The intellectual dark web

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Azure

This.

I have also noticed that as soon as Weinstein came out and said both Trump AND Biden were losers, many on the left instantly labeled him as a right-wing hack.

Hilariously, as soon as we mentioned him in this thread, right along comes Lanny laughably doing exactly that. Almost hilarious how predictable he is.

Yup and of course Weinstein has lived it. Getting attacked and not protected which led to his and his wife's resignation from their university teaching jobs.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

This.

I have also noticed that as soon as Weinstein came out and said both Trump AND Biden were losers, many on the left instantly labeled him as a right-wing hack.

Hilariously, as soon as we mentioned him in this thread, right along comes Lanny laughably doing exactly that. Almost hilarious how predictable he is.

Ah, my stalker is back. Can always count on Azure to make a mountain out of a mole hill and try to blame the evils of society on me.

I didn't label them as anything, except a couple of kooks. They are the Cliff Fletcher of the podcast set. Claim to be one thing, then say and do a whole bunch of stuff that betrays what you really are. The opinions and thoughts of these two are about as deep as the gene pool in Winnipeg, and their discussion is about as complex and convincing as a QAnon video. It is irrelevant if they are left or right - who cares- their ideas are vapid mutterings of detached nutters.

And for the record, this is exactly what I said and what the context was, since Azure loves to take things out of context (it's his schtick).

PsYcNeT said, "Lmao in what world is Brett Weinstein a Liberal? Is he just pulling the Tim Pool grift?"

To which I responded with, "It's exactly what he's doing. Just because he and his wife worked in academia they are trying to beat the dead horse that they are liberals. Their words and beliefs betray them. Listening to these two is like listening to a QAnon video. The intellectual "dark web" indeed."

Again, a comment on PsYcNeT's post, not a statement of anyone's position. But if we are going to talk about someone's real position we can only point to the very media sources that support and reference them. Brett Weinstein is a darling of the same media that embrace the likes of Ben Shapiro. Breitbart, Washington Times, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, etc. etc. You become who you associate with.

[Azure]

Nothing like a post saying "I don't label someone" and then using that exact post to do exactly that.

Again, if I gave you something to read from any of those supposed 'kooks' and removed the authors name, you would probably agree with what they said, or at least say it is an interesting perspective.

But because you have already labeled them as losers, you instead are dismissive of everything they say without actually reading what it is.

Somehow in a debate about the intellectual dark web, you are trying to position yourself as of higher intellectual thought and are failing miserably. Instead you actually DO come across as the exact person you accuse Weinstein, Peterson, Shapiro, etc, etc of being.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

You become who you associate with.

What a remarkably illiberal comment.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What a remarkably illiberal comment.

But Stalin and Mao would be proud.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

But Stalin and Mao would be proud.

Cyka blyat! Go to gulag!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What a remarkably illiberal comment.

Yeah, politically you could say so. But it is also accurate based on psychological and sociological research. In-group membership dictates we shift our behaviors to that of the group we identify and associate with. It's also why we gravitate to people who are like us. It's why echo chambers are so strong and how people get locked into them. So while you may not like to comment, it is very accurate, especially when it comes to things such as social group access, group acceptance, and something as structured as political identification.

[GirlySports]

is this you are the average of your 5 best friends logic?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

is this you are the average of your 5 best friends logic?

No, this is Tajfel and Turner's Social Identity Theory. But whatever it takes to get you to understand it, go with it.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Which conservative values do you think Weinstein has?

Smaller government
Lower taxes
Anti-immigration
Christian moral dogma
Pro life
Opposition to public health care
Dismissal of global warming
Gun rights

How many times do you think he has voted Republican in his life vs Democrat?

Could we take a moment to recognize the problem of climate change is one that does not currently have a solution? At least not one we’re willing to consider.

The sun and wind are not capable of meeting the energy demands of 21st century societies, 1st world or otherwise.

Renewable energy is not capable of supporting modern cities without real power sources, fired by coal, natural gas, biomass (WOOD!!!!!!!!) or uranium, backing them up.

Solar farms and wind farms have a functional life cycle of less than 30 years, and replacing them is extreme carbon intensive.

Solar farms lay waste to the area they’re built in.

Biomass plants, it’s worth repeating, run on ####ing wood chips.

New power sources have to do the job at least as well as the carbon based ones they’re replacing, because we like to use the lights at night.

Nuclear energy would solve a lot of our issues. Nuclear reactors can function for upwards of a century, and the ROI far exceeds a natural gas plant when you amortize the costs out over a hundred years. This doesn’t even consider all the unintended benefits that would come from being on the forefront of nuclear energy - it’s never a bad thing to have too many nuclear physicists paying taxes in your system.

We can’t have nuclear energy, unfortunately, because the majority has their feelings on nuclear energy informed by 28 year old episodes of the Simpsons.

There’s literally been one catastrophic failure of nuclear energy in 80 years, and it took place in a communist dictatorship. ####ty, yes, but, you know, Soviets gonna Soviet.

You could fit all the nuclear waste that’s ever been produced in a facility smaller than your average Costco, and I don’t know if anyone’s flown over the north recently, but there’s nothing there. You could build a facility far enough from everyone’s ground water without issue.

I get why people are uncomfortable with nuclear power. But if the alternative is “the planet cooks and dies”, it seems like a good time to go with the lesser of two evils. And as Superman might say, “statistically speaking, it’s still the safest way to power a society.”

Also, it seems like it’d be worthwhile to start investing and planning in the massive geoengineering projects that will be necessary to keep our coastal cities from going underwater - I can only assume the process of rebuilding Vancouver in Abbotsford wouldn’t be carbon neutral.

Sorry to have gone off a bit - the lack of honesty surrounding this particular topic is maddening, because it’s a real problem and we don’t have an answer for it. Acting like we do isn’t helpful.

[Cliche]

Another journalist leaving their job:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1321869227226222593

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/media...ept/index.html

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, after reading their email exchange, I'm inclined to agree with the following statement from his former boss:

I agree with some of the things Greenwald says in his piece, but at the end of the day, it's Greenwald. He is, at his core, a self-serving, dishonest, bad actor. He should never be treated as a martyr based on his own account of events, because his version of events is likely to be a carefully crafted mix of truths, half-truths and hyperboles carefully and expertly crafted to benefit him.

Treat him with skepticism. Matt Taibbi, he ain't. EDIT: And yes, I'm aware they're allies in this and wouldn't be surprised if they ended up working alongside each other.

[rubecube]

I think a lot of what Greenwald has to say about the current state of the mainstream media and how they've covered this election is pretty accurate. That said, he's also clearly gone right off the deep end.

I much prefer Grim and Taibbi to him at this point if we're talking about pure journalism.

[Azure]

Take it for it is is worth. From what I read it seemed like the Intercept was trying to 'edit' the article versus outright censoring it.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1322161953117249537

[Azure]

Anyone watch the latest Alex Jones on Joe Rogan podcast?

I decided to go down a rabbit hole of allowing myself to listen to it. I thought Rogan handled it well, but man Jones tends to rant on about everything. Almost an impossible interview.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Anyone watch the latest Alex Jones on Joe Rogan podcast?

I decided to go down a rabbit hole of allowing myself to listen to it. I thought Rogan handled it well, but man Jones tends to rant on about everything. Almost an impossible interview.

I think it's pretty gross that Rogan had Jones on again, to be honest. Mind you, I tend to think Rogan is a moron most of the time, so I may be biased.

[opendoor]

As much as Greenwald is correct in criticizing the media, the same criticism applies to him. He had no problem pointing out the ridiculousness of the Steele dossier and criticizing media's handling of that and the fact that they whipped up a frenzy over completely unverified "evidence" to suit the narrative they wanted to push. But now he's essentially trying to do the exact same thing with the Biden story and it's flimsy foundation.

[bizkitgto]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think it's pretty gross that Rogan had Jones on again, to be honest. Mind you, I tend to think Rogan is a moron most of the time, so I may be biased.

“Pretty gross”? You realize this is entertainment, right? Alex is a riot, and his most popular guest and long time friend.

[burn_this_city]

Rogan had Jones on to thumb his nose at the Spotify employees who have demanded he be censored.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Rogan had Jones on to thumb his nose at the Spotify employees who have demanded he be censored.

True.

But I think Rogan likes to also interview people thinks are misunderstood by the public.

Like Kanye.

Its one of those things where when you listen you are inclined to start looking up a lot of the stuff he says and you can go down rabbit holes quite fast.

Like the Franklin Child Prostitution stuff. And now you have the Epstein stuff.

Its crazy.