The intellectual dark web

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I like that they also play it in conjunction with maligning the mentally ill. Classy stuff. As we all know, only mentally ill people do grifting bigotry.

Who did that?

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1546621570885357568

We need to always remember, the Holo Mordor.

[rubecube]

Pretty good article on why Peterson is and always has been a fraud, but this particular section kind of highlights why I think debate perverts are so naive about the IDW, public debates, and the "marketplace of ideas" (one of the most embarrassing terms out there).

https://kareem.substack.com/p/jordan...-dyi-cult-when

Much of Peterson’s fame and infamy is the result of YouTube debates he does with other YouTubers, mostly with people that agree with him. On those occasions when he debates people who don’t agree with him, his tactic is similar to Ben Shapiro’s: name-drop famous writers and thinkers, keep changing the subject so he never has to fully defend his position, throw out irrelevant facts and studies so he sounds smart. You would be hard-pressed to know what Peterson’s thesis is during a debate.

In his debate with secularist Matt Dillahunty, Peterson kept straying from the question at hand so much that Dillahunty’s frustration as he kept trying to bring him back to the point was evident. Peterson knew he couldn’t logically win so he just talked about whatever popped into his mind.

I don’t care for debates—whether on YouTube or presidential. They are designed purely for entertainment value and to get more subscribers who already agree with them, not to clarify complex issues. Someone mentions a fact or statistic but there’s no time to look it up to see if it’s a legit study or fact. So the process has the veneer of reason when it’s mostly emotion.

I have seen some debates in which Peterson was so outmatched that I was embarrassed for him, especially those with Dillahunty and neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris. He would ramble pointlessly only to have his fans comment how he “destroyed” the opponent, which is a testament to the inability of his followers to distinguish logic. They think because they can’t understand what he’s saying, he must be really smart. The reason they can’t understand him is because there are so many logical fallacies he uses: slippery slope, false dilemma, name-calling, poisoning the well, and so forth that they should be used in critical thinking classes as examples of what not to do. That’s why one columnist referred to him as “the stupid man’s smart person.”

[Fuzz]

the stupid man's smart person

is the perfect description of JP.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That whole paragraph is a fairly perfect description... the fairest you could be to him in those "debates" was that there was probably the occasional interesting concept or idea buried somewhere in the nonsense, but if so it just wasn't worth the effort to extricate it.

Originally Posted by rubecube

the "marketplace of ideas" (one of the most embarrassing terms out there).

This is just such a silly thing to write. You aren't remotely qualified, in any sense, to make this type of statement about a concept that's been ensconced in political philosophy and discussed ad nauseum for hundreds of years.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is just such a silly thing to write. You aren't remotely qualified, in any sense, to make this type of statement about a concept that's been ensconced in political philosophy and discussed ad nauseum for hundreds of years.

Ah, takes me back.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yet again, Pepsifree tries to take it upon himself to declare outright, as if it were self-evident, who the intellectual heavyweights are and aren't, in a variety of areas on which he himself has no expertise. When is it going to get through to you that you're not competent to make these types of claims?

I think rubecube is qualified to determine whether a term is embarrassing. Given that you started out in this thread wagging your finger at me while I was saying the same things mentioned in that Kareem article that are now “a fairly perfect description”… maybe you’re not qualified to comment?

Food for thought anyway. Was reading through the beginning of the thread again after rubecube’s post as I remembered “stupid man’s smart person” coming up early and thought your post was funny given the ones from a few years ago..

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think rubecube is qualified to determine whether a term is embarrassing.

He's really not and neither are you - certainly not a concept like the "marketplace of ideas". In terms of the tradition of philosophy you guys are, bluntly, nobodies. You haven't got any credibility because you haven't got any body of work that would entail credibility. Show at least a tiny bit of intellectual humility - I mean, if it was "I'm not convinced by Mill's views about the importance of having free reign for competing ideas for a variety of reasons", fine, reasonable people can disagree. But "this entire philosophical concept is embarrassing! People who think this is true aren't just mistaken, they should be embarrassed!" That kind of statement... you're only embarrassing yourself.

The things mentioned in the paragraph I specifically referenced are totally in line with what I originally said about the guy - that he's a nutbar and says a bunch of things that not only don't make sense but don't even offer the pretense of trying to make sense. More than that, the context he's making those comments in that paragraph are in reference to the exact same debates that I was basing my original views about him on (particularly the one with Sam Harris). So, yeah, not really a change in my own viewpoint on who Peterson has always been as a thinker, there... he's saying roughly the same stuff I was on page 1 of this thread. It's certainly fair to say my opinion of Peterson has changed for the worse over time, but it was already pretty low to begin with.

EDIT: I do seem to have been pretty irritated with you when I made that post you quoted though. You must have been acting like a real jerk around that time. That's probably it. Unlikely to have been me just being in a bad mood, doesn't seem plausible.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

He's really not and neither are you. In terms of the tradition of philosophy you guys are, bluntly, nobodies. You haven't got any credibility because you haven't got any body of work that would entail credibility. Show at least a tiny bit of intellectual humility - I mean, if it was "I'm not convinced by Mill's views about the importance of having free reign for competing ideas for a variety of reasons", fine, reasonable people can disagree. But "this entire philosophical concept is embarrassing! People who think this is true aren't just mistaken, they should be embarrassed!" That kind of statement... you're only embarrassing yourself.

The things mentioned in the paragraph I specifically referenced are totally in line with what I originally said about the guy - that he's a nutbar and says a bunch of things that not only don't make sense but don't even offer the pretense of trying to make sense. More than that, the context he's making those comments in that paragraph are in reference to the exact same debates that are being referenced in that paragraph (particularly the one with Sam Harris). So, yeah, not really a change in my own viewpoint on who Peterson has always been as a thinker, there... he's saying roughly the same stuff I was on page 1 of this thread. It's certainly fair to say my opinion of Peterson has changed for the worse over time, but it was already pretty low to begin with.

He said the term was embarrassing, not the concept. Forget posting up our resumes for clout in conversations around philosophy on a hockey message board, are you even qualified to read?

Just kidding of course. I’m sure you are. Maybe. I hope.

I wasn’t pointing out that your position has changed, I was pointed out that you pull out this “you’re not qualified!!!” thing, often while completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what people are saying, even in times you agree with what they’re saying.

And like… I can’t imagine anyone cares whether you think they’re qualified or competent. You’re as much a nobody as anybody. So… relax?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

He's really not and neither are you - certainly not a concept like the "marketplace of ideas". In terms of the tradition of philosophy you guys are, bluntly, nobodies. You haven't got any credibility because you haven't got any body of work that would entail credibility. Show at least a tiny bit of intellectual humility - I mean, if it was "I'm not convinced by Mill's views about the importance of having free reign for competing ideas for a variety of reasons", fine, reasonable people can disagree. But "this entire philosophical concept is embarrassing! People who think this is true aren't just mistaken, they should be embarrassed!" That kind of statement... you're only embarrassing yourself.

Local debate pervert chimes in.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And like… I can’t imagine anyone cares whether you think they’re qualified or competent. You’re as much a nobody as anybody. So… relax?

When I start going around calling Aristotelian virtue ethics "embarrassing", my qualifications (which, I mean, at least I have some education and background in this area) are relevant, but until then, I'm not going much beyond skepticism.

I don't think I've misunderstood what he was saying. If Rube was, as you seem to be suggesting, rolling his eyes only at the phraseology, then fine, but I don't know why the wording would matter to him or anyone else - that would be the sort of pedantry people would normally attribute to... well, me. And the thing you quoted was also not an instance of me misrepresenting you, either, much as you might have wanted to try to convince yourself of that at the time.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Local debate pervert chimes in.

WTF does this even mean? That's the second time on this page you've said this... Did someone coin a phrase on twitter somewhere that you decided you liked, is that what's happening here?

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

I laughed.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

WTF does this even mean? That's the second time on this page you've said this... Did someone coin a phrase on twitter somewhere that you decided you liked, is that what's happening here?

Yes? I would assume that someone with your credentials would understand how slang works.

[TorqueDog]

It's just kind of an embarrassing thing for a grown adult to say.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yes? I would assume that someone with your credentials would understand how slang works.

I've never heard that one... I don't really think something counts as "slang" just because you saw it posted on Reddit one time or whatever.

It is kind of funny, though probably not for the reason you were looking for... it sounds suspiciously like, "hey, the strategy of calling someone an immoral person when they disagree with me is kind of losing its edge. What else could I do?" "Hmmm... Why not find a way to call them a pervert?" "Hey, yeah! The implication of some deviant sexual undertone to what they're saying will really drive home how completely I've signed on to the rhetorical tactics of the early 1990's religious right!"

[jammies]

I'm no big-city philosopher, but "marketplace of ideas" is just a bad, strained metaphor. It seems to dovetail well with the assumption that everything can be understood through the lens of commerce, which is a distressingly popular and worryingly naive position held by gibbertarians and other simpletons, and which likely explains its popularity despite its manifest inadequacy.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I've never heard that one... I don't really think something counts as "slang" just because you saw it posted on Reddit one time or whatever.

Please present your resume to prove you are qualified to comment on what is or isn’t slang. We can’t have just any casual incompetence running wild on the marketplace of ideas, good sir!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Please present your resume to prove you are qualified to comment on what is or isn’t slang. We can’t have just any casual incompetence running wild on the marketplace of ideas, good sir!

Definitely not... What does or doesn't count as slang is obviously crucially important. I retract my skepticism about whether it was or wasn't slang and substitute agnosticism in its place.

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm no big-city philosopher, but "marketplace of ideas" is just a bad, strained metaphor. It seems to dovetail well with the assumption that everything can be understood through the lens of commerce, which is a distressingly popular and worryingly naive position held by gibbertarians and other simpletons, and which likely explains its popularity despite its manifest inadequacy.

Read its original context, the metaphor doesn't seem all that strained, but YMMV I guess.

Originally Posted by Oliver Wendell Holmes

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises.

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

... To be fair the line of cases that this comes from are not exactly on solid ground with the sentiment being expressed there given that they were about prosecuting people for making statements that would undermine the war effort, so it's not exactly squeaky clean in its original context.

[jammies]

"Stock market of ideas" would be less strained, which still inclining towards misleading. Ideas are just not very much like goods or stocks or material possessions of any kind. While Holmes' metaphor is pertinent to his argument, it's still not a very good metaphor, and the extension of it as "marketplace of ideas" is even less so.

"Evolution in the ecosystem of ideas" is a metaphor I prefer, although again metaphors always mislead even if they are mostly apt.

PS: I'm all in on Cynicism Corp. and their strategic partner, Doubt Group, with a small holding in Humanism Inc.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Sam "torture is sometimes ethically justifiable" Harris has disavowed the IDW.

Leave Sam alone

https://www.samharris.org/blog/why-i...bout-torture1q

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by jammies

PS: I'm all in on Cynicism Corp. and their strategic partner, Doubt Group, with a small holding in Humanism Inc.

Since "Everything Everywhere All At Once" was released my interest in Absurdist Nihilism LLC has really been flourishing.