Intellectual Dark Web

[moof]

So now you’re adding liberal? Ta.

So you’re actually saying “most of these people are to the left of the far-right”? Well fucking done

[Rico1304]

I think it came across as quite contrived, faux, too try hard ranting.

 

Rico. You're better than that. Just.

Oh I’m not ranting, it’s the Internet for fucks sake. I couldn’t give 2 fucks what some failed teacher and spoon carver think.

[aRdja]

I think it is mate, because you deliberately clipped my quote. That’s dickhead behaviour.

Deliberately? That’s a touch strong no?

 

Didn’t you post “Rubin has mostly left leaning views”

 

Let’s try and keep it civil shall we?

[aRdja]

Oh I’m not ranting, it’s the Internet for fucks sake. I couldn’t give 2 fucks what some failed teacher and spoon carver think.

Fucking hell. Mate, honestly... take a break.

[setreal]

Rubin is quite a good example to demonstrate how the majority of the Trump crowd works. People will call him liberal at times, but if you look closely he is only liberal in issues that affect himself and his milieu or where he or his milieu could possibly encounter disadvantages. The prime example being homosexuality in his case. People who are speaking out for Rubins peer group are obviously doing the right thing if you ask him, but people who speak out for other disenfranchised groups are clearly just virtue-signalling or whatever they call it these days. You are a dirty SJW, unless Rubin happens to agree with the cause you fight for.

[aRdja]

Rubin is quite a good example to demonstrate how the majority of the Trump crowd works. People will call him liberal at times, but if you look closely he is only liberal in issues that affect himself and his milieu or where he or his milieu could possibly encounter disadvantages. The prime example being homosexuality in his case. People who are speaking out for Rubins peer group are obviously doing the right thing if you ask him, but people who speak out for other disenfranchised groups are clearly just virtue-signalling or whatever they call it these days. You are a dirty SJW, unless Rubin happens to agree with the cause you fight for.

Btw, I still can’t quite get my head around why SJW is used as an insult. Chomsky, Corbyn and Sanders would be stoked to be called a SJW IMO.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Btw, I still can’t quite get my head around why SJW is used as an insult. Chomsky, Corbyn and Sanders would be stoked to be called a SJW IMO.

 

I doubt Chomsky would, given his reading of language. It reduces a person's stance on a given issue to that of a caricature, pigeonholing them, intimating they're only after appearing right-on rather than arguing based on the scenario presented to them. It's very reductive.

 

Similarly, labelling anyone alt-right when they're just basically espousing some right wing views will be frowned upon by those who lean that way. As Section pointed out earlier, the real alt-right are fascist in all but name. They've done well to piggyback off the more mainstream right thanks to the normalisation of absurdism (particularly post-Trump) and the extremes getting louder in the internet age, but they're very distinct from them.

 

Most people are a mish-mash of views, and only the absolute fringes can be categorised by such simple terminology.

 

Now, if you want a real argument, consider the premise that the far left on the internet are helping cultivate the ground upon which the alt-right recruit, by mocking centrism and undermining the mainstream media who they view have a bias against them. *throws grenade and runs*

[Numero Veinticinco]

Btw, I still can’t quite get my head around why SJW is used as an insult. Chomsky, Corbyn and Sanders would be stoked to be called a SJW IMO.

SJW - Social Justice Warrior - isn't used to refer to somebody who advocates justice within society. It's a term used to mock a certain type of twat that is about as far removed for the likes of Chomsky as is possible to be.

[aRdja]

I doubt Chomsky would, given his reading of language. It reduces a person's stance on a given issue to that of a caricature, pigeonholing them, intimating they're only after appearing right-on rather than arguing based on the scenario presented to them. It's very reductive.

 

Similarly, labelling anyone alt-right when they're just basically espousing some right wing views will be frowned upon by those who lean that way. As Section pointed out earlier, the real alt-right are fascist in all but name. They've done well to piggyback off the more mainstream right thanks to the normalisation of absurdism (particularly post-Trump) and the extremes getting louder in the internet age, but they're very distinct from them.

 

Most people are a mish-mash of views, and only the absolute fringes can be categorised by such simple terminology.

 

Now, if you want a real argument, consider the premise that the far left on the internet are helping cultivate the ground upon which the alt-right recruit, by mocking centrism and undermining the mainstream media who they view have a bias against them. *throws grenade and runs*

Why would it intimate that? I would’ve thought a Social Justice Warrior is someone who relentless campaigns and fights for social justice... someone like Chomsky, Sanders and Corbyn.

[aRdja]

SJW - Social Justice Warrior - isn't used to refer to somebody who advocates justice within society. It's a term used to mock a certain type of twat that is about as far removed for the likes of Chomsky as is possible to be.

It’s a stupid term to use to mock someone IMO. Fighting for social justice is something one should be proud of doing in my eyes.

[Numero Veinticinco]

It’s a stupid term to use to mock someone IMO. Fighting for social justice is something one should be proud of doing in my eyes.

Like it or not, terms don't always mean what they originally did. The insult 'SJW' isn't used to describe somebody like Noam 'most famous intellectual in the world' Chomsky, it's used to describe a group of poorly informed group thinkers who pick up a term and twist it with the intent of applying it where it's not relevant. There are a great many examples of this.

 

I agree that there should be (and actually is) a different term for these people, but the one that has caught on is SJW. Don't like it? Fine. People aren't going to stop using it to describe the types that I mentioned.

[aRdja]

A profile on Jordan Peterson for those who aren’t familiar with him. He’s a bit of a big deal at the moment amongst the anti-pc patriots.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

[Numero Veinticinco]

Some things I agree with him about and most not.

[moof]

He’s a massive hysterical crying fascist sympathising racist bag of trash.

[Numero Veinticinco]

He’s a massive hysterical crying fascist sympathising racist bag of trash.

Trash?

 

Are you a fucking American, you big American?

[moof]

He’s a fanny-pack wearing, cilantro-eating, super douchebag ho jerk off bitch

[SasaS]

A profile on Jordan Peterson for those who aren’t familiar with him. He’s a bit of a big deal at the moment amongst the anti-pc patriots.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

 

 

... or you can read his Wikipedia page. I read a couple of interesting interviews with him, he is clearly an intellectually vane man who loves the limelight and may end up as a right wing loon because of that, as most of the love shines on him from that direction, but overall,  he makes some interesting points on post or neo Marxist influence in academia, gender theory and identity politics. He does tend to be drawn to the view of the "postmodern conspiracy" which is a refuge of every right winger too lazy to actually read some of or about the Frankfurt  School and is a staunch anti-Communist obsessed with totalitarianism on the left, which frequently points to a less than objective thinker.

[Numero Veinticinco]

... or you can read his Wikipedia page. I read a couple of interesting interviews with him, he is clearly an intellectually vane man who loves the limelight and may end up as a right wing loon because of that, as most of the love shines on him from that direction, but overall,  he makes some interesting points on post or neo Marxist influence in academia, gender theory and identity politics. He does tend to be drawn to the view of the "postmodern conspiracy" which is a refuge of every right winger too lazy to actually read some of or about the Frankfurt  School and is a staunch anti-Communist obsessed with totalitarianism on the left, which frequently points to a less than objective thinker.

I somewhat agree. He's clearly a bit of a demagogue and his new mid-life crisis beard, slick hair, and tailored suit look is a bit disturbing and detached from his roots, but generally he's an interesting alternative to the easily held opinions of us on the left that are prone to a little bit of intellectual masturbation and self-congratulation. I enjoy listening to him, even if some of what he says is - in my view - a bit wide of the mark.

[setreal]

Does he have an original point? Does he bring anything new to the table? Genuine question, as I don't know much about him. 

[SasaS]

Does he have an original point? Does he bring anything new to the table? Genuine question, as I don't know much about him. 

 

I think he is more about criticism and counter argument, the original point is that about the postmodern conspiracy (as original as it may or may not be, don't know who was the first to formulate the theory). He is occasionally a breath of fresh air in situations when the interviewer / interlocutor presumes you share their values without the need for any critical examination or counter.  

[aRdja]

I think he is more about criticism and counter argument, the original point is that about the postmodern conspiracy (as original as it may or may not be, don't know who was the first to formulate the theory). He is occasionally a breath of fresh air in situations when the interviewer / interlocutor presumes you share their values without the need for any critical examination or counter.

 

The application of enforced monogamy, in response to the mass killing of women by a sexually frustrated loser, i suppose is somewhat original amongst the classical liberal crowd.

[setreal]

"Postmodern conspiracy" is a variant of anti-intellectualism I take it? Like "why do the post-modernists make things so complicated when they are clearly black and white sometimes"? He seems to talk a lot about patriarchy and masculinity it seems. Does he have any credentials in the field of gender studies or even sociology? His wiki page mentions none.

[Numero Veinticinco]

He has a degree in a social science (political science) and he's extremely well qualified as a psychologist. I think he's plenty well credentialed when it comes to talking about these subjects. Even if he wasn't, you don't need to be a PhD in every subject you talk about.

[SasaS]

The application of enforced monogamy, in response to the mass killing of women by a sexually frustrated loser, i suppose is somewhat original amongst the classical liberal crowd.

 

 

Admittedly, this concept was new to me when I read the NYT article you linked to, which on the other hand is not exactly written "in good faith".

[setreal]

He has a degree in a social science (political science) and he's extremely well qualified as a psychologist. I think he's plenty well credentialed when it comes to talking about these subjects. Even if he wasn't, you don't need to be a PhD in every subject you talk about.

 

No, but you should be an expert in a field if you want to be an opinion leader. Is he an expert in gender studies? And if not why is he talking about it as if he is a person of authority in that field.

 

Edit: His thesis was called "Potential psychological markers for the predisposition to alcoholism"