scores.

Am I to understand that the regulation of this marketplace is that calling people racist is outside the rules of this debate, but questioning their intelligence or humanity is fine? I can think of one group of people who would be happy with that arrangement.
Click to expand...

I believe Shapiro made his comment in 2010 yes ? Murray's comments are interesting warrant more scrutiny (as in discussion) rather than shutting him up.
 
hobbers said:
Surely not even Nathan J. Robinson thinks Nathan J. Robinson would be a match in a debate with any of the people mentioned in this thread?

Having seen his presentation and delivery, even before we get to some of his batshit ideas, he'd get absolutely savaged.
Click to expand...

He strikes me as a bit of a hit job artist whose articles smack of "Don't read any of these people because I disagree with them" to them.
 
Raoul said:
He strikes me as a bit of a hit job artist whose articles smack of "Don't read any of these people because I disagree with them" to them.
Click to expand...

Looks like you can't counter his article, which explains that the IDW have large platforms and mainstream access, either.

Raoul said:
I believe Shapiro made his comment in 2010 yes ? Murray's comments are interesting warrant more scrutiny (as in discussion) rather than shutting him up.
Click to expand...

He has been commenting on Islam ever since he entered the public space, before and after 2010 till today. His fundamental views are unchanged, he has never walked back his comments. So I don't see how the date is relevant.
It is like saying that the Communist Manifesto should be discounted from Marx's writings since he said it in 1848 but continued writing till 1883.
 
berbatrick said:
Looks like you can't counter his article, which explains that the IDW have large platforms and mainstream access, either.



He has been commenting on Islam ever since he entered the public space, before and after 2010 till today. His fundamental views are unchanged, he has never walked back his comments. So I don't see how the date is relevant.
It is like saying that the Communist Manifesto should be discounted from Marx's writings since he said it in 1848 but continued writing till 1883.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to counter. He basically goes on a quest to discredit each of the people he disagrees with by way of selectively cherry picking, never mind the fact that they have nothing to do with one another other than being branded as a term in Weiss's piece. Nothing original about that.

I don't think Shapiro should walk anything he said when he was a rookie in the business . His views have obviously evolved and become more refined over the years
 
Raoul said:
There's nothing to counter. He basically goes on a quest to discredit each of the people he disagrees with by way of selectively cherry picking, never mind the fact that they have nothing to do with one another other than being branded as a term in Weiss's piece. Nothing original about that.

I don't think Shapiro should walk anything he said when he was a rookie in the business . His views have obviously evolved and become more refined over the years
Click to expand...

I think we have read very different articles. He does not talk about anyone or their views in the one being debated. He talks about their platform within and outside mainstream media. Which is how Bari Weiss started this whole mess.

So, you are ok with people who unapologetically think Arabs are inherently violent and live in sewage. Good to know. Now, I don't that his evolution is at all "obvious". Why?
And last year [2016], he personally promoted an article written on the website he edits, The Daily Wire, which called the Muslim presence in Europe a “disease.” Muslim men, it declared, are “uncivilized.” The article concluded with a quote from Winston Churchill that begins: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!”
Click to expand...

Source: https://forward.com/opinion/388621/why-doesnt-the-new-york-times-mention-ben-shapiros-islamophobia/
 
berbatrick said:
I think we have read very different articles. He does not talk about anyone or their views in the one being debated. He talks about their platform within and outside mainstream media. Which is how Bari Weiss started this whole mess.

So, you are ok with people who unapologetically think Arabs are inherently violent and live in sewage. Good to know. Now, I don't that his evolution is at all "obvious". Why?


Source: https://forward.com/opinion/388621/why-doesnt-the-new-york-times-mention-ben-shapiros-islamophobia/
Click to expand...

I'm personally not, but I'm not looking for an apology from Shapiro for something he said 8 years ago. I see offensive speech on a daily basis and discard it as it comes. If he was using it as a basis for an argument against Israeli/Palestinians in the present then I would find that much more problematic. What he said nearly a decade ago as an aspiring nobody is less interesting to me.
 
Raoul said:
I'm personally not, but I'm not looking for an apology from Shapiro for something he said 8 years ago. I see offensive speech on a daily basis and discard it as it comes. If he was using it as a basis for an argument against Israeli/Palestinians in the present then I would find that much more problematic. What he said nearly a decade ago as an aspiring nobody is less interesting to me.
Click to expand...

Are you going to completely ignore that he endorsed the exact same view using extremely similar language in 2016?
 
Raoul said:
There's nothing to counter. He basically goes on a quest to discredit each of the people he disagrees with by way of selectively cherry picking, never mind the fact that they have nothing to do with one another other than being branded as a term in Weiss's piece. Nothing original about that.

I don't think Shapiro should walk anything he said when he was a rookie in the business . His views have obviously evolved and become more refined over the years
Click to expand...

Have they? As far as I'm aware he's still simplistically pro-Israel. His rhetoric may have evolved in that he'll know how to get around any potentially problematic statements but I'm not sure his actual views have.
 
Cheesy said:
Have they? As far as I'm aware he's still simplistically pro-Israel. His rhetoric may have evolved in that he'll know how to get around any potentially problematic statements but I'm not sure his actual views have.
Click to expand...

I've no problem with him being pro-Israel. He is after all a fairly conservative jew. If he however moves into the hate speech area then it becomes more problematic.
 
Raoul said:
I've no problem with him being pro-Israel. He is after all a fairly conservative jew. If he however moves into the hate speech area then it becomes more problematic.
Click to expand...

But your argument is his views have evolved - I'm not sure they have. He still seems to be largely of the view that Israel are an advanced and modern peaceful state without any issues whatsoever and that the sole aggressors in any conflicts are the Arabs. And so there's little to suggest he's beyond beyond his sewers comment. I'm not sure he was necessarily a 'rookie' when he said it either, he'd already been established for a while.
 
Raoul said:
I believe Shapiro made his comment in 2010 yes ? Murray's comments are interesting warrant more scrutiny (as in discussion) rather than shutting him up.
Click to expand...

What impact do you believe exposing the general population to increasingly extreme views on either "side" will have, and what evidence do you have for that belief?
 
Brwned said:
What impact do you believe exposing the general population to increasingly extreme views on either "side" will have, and what evidence do you have for that belief?
Click to expand...

Its important to keep a diversity of ideas in the public space. I'm not just talking about the usual suspects in the thread title (I actually disagree with most of them) but more so the need to avoid falling into groupthink traps driven by herd behavior where anyone who disagrees with the herd is ostracized, and those in the herd are incentivized to conform to a small group of banal orthodox ideas in order to gain group recognition. There's something to be said for keeping an open mind in today's increasingly factional world.
 
Raoul said:
Its important to keep a diversity of ideas in the public space. I'm not just talking about the usual suspects in the thread title (I actually disagree with most of them) but more so the need to avoid falling into groupthink traps driven by herd behavior where anyone who disagrees with the herd is ostracized, and those in the herd are incentivized to conform to a small group of banal orthodox ideas in order to gain group recognition. There's something to be said for keeping an open mind in today's increasingly factional world.
Click to expand...

I know you're keen on talking about groupthink - and implicitly suggesting that you're above that kind of nonsense - but I'm not sure that answers the question. What do you believe the impact would be of what you're proposing?
 
ZXjyr8F.png

Fascist followers in the comments correctly calling out his cowardice, but it is interesting that classical liberal is such an easy out-position for fascists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.