They have and often it's been harmful for society.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yes, think of the children.
Peterson isn't Hitler. I have friends who like him, and I've seen no evidence of a complete moral decay.
Do people on the left hate Rogan as well then? I like him, and I've definitely warmed to Harris over the years. I wouldn't put those two in the same bracket as the rest as they seem fairly agnostic on the whole left/right axis. Petersen is going in the other direction for me, can't stand him now but previously thought he had some interesting ideas.
Rogan seems to generally fly below the radar. He is after all a comedian, podcast host, UFC announcer, and hunter. He shouldn't be lumped together with the rest of them, but then again none of them should be lumped together since they are from disparate backgrounds and generally push ideas and activities that have little to do with one another.
Good for them. Complete moral decay isn't required for considerable negative consequences though and however unaffected your friends are by his drivel that does not mean many others are not affected.
They're lumping themselves together. There's a big lump in the picture up there.
Or because most of the ideas they espouse are disgusting to people with a bit of conscience.
They don't espouse the same ideas. As mentioned, Rogan is completely different to Harris, who is completely different to Peterson, etc. Only people who know nothing about them attempt to brand their views them with the same brush.
Progressives aren't the arbiters of what's positive and negative for society, however much they themselves like to think so.
Its a mistake for them to do that. I get the impression Rubin is the ring leader of all of this since he seems to repeat the term most on his show.
Ah, Eboue with his trademark tweet-reply, I'm done for.
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?
i assume this means you dont see "anything that controversial" in the tweet
That's why I say most.
I don't need to live in fear of their ideas spreading to find Peterson a cnut for saying women should be submissive to men, or likewise Shapiro for saying Arab people are subhuman.
Cherry pick away then.
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.
What does this even mean?
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?
What does this even mean?
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?
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.
they have a lot in common
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'
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.
Aye, Peterson was on Joe Rogans show today. I presume its more of the same, did anyone watch it?
Precisely. Its a marketing thing for the most part imo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ok great so we can dismiss them as having anything to say
That weinstein guy didn't seem that bad from the little i've seen from him
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.
The bit I watched involved Peterson rambling about how cool new media (podcasts, youtube etc) is and how its the biggest leap since Gutenberg.
exactly. especially the bolded part
But still better than Schaub right ?
Don't trigger me!