I hated it when Christopher Hitchens cited quotes and evidence in his anti-religion crusade to convince people who arent already religious that it's not all that.
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.
You're just cherrypicking our posts. You can't pass judgement on us unless you've spent a week caravaning with all of us.
You're no Hitchens. And the implication of dealing with biblical quotes is that its implicit people are already familiar with the subject matter, which you and Silva are clearly not.
Agreed.
Enforced caravaning does have some benefits for society tbh.
Enforced caravaning is a key component in evolutionary biology.
See, you keep saying this and yet you've offered nothing substantive to suggest that Peterson doesn't believe the things he says and posts. If the probably more than 100 quotes we've posted of his so far aren't representative of what he believes, what does he believe?
Correct, I'm not Hitchens. I didnt advocate for the iraq war. The point is that it's common for people to discuss the issues of the day and express their disagreement.
Christ have you never in your life said something controversial that'll look pretty awful in 20 years time?
He was alive during the rise of Nazism, it'd be nearly weird if he didn't have some anti semetic quotes. He was an agent for the allies during the war. His views changed, if they ever were anti semetic, with the rise of Hitler. Its one thing immediately dismissing Nazism today because we know how it ends. Giving people shit for not immediately dismissing it 100 years ago seems kind of harsh.
Uh, no, feck that. I'd rather respect the Germans who played no part in the rise of the Nazi regime and gave their lives fighting it instead of writing horrific things. If I play any part in causing another holocaust, I don't want history to remember me fondly.
@berbatrick
First of all thanks for taking the time.
I haven't watched the videos, but the stuff about the misinterpreted bill and what you've written about his lobster argument makes him look pretty untrustworthy.
Regarding the AMAs, the first answer (while not being particularly versed in history) doesn't seem factually wrong to me, but at the very least seems deliberately vague.
The second one is just baffling, since the answer is completely beside the point of the question and no one was forcing him to answer that particular question in the first place(?!).
First of all thanks for taking the time.
I haven't watched the videos, but the stuff about the misinterpreted bill and what you've written about his lobster argument makes him look pretty untrustworthy.
Regarding the AMAs, the first answer (while not being particularly versed in history) doesn't seem factually wrong to me, but at the very least seems deliberately vague.
The second one is just baffling, since the answer is completely beside the point of the question and no one was forcing him to answer that particular question in the first place(?!).
Ok but you are the one saying not to laugh at any of his theories. That one is laughable.
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.
The reason I get so passionate/triggered by him is because from what I've seen, he uses pseudoscience or shoddy combinations of different fields to argue against people who try to reduce hierarchy/inequality in society, in favour of a return to a stratified society with more entrenched hierarchy because that is what is natural, according to him.
So for me as a leftist, he has a strong reactionary political message I despise and feel that I should contest. We can do that by showing how incoherent he can be in general or countering one particular argument in detail (I think both are valid).
we know that's not trueliterally all of it
Yeah true. Guilty. It wasn't one of his primary ideas and theories? He did disavow it? I'm not that inclined to shit on historical figures for their missteps.
I dont know enough about him to say either way. But I am inclined to criticize onjectionable ideas.
Its not an admirable statement. Jung is pretty fascinating though.
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.
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).