Was sure I was about to get rickrolled

i bet it's awkward

Back when Carmack did the QuakeCon keynote, he'd sit up on stage and just talk for 1-2 hours and then take questions. I think we'll see Carmack go off on some topics if Rogan gives him space to.

you know it's funny when Left leaning retards, including one that is a "trans-furry" is calling Rogan out for being far-right.

As much as I admire carmack (mostly based on things he did 10+ years ago) the timing for the US elections is too predictable, I bet my left nut he ends ends up being critical of Trump.

Carmack is basically a facebook employee and silicon valley is stuffed with people hell bent on over throwing the POTUS.

Not content with rigging algorithms and controlling the narrative on the core media platforms, they'll be wheeling out various "influencers" to skewer your views.

Just google donald trump anytime, any day, the top results (with the scrolling arrow) will be a negative tone by.

CNN
GUARDIAN
BBC
THE INDEPENDENT
MSNBC

Don't take my word for it, try it yourself right now :)

That's why you don't use google.

I stopped using it when I realized they did shit like that plus an infamous Scottish comedian that they demonized over a joke (such retards)

Hoping thats not the case, otherwise my respect for Carmack would go downhill fast.

How could you possibly say anything bad about Trump?

There's that, and then there's literally living to spin anything Drampf did or say as the second coming of hitler 24/7/365.

he better shut up about politics

Subhumans gonna sub.

"Trans-furry".
The parents must be proud.

Left leaning

Those are full on commies man.

And they would get shot first.

I mean, his audience is right-wing and he had many far-right people on his show.

But even if that wasnt the case, you still need to be brain dead to listen to that meat head for 3 hours

his audience is right-wing

qualify this with statistics.

he had many far-right people on his show

he has many "leftists" on his show, too.

why are leftists so militantly intolerant? i think it's because they're frightened people who lack the physical capacity to defend themselves.

I think we should stop dividing people up into groups.

Fucking commies.

It's true though

At the same time pathetic weaklings and dangerous Antifa terrorists. Those lefies really are mysterious

It doesn't take a lot of strength to sucker punch someone with a bike lock :=)

It's a powerful duality.
Many enemies of the right seem to have this incredible ability to be both at the same time.

qualify this with statistics.

why are leftists so militantly intolerant? i think it's because they're frightened people who lack the physical capacity to defend themselves.

the epistemic injustice on this one, amazing

why are leftists so militantly intolerant?

Partly because they don't have the truth and logic and therefore argument to beat you any other way. Which is funny cos most lefties I see are weeds.

Secondly, a lot of them are Marxists and believe in using violence and a host other dirty tactics to get their way including indoctrination at the schools.

Have you ever wondered why the word nazi and racist are being thrown by the left so much these days, especially trump?



What they did not count on was, if you use any social taboo buzzword too often, it loses all its power, then all of a sudden, you have a demographic of people who are unable to debate and win a civilized discussion with logic and truth, its why when trump won in 2016, they went nuts and started rioting and hopefully we'll get to see that again when trump wins again. Its why all the social media platforms like facebook, twitter, and search engines like google are now rigging the game.

While telling us all the Russians are the problem :)

Demonetizing videos of inconvenient views.
Rigging search algorithms to hide such views and promote alt views.
Labeling anything they disagree with as hate or collusion.

"Americans didn't vote for Trump, the Russians tricked them"

Impeach!

Brexit was not the way we wanted things to go.
Let's delay, stifle and try to reverse it.

Its always the same from these people. Like the spoiled kid at school who told tales on everyone.

Lefties don't have the truth or logic to go with their convictions.

They hold up signs welcoming refugees, and go quiet when some of them rape kids and blow them up.

They want the minority votes and are happy to break some eggs along the away.

I'd recommend separating the accusations of demonizing via buzzwords and intolerance from the accusations of marxism, communism, school indoctrination at least into separate posts. Maybe don't mention one-sided pictures of corporate influence together with the former group either. And then maybe speaking of logic and truth itself in a thread separate from such plain culture war shitflinging.

good video

LOL this type of deranged psychobabble doesn't come about unless someone spends literally days of their life with an unleased mental illness trawling through right wing extremist propaganda.

Onya Jamerio, can't wait to see you on the news after you gun down scores of innocent people

It's mostly autistic manchildren that think they are furries giving Carmack shit for going on Rogan.

Damn, trans-furries on ESR...

there's no hope for people who don't see that JRE leans right and when it has lefties, they're mostly "the left has gone full sjw insane and so i'm focused on fighting against them" concern troll types


even in this thread focusing on personal characteristics or psychologizing is in full swing, what conversation can there be if they already "read" your mind

Joe's a self-confessed "liberal"

Even if he is why do folk care about what the next man's beliefs are

what he is personally absolutely doesn't matter. What matters is what his show promotes

Weird world we live in when someone can self-assign their gender identity but not their political identity.

I see nothing weird to tying political identity to beliefs and actions rather than just a self-description. You'd think any forum frequenting person would realize this after the 5th time some concern troll does their shtick.

You don't think a transwoman has beliefs or takes actions as part of their gender identity?

I don't really care to discuss transfolk here either way, just commenting on what JRE the show promotes.

just commenting on what JRE the show promotes.

You mean the Cash Card?

Hahaha, soon as you run into your hypocrisy you don't wanna discuss. Do you want to just downvote instead?

Do you want to just downvote instead?

Why are you being childish? Can you not read what people say rather than focus on whatever stereotype you have in your mind?

I thought it was more so just nifty rhetoric rather than a charge of hypocrisy that lolo originally replied to me with. You seem to imply that there's some necessary analogy between self-assigned gender and political belief, why so?

Analogy, no. One is not up to choice - is rooted in reality and set forth at conception, it does not require expression or the ability to speak. Political belief(or any belief) is the freefloating meaningless bullshit you can not ascertain without speaking to a person. Unless one has been sipping reddit koolaid without a shred of critical thought - then it's the exact opposite.

edit: The hypocrisy is humoring only some people's self-identity. Yes, Joe could be right-leaning and call himself left, just like DPRK isn't a democracy. But then the people who call him right never have that critical thought for self-identity skirting physical reality. You could be the exception, in which case - my bad.

I've seen more of JRE than I care to admit, I'm not ascribing things to him or his show out of ignorance. Part of the reason I didn't really want to discuss transfolk is that it's a complicated issue, kind of like issues of identity, where to some extent no answer is satisfactory. Gender is a bit of bullshit, kind of in same sense say money is--it is significantly what people make of it, but how exactly it works is complicated and multifaceted.

For example, you hint preference to a different theory than what Lolo implied: he says actions are part of gender identity, you say it doesn't require expression or the ability to speak. Potentially overlapping, but I'm not sure there's any way to reconcile this: that's the way people arrive at several scales for aspects of gender and sexuality that Bill Nye got mocked for.

I don't know of what lefty circles you speak of, there are many hugboxes and I'm sure some of them are plain dogmatic, I've seen some myself. Still, I can't help but feel like the left discusses them more so than the right. I could think it's some of the circles I'm sometimes in, and to be sure say philosophy nerds are more interested in such messy issues, but even huge lefty youtubers are focusing on these issues in long and popular videos now, presenting most of the arguments rightwingers would present themselves, showing significant popularity of these topics among lefties. I won't pretend that the average leftwing voters are well versed in this, and indeed I can see the difference in talking to them, but they're enough of a hint to me to think that lefties tend to think about this more. Hell, some of them read the academic papers on this that rightwingers tend to dismiss as propaganda. So I hope you don't mistake their strong rejection of a theory they think is bunk for not considering it.

I also didn't really want to discuss it because there's people scared of gay folk in this thread, let alone transfolk...

Gender is a bit of bullshit, kind of in same sense say money is--it is significantly what people make of it, but how exactly it works is complicated and multifaceted.

No, it is not. Animals do not have money, but they have gender. It is not a human concept, it is biology, a subset of physics. It is a fact of nature.

And I don't think lolo was expressing any preference, rather again pointing to the hypocrisy of lending self-identification only to some people and not others. Which of course only the lefties will have as a problem as only they give self-identification credibility in the first place.

edit:

I also didn't really want to discuss it because there's people scared of gay folk in this thread, let alone transfolk...

Ah yeah, the long-lasting tradition in ESR of fretting for people's feelings, please.

In your last previous you essentially admitted that your argument was an accusation about 'But then the people who call him right never have that critical thought for self-identity skirting physical reality.' and tacking that onto me. You admit that you just brought that out of nowhere not knowing that about me, so then I also argued that lefties do consider these issues.


This time, you seem to be saying that hypocrisy is about lending self-identification only to some not others, which I thought we established didn't have necessary connection between different types of self-identification, thus making it not a hypocrisy at all?

Ah yeah, the long-lasting tradition in ESR of fretting for people's feelings, please.

Less about caring about their feelings more so about considering what kind of conversations can be really had. Like, you just go like "Hahaha, soon as you run into your hypocrisy you don't wanna discuss. Do you want to just downvote instead?" based on assuming that I'm the way you expect lefties to be, do you not see how difficult it is to communicate some ideas over here?

I do. Hypocrisy on my part.

Let's start again, how is JR right leaning in what his show promotes?

Rogan himself is for the most part someone with a mind so open his brain might fall out. He usually becomes his guest during his podcast. That's sort of why kooks and extremists can come off well on his show. He does have opinions, certain mini rants that he does, those usually come from intuition and feature less argumentation and more directing the conversation with hints akin to c'mon, this or that thing is silly. He'll sometimes have strong opinions, but those tend to be more so related to MMA, drugs, comedy. Or when you're way, way too obvious in your silliness, like Rubin or Canadace Owens.

Overall, Rogan is pretty inconsistent about his views, with some exceptions.

The people he hosts have some tendencies though. The biggest group that's political that's invited on IMO is the "intellectual dark web": your Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson etc types. These people are largely conservative OR, and I know this part is controversial here, theoretical leftwingers who just happen to primarily fight and be known for fighting the left in terms of their media project. I think SH is most notably for really, properly going after Trump, and he's genuinely cooled about mingling with these folk. He certainly won't go after them the way he'd go against many religious folk for example, but he's cooled it.

I think significantly because as I've been saying since the IDW thing started, it makes their commonalities too obvious. A minor one being that they're all pro-Israel as far as I notice, the major one is that they're all focusing very heavily against the modern left, culturally, against PC culture, college campus culture, cancel culture, SJWs, people who focus on calling out racism and sexism, etc, everything of that sort. They're also very heavily into free speech, though in a very uneven way: campus deplatformings are literally foundational for some of the members and are super important, while the free speech issues lefties care about are barely, if at all mentioned (SH may be an exception on this nowadays, not sure, but he'll still focus on rightwing ones way more). So the government going after BDS is apparently not that bad compared to the latest patreon or youtube drama.

One final commonality is the rhetoric. In going after universities, often decrying entire disciplines, dismissing them, discounting them as bullshit in very anti-intellectual fashion, they'll adopt a very renegade academic stance. They're partly academics who have abandoned their own discipline who now choose to rail against other disciplines, talk about knowledge they think is forbidden, silenced, all that. From them, you'll often hear much less about how specifically scientific consensus considers and issue than about how forbidden something they really care about is.

They're very much media projects before intellectualism. So anyway, if you go through their guests lists on their individual shows, podcasts etc, you'll see so many of the political guests that JRE has on. So it forms probably the core of the politics JRE promotes. Then there's also people on bad graces with these people that will get vetoed, usually in silence, sometimes mentioned negatively if it goes on too long, like Sam Seder.

I don't think lefties who come on the show are close to the number of shows and the influence this group of people has. And JRE is the perfect place to launder their guests on. He'll have extremist bigots like Stefan Molyneux or Gavin McInness on, and as long as they don't say the wrong thing about MMA or weed, Rogan will mostly with the any lie or BS they say, puff up their good character. Not knowing anything about it in advance, often, agreeing or appearing to approve just because he's good natured interpersonally. Molyneux later got criticized on the show, but for being cult-leaderish, not a bigot. He's still a mainstay on the IDW circuit, at least before becoming too open about being a white nationalist most recently.

If you want to see the most obvious part of their shtick, watch Rubin. There's some good analysis out there on his rhetorical style and how he does his best to puff up the worst of people and misinformation, framing them as virtuous truthseekers who are so unfairly maligned, while not challenging extremely obvious misinformation, partly because he doesn't care to educate himself about the guests or the issues they talk about. partly because he genuinely doesn't care when they're extremely bigoted or misinformative, even when it's extreme bigotry about his identity. Meanwhile, he'll make the biggest storm out of anything he thinks lefties say. So, if you want to understand their shtick, see their most obvious, Dave Rubin. JRE is a lot like it, though not nearly as puffy.

Right, because more than half of the politically related guests(which are no more than 5%) on his show are what YOU perceive to be right wing, his show is right leaning.

And we're back to "I get to define you". Oh, most of your guests are not political? Doesn't matter. Most of those that ARE political don't consider themselves right? Doesn't matter. You've had two people running for president under Democrats? Doesn't matter. You have both the most diverse set of guests AND dialogue with each one? Doesn't matter. As long as there's even one person I don't like, I get to focus on them so I can define your show, by also defining your guests.

Which... whatever. But don't be complaining about

even in this thread focusing on personal characteristics or psychologizing is in full swing, what conversation can there be if they already "read" your mind

when you're doing it, albeit to show and not a person, all the same. Especially when your mind wasn't misread. Not judging by this thread anyway.

People did misread me, and you did too, there's no mistake about it. Stereotyping lefties is a favorite pasttime for the folk in this thread, it seems. But let's get to this post.

If you don't think about politics for most of your time but tend to vote rightwing, you're leaning rightwing. Not really black magic, I don't see why most guests not being political changes that.

It's my perspective, yes, because it'd be insane to even discuss this topic without having a sense of where I think these people are politically. So all this repeated insertion of you perceive and similar could be applied to anyone including you, you probably realize that you're doing it so I don't know why you're doing it. Unless you'll pretend that this is different because you think everyone is the political identification they claim they are, which I'd love to see you defend.

I don't know how you made a molehill out of those two points otherwise.

I'll gladly defend my point about IDW folk, I know them fairly well, especially Harris, Rubin, Peterson, Shapiro. I can also point out the numerous ppl connected to them that got featured on the show and their views. Remember, I'm not reading anyone's mind, I even don't care what's in them. I'm simply talking about the kind of stuff guests on the show get to hear as far as politics goes, how often, and with what intensity. Mindreading doesn't apply here.

Well you can defend your IDW thing all you want, but it will be for naught until you show me why I should disregard the rest of the sample. And yes, I do believe people correctly label themselves with regards to the left/right divide. They may be ignorant in using relatively well defined -isms incorrectly, but the ends of the spectrum are understood well enough that you can only change someone from left to right(skipping the middle), if you're so radicalized that you see a different spectrum.

Why would unpolitical folk make the show not rightwing if it has more promotion of rightwing folk than of leftwing folk/issues? It doesn't make sense.

Jordan Peterson is, according to himself, a classic british liberal. He deeply cares about freedom as the political tag would suggest. Yet he was previously trying to get famous trying to bash atheism, still is religious in a deeply vague sense. Enjoys ascribing atheism to evil people and movements in history. This time, he got famous lying about human rights legislation, fighting a small addition to already existing legislation that has existed for decades without issue, or his complaint. You'd think that'd be too much for a classical liberal, but he also lies about legal history itself. Who knows why, he's just in the habit.

He also thinks that this Hungarian authoritarian leader is restoring the metaphysical foundations of their nation or something. Really freedom-loving.

He thinks that you should only create stories that are not of your design, meaning that you can't know what the story is about in advance, you must just create. You should make stories that conform to the fundamental Jungian archetypes. If you do not, or it's possible to tell what your story is about too clearly, then your story is propagandistic.


He's for gay marriage, in theory, except if it's pushed by the cultural marxists. He's worried about traditional modes of being. He thinks the nuclear family unit with man, woman and child is the smallest indivisible unit of society, and he somehow uses issues single parents face to make this relevant for same-sex couples.

He's not sure how the pill will work out. He's not against it, just isn't sure, thinks we haven't adapted to it yet.


He's been ranting against casual sex for a long time. He's also said anti-porn comments, dunno if he changed his mind. He has been against making divorce easier.

He has been threatening to sue people for their speech, often in matters of opinion, often ones incapable of financially defending themselves, where someone with strong views on free speech would usually like, you know, choose not to do that. Using canada's much more restricting freedom of speech laws. One woman rebuffed him because she had the resources, some others were not so lucky.

When discussing men's and women's ability to work together without sexual harassment,, he chooses to discuss if women should wear makeup in the workplace. He doesn't say they shouldn't, but you have to wonder what kind of a person chooses to got here, or say that women wear makeup explicitly for sexual reasons (what a dumbass thing to say).

He thinks ancient art depicts DNA, or thought before people pointed out how insane that is.

Sometimes gives lip service to leftwing issues, but usually ends up saying there's no way to solve them, we don't know how to solve them etc, ends up criticizing the left's ability to do so, like with financial inequality, and suggest rightwing solutions. Sometimes he goes too far in saying leftwing things, like when he suggested his fans not use (((jewish people))) antisemitic joke brackets, or said something negative about Kavanaugh, and his audience flips the fuck out. This is called audience capture--his fans just do not expect to criticize rightwing positions and react very poorly if he does. You can wonder why they're like that.

He thinks there is hypertruth, or metaphorical truth, or archetypal truth, a type of truth more true than scientific truth. He explains this in his first JRE and Sam Harris podcast appearance. This would be kind of a problem for a "science and human rationality will lead to the greatest number of happinness" types that are, you know, the classical liberals.


You can find video of JP excusing Hitler to some extent, saying that he liked cleanliness and was led by the crowds more than himself. Not saying he's overall positive on him, just that he says sympathetic things about him sometimes. Leftwing thinkers who never enacted the holocaust or something aren't so lucky, like Foucault and Derrida, one of which he calls more evil than any person you can imagine. He doesn't cite them or discuss their views in serious form, just bashes them like that without much reference to source material. He also really loves reassigning their political views, the way you don't like me doing. He thinks that one of the most famous french critics of marxism, Foucault, was marxist, and he doesn't care about evidence to the contrary.

He's said that he's an evolutionary biologist and that he's a neuroscientist. He's neither, he just says these things for some reason. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, he might assign himself the wrong political label and very, very greatly underestimate how conservative he actually is?

I can do this with Rubin next, or Tim Pool. Were you wrong about people being able to know which political side they're on (or always being honest about it), or do you want to contest my claims about JP?

You could've just linked to one of your Jordan Peterson threads and saved yourself the time. ESR is all too aware of your opinions about this guy.

Why would unpolitical folk make the show not rightwing if it has more promotion of rightwing folk than of leftwing folk/issues?

Joe "promotes" whoever he wants to talk to. But if Joe promotes ANYTHING, it's DMT and weed. He can talk to whoever he wants to and it doesn't mean he's promoting what they say. Letting someone speak doesn't mean promoting their ideas, unless you are a... well... you whine about lefty stereotypes. But how should I respond when I have only seen this rhetoric from extreme leftists? In current time that is, history of course is ripe with all sorts of level-headed book-burning chaps.

And for all your talk about communication what do you do? You had a point in the first paragraph and then this giant turd of allegations that I'm supposed to either take wholesale or, what, spend the next year fact-checking it?

He doesn't cite them or discuss their views in serious form, just bashes them like that without much reference to source material.

Irony? You haven't cited JP a single time. And unlike those two, he's all over the internet and youtube specifically.

But I don't give a shit about him, nor do I care to watch him to call you out on your bullshit. But if you choose to again ignore my point, sure do Tim Pool, I actually watch him.

Irony? You haven't cited JP a single time. And unlike those two, he's all over the internet and youtube specifically.

I wouldn't stop there. Of course, he'll cite instances that match his claims. The sheer volume of spoken and written words allows one to be selective. But if one were really interested in "truth", it wouldn't be just about instances to support your case but also looking for instances that would refute or undermine them.

In academia, you form a hypothesis (based on some prior understanding of the available evidence/theories) and attempt to falsify it by seeking out new data. Or, in a court of law, you have competing arguments from the prosecution and defense where an impartial third party (jury or judge) can weigh the arguments/evidence.

This simply does not happen online. It ends up being purely prosecutorial without anything to limit the excesses other than other people online willing to engage in "conversations". But these are pointless online, as we all know. This enables the bad faith, distorted characterizations. And when there is no humility or hesitation that one's preconceptions might be misguided/wrong, it is no wonder that some "interpretations" (to put it gently) are seemingly unmoored from reality.

But not from esreality.

ba-dum-tss

Motherfucker, you gotta choose. Every time we'd talk about JP, you'd do tangential issues, say yeah I'm not defending him I'm just talking about this and that. Now you jump on me, defend a guy who literally assumes that what I say is bullshit, and imply yeah it isn't but is cherrypicked, and run down a whole spiel about online discourse doing it the wrong way.

Will you bit the bullet? Is JP not showing himself to not care about freedom as he pretends to, is he a classical liberal? Is he leftwing? Or will you dance away from the clear implication of this rant you just did?

Edit: Alternatively I suppose you could say that you just really strongly disagree with the methodology and this affords you those conclusions. I have my thoughts about that as well, let's see what you respond with.

Choose what? Thanks for summarizing. And...?

You're obsessed with JP. I could not care less about JP. If you want to talk about JP so much, go to his subreddit.

Alright, well then this shows how dishonest you are, choosing to a reply arguing with me, launching a whole shpiel about bad methodology targetting my posts, in a case where you've no idea if I've been very fair or not. When there's a whole internet of things you could reply to with this shpiel where you know they're unfair because in those cases, you might actually know the material.

Why dishonest? I read your posts.

Because you choose to target me with a rant about poor methodology when you openly don't care about the source material to know how much your whole rant is relevant. I get the sense that your animosity towards me is the relevant thing here, not any ideals which you could have expressed in any number of places where you know everything people are talking about and the exact ways in which they represent reality, fairly or not.

"rant" :roll_eyes:

Why would I have animosity?

I'm sure Nzro can think for himself but I can see how futile it is to ask for citations when it will inevitably be distorted, misinterpreted, etc., to fit your political views.

If someone cares about a principle, they'll probably just explain it in a neutral setting, or, if needed, choose an example they're quite certain it's appropriate. You choose one where you admittedly don't care about the source material. Why? Probably not because you care about the principle. Animosity seems likely to me given how our last interactions went and your express lack of care about the particular topic here.

Who knows though, maybe it's that I'm criticizing Rogan, not calling black people n-words, gay people faggots, dehumanizing them while invoking science, or other riches of good methodology on display in this thread alone.

If someone cares about a principle, they'll probably just explain it in a neutral setting, or, if needed, choose an example they're quite certain it's appropriate.

That is precisely what I did in my response to Nzro. It applies to this and all "conversations" online. Do you have any thoughts about what I said or is it just a "rant" you'd like to conveniently ignore?

You choose one where you admittedly don't care about the source material.

Don't care doesn't mean I don't know anything about the "source material".

Animosity seems likely to me given how our last interactions went and your express lack of care about the particular topic here.

I don't even remember our last interaction. But maybe you think it was bad because I left the ESR discord? I left ESR discord (and many others) because it was getting too distracting plus busy with IRL things. And it's nice to have the distraction removed because (as this thread is reminding me), there is only so much time in the day.

Don't care doesn't mean I don't know anything about the "source material".

Well out with it then, as I asked in my first reply, is he a classic british liberal? I specifically asked that first to see why you think it's appropriate to launch this criticism of methodology on me, when to me it seems quite inappropriate and poorly chosen (for multiple reasons).

is he a classic british liberal?

Insofar as you take him to at his word (I know you do not) about his emphasis/support of free speech, then yes, that is one aspect -- probably the defining element -- of the "Classic British Liberal". But "Classic Liberal" means different things to different people (for some, it borders on right-libertarianism) so perhaps you should define what you think it means.

His testimony on C16 was specifically about compelled speech and whether the law would mandate speech (to use a person's self-assigned pronouns). Is it hate speech to "deadname" or "misgender" someone? This was JP's controversial opinion -- many (most?) Canadian lawyers did not agree with JP's testimony on that -- but it is opinion until it is precedent set by the courts. As far as I know, it has not been tested by the courts. Does it mean JP was "lying" by saying what the bill will compel speech? That is commentary, not fact. There is also the question of the Lindsey Shepard controversy which suggested it did have an impact on people's behaviors/beliefs even without any actual law enforcement action.

I specifically asked that first to see why you think it's appropriate to launch this criticism of methodology on me, when to me it seems quite inappropriate and poorly chosen (for multiple reasons).

[removed section since it upset you]

Alright, as I thought, this is more so about you having beef with me, as you readily bring up our past discussions. I'll resist doing that with you as I don't care for an expanding discussion, but I really would prefer if you'd stop doing that after this. Especially when significant parts of these discussions were in PM and I wouldn't necessarily want to say some of the things I said in public. Hell, if you do, at least go out with it and make a "my beef with son1dow" thread, at least then you wouldn't be baiting me in this way, it'd be loud and clear that you want to air issues with me and not with a particular thing I said.

It might be commentary that JP is wrong on C-16, but given the platform JP has reached, the level of evidence that he's given and the way you're positioning yourself here in this topic as a person who cares about good methodology, it's a little disappointing that you choose to frame it as that. He's very clearly, as a lot of educated commentary showed, failing to show or properly argue what he's saying, confusing a bunch of stuff and making a legal shitty case.

Relying on the distinction that could defend the craziest of musings is poor form.. Especially in a case where there's very high standards and there's a high propensity to avoid actually doing anything with the law that would test it in the sense JP wants to, there's a shitton of crazy shit that we could be pretending is on equal footing with serious commentary just because the arguments against it are just commentary.

I think a british classic liberal would try to apply the standards that the philosophers that inspired this ideology to this day. You can frame it using statements like The sheer volume of spoken and written words allows one to be selective., but I find it highly odd that you present it this way when many of the things cited are highly odd, highly specific, and often really bold positions for anyone, let alone a classical liberal hold. Many of them also connect into patterns, reinforcing eachother or many other things I could cite (what I said should be enough tho), which should, to a reasonable person, throw very extreme doubt about someone's commitment to freedom of speech and freedom in general, which are among the most important values for both classical liberals and also, ostensibly, Peterson.

For example, are you familiar with his threat to sue Kate Manne for her opinions, where, upon learning that unlike others that he treatened to sue, she has the resources to fight him, he backed out? Is it fair to say that this is cherrypicked if most free speech proponents would never even consider doing this? How about his essentially rhetorically propping up a Hungarian dictator? Many other things I said seem fairly major, not something you can think that can be collected and demonstrated for anyone with the right amount of digging. So I strongly disagree with the view expressed in the sentence I last quoted in italics.

There is also the question of the Lindsey Shepard controversy which suggested it did have an impact on people's behaviors/beliefs even without any actual law enforcement action.

I mean, are they even forbidden to tell her what to teach or not to teach without any law? I think they are, given her lowly position. Either way, they embarrassed themselves so much they had to issue statements and promote her grift, where she promptly, of course, left the left because of theirs' treatment of her, promoted some pretty open fascists, did some dogwhistling and now even JP seemingly avoids her for the most part. I don't see that JP's ability to convince laymen of really implausible theories as the fault of the law, it's more so his fault. There's even a paper about it.

If you don't mind, as I've said previously, I'd prefer to discuss the doxxing prof stuff in private, if at all.

My memory of the NYT op-ed is that I posted it maybe twice. After you criticized it in PM, I accepted your point, didn't argue using that article again. I seem to remember that you seemed to think that I took all or most of my views from that article in later discussions when it comes to voting issues, which I don't, I've read plenty, but because you were assuming it this way I just didn't feel like having more discussions about voting rights.

I no doubt have confirmation bias, everyone does, and I shouldn't have trusted that article, but I think you read me as more reliant on it, especially for longer, than I was. I don't want to read discord logs again or argue over what happened in discord though, especially in a discussion that doesn't necessarily relate to that.

I'm genuinely curious if you think the things I said about JP are just things you could pick out for your normal classical liberal, and what sort of circumstances would in your mind allow one to be a classical liberal if he's acting the way I've pointed out he acts. I'm also curious how you'd define classical liberalism that would allow him to be a classical liberal.

Alright, as I thought, this is more so about you having beef with me, as you readily bring up our past discussions.

Wrong. I can't control your imagination so think what you want. I've removed the section that offended you. I won't be replying to this at length but will share a couple points.

Classical liberal free speech advocates don't think libel/slander should be protected. But perhaps there's some anarchists who think everything should be laissez faire. I doubt JP is one of those. If JP sincerely thinks he was libeled/slandered by Manne's interview, it's his prerogative to sue. The same is true for anyone. And sometimes there is a financial calculus behind these legal actions. Whether it makes risking a lot of money with the potential of a low/non-existent reward. Does backing off a lawsuit or complying with a threat of lawsuit mean you've done something wrong? No, it doesn't. Because he can afford to sue (or threaten to sue) people, can he bully people? Yes. Does that necessarily mean he doesn't have actionable claims? No.

I mean, are they even forbidden to tell her what to teach or not to teach without any law? I think they are, given her lowly position.

Already covered this in a bit of detail in one of your other JP threads. TLDR, they're not "forbidden" but academic freedom is a very contentious issue on campus. Especially with how it relates to administrators involving themselves in how the instructor handles their class. Shepard is/was a graduate teaching assistant. A graduate student teaching a class is like a junior faculty member. They can be responsible for anything ranging from designing the curriculum, teaching the classes, teaching the labs, creating exams, grading, have office hours, etc.. Basically like any other instructional faculty but without the title or pay.

I'm fine, I just thought what I did because you attacked me / several of my opinions rather than ones in this thread, which is an odd angle given your unspecificity on the topic at hand. Anyway, I think not talking too much in public about doxxy professors with doxxy fanbases is wise.

With defamation, again I seem to find you stating a very cookie-cutter statement that's obviously true (that defamation is a reasonable thing to have laws for even for classical liberals) that doesn't get into the nuance that classical liberals would pretty much necessarily have to get to. I think two or three basic standards are really hard to do away with:

a) slapp suits bad
b) suing for what is reasonably considered opinion bad

Because he can afford to sue (or threaten to sue) people, can he bully people? Yes.

c) bullying people who can't reasonably defend themselves bad

I'm also uneasy with the different requirements wrt. intention in Canadian law, but that's another thing.

I think just embracing the US law would be so easy and good for all of these classical liberals, wouldn't even need to admit that the left is right on anything like with criticizing Trump's rhetoric or the anti-BDS stuff that they really stay away from. And then they go and do shit like this, many of them do, and their fanbases don't notice which really boggles the mind.

There's probably something to be said about methodology and giving defenses of very basic reasonable things that almost everyone agrees with when there's more particular things necessary to attend to.

Add just praising Hungarian authoritarians for no reason and his case for not being a parody of a classical liberal, just with that one thing alone, crumbles.

I personally don't mind limiting Shepherd on this personally but I can see the case, as I said the administrators were idiots and got baited by this opportunistic fascist enabler real hard. There's probably more to her baiting that we won't know, regardless, fuck them all.

Joe "promotes" whoever he wants to talk to. But if Joe promotes ANYTHING, it's DMT and weed. He can talk to whoever he wants to and it doesn't mean he's promoting what they say. Letting someone speak doesn't mean promoting their ideas, unless you are a... well... you whine about lefty stereotypes.

Welp, okay then, why the hell did you go through all of this time of pretending to care about what the show promotes before just putting up the ultimate I don't care what the show promotes I only care what Rogan promotes himself, personally, through his own words.


Your argumentative style relies on trying to dismiss my points wholesale with these sort of points that really no ultimate difference. If something is promoted on the show, by the host or the guest, it's something that's promoted on the show. Rogan often becomes his guest during the show and promotes what they do TBH, but I don't even care to argue this point. The idea that it's somehow not part of the show's "things it promotes" when it's said by the guests is patently absurd.

Speaking to someone isn't equal to speaking to someone. Nor is speaking to someone on a 3 hour puffy show for millions of viewers "just speaking to them", that's buying into the marketing, the guests themselves often admit how nervous they are. I can see that this is lost on you, but many people do critical interviews. In this comment chain I linked a video where Rubin's hyperpuffy interview style is analyzed. JRE is a lot like that.

So you can spin any leftwing stereotype you want, but if you assume that the stereotype is that "speaking to someone is promoting them", you're gonna have to admit what kind of speaking, on what show, and stop spinning it dishonestly. It's really sad if you think that this sort of common sense about putting people on very friendly huge shows being promotion is dishonestly spun by you into being some far left nonsense.

But I don't give a shit about him, nor do I care to watch him to call you out on your bullshit.

Maybe don't fucking assume that it's bullshit? You really know that you're right deep down don't you, and ignorance need not stop you. This is the guest where during and after the first show, Rogan listened with extreme care, mindblown the whole time, and said that it was perhaps the best show he's done, something like that. He's done many shows with him since then, it's one of his favourite guests.

It's not my fault that you don't know him.

Maybe don't fucking assume that it's bullshit? You really know that you're right deep down don't you, and ignorance need not stop you.

Why would I not assume it's bullshit? Because it would make you right? Again, you didn't even cite him once and I am ignorant for not just treating your claims as facts?

Okay, I don't know if you understand this, but assuming that it's bullshit on no evidence is the same mistake as assuming that it's right. Furthermore, you're putting a very big barrier for my points where I've been making an actual case, whereas you've been sniping at my points by a) assuming that they're bullshit b) just applying general wholesale skepticism about the relevance of what happens on the show to what the show promotes. It's hard to believe that you care if it's true or not, or that you'll admit any of my conclusions if it is, because that's the way you've acted throughout this convo, and haven't walked back those claims. If you don't, anything I say doesn't matter, as you still reserve the right to consider anything inherently irrelevant for absurd reasons.

In the end, many of these claims were made or mentioned on the JRE, so you not knowing them, let alone assuming that they're bullshit kind of shows that you're unequipped for this convo.

Wanna walk back that absurd claim about promotion, or about people necessarily being able to correctly identify their political ideology / placement on the spectrum? Because the JP points were made in service of that, and I can see that you act as a troll that snipes at my points with wholesale claims while looking to make me do the work.

So I guess it'd be real stupid of me to back up anything I say to a person who rejects the relevance of even showing what the guests of the show do.

You haven't shown a goddamn thing, just a bunch of assertions, some so vague I'd probably have no idea what you're talking about even if I was JP's biggest fan.

And your whole tirade comes down to "not equal representation of the politics equals promotion". Or will it still be promotion if it was only one guy you disagree with? I never agreed with your metric for promotion, but even then you've failed miserably at arguing because all you've said is there's like five guys JR has had on his show who are right wing. Oh no. What about all the lefties he has had? All the nonpolitical figures who are default lefties? Doesn't seem to matter to you. Your whole rhetoric post after post proves only that you're the stereotype you don't want to be labeled as. And I'll continue to disregard your wall of text until it shows some substance.

Whining about skepticism...

some so vague I'd probably have no idea what you're talking about even if I was JP's biggest fan.

Nope, you'd have heard every one of them since they're popular criticisms. At least if you cared to read the criticisms, many fans don't, hence fans. Actually you'd have heard many live, or referenced on JRE.

because all you've said is there's like five guys JR has had on his show who are right wing

Care to reread my posts? That's not what I said. You'll continue thinking that there's no substance to them as long as you misread them this terribly and excuse yourself with blatant and ridiculous assertions that dismiss my posts wholesale, like your point about what constitutes promotion.

And your whole tirade comes down to "not equal representation of the politics equals promotion".

If it's very unequal in intensity, amount of such speeches, amount of guests (in cases where he's agreeing or not clearly disagreeing with them) then yes. Again, do you still reject this?

Your whole rhetoric post after post proves only that you're the stereotype you don't want to be labeled as.

Because I believe that being very friendly and nice to more people / points / with higher intensity for one political side than the other on a hugely popular show (or, as you dishonestly surmised, "Letting someone speak doesn't mean promoting their ideas"), no matter how many times I noted that he does it in a particular way is why it's promotion.

I also repeatedly pointed out that it's the comparison between amount of guests of a political side, amount of arguments / points made for that side, amount of intensity with which it's said (in cases where he's agreeing or not clearly disagreeing with them). And then you keep talking like the leftwing guests he's had on don't matter to me.

Why the fuck do you even reply to me if you insist on beating a strawman? Again and again, you attribute things to me that I haven't said that are inconsistent with things I've said. Why? What is the matter with you?

Of course I reject your representation bullshit. But even then you haven't pointed out a damn thing, it's all claims and nothing to back it up. Oh and would you look at that:

Joe Rogan Experience #1330 - Bernie Sanders

That's a third democratic politician, no, not a guy who is left wing, an actual fucking politician, running for president under the democrats.

How many republican politicians can you point me to? And DO NOT give me your next wall of text, I'm looking for a number and some names.

Right, so there's no point to this discussion because someone could run the extremely deceptive, extremely promotional show that Rubin does, as the video I linked shows with countless examples, and under your criteria it wouldn't be promoting them. I want to be absolutely clear that to me, in terms of this convo, that's kinda like putting a finger in each ear and shouting "lalalalala" as far as engagement with the discussion goes.

I don't think Trump has time for JRE, he's a sitting president. A bit unfair comparing democrats running for a party nomination to him.

I said politician, not presidential candidate, I extended the goal post for you.

I'm waiting.

I only see him interviewing 3 candidates currently running for the presidency, a person who tried to run for congress and failed (appeared 4 times, IDK his full history but his bio on conservapedia at least thinks that he's a pizzagate promoter and was deplatformed from huffpo, the latter sounds like a thing Joe would be very interested in) , and a couple of people who ran for president. Of the ones running at the time, I can see the 3 current democratic presidential candidates, and 2 past presidential candidates for the libertarian nomination: Gary Johnson and Larry Sharpe.

That's really little in the grand context of things.

It seems like your insistence of avoiding admitting your misrepresentations of me, giving me more legwork and ignoring that your absurd stance on when a show can be said to be promoting something invalidates this whole discussion continues.

I think it's about time I stop treating this seriously unless you move on those things. You're acting like the typical troll who admits nothing, levels further accusations and legwork, and just wholesale dismisses things while acting indignant.

I have admitted being hypocritical once. Right there, already ahead of you. You can't even say "yeah democrats have been represented better" with a straight face, you make it veiled in your typical wall of text. And my view is not absurd, it's not my fault you can't argue that and you just want to go off on JP.

and just wholesale dismisses things while acting indignant

And I'll give you this one too. But I don't expect you to admit

admits nothing, levels further accusations

is just projection on your part. As your irrelevant tangential rant about, really one person, has shown.

That's fair, you did admit some things. Not all though.

it's not my fault you can't argue that and you just want to go off on JP.

As your irrelevant tangential rant about, really one person, has shown.

There was a specific point to that. You made a blanket claim about people correctly identifying their ideology; I went to demonstrate that here's a guy who very clearly doesn't. Again you clearly miss the point. You simply don't engage with so much of my posts and later move to misrepresent them. Actually if you were honest, I'd just link a couple of things of that whole list, the hungarian dictator praise and his threat to sue Kate Manne, and that should be enough. Will you admit that he's wrong about his self-identification then?

Numerous times, I DID argue about why your view of what promotion is is wrong. Someone can do a show like Rubin, where he invites either rightwingers or leftwingers who have a bone to pick with the leftwing, and asks them anti-leftwing loaded questions, ranting about the left the whole time, with few exceptions. And to you, he's not promoting them, increasing their exposure, presenting them very positively. Your model of promotion doesn't deal with that; I said this before and I'm repeating it here again. Do you have any arguments as to how this, somehow, doesn't constitute promotion? Please don't just pretend like I haven't said this.

Its giving them a platform, not promoting them. I'd agree somewhat if those guests were more than 50% of the total, but in this case it's like arguing walmart is promoting a certain brand of bread, even though it has all the bread brands on top of all the other goods in the world, because they have an extra shelf of one. Allegedly...

As far as self identification in politics, it depends on the definition people use. And that's why I have dismissed your rant on JP so easily - you never defined what right wing is and yet you expect other people to conform to your definition. Which again, is rooted only in human concepts, not reality.

Sure, giving them a platform is a term you can use, but it also includes giving a critical platform that's meant (in some cases even likely) to diminish them, like the Shapiro Andrew Neil interview, depending on how it goes. I'm using a more straightforward term promote because Rogan, in most cases, results in simply promotion for the folk. I don't see what's not promotion about being friendly with them, portraying them nicely personally and having them explain their politics to someone who's fairly incompetent at politics. If you mess that up, it's really on you.

Does it not result in promotion? Does it not promote their views, their shows, their social media? What does your analogy say that doesn't conform to both sides expecting sales and business from it? This is exactly different from a professional non-puffy interview show where you couldn't compare it to a product placement on wallmart.

you never defined what right wing is and yet you expect other people to conform to your definition. Which again, is rooted only in human concepts, not reality.

Indeed, language is too. Maybe math and science too, I don't think so, but possible. Hell, maybe there's no external world.

Let's switch over to that last question, then?

Are you gonna even try to point out any bias from JRE towards right wing politics or do you think even one guest talking about right wing ideas equals promotion and not platforming of said ideas? If it's the latter you have to explain what giving a platform is.

http://esreality.com/post/2941781/carmack-goi...pid2942114

Yeah that's not bias, that's having diversity of opinion.

The IDW-adjacent folk, with their common tendencies for rhetoric, topics, opinions, are diversity?

Yes.

Right, so he could have even more of a representation for their particular brand of rhetoric, opinions, topics, and that'd be even more diverse? Is that how this works?

Until they are the minority, yes.

I assume you mean majority. Of content or of political content?

I said "until they are", not "until they become", so I mean minority. Of content.

Well, that's an absurd standard. Fox news isn't a pro-life channel as long as it spends most of its time talking about different stuff.

I think we don't need to continue here, you just fundamentally don't care about the question we were discussing this whole time.

:D

Oooh how high and mighty you are. It's not that you can't defend your retarded views, I must not care. Yeah fox news is a pro-life channel, ESPN is a basketball channel and the history channel is a Hitler channel. Yeah, MY views are absurd, sure.

Yeah fox news is a pro-life channel, ESPN is a basketball channel and the history channel is a Hitler channel. Yeah, MY views are absurd, sure.

Genuinely astonished you say the first with irony. Genuinely.

Yep, ignore the rest lest you grow up. Protect that bubble.

That's how it works, huh? I point out that one is completely out of whack with how we use language, this means that I'm ignoring the rest? Why do you keep doing this?

I could point out how you're being very "essentialist" and precluding properties from being assigned to shows / channels (pro-life is normal language, basketball channel and hitler channel sound different than implied but that's just the way we use them semantically, the property aspect also fits with them), but I know that it's because you don't want to think, not because you can't, so this is beyond pointless.

In the context of this convo the semantic confusion is impossible because nobody argued that it's "just a pro-rightwing show" or that it doesn't do other stuff, it's beyond clear that it's a property not its essence or anything. But keep talking about bubbles.

Where did you point out anything? You just said you're astonished. What constitutes proof to you is just claiming shit and then babbling on with nothing to back it up. Well except some more tangential claims.

To reiterate, you haven't proven a bias even if we're talking about it as a property. You have presented 0 facts, you have made no comparisons to show a bias. All you do is rant and rave about a couple of people and I have to assume you genuinely believe that in doing so you're showing a bias in anything other than yourself. The only time a comparison was made was when I forced it and of course you couldn't be a man and admit failure straight up. How many conservative voices can JR host without you labeling his show "promoting right-wing ideas"? I've asked you already. And you will avoid giving me a straight answer, because it's obviously 0.

If you didn't feel like I pointed out anything, you wouldn't have reasonably reacted to my lack of reaction to the others, you must have felt like I didn't ignore it the way I did others, somehow. In a way that wouldn't constitute staying in the bubble for others--which pretty much necessarily means pointing out something. So I'm just reading you as understanding my implicit point there.

You keep jumping between points that invalidate everything else. Even if we're talking about it as a property! How dumb can you pretend to be to act as if you only now realize that we are. Then rightwing is only a human concept. Many others. Then misconstrue what my JP point was about. Repeatedly insert things you think I don't care about or things you think I base it on when it's completely different. Repeatedly misconstrue why I think the show leans pro-rightwing, which I've explained several times.

You do this the whole time and then you say I've not given comparisons or haven't been giving straight answers, when you mischaracterize what I've said, again and again, after repeated corrections, even in this last post:

All you do is rant and rave about a couple of people and I have to assume you genuinely believe that in doing so you're showing a bias in anything other than yourself.

And you will avoid giving me a straight answer, because it's obviously 0.

meanwhile even in the very first explanation on this topic by me:

So anyway, if you go through their guests lists on their individual shows, podcasts etc, you'll see so many of the political guests that JRE has on. So it forms probably the core of the politics JRE promotes. Then there's also people on bad graces with these people that will get vetoed, usually in silence, sometimes mentioned negatively if it goes on too long, like Sam Seder.

I don't think lefties who come on the show are close to the number of shows and the influence this group of people has.

You're either a dishonest person who chooses to pretend that that's a couple of people, or even a non-significant number of people in terms of political shows, or you're a troll who doesn't know much about JRE and has been talking out of his ass this whole time. There are no conclusions different than that.

I'm not giving any comparisons anymore, you genuinely don't read properly and are far too invested in pushing up any unreasonable roadblock, with multiple examples of ridiculous obtuseness. Even now, after several ways of going through that point in different formulations, I have no confidence that won't again forget what it means for JRE to have the property of leaning right in terms of "amount of guests of a political side, amount of arguments / points made for that side, amount of intensity with which it's said (in cases where he's agreeing or not clearly disagreeing with them)", because with every new formulation or rephrasing, you think the topic is incoherent.

Maybe I'll keep pointing out how you can't read and are obtuse, I don't know, but as far as proving the core contention, I'm a fool to keep trying with you.

Animals do not have money, but they have gender.

"Gender" in this context is not synonymous with biological sex, arguing about if someone is "really" a man or a woman is just facile.

Well, obviously, when you are the one defining the context. Or when you put something in quotes. Like when you "define" the context for us.

"Part of the reason I didn't really want to discuss transfolk is that it's a complicated issue"

Actually its quite simple if you're not a libtard, which I know you are.

1) If you have a penis you're a male.
2) If you have a vagina, you're a female.
3) If you have half and half, then you can legitimately pro claim to be one or the other.

If you are 1 and think you are 2, then you just have an identity problem.

If you are 2 and think you're 1, then you just have an identity problem.

ITS YOUR PROBLEM.

What you don't do (which people try and do) is try and fuck over 99.9% of the population into accepting that identity problem as no problem and hounding them for not calling them whatever you have going on in your mind.

"Just because you think something, doesn't make it real and it doesn't mean I have to think like you or agree with you, or be labelled as a bad person or get into trouble, as what is happening."
And before you apply that way to my thinking, Biology is on my side of the argument and its not on yours.

Nobody is saying XYZ cannot think that way (you want to be gay, bi, lgbt fine), but what's going on atm is people who disagree about the issue are being hounded and getting into trouble.

I saw an LGBT march a while ago, it was vile.
It had nothing to do with people being gay or bi, or trans, it had to do with most of them dressing like prostitutes and making sexual innuendos while walking past young kids and generally acting like a bunch of deranged nut jobs with sex addition issues.

These people are supposed to make it easier for gays/bi/lgbt to come out, but if that's the image they are projecting of such people then its not really any wonder that closet stays shut for most people along that spectrum.

The left talk a great deal about acceptance, but are the least accepting of anyone who don't agree with them.

If there were 100 people left on the earth tomorrow and all of them were biologically female, but half of them identified as male, and it was their job to save the human race.

The human race would be extinct.

Reality, science and truth do not care about man made BS.



That teacher is a shining example of what is going on, indoctrinating people with their BS and showing how "inclusive" they are by not only throwing the student out of the lesson, but banning him from the school for showing us all the truth of what is going on right now.

Okay you say half and half, when it's something like this. Not complicated, not at all, that's why you're simplifying it beyond recognition.

Then obviously you reject the mainstream science conclusions on transfolk, like the DSM, yet you take science to be on your side. I think rhetorically it's best you abandon the libtards don't know science shtick. Maybe try something about a leftist invasion of academia.

I was concluding, not simplifying.
When everything is said and done, it still comes down to male or female.

If the top two sprinters in the world run a 9.58 and 9.59 in the same race, initially it will be too close to call, analysis will be done, but eventually, a conclusion will be drawn.

WINNER & LOSER
MALE OR FEMALE

You're trying to lose people in the analysis to avoid the end outcome.

There are a few exceptions, but these are rare and non indicative of the hordes of people, who think gender is like choosing an ice cream and forcing the rest of us to subscribe to their lunacies.

Religion was the biggest man made myth to be given credibility and look how badly its fucked the world up, gender will be the next thing.

I don't see scientists concluding that it's half and half.

Also, can you confirm openly that you reject what the DSM-5 says about gender and gender dysphoria? Why do you choose your opinion over expert conclusions?

If you describe what is the case with a particular person, e.g. "they are biologically female while in their mind seeing themselves as male", then what gender they are depends on what definition of the word "gender" you go by.

If you take gender to mean biological sex, then that person's gender is female. If you take it to mean "what they identify as in their mind", then it is male.

I think the confusion arises out of the fact that the word "gender" in the modern sense is a jargon created in the social sciences. Most people don't really care about that specialist meaning, and they simply use it to mean "biological sex", which is the characteristic of a person people tend to be more interested in. I guess you could call this the popular meaning of the word.

I think people have also stopped using the word "sex" and instead use the word "gender" to mean the same thing because of how "sex" also refers to the sex act, which makes people feel awkward saying, "what sex are you?" :D

It makes sense that psychiatrists and the DSM are concerned with the mind and what goes on in there, so when they use "gender", they are using the specialist meaning rather than the popular one.

All that aside, if one doesn't want to cause offense in dealing with transgender people, it is probably best to refer to them as they wish to be referred to.

If someone is born white and "identifies" (sees himself in his head) as black, should his ID say black or should he be in a sanatarium?

If some guys studying such things created a new term, let's call it "mindrace", which meant "the race a person identifies as", then that person would be biologically white but his mindrace would be black.

That's basically what was done with the word "gender". It originally was only used in grammar, and it got given new specialist meanings in the 1950s, where it was about social roles rather than biological sex. Now, people don't want to talk about people's sex; they want to talk about people's gender, even if they are meaning the person's sex.

So, if a "specialist" comes up with something that defies reality, does that mean we should think about it, discuss it or even accept it?

In this case, I don't think they created something that defies reality. They are using a word, which they have assigned their own meaning to, to talk about the state of a person's mind.

But we've reached the point where one's mind decides what is reality, even though it defies it.

I think it is just a big confusion.

Transgender people are real though, so terms are needed to talk about them.

A transwoman would have to state their sex as male---since in this case the word "sex" always refers to biological sex.

But they would likely say their gender is female, because they won't be using "gender" to mean biological sex.

Maybe everyone should just avoid the use of the word "gender" and use "sex" instead (as it was before the past few decades), since that's probably what they mean. :D

I think most of these people have already decided that their intuitions weigh above the expert conclusions about transfolk, effective treatment to gender dysphoria, etc, so I have doubts about it being a confusion of the sort you're talking about. Of a different sort, sure.

Maybe, but I don't think the terminology helps.

The fact that "gender" takes the same values (male or female) as "sex" makes people think they mean the same thing, and the terms are used interchangeably all the time despite the former being introduced in special contexts.

"My gender is male" is a statement about what is in the mind, so it is not denying the physical reality of their body, which they are most likely well aware of.

Honestly, it confuses me too, but I tend to think of it like this (probably not how it really is, but useful for my thinking about it):

A person has a "chip" in their brain that controls which of the two groups, male or female, that they feel a sense of belonging in.

As social animals, we probably benefited from having an in-built sense of belonging to the appropriate group---same as how we could be thought of as having a "chip" for sexual attraction.

But maybe sometimes a male gets the female version of the chip, and vice versa. Then no matter what the rational mind says, there's a mismatch in how the person feels, which is obviously capable of causing great distress.

I say one love one heart

Let's stop da fighting on da Tweeter and smoke a reefer

Maybe it's the chip thing, maybe not. To your reply to me previously, I was considering saying: I agree, except that it depends on the audience, some people do use gender according to the psychology meaning.

Others still know that in scientific discussions, you should use the scientific jargon. Others still, leftwing or rightwing, have heard about the distinction (like all the people in this thread) and have chosen their side, either saying that these terms are the same and the term gender is meaningless, or that we should use the term gender separately from the term sex, as you suggest, which is the only real solution I think.

That's sort of why I think you won't just easily "dispel" this confusion for folk over here, they've at least heard of the distinction, they've just decided what they think of it. Due to evidence or not.

Ah well, just my two cents.

Which I appreciate <3

You have some weird essentialist view about this. No one is asking you to pretend that up is down. I don't really see what the problem is with distinguishing biological sex from gender?

Because indentifying as Cooller doesn't make you look or play like him, even if people around you pretend like it does.

Your analogy really misses the point. Why must biological sex be the same as gender identity?

Because it's the same thing. If you're born a man, then you're a man.
Self-perception has nothing to do with reality.
It's called gender identity disorder for a reason, and it comes with high sucide rates and chronic depression just like many other identity disorders we know of.
Also, lol - https://www.wattpad.com/341462536-complete-li...ist-of-all

No one is asking you to pretend that up is down.

The opposite. This shit gets pushed through politics and forces people to call males females and vice versa, or use some made up pronouns - one of many, many examples.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Men are women.

No.

Wrong. It also follows that just because you bleat something relentlessly and ad nauseum doesn't mean that your shitty ideological opinions are valid or grounded in reality or science.

https://imgur.com/dxfgVhF

https://imgur.com/8Bt79kC

Wow. They unironically use the "feminine penis" defense.

Because it's the same thing. If you're born a man, then you're a man.

That is what I'm asking you justify, can you do it? (Obviously, I am talking about biological sex at birth vs gender identity)

It's called gender identity disorder for a reason

It's not, it was reclassified as Gender Dysphoria to remove the stigma associated with the word "disorder". From Wikipedia:

Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person feels due to their birth-assigned sex and gender not matching their gender identity.

So mainstream Psychology seems to disagree with you.

The opposite. This shit gets pushed through politics and forces people to call males females and vice versa...

Which again just assumes that gender is fixed at the time of birth.

Believe what you want, but you don't get to call your arbitrary presuppositions fact while insinuating anyone who disagrees with you is crazy.

8/8 bait <3
Let's go!

Psychology is nigger of science.
Some niggas literally VOTED that being a faggot is normal.
It's not like anything changed.
2+2=5
That's the science behind it.

> Country: Poland

A beautiful place where yes means yes and no means no.
God bless <3
Have a nice day!

That's a compliment not an insult &#128514; Poland is a beautiful place

Psychology is nigger of science.
Some niggas literally VOTED that being a faggot is normal.
It's not like anything changed.

All the people outraged at me for considering these kinds of beliefs far-right not even looking at this sort of shit, it's normal.

Good alt-right board we got here.

Using "atl-right" unironically.
Sweet Lord.

Also, concept of 2 genders is not far right you mongoloid.

I know, I know, far-right is a better term. I'll use that for you, better? And puritan, who seems to be plussing your post in spite of the quote in the post you replied to.

Because here's what this shit leads to:

Absolute classic <3
But hey, science guize! :=)

What if I don't want to defeat capitalism? Is my only choice aligning with people fine with the quote of pacmanpl I quoted there?

Because you are categorizing everything you dont like or dont agree with as far-right or alt-right.
Oh, of course an alt right would say that. Oh, that is a right wing opinion.
He just proved a point where he called psychology a nigger of science and there you were, calling him alt right for that.

Racist language, homophobia, anti-trans sentiment and honkler memes. I'm pretty comfortable with calling him alt-right.

Virtue signalling to avoid the context, or hijack it.

ctrl-left

What does it mean to avoid or highjack the context?

Edit: are you saying he's being ironic to make a point?

No, just crass and for no reason. Other than baiting people...?

I'm honestly confused about what point you are making. When someone says clearly alt-right things, I should assume they are just baiting? And to do otherwise means I am virtue signalling?

Or are you saying I can't conclude someone is alt-right from what he said?

I'm saying to stick to the point even if they are alt-right.

Yeah well, his only meaningful contribution was the nigger-faggot post.

But it's virtue signaling to talk about his very bigoted contribution. If you don't have anything non-SJW to say, don't speak at all.

Yeah, not sure what point I am supposed to be sticking to since I never engaged him in any discussion. I don't really feel like debating over whether or not Psychology is the nigger of science, to be honest.

Apparently anything goes, so long as you never call anyone alt-right.

How is any of that connected to right-wing beliefs?

Racism and bigotry is a prominent feature of the alt-right (not nessecarily of "right-wing beliefs", a phrase which I never used). The absolutely cringey frenworld/honkler stuff is full of blatant racism.

>Racism and bigotry is a prominent feature of the alt-right

And soylet + cuckoldry are a prominent feature of the Left? Apparently so, with this logic.

Any thoughts on the frenworld/honkler thing?

Any thoughts on the soylent/cuckoldry thing?

They are stupid memes made by alt-right types to make fun of leftists or SJWs. Yes, I know you think the same about the racism/bigotry thing from the left.

Do you agree that the frenworld/honkler memes were full of racism?

No, I dont agree that those memes are "full of racism".
They are mostly satire - and they're racist when they reflect on racist things.

It's funny when a cartoon frog offends some people more than actual blatant racism in american media and politics.

It's a meme.
Not political platform.

I don't want to gas jews, burn homosexuals and state enforced girlfriends but these are funny ideas.
I have no problem with two guys trashing their anuses and dying of AIDS in their home but if you indoctrinate kids to mutilate their bodies and minds you are at best mentally ill.

everything you dont like or dont agree with as far-right or alt-right.

But I'm not. Why is this a piece of rhetoric that people keep saying if it's very clear that I and probably almost everyone else accused of this disagee or don't like way, way, waaay more things than I call alt-right or far right.

Where do you pick this blatant nonsense up?

I'm mostly sure that you're a troll after that last sentence tho lol.

Because you keep doing it. Read through your posts in this thread.

I'm mostly sure that you're a troll after that last sentence tho lol.

Oh for fucks sake. I said that he proved a point that whatever he says from a certain point of this discussion, it will be labelled as alt/far right. He can literally smash his fucking head onto keyboard, post it and either you or obi would be yelling that its far right.

But I'm not "keeping on doing it". I didn't move to call things alt/far right in nearly every chance I had to diagnose something that way. You're just saying it with no evidence. If there's several people being very bigoted, I'm not exactly at fault for noticing that.

I specifically said why I would consider him alt-right (the fact that you disagree is beside the point). I've had exchanges with 3 people in this thread so far and he's the only one I called alt-right, after the topic had already come up.

I'm not some alt-right bigot though.
Stop hurting my feelings, plz.

But don't you want the same thing as me? You want love, you want happiness and joy?

Spread the love my friend, one love one heart

Depends, some people spread "love" and "happines" that ultimately leads to enslavement.
They try to sell you candy and then fuck you in the ass in the van.
Many such cases.

There's a difference between blind love and standing up for what is right.

But life's all about spreading the positive vibes, love and peace and standing up for what is right.

It's like you see what the mainstream media and what the current culture is attempting to push; choose to not participate and do the opposite. Treat people with love, kindness, don't see colour, gender etc.

What does it cost us to be good to one another? Give a person a compliment, take the time out to listen and touch another person's heart and soul. It makes yours and their day, maybe week/month!

One Love One Heart <3

Comments like this always remind of a Red Dwarf episode, Demons & Angels.

Nice. A multi-day conference that covered so many things reduced to one cringey moment making the rounds...

Let's settle for far-HONK :=)

That is what I'm asking you justify, can you do it? (Obviously, I am talking about biological sex at birth vs gender identity)

Sure - someone born a man can't even fully become a woman.
Here's an example. A 51 year old man who's 6'6 sees himself as a highschool girl and plays basketball for a higschool girl team because people support his "gender identity". If you're seeing a highschool girl in him or consider it fair, there's no more to discuss.

It's not, it was reclassified as Gender Dysphoria to remove the stigma associated with the word "disorder". So mainstream Psychology seems to disagree with you.

It wasn't renamed because of any sort of breakthrough in psychiatry but rather because of political lobby. You can look into it.
Also, if "multiple personality disorder" gets renamed to "multiple personality dysphoria" and a term such as "pesonality fluid" gets pushed, it won't mean these people will magically stop suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia.
People with Gender Identity Disorder have extremely high suicide rates that's not affected by "transition" or their environment. there's also extremely high comorbidity (around 81%) with other personality disorders and the gender fluidity is proven to remit with time.
These people are mentally ill and need help in order to get better.

Was there ever a society without a religion?
I guess you can't have a human bean without a religion.
Even commies develop some primitive quasireligious shenanigans.
So be happy that we live in a part of the world formed by the best religion (although Anglicanism is suboptimal ;))))

lol this guy wants freedom to discriminate without people having the freedom to identify ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

I'm interested as to what JRE promotes, I've listened to a lot of his podcasts and completely removed the whole politcal affiliation with whoever, including himself and have drilled down that JRE is one of the only podcasts out there that'll get pretty much anyone out there, with a semblance of intelligence, to just offer up insights on different opinions, be it negative or positive.

Essentially a platform where anything goes, to a certain degree of course cause you know who Youtube and all the other companies are "run" by.

The thing with shows or podcasts like Joe's - is that the massive fanbase take whatever it is he is talking about or guests are sharing, as the gospel truth and refuse to do any due dilligence on the subject at hand.

Kinda like humanity as a whole. If it makes em happy, then it's their truth, even if it's not really true.

The human condition is what's fucked up. Not politics, not podcasts, just humans in general.

"The human condition is what's fucked up. Not politics, not podcasts, just humans in general. "

That's what it is, but it isn't humanity that's the issue, it's the mainstream media and the guys that are in control who want everyone to be fighting each other, so they stick people in made up groups and get us to fight one another instead of banding together, loving one another and changing the broken system that we have currently in place.

One love

I agree with this, except that I think given that we can't change humans, we should probably change the shows and the perception around them. I think if the general sense was that shows like JRE allow for very open, good, interesting conversations but there's significant faults with the format in conveying controversial or serious info, the end result would be so much better. It results in a lot of things conforming either to what flourishes in the format, which isn't necesarily truth, or what fits Rogan's biases (which we all have) as well as simply what his friend circle is.

As it is, a lot of hackery is seen as exciting or edgy and flourishes on that show even in science.

Then in politics there's corresponding edgy things that are just easy to latch onto for the audience in politics, in particular the antiSJW, anti-PC, anti-college culture type shtick that the IDW, which constitutes many of the political guests and even more of a network of invitations.

I think Joe Rogan is well intentioned in the colloquial sense, except that he's probably aware that he's being kinda callous, which probably makes him complicit in a more philosophical sense imo.

There's been a decent amount of criticism of his conservative political leaning (in terms of the show, not necessarily him), so much so that it almost seems like he's listening now. He's been having an increased amount of leftwing guests lately, I don't know if they'll become regulars the way IDW folk did. It's commendable nonetheless.

Overall I still think that it's a pretty mindless show most of the time, with lots of great, accessible stuff that people could be consuming from great scientists, academics and journalists instead. But Rogan's got a good personality for it, and having listened to so many of his podcasts, I can't help but choose to listen to it every now and again just based on how comfy it is.

Why are you and many others getting angry?

All of this division, worry, hatred isn't accidental it's been planned. The "System" or whatever you want to call it want you to hate each other over petty things.

Black, white, muslim, gay, straight, women, men, racism, sexism, anti-semitism do these things exist, yes. Do they exist on the mass scale that the mainstream media would like you to believe? No nowhere close but they want you to be constantly fighting and spewing hatred and division against each other so you're never going to wake up and see the big picture. Good people exist in every level of life, there's good people in the police, there's good people in government, there's good people everywhere but we like to box people into groups and that's not the way to do things.

Spread the love, you and everyone else we're not all seperate/independant, we're all connected and we need to respect and love one another because we're one big family.

Don't let the events of a few people dictate what you believe and think. I'm not going to tell you what to do because everybody has the right to do what they want so long as they're not hurting you or anyone else but turn off the news, stop watching the hate and division and focus on the love and see how much happier and less stressed you are.

We all come from the same source, you take away a man or woman's accent, their skin colour, their clothing and what do you find? We're the exact same we just look different and customize our personality and outfit to what we would like to be.

As Bob Marley said "One love One heart, every little ting is gonna be alright"

I'm just allowing you to see the real or the different side of the equation, nudging you a different direction with love.

Agreed with everything but this part

All of this division, worry, hatred isn't accidental it's been planned. The "System" or whatever you want to call it want you to hate each other over petty things.

Black, white, muslim, gay, straight, women, men, racism, sexism, anti-semitism do these things exist, yes. Do they exist on the mass scale that the mainstream media would like you to believe? No nowhere close but they want you to be constantly fighting and spewing hatred and division against each other so you're never going to wake up and see the big picture.

Hey everyone's got their own thing to do, I know what is really going on and I'm just trying to show people in a positive kind way hey look you're being played, try this.

One love One heart brother, have a great Saturday and weekend!

Have a good day, too!

lol faggots

I agree with furries being subhuman for sure, just degenerate bullshit like Drag Queens.

Does that count as peace and love, to you?

Hey man we've all said stuff in the past that we're not proud of, I could easily delete all my past comments but I don't because I'm only human and I'm not perfect just like you're not perfect.

One love

What does it promote?

All I see him do is interview people in a funny/good way.

LMAO DUDE FORGOT TO TELL MY OPINION ABOUT JOE ROGAN AHAH YOU WISH JUST KIDDING IDGAF ABOUT ROGAN IMHO FOR ME HES JUST ANOTHER HUMAN BEING WERE ALL THE SAME AT THE END DUDE LOL BUT TBH I FORGOT WHAT I WANTED TO SAY AHAH JUST KIDDING OFC I KNOW WHAT I WANT TO SAY YOU THINK AM SOME APE OR SOMETHING PLS GET OUT OF MY HEAD YOU FUCKING PSYCHO OH AND BTW YESTERDAY I WAS THINKING DUDE I MISS DRAGON BALL Z AND DRAGON BALL SUPER GOOD ANIMES TBH LOL JUST KIDDING TBFH I DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YELLOW PEOPLE BUT IM NO RACIST YOU WISH I WERE RACIST JUST ADMIT IT YOU FUCKING RACIST IVE ACTUALLY GOT SOME BLOOD OF YELLOW HUMANS AND BLACK HUMANS THAT WHY IM SO CHILL AND COOL AHAH JUST KIDDING YOU DON T KNOW ME HOW CAN YOU SAY IM RACIST FFS JAMERIO IS POOR AND RACIST BUT IM POOR AND FAT NOT RACIST FFS

Never go full retard

LMAO DUDE WANNA KNOW SOMETHING HELLA FUNNY LOL YESTERDAY I WENT BACK HOME FROM QUAKE

Pot smoking, abuse of allucinogens of any kind, homosexuality, edonism pushed to the extreme and as the main life objective, organic diets and relativism?

Pot smoking isn't bad, cannabis has a lot of health benefits and I don't remember ever hearing or someone proving that they died of cannabis intoxication unlike a certain legal substance.

At least not to my knowledge does he abuse hallucinogenic substances, he just promotes the use of DMT because it apparantly can open neuro pathways and can bring on some really intense perhaps life-changing experiences.

Not sure about homosexuality, don't know what edonism is same with the rest.

I think he's very funny, a great interviewer because he tries to make the other person feel at ease and he also has great rapport.

I think he's very funny, a great interviewer because he tries to make the other person feel at ease and he also has great rapport.

Yep, basically this. The guy is an entertainer and very personable. He does good interviews which is pretty amazing since the interviews are sometimes 2+ hours long. The fact that listening to two people talk for 2+ hours can be entertaining/interesting is an accolade for Rogan.

I don't listen to every podcast (maybe 5% of them and only when I'm doing a road trip or working on something where I can listen for 2+ hours straight) but he does bring on some very interesting people. Especially the non-political folks who are working in medicine, A.I., math/physics, etc.. People you might otherwise never hear about cause they're working on some obscure problem. If he brings on some idiots in between, so what? You can either not listen or hate-listen. Also, have some more faith in people being able to determine if what they're hearing is BS or not. If people can't figure it out on their own, then they're lost with or without Rogan's podcast.

Folks in this thread implying there's some ulterior, nefarious political motive probably projecting.

That and he's a hard-working mofo, deserves all the fame and money he gets.

Just look at how many podcasts he puts out weekly, then he's doing mma commentating amongst other things.

Liberalism is a center-right ideology. Whats your point?

The absolute state of leftism.
If you don't suck dicks you're right leaning.

Subhumans gonna sub.

And they would get shot first.

To clarify.
Furries, commies, faggots and other degenerates are subhumans.
They are simply used as a cannon fodder in a fight for next gommunism. Just like proletariat back in the day.
As soon as the new gommunism is established they will stand first in line to get bullet in the head for being useless, worthless, disgusting subhumans.
And that's the only good side of communism :=)

Yeah, "faggots", "degenerates", "sub-humans". You're kinda far-right and the way you brought up gayness as supposedly mine (or others') criteria for not being right-leaning out of nowhere just outs either your simplistic understanding of where being accepting of gay people can be on the spectrum, or your obsession with controlling folk for no reason like the authoritarian that you are.

Wrong.

Where were you in 1940s Germany mate?

lol faggots

I agree with furries being subhuman for sure, just degenerate bullshit like Drag Queens.

Drag queens are alright, they're mostly entertainers

Not surprised you didn't understand this phrase

"And they would get shot first"

Because commies are typically are very allergic to historical facts of the rise to power of communist parties in various countries.

"they would get shot first" refers to being shot by their own comrades. Like it happened in any single communist revolution, where as soon as a group gained enough power, it started slaughtering memebers of the same party due to excessively moderate positions, personal simpaties, and whatnot. In fact, Stalin was the main danger for any communist's life, and for the prolatariat's too, of course

Capitalism is far from perfect but out of all the possible economic variations I've read up on, it's still by far the best choice.

Communism is perfect in an ideal world; we unfortunately live in a world which is far from ideal.

What is this perfect world where the most skilled and knowledgeable are rewarded just the same as the ignorant and incompetent? What is perfect about devaluing labor, skill, effort, competence, hard-work?

Capitalism doesn't exactly equate to rewarding people fairly, it takes advantage more than it being anyway fair but it's still the best system we can think of.

Because no matter if a cleaner, a big investment banker have perhaps different levels of value, they both still have value and perform a job just like everybody else so they deserve proper treatment, that's what I believe.

The work-camps are proper treatment, yeah?

What a stupid thing to say, I'm not for communism in this world so why bother bringing something like that up?

In the current system we've been put under, it takes advantage of people to an unhealthy standard and treats the majority of its workers as a number, no wonder so many people are on prescription medication.

Even though Capitalism is the best system that we've found, I'll still never be for it because it forces a person to be immoral and to be a scumbag if they want to earn more wealth 9/10 times.

You gotta unpack that. How does it force you to be immoral and a scumbag?

I typed out an epic wall of text and got an error because I'm a dumbass

One love, Bulgarian chicks are A+

What's Bulgaria like to live in? Somewhere that I wouldn't mind going to

As far as europe goes it's awful, as far as the whole world goes it's still a european country. It's probably your typical eastern block country, with better weather. I'd tell you to try the seaside, but more and more bulgarians are choosing Greece for that.

Yeah but Bulgarian bitches are++++

Great asses and bodies

No, not right "leaning". You're either lefty or FAR right

The truth is right wing today because the left became retarded and started believing in fairy tales.
Even though Joe might be far from a genius he is still trying to be intellectually honest to himself.

Joe and intellectually honest are a complete oxymoron.

It's simply that with the thousands of guests Joe has had, some of them happened to not be enough fanatically left leaning, thus making him pretty much Hitler's son, in spite of being a californian pothead who's either high on weed or acid most of the time, is a complete degenerate, and surrounds himself with people of the same kind.

Okay I don't know if you realize this but using words like degeneracy and subhuman (like some others used) outs you as sympathetic to far-right views. So when you insert fanatically left-leaning randomly, or seemingly assume that I'm a commie for no reason, or use these relatively independent libertarian-ish factors like

Pot smoking, abuse of allucinogens of any kind, homosexuality, edonism pushed to the extreme and as the main life objective, organic diets and relativism?

seemingly implying (I know, I know, you didn't say it, but your question doesn't seem even relevant otherwise) they're leftwing characteristics when many rightwingers, especially rich and famous rightwingers, and many libertarians hold them as well... It again outs your far-right bias. Same with those classic

No, not right "leaning". You're either lefty or FAR right

type statements. Could you really not resist blasting out your obsession with controlling people WRT their sexuality or drug use when accusing me of misunderstanding the political spectrum?

Didn't you have the hammer and sickle as you flag until recently?

as a sarcastic joke

So if you take the flag that represents bolschevik values as a joke, why would you associate terms as "degeneracy" and "sub-humans" with far right? The far right (or extreme right) is most commonly correlated with philosophies such as the anarcho-capitalism, so I don't see the connection.

Degeneracy and sub-humans are accurate words describing actions and the target groups of the current Left. The support of illegal migration, which destroys (both economically and literally) cities from San Francisco through Paris to Malmo. The Left is blind to the increase of crimes West considers to be the most serious, which is murder, rape and pedophilia, or are even a part of it (like Epstein and his island).
Homosexuals are willingly represented by LGBTQ, which portrays them as anything BUT normal people and indoctrinates little children. The Left also encourages people to mutilate their bodies and genitalia based on feelings they have because they are mentally ill (I'm not sure if they support Body integrity dysphoria, which is very much the same thing as the gender identity disorder) rather than giving them the help they need.
You can also point out how "degenerate" the hypocrisy of the Left is when it comes to racism, sexual orientation, feminism or violence.

So, to me, both terms are more factual than political, or let alone right-wing.

Because degeneracy and subhuman are inherently dehumanizing terms, a thing the far right likes doing, especially when it relates to race, sexuality, gender and similar issues (especially when the word is associated with genes) which is part of the way it was used in this thread. Even ideas of a degeneracy as a decline of the West, seemingly innocent, tend to be way more popular on the far-right. Fascism is sometimes theorized to be palingenetic ultranationalism, a term that relates to a declining (even more so, degenerating) west or making your country great again quite neatly.

But then, I'm a lefty liberal who doesn't believe in "the west" (am I supposed to forget that all the identities comprising it considered themselves very separate and at odds, and sure it's an identity you can make up but you need to recognize the fleeting nature of it then), that LGBTQ is harmful to folk (there's so much that the people in that suffer that the representation LGBTQ offers helps that people tend to miss in my experience), that transfolk aren't mentally ill for their views of gender, etc.

So it seems we're quite far from eachother in terms of politics and I don't know that we can cover much of that here. I kind of try to be more narrow in most conversations for that reason--unlike many people here say, plenty of us lefties believe in conversations, and a narrowing of the convo is part of my way of trying to make those happen.

Commies by rejecting western civilization are dehumanizing themselfes willingly.
Goal of Marx was to "return/free" humans from religion, family, state etc. ergo become an animal.

You dont want people to "demonize" via "buzzwords", yet that is exactly what youre doing, over and over.

Also, sometimes, some people, theoretized...

How exactly is fascism, the rule of elites, connected to right wing, where individual freedom and responsibility comes first? Whats the connection of race to nationalism and traditionalism? How is degeneracy even a political term, when it describes circmustances where no values of any kind are made?

You're all over the place.

I seem all over the place because your understanding of political compass is whack. As an exercise, try wrapping the origins of the terms leftwing and rightwing onto your use of them.

Ideological (not using it in a derogatory sense, just a neutral one) political compasses don't work anyway, it must always be empirical, else you'll break your brain trying to not place everything you dislike on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Given this, not surprising that you find my points filled with buzzwords where I see none.

Dumb post full of factual inaccuracies, easily disregarded. Didn't even read it all.

just a joke doooood https://youtu.be/uPJDwWrWjFA?t=59

Okay i don't know if you realize but ANY word outs someone as sympathetic to FAR-right views, to certain people like you. It's just another way to try to keep absolute control over the narrative, by having people fearing the use on any word whatsoever regardless of context or original meaning (like in good 'ole soviet russia, when anything and everything was enough proof that you were an enemy of the proletariat and and party, and off to the gulag with you!)

So yeah, you can keep trying to use politburo intimidating techniques, i don't give a fuck and i'll keep using all the words in the dictionary whenever i need them.

Also again i'm not surprised you can't pick it up, but i'm kind of busting Joe's balls, since im big on MMA and some of his podcasts are interesting (not thanks to him), and he's a prime meme source.

He's not even homosexual. Just a fruity faggot.

Okay i don't know if you realize but ANY word outs someone as sympathetic to FAR-right views, to certain people like you.

Do you not see how plain and unabashedly simplistic these assumptions are? It's on the level of "he probably hates truth and goodness". I don't say this about everyone nor for every reason, but you just happily launch into your "lefties are controlling totalitarians just painting everything they don't like with a broad brush" without needing much of anything to do so. Forgetting that you are doing what you are accusing me of and plainly so, while you're just assuming that I am.

Your posts are just plainly wild conjecture, something a teenager who first got into politics and was convinced everyone who criticizes him simply does so because they're evil and are as simplistic as he (unwittingly) is:

No, not right "leaning". You're either lefty or FAR right

Keep beating up that man of straw.

you exist in a bubble of internet delusion

sure thing anon

I'll go obsess over the latest college deplatforming drama like JRE and the rest of real not internet bubble folk

tu quoque. Sad!

i'm pointing to me criticizing a bubble of internet delusion which would hint to me being able to recognize one, not saying that someone's inherently wrong about the issue for being in an internet bubble or something. Not surprising to see people throw out fallacies like trap cards tho, I hope you at least recognize to yourself that this is a dishonest way of communicating

i'm pointing to me criticizing a bubble of internet delusion which would hint to me being able to recognize one

"it's not possible for me to be deluded because i can recognize other instances of delusion". very good position. very rational. nice try at escaping from your infantile behavior of pointing the finger elsewhere when your own delusion is exposed. have sex, incel.

where did I say not possible? Will you just queue up further insults and accusations when previous don't work out? Did you expect film of me reading mainstream news, talking to your average down to earn folk, and now with this inceldom accusation, video of me having sex, if you're unhappy with the point I made? No, you're just a shithead online who likes flinging shit.

at least now I know that in all likelihood you do recognize your own dishonesty and are just happy spending your time on this

Cool, should be entertaining! After continuing to read the comments it took me about 3.5 seconds to reiterate my reasoning for never looking at twitter.

nerds better order one now
https://www.nicennaughty.co.uk/blow-yo-intense-ticklers.html

Out of stock

there was 2000 people on this place when i posted it, so its probably why

you can still get the pro stroker https://www.nicennaughty.co.uk/linx-cyber-pro...adset.html

or go for the ultimate in VR https://www.nicennaughty.co.uk/twerking-3d-cybersex-butt.html need a sexy black ass version, white chicks can't twerk

Twerking 3D Cybersex Butt is sold out too and that was the one I wanted

maybe I should get pro stroker

just stand there do nothing and chill, the way sex should be

sry to bring this up here, i don't have an esr account.

has anyone watched bob lazar on rogan?


what do you guys think on Paul Hellyer?`

am i a lowlifer whos mind starts believing randos because i don't have many hobbies these days?

GUYS I FARTED SO BAD ITS UP MY ANUS I FEEL HEAVY PAIN FFS BUT OBVIOUSLY IM KIDDING CUZ IM NOT FARTING LMAO IM NOT A GIRL WHAT DID YOU EXPECT AM AN ALPHA MALE I DO ONLY ALPHA THINGS HAHA LMAO AND LOOK AT CARMACK DUDE JUST LEFT THE SHIP ONFIRE FFS WHAT A BAD CAPTAIN HAVE TO ADMIT THO HES A GENIUS AND HE MADE THE BESTEST BASE GAME EVER THAT IS QUAKE III ARENA BUT Q3 WITHOUT THE COMMUNITY WOULDNT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING EITHER THAT SAID I THINK 2GD IS TOO SLOW WITH DIABOTICAL HOPEFULLY THE GAME WILL BE SHIT EVENTUALLY LOLMAO GUYS JUST KIDDING OFC I CARE A LOT ABOUT DIABOTICAL I WANT THIS GAME TO SUCCEED SO BAD BUT LOOK AT CARMACK WHY DOESNT HE COME BACK TO QUAKE INSTEAD OF LAUNCHING ROCKETS UP THE SKY LMAO BETTER DO THAT UP MY ANUS JUST KIDDING IM NO HOMO NOR A FUCKING CUNT HAHA GUYS I LOVE GIRLS OBVIOUSLY I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST GIRL BUT LOOK AT MY WINDOW STILL DARK AS FUCK I WONDER IF ITS CUZ OF THE NIGHT AND JUST CUZ AT NIGHT THERES NO LIGHT

Damn I need a drink now.

The show will consist of Carmack ranting about random things for two hours straight, with Joe shily trying to input something here and there, all the while trying not to look too technologically illitterate.

Bonus points for "in the '90s i had a T1 to play quake better, then i had to quit i was too addicted"

Self promotion about John's latest corporate shenanigans that will lead nowhere like the last 20 years of his career, but will surely make his wallet a little fuller with Facebook moneys.

it will lead to carmack being happy with VR after dreaming about it for 30 years, then he will quit and finally make elon musk happy and go work for space X. carmack is one of the 6 people elon follow's and already offered carmack a job a few years ago

all vector 4d math john is good with, his aerospace company was a bust like his drone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_Aerospace

Elon Musk, another snake oil salesman

He should play Minecraft with PewDiePie.

holy shit, the lgbt cult imploded on carmack's twitter

Why are faggots even following some nerd?

I wasn't aware that Carmack was any sort of political figure.

If X interviews Y, and they are not going to talk about politics, what does it matter what their political views are.

I suppose these twitter people think Carmack will be contributing to the popularity of Joe's show, which might mean more people are exposed to Joe's politics at some point.

We just can't have people hearing the opinions these twitter people disagree with. :D

I suppose these twitter people think Carmack will be contributing to the popularity of Joe's show, which might mean more people are exposed to Joe's politics at some point.

It's that, but I don't know that it matters anymore when Rogan is this big. Way, way bigger than Carmack.

Living in the States, I wasn't aware that Carmac had any following of any sort outside of Quake players, pc game historians and maybe some tech rocket enthusiasts interested in his second career...

VR is his thing now, so maybe he has some following from there.

oh yeah, I forgot about that. I have no interest in VR. Staring into a computer too much already for too many years...

this thread

TL:DR FOR THIS POST:

Left wing ideologues are so stupid they don't even know

Right wing ideologues are so stupid they don't even know

~FIN~

e n l i g h t e n e d c e n t r i s m

I’m spirit science-ing so fucking hard right now.

You shouldn't put individuals into groups, that's what the people in control do.

Reject labels, one love.

only god of war sanchez can save this thread

*prayers*

So when the fuck is it happening? we are halfway august already.

fsfsdf

lol what an abortion

You beat me to it. /impulse9

That was a great podcast. I’m almost tempted to get a vr headset.

[img1]