On May 17 2018 12:57 Santafairy wrote:
talk show host I don't like has sponsor
Yep they're all the same. That MR show too are just people trying to avoid jobs by becoming youtubers podcasters. Appealing to the contrarian crowd has gone full circle since the "right" has effectively established itself and exposed a lot of bs the hardcore progressives have been peddling for so long - now it's the "rights" turn to get their opinions scrutinized by going after the IDW or something, since the whole "alt-right" nazi racists shit didn't fly, and the world hasnt collapsed since Trump won.
On May 17 2018 12:57 Santafairy wrote:
talk show host I don't like has sponsor
Yep they're all the same. That MR show too are just people trying to avoid jobs by becoming youtubers podcasters. Appealing to the contrarian crowd has gone full circle since the "right" has effectively established itself and exposed a lot of bs the hardcore progressives have been peddling for so long - now it's the "rights" turn to get their opinions scrutinized by going after the IDW or something, since the whole "alt-right" nazi racists shit didn't fly, and the world hasnt collapsed since Trump won.
You're literally just making things up as you go along and don't even bother to argue anything, you just assert things constantly and run away when challenged, only to come back and assert more things. Sam Seder is just trying to avoid getting a job huh? It would have taken you 5 seconds if you wanted to not look like an idiot to look up the man's wikipedia. I mean shit, the guy has worked as an actor, director, writer, journalist, tv producer, talk show host, and he's getting shit from you? Liquidpoker's number one entertainment junkie? Mr. "what's so great about Shakespeare anyway, and why do people dislike Trump? Visit my shitty blog!" Let's just say that the accusations don't carry all that much weight. I just sincerely hope your kids are not home schooled.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 19/05/2018 07:25
1
Santafairy Korea (South). May 19 2018 08:14. Posts 2226
On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote:
"It's clear how your mind works" ... coming from a guy who believes in Cultural Marxism and cites Breitbart as a credible source over Wikipedia. Why do I find it hard to believe you have such clear insights into my mind?
yes unlike Dave Rubin Wikipedia is perfect, has no biases, and is never wrong. in fact why bother thinking when we have Wikipedia to do it for us?
On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote:
This really is as simple as it gets. There's no debate to be had about any minutiae. It's called "integrity" and it's a basic journalistic principle. You don't get to pretend that you're a moderate who has complete freedom to explore ideas when you're funded by the far-right who just want tax cuts.
>not open for debate
I wonder what side of the political spectrum you're on
"we're partnering with him to bring you issues on freedom, censorship and free speech, climate change, trans issues, black lives matter, religion, free will, capitalism, libertarianism, immigration, ayn rand, bernie sanders, feminism, war on drugs"
tinfoiler: THIS IS ABOUT CUTTING TAXES FOR THE RICH!
did you audit Dave Rubin? why don't you weigh this evil money from the far-right George Mason University against his $31k a month patreon and estimate his Youtube revenues and speaking fees
in fact can you even admit there's a right that isn't far?
You've totally blocked out the obvious explanation of Rubin's central thesis which is that the spectrum itself has moved around him and the rug been pulled out from under him and substituted this other pile of... well, I won't stoop to asking you the melting point of steel
There's no "thesis". It's just asserted. And that's exactly why I said that being a centrist is a problem. You're vulnerable to the tactics employed by the likes of Rubin and Peterson. Rubin is not a moderate nor a "classical liberal" to anyone who is slightly educated about these things. Neither is Jordan Peterson, despite him claiming that he is.
you're vulnerable to having a different opinion?
On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote:
They (the "intellectual dark web'') are the ones who have moved the spectrum and that's why they never have guests or debates with people who would call them out on their bullshit. Instead, they choose to lie about the left not wanting to debate them. The evidence is there in plain sight for anyone to see, but you're the last person here I expect to be able to see it in spite of that. You've shown multiple times before that you're not really interested in evidence.
This business you're introducing about dodging debates is new and irrelevant gossip
Sam Seder seems obsessed with Dave Rubin so I assume you've picked it up from him
Over 90% of humanities professors are registered Democrats, are we to believe they all love capitalism and the patriarchy and Western civilization and colonialism and imperialism and all the rest of it? None of them explicitly broadcast their political goal of destroying society and go on to teach the next generations the same creed? So nobody exists in the category of "cultural marxism" but this intellectual dark web smear is trending so conveniently everyone I disagree with is alt-right? How have they moved the spectrum exactly? That seems important but you didn't include it
On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote:
I mean, ffs, read the article linked by McNasty. Tell me in which texts notable classical liberals argued for enforced monogamy being a solution to anything, please.
I read the predictable NYT hit piece already
Most probably didn't have to worry about monogamy in society because it was guaranteed externally from politics, by religion
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole of how to organize sexual relationships and you think there's a better, more stable, more efficient way to engineer society than monogamy when half of our children are men and half are women then speak up, don't keep it a secret
On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote:
Oh and, here's one more of my meaningless associations, too. Dave Rubin has a video up on PragerU with over 6 million views. They are a conservative digital media organization. They have never had anyone on the left make videos for their channel. But yeah, sure, associations are meaningless and where there is smoke there is almost never any fire.
Do you have any point here an adult would be interested in besides conservatives and Republicans are Hitler?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
I forgot to reply to this earlier because of your huge garbled post. That you don't even understand what Patreon is is just hilarious. He doesn't need Patreon to cover his rent, he's saying if he doesn't have to work his main job he will be able to work more on his videos. That's literally what every small content creator does when they open a Patreon, it's not unique to anarchists.
How is dodging debates irrelevant? It's central to their narrative that the left is trying to avoid them, silence them and ignore unpleasant facts. There's nothing gossipy about it, you can browse JBP's YouTube channel and Rubin's and count the number of guests that they've had on that are legitimately on the left. Someone has actually done it for Rubin and it was like 2 people out of hundreds of videos or something insane like that. So much for wanting to hear a diversity of opinions. It's as diverse as Joe Rogan's guests on nutrition.
I don't follow Sam Seder. I got the videos from /r/enoughpetersonspam. I think they used to be friends or whatever, his show is part of the TYT network. The right totally dominates YouTube so it's completely normal that he picks up these stories.
Stroggoz identifies (or identified) as a classical liberal, so he can best explain to you why someone who makes videos for PragerU and keeps complaining about "the regressive left" isn't one. Jordan Peterson calls himself one too and he uses Rubin as an example of a moderate leftist. It's completely absurd to think that's not moving the spectrum. I don't have the time to walk you through this and no matter what I say you'll twist it and turn it or just ignore it when it gets too inconvenient to deal with. Stroggoz has a better chance than I do, so if he wants to pick it up he can.
Peterson didn't even mean "enforced monogamy". He literally meant enforced redistribution of sex so that the unlucky guys get a break. In other words, you gotta go back to women being property. It's incel talk. The solution to ending hate-related murders is not to go backward in time and further limit people's freedoms. Sexual relationships don't need to be organized by anyone other than individuals themselves. It's the current socio-economic system that breeds the kind of mentally unstable people that commit these mass murders. The same one that Peterson insists is natural and must be maintained at all cost.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 19 2018 00:46 Loco wrote:
I read the article and I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying people will exploit the fact that this law is not severe enough, and expose people to HIV for like revenge purposes or something?
Don't you think people should know you're HIV positive before you have sex w them? Under the new law, every person is basically free of guilt if they don't share that information with their partner, that's retardedly absurd
On May 19 2018 00:46 Loco wrote:
I read the article and I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying people will exploit the fact that this law is not severe enough, and expose people to HIV for like revenge purposes or something?
Don't you think people should know you're HIV positive before you have sex w them? Under the new law, every person is basically free of guilt if they don't share that information with their partner, that's retardedly absurd
Of course they should know. The article doesn't say they're free of guilt, it says the punishment for exposing someone to it has been diminished. You can spend a year in prison on a misdemeanor charge. Is it not severe enough? I'd say yeah, but I still fail to see how exactly this opens up people to "exploit the system." What exactly is there to be gained through the system?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Enjoy the comment section to this tweet. It's crazy that despite making it so obvious people like Santafairy still can't figure it out.
1. Rubin is the new standard for what is moderate
2. If you're to the left of Rubin, it's time to turn back, you've become an authoritarian
3. The head shot being used is Rubin making an anti-left video with none other than the most popular conservative YT outfit who only has conservative hosts make their videos and there has never been an exception
4. He publicly stated he would vote for Trump in 2020 if he's running against a progressive
Not incriminating enough on its own? Ok, you just learned he gets money from the IHS, which is uncontroversially a right-libertarian think tank. I think it's maybe, just maybe time to reconsider that they are moving the spectrum.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 19/05/2018 11:42
1
Santafairy Korea (South). May 19 2018 11:41. Posts 2226
I forgot to reply to this earlier because of your huge garbled post. That you don't even understand what Patreon is is just hilarious. He doesn't need Patreon to cover his rent, he's saying if he doesn't have to work his main job he will be able to work more on his videos. That's literally what every small content creator does when they open a Patreon, it's not unique to anarchists.
Try doing some thinking once in a while instead of just reacting.
I didn't say anything about anarchists, assbrain, he's an anarchist, it says so in big fucking letters, that's why you graced us with his content
I don't know who that is but if you posted a 20 minute video of her being a nobody like you're educating people with a well-curated source just because she shares your bonkers take on things while bragging how you can't stand people who are actually successful because they're all shills I'd have to make fun of both of you just the same
On May 19 2018 09:57 Loco wrote:
How is dodging debates irrelevant? It's central to their narrative that the left is trying to avoid them, silence them and ignore unpleasant facts. There's nothing gossipy about it, you can browse JBP's YouTube channel and Rubin's and count the number of guests that they've had on that are legitimately on the left. Someone has actually done it for Rubin and it was like 2 people out of hundreds of videos or something insane like that. So much for wanting to hear a diversity of opinions. It's as diverse as Joe Rogan's guests on nutrition.
so you agree universities lack diversity of thought?
further who cares? they can have anyone they want on? why don't you show me the list of liberals they refused to have on and the reasons why? because if the tolerant liberals you think are missing from his broadcasts are anything like you they probably don't want to go on his evil gross problematic shill show to begin with
On May 19 2018 09:42 Loco wrote:
I don't follow Sam Seder. I got the videos from /r/enoughpetersonspam. I think they used to be friends or whatever, his show is part of the TYT network. The right totally dominates YouTube so it's completely normal that he picks up these stories.
Stroggoz identifies (or identified) as a classical liberal, so he can best explain to you why someone who makes videos for PragerU and keeps complaining about "the regressive left" isn't one. Jordan Peterson calls himself one too and he uses Rubin as an example of a moderate leftist. It's completely absurd to think that's not moving the spectrum. I don't have the time to walk you through this and no matter what I say you'll twist it and turn it or just ignore it when it gets too inconvenient to deal with. Stroggoz has a better chance than I do, so if he wants to pick it up he can.
Peterson didn't even mean "enforced monogamy". He literally meant enforced redistribution of sex so that the unlucky guys get a break. In other words, you gotta go back to women being property. It's incel talk.
<irrelevant Reddit snapshot>
(made a video)
explain to us in your own words what you believe Dave Rubin means when he says "the regressive left" please, I wonder if it's going to be different than the thousands of times Dave Rubin has gone on about it
let me see here do I want it from the horse's mouth or do I trust this internet radical that a famous professor and psychologist finally conveniently let it slip in an NYT profile that he wants women to be property... Why would I listen to you of all people telling me what Peterson literally meant, did you ask him? Or a snippet from an article? It's extraordinary naivete that you can't even realize what the subject is
You remember the exact same article where he claims hypergamous men make everyone unhappy? So he wants them to be property too, right?
Biologically we have various mating strategies but the only way to scale a solution to a societal level is monogamy because we're in perfect supply for each other, that's why it's enforced, it comes from society and cultural pressures and not biological necessity or genetic design
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
Last edit: 19/05/2018 11:42
1
Santafairy Korea (South). May 19 2018 11:49. Posts 2226
On May 19 2018 10:23 Loco wrote:
Enjoy the comment section to this tweet. It's crazy that despite making it so obvious people like Santafairy still can't figure it out.
1. Rubin is the new standard for what is moderate
2. If you're to the left of Rubin, it's time to turn back, you've become an authoritarian
3. The head shot being used is Rubin making an anti-left video with none other than the most popular conservative YT outfit who only has conservative hosts make their videos and there has never been an exception
4. He publicly stated he would vote for Trump in 2020 if he's running against a progressive
Not incriminating enough on its own? Ok, you just learned he gets money from the IHS, which is uncontroversially a right-libertarian think tank. I think it's maybe, just maybe time to reconsider that they are moving the spectrum.
Apparently you have no idea how fickle politics is and are operating from this end-of-history assumption that wherever political leanings were when you graduated university is how they'll be distributed forever
in 2008 Obama and Clinton were against gay marriage, now it's law and well-supported and normalized and Obama moved the frontier to putting transexuals in the military, it's the rapid change of people's positions that moves the spectrum, not people talking about how their beliefs haven't changed but everyone moved past them
It's like saying scientists are the ones who are changing the climate because they used a thermometer
4. so what? I've heard for almost 3 years how Trump isn't a conservative from the likes of shitposters
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
Santafairy Korea (South). May 19 2018 11:53. Posts 2226
I have watched like two Rubin Report interviews, Lawrence Krauss and Larry Elder, and he very plainly says "Defending my liberal values has become a conservative position," now what is the controversy?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
I don't care about "liberals" who appeared on his show. Being center-left isn't being a leftist. I'm talking about actual leftists -- people who would push back on the things he says. I'm talking about for instance Abby Martin who was on Rogan's podcast recently. Do you know there's a massive difference between someone like Abby Martin and Christina Hoff Sommers? To answer your question, I'm pretty sure there is a running joke about how Contrapoints has tried to get herself invited on to Rubin's podcast. That would be a good start, even JBP's fanbase appreciate her, but apparently that's not enough for Rubin. One of his guests even suggested it during the interview and he said "yes I've heard the name before" but nothing came of it.
"so you agree universities lack diversity of thought?"
Not in the sense that they need people who would want to teach phrenology, no. Any clue how much the economics departments who are dominated by conservatives value diversity of thought?
Ok, let's assume that Peterson really did literally mean "enforced monogamy". How does that make any sense? What does monogamy mean? You have to stay with one person. That's it. How does that help? You still have to find that one person who will be forced to remain in a monogamous relationship with you and they have to want to have sex with you. It literally doesn't solve the incel problem that he's answering. Unless the woman is your property, as they have historically been and Peterson has directly denied, and as Dennis Prager argued:
On May 19 2018 10:53 Santafairy wrote:
I have watched like two Rubin Report interviews, Lawrence Krauss and Larry Elder, and he very plainly says "Defending my liberal values has become a conservative position," now what is the controversy?
I would have to be familiar with them and watch those interviews. All I know is Krauss is a massive creep if not a rapist and he has a habit of making a fool of himself. Again, I don't care about confused liberals. Lindsay Shepherd is a great example. She called herself a leftist all her life and made a pathetic "why i'm leaving the left" video and explained why she in fact has always been a centrist. You can't always take people's statements at face value. You're not a leftist because you ride a bike for transportation and you think gay marriage is acceptable in 2018. You're not a leftist when you're inviting white nationalists to speak at your college. Basic common sense.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 19/05/2018 12:14
1
Santafairy Korea (South). May 19 2018 12:21. Posts 2226
lol
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
Santafairy Korea (South). May 19 2018 12:28. Posts 2226
On May 19 2018 10:53 Santafairy wrote:
I have watched like two Rubin Report interviews, Lawrence Krauss and Larry Elder, and he very plainly says "Defending my liberal values has become a conservative position," now what is the controversy?
I would have to be familiar with them and watch those interviews. All I know is Krauss is a massive creep if not a rapist and he has a habit of making a fool of himself. Again, I don't care about confused liberals. Lindsay Shepherd is a great example. She called herself a leftist all her life and made a pathetic "why i'm leaving the left" video and explained why she in fact has always been a centrist. You can't always take people's statements at face value.
no you wouldn't, Dave Rubin says all the time that defending my liberal values has become a conservative position, why would you have to watch those interviews? what are you talking about? all I'm saying is I'm not some expert Dave Rubin fanboy, I've only watched two interviews, and... Lawrence Krauss is a rapist
my sides
On May 19 2018 11:12 Loco wrote:
You're not a leftist because you ride a bike for transportation and you think gay marriage is acceptable in 2018.
wow you make a great point sounds like the political spectrum has moved
On May 19 2018 11:12 Loco wrote:
You're not a leftist when you're inviting white nationalists to speak at your college. Basic common sense.
welp
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
Last edit: 19/05/2018 12:30
1
Santafairy Korea (South). May 19 2018 12:36. Posts 2226
who is the shill? someone who reasons himself to a set of beliefs and principles and maintains them, or the person who dedicates their life to a fleeting and constantly moving intangible idea of "leftishness" and holds that as the highest value in a perpetual game of political football?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. May 19 2018 12:45. Posts 3093
how the fuck do you enforce monogamy? Will you no longer be allowed to be single? Put women out of the work force so they are forced to depend on a man for sustenance? And the notion that this guy is 'defending essential freedoms'? Like the idea that being allowed to call transpeople by their 'apparent birth-gender' is more of an essential freedom than being allowed to freely choose who you have sex with and when you have sex with them?
I get why incels support him because they are desperate to get laid and he's trying to help them out with that. But others trying to jump through hoops to justify this statement? It's laughable. I mean you could say 'okay this is clearly a retarded idea from his side, but overall he's still bringing about an important message', and I'd be fine with that. I personally disagree with him on mostly everything policy wise, but he's never exposed himself as retardedly hypocritical before. There are leftist thinkers that I overall support but where i'd still distance myself from individual statements that they make - everybody is going to be flat out wrong every now and then if they voice their opinion on every subject. You don't have to pretend that this is any different from that.
lol POKER
Last edit: 19/05/2018 12:46
1
Santafairy Korea (South). May 19 2018 13:05. Posts 2226
enforced monogamy is an academic term in biology/psychology
it doesn't mean "the government points a gun at women and forces them to have sex with neckbeards" but that's probably what the NYT author cleverly wants you to assume which is why the mention is so brief, and leaves so many people scratching their heads after the article going wait what is he talking about, without any elaboration, it's not fair to have a severe reaction to an incomplete idea, I wish we had his whole thought
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
Last edit: 19/05/2018 13:14
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. May 19 2018 13:16. Posts 3093
Sorry but I don't really accept that he's just describing an academic term. He says in the interview 'The cure for that is enforced monogamy.' That clearly sounds like a political recommendation, not as a statement of fact of how some biological creatures procreate.
I mean JP himself seemingly agrees that this is inconsistent in terms of him generally being negative towards equality of outcome-ideologies but in this case being for an equality of outcome-ideology because 'preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.'
Also @Loco regarding my previous "how children will be raised" question, I probably didn't express myself correctly. I don't care if a third-type-gender people get to adopt a baby/ have children on their own and how they raise them as long as it doesn't hurt the child, indeed what they do in their home is their business. The question is - how do we stop insane people like these - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...ve-father-mother-raised-daughter.html
These scenarios should never occur. It's a slippery slope as potential laws that could protect such children could directly end up hurting the third-type-gender people though, so at what point do we set borders and balance the basic human rights?
Also under the new "law" about HIV it's HIGHLY unlikely that anyone would end up in jail in practice. Not to mention his argument of "people being more inclined to test themselves for HIV as that would reveal if they are HIV positive because of the new law" is a complete joke. I highly doubt there are people out there who wouldn't test themselves purely because they'd otherwise be able to abuse the previous law... what kind of a joke is that?
