Author Topic: The Intellectual Wank Dad [ ot ] jordan peterson Jordan Peterson JORDAN PETERSON  (Read 243101 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

curly

  • cultural maoist
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #780 on: April 09, 2018, 06:31:28 PM »
if you're a detractor or fan(I'm neither)

 ::) :jerkingyourselfoff

Yeah breh you're a totally neutral arbiter unlike us silly Americans with our partisanship

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #781 on: April 09, 2018, 06:35:39 PM »
if you're a detractor or fan(I'm neither)

 ::) :jerkingyourselfoff

Yeah breh you're a totally neutral arbiter unlike us silly Americans with our partisanship
You're the kind of moron I dont bother talking seriously to  :trumps

curly

  • cultural maoist
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #782 on: April 09, 2018, 06:43:08 PM »
we're all eating from the trash can of ideology, and if you think you aren't you're lying to yourself

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #783 on: April 09, 2018, 06:48:30 PM »
I'm pretty happy to argue about trash like youtube videos of girls sticking their legs into actual trash cans, so i'm not above anything on this earth, but when someone tells me that i'm the very thing that I just said i'm not without knowing me well, I'm going to take it as a signal to talk shit  :whew

curly

  • cultural maoist
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #784 on: April 09, 2018, 06:52:54 PM »
I know you're a little bitch

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #785 on: April 09, 2018, 06:56:30 PM »
Dude needs to learn the difference between data and ideas derived from data, his continual need to try and tie data to the worst possible ideas that can be derived from them is super frustrating to listen to.

Harris is defending Charles Murray, right?

Cause Murray certainly has some ideas that go along with his "data."

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #786 on: April 09, 2018, 07:00:52 PM »
Dude needs to learn the difference between data and ideas derived from data, his continual need to try and tie data to the worst possible ideas that can be derived from them is super frustrating to listen to.

Harris is defending Charles Murray, right?

Cause Murray certainly has some ideas that go along with his "data."
No he's not, he says many times he's not defending the conclusions Murray comes to and in fact him and Klein seem to agree outcome wise. He very much tries hard to get Klein to separate the data from Murray's conclusions also, but the Klein refused to change.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #787 on: April 09, 2018, 07:01:52 PM »
Dude needs to learn the difference between data and ideas derived from data, his continual need to try and tie data to the worst possible ideas that can be derived from them is super frustrating to listen to.

Harris is defending Charles Murray, right?

Cause Murray certainly has some ideas that go along with his "data."
No he's not, he says many times he's not defending the conclusions Murray comes to and in fact him and Klein seem to agree outcome wise. He very much tries hard to get Klein to separate the data from Murray's conclusions also, but the Klein refused to change.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #788 on: April 09, 2018, 07:02:17 PM »
One thing that Klein does in this pod that Harris doesn't correct is repeating Murray's statement that intelligence is partly genetics and partly environmentally influenced, and that we prefer intelligence be an environmental factor as that is correctable but that all attempts at changing intelligence through social policy and approach has failed so far and then restates that as Murray saying that racial differences in the mean of IQ are immutable. That's two very different statements. Saying we have not yet found a way to increase intelligence outside of general improvements to health and nutrition does not mean any intelligence differences are absolutely immutable and thus any disparities justifiable. (Which is the extended accusation.)

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #789 on: April 09, 2018, 07:04:19 PM »
Oh, Murray's been saying we need to try different things to close the gap?

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #790 on: April 09, 2018, 07:10:56 PM »
The podcast (form Harris' point of view) isnt about Murray's conclusions while for Klein it very much is. It's worth listening to if you want to hear a couple of grown men talk past each other (they both give a good enough accounting of what they are saying for it not to be clear) I give Harris a lot of credit for trying to clear this up but Klein seemed intent on snuffing out this conversation

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #791 on: April 09, 2018, 07:12:08 PM »
The podcast (form Harris' point of view) isnt about Murray's conclusions while for Klein it very much is. It's worth listening to if you want to hear a couple of grown men talk past each other (they both give a good enough accounting of what they are saying for it not to be clear) I give Harris a lot of credit for trying to clear this up but Klein seemed intent on snuffing out this conversation

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #792 on: April 09, 2018, 07:14:15 PM »
The podcast (form Harris' point of view) isnt about Murray's conclusions while for Klein it very much is. It's worth listening to if you want to hear a couple of grown men talk past each other (they both give a good enough accounting of what they are saying for it not to be clear) I give Harris a lot of credit for trying to clear this up but Klein seemed intent on snuffing out this conversation

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #793 on: April 09, 2018, 07:40:06 PM »
I know you're a little bitch

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #794 on: April 09, 2018, 07:54:20 PM »
(I'm neither)

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #795 on: April 10, 2018, 09:27:38 AM »

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #796 on: April 10, 2018, 01:59:55 PM »
Okay, so after listening to the podcast, some thoughts:

- Harris kept trying to steer the conversation to just talk about the "facts" and "data" of Murray's work. I believe Ezra doesn't necessarily think that the data Murray has is inaccurate per se, but that there is no broad consensus on IQ like Harris keeps insisting. But the actual science itself seems to not even really be the main issue Ezra has with Murray and Harris. The far bigger, and more salient point Ezra was trying to make was that you can't look at data in a vacuum. You can't disassociate it from the social policies Murray and people who like his work are trying to implement, and you can't discuss data on IQ without acknowledging the environmental factors that were involved in suppressing Black people since the country's founding.
- Aside from the MLK thing, I also loved how he mentioned the story of his black friend who made him feel better about not prefacing any race and science discussion with "I'm not racist", because clearly, THAT'S the issue here.
- The fact that Harris seems perfectly fine with discussing things with people like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Charles Murray, but refuses to do the same to someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates, because he will argue in "bad faith" says a lot about the guy.
- Harris truly seems to think that he's the only one on the planet incapable of having any sort of bias whatsoever. When he talks about shit like how it's okay to racially profile muslims, that's not an example of him playing "identity politics". It's only when other people do so.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #797 on: April 10, 2018, 02:18:09 PM »
Check out John McWhorter and Glenn Loury on Coates. Those are the two fellows I posted a page back that nobody seemed to watch. Loury is also the guy that told Harris to stop qualifying himself.  He's not just a black bud of Harris, but a Professor at Brown University.

There is a lot of people who can't be talked to in good faith. What is good faith? It's honesty. What is bad faith? Well, it's when Harris repeatedly brings the slanderous things that Vox said about Harris to Ezra's attention and Ezra completely dodges the issue. Vox and Ezra have continually been dishonest in their approach. Harris has said that when he feels Shapiro or Peterson misrepresent him and he addresses them about it, they apologize, correct it and don't repeat the misrepresentation. Ezra continually does not hold himself to account for the slanders issued and completely avoids even responding to Harris about them when Sam repeats what was written to Klein. It's slimy and weak.

And there really isn't much real debate on IQ. It's one of the most reliable metrics in its field. They have to continually refine the test to improve its accuracy. (It can be repeated with some variation between test results.) The fact that Klein never responds to or understands the way IQ works and that the mean of a population isn't significant because of the variance within tells me that Klein isn't at all interested in the science or data. In fact, the discussion between Harris and Klein is similar to what Harris would have run into with a Alt-Right figure. The hard concern for population IQ and treating it with too much importance and the idea that IQ differences are equal to superiority and inferiority differences are all racist viewpoints that Klein has.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #798 on: April 10, 2018, 02:24:18 PM »
The only exposure I have to Coates is through comics, and I cant say many positive things about his stories with Marvel.

Nola

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #799 on: April 10, 2018, 02:36:08 PM »
Okay, so after listening to the podcast, some thoughts:

- Harris kept trying to steer the conversation to just talk about the "facts" and "data" of Murray's work. I believe Ezra doesn't necessarily think that the data Murray has is inaccurate per se, but that there is no broad consensus on IQ like Harris keeps insisting. But the actual science itself seems to not even really be the main issue Ezra has with Murray and Harris. The far bigger, and more salient point Ezra was trying to make was that you can't look at data in a vacuum. You can't disassociate it from the social policies Murray and people who like his work are trying to implement, and you can't discuss data on IQ without acknowledging the environmental factors that were involved in suppressing Black people since the country's founding.
- Aside from the MLK thing, I also loved how he mentioned the story of his black friend who made him feel better about not prefacing any race and science discussion with "I'm not racist", because clearly, THAT'S the issue here.
- The fact that Harris seems perfectly fine with discussing things with people like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Charles Murray, but refuses to do the same to someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates, because he will argue in "bad faith" says a lot about the guy.
- Harris truly seems to think that he's the only one on the planet incapable of having any sort of bias whatsoever. When he talks about shit like how it's okay to racially profile muslims, that's not an example of him playing "identity politics". It's only when other people do so.

Which is ironic because you see him do the EXACT same things he accuses Ezra of only a minute later in their conversation at certain points. Where he chastises Ezra for not arguing on the merits of the facts and then he goes into a long diatribe that is essentially his perception of the motives, psychology, or intent of Ezra's framings and word choice, gets offended by that, and uses the derived assumptions as a punching bag to beat up on. Like continually trying to claim Ezra is engaging in moral panic or unintended intellectual dishonesty, when Ezra has to keep correcting him that he is not. But Harris won't take that for an answer. In all honestly I was incredibly disappointed in Harris's performance. As Ezra I think rightly points out, and I see this also with people like Peterson, they are quick to see psychological failings and fallacies in others, but reluctant to see them in themselves. I would add, so much so that they don't even recognize that in the process of applying them without evidence to others, they are inexplicably engaging in the very things they often accuse the other person of doing.

Overall though I thought the conversation, as far as Murray's work was concerned, was fairly unproductive. And why I would of preferred Harris nut up and discuss this with the researchers that are the actual challengers to Murray's work. Instead of just trying to label them as a way to dismiss them and decline engagement. Which is why this conversation happened with Klein and not the people that penned the actual op-ed's, that he had originally suggested to speak to Harris.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 02:46:31 PM by Nola »

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #800 on: April 11, 2018, 06:10:36 PM »
OH EM GEE

I am posting Peterson. Why would I do that if I get annoyed at the bitching? Because this one is him addressing some difficult questions that surround him at a speaking event.



Includes a question about IQ. Questions about extreme right vs extreme left. A question about feminine totalitarianism that he answers via a yet un-published study he did with a student which is kind of interesting.

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #801 on: April 11, 2018, 06:37:17 PM »
Check out John McWhorter and Glenn Loury on Coates. Those are the two fellows I posted a page back that nobody seemed to watch. Loury is also the guy that told Harris to stop qualifying himself.  He's not just a black bud of Harris, but a Professor at Brown University.

So I heard of this Loury guy, but didn't know too much about him. Given what Harris said about him, I was able to make some educated guesses about what kind of person he is. Sure enough, he's a black intellectual who happens to disagree with most other black intellectuals. He hates "political correctness" and is very concerned about black on black crime, and strawmans the hell out of Coates position on the problems of black society:

Quote
So Coates's historical account is a lie. It tells only one part of the story. It erases the responsibility that African Americans have for our own condition. I refuse to accept that we don’t have responsibility for our condition. I refuse to accept that we're not free-acting agents able to determine our own future.

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12915036/race-criminal-justice-inequality-glenn-loury-ta-nehisi-coates

No mystery why Sam seems to like this guy and doesn't like Coates.

Quote
There is a lot of people who can't be talked to in good faith. What is good faith? It's honesty. What is bad faith? Well, it's when Harris repeatedly brings the slanderous things that Vox said about Harris to Ezra's attention and Ezra completely dodges the issue. Vox and Ezra have continually been dishonest in their approach. Harris has said that when he feels Shapiro or Peterson misrepresent him and he addresses them about it, they apologize, correct it and don't repeat the misrepresentation. Ezra continually does not hold himself to account for the slanders issued and completely avoids even responding to Harris about them when Sam repeats what was written to Klein. It's slimy and weak.

Ezra mentioned that there were some things he retracted from one of the previous articles that he said were either unfair, or maybe out of line. Maybe he didn't go far enough for Harris, but Ezra made an attempt. Still, all of this is really dumb because Harris wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to associate with people like Murray, but doesn't want the stink of being associated with people like Murray. Harris bitched several times about how the bullies at the SPLC for linking the Vox article criticizing Harris and Murray. Why is Ezra responsible for what they do, but Harris thinks he should have no responsibility for how other people might view him for his associations?

Quote
And there really isn't much real debate on IQ. It's one of the most reliable metrics in its field. They have to continually refine the test to improve its accuracy. (It can be repeated with some variation between test results.) The fact that Klein never responds to or understands the way IQ works and that the mean of a population isn't significant because of the variance within tells me that Klein isn't at all interested in the science or data. In fact, the discussion between Harris and Klein is similar to what Harris would have run into with a Alt-Right figure. The hard concern for population IQ and treating it with too much importance and the idea that IQ differences are equal to superiority and inferiority differences are all racist viewpoints that Klein has.

I'm not going to argue about the scientific validity of IQ among different races because 1) I don't know much about the topic and 2) I have no interest in that sort of thing. But again, I think that discussion is irrelevant to the main argument that Ezra was making, which was that you can't observe data and facts without some form of context. Ezra is not an expert on IQ (and never claimed to be), but he knows his shit when it comes to history, which is why he took issue with Harris' podcast with Murray because Harris just mindlessly let Murray speak without any real pushback about the history of suppression of black people.

The entire discussion was really pointless because Harris didn't want to address what Ezra was actually complaining about. Again, Ezra never claimed to be an expert in genetics or IQ, which is why he wanted to recommend one of the writers for the original Vox article. Harris, for reasons unknown, didn't want to do that. Imagine that...

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #802 on: April 11, 2018, 08:39:59 PM »
Your reaction to Loury reads like "oh, he's one of those", which is not a good sign.

Quote
He wants to associate with people like Murray, but doesn't want the stink of being associated with people like Murray. Harris bitched several times about how the bullies at the SPLC for linking the Vox article criticizing Harris and Murray. Why is Ezra responsible for what they do, but Harris thinks he should have no responsibility for how other people might view him for his associations?

Why does there have to be the sort of stink that exists for talking to Murray? This racist, eugenics stuff is nonsense. And it doesn't change the fact that the information is there. This is why Harris brings up the neandrathal point. We'll find out things over time. We need to be able to handle them. From what I've found, most of the hate for Murray is because he's found evidence that social programs of the New Deal have stopped closing the gap and may be creating new problems. When Ezra says his fear is Murray's impact on policy, he's really crying out that he's threatening a pet democratic voter base of the eternally dependent. Which Murray proposes to replace with UBI. I'm not a fan of UBI and I think you do need a certain amount of social protection. However, that entire disagreement isn't engaged fairly and turns into throwing around racism and using scare tactics because the politically tribal won't face the results of their policy.

Which is why Harris bringing in the SPLC is relevant, because the SPLC is basically a political tool that uses the same scare tactics to shakedown wealthy, sheltered east coast white liberals for donations. And it really doesn't care who it runs over with slander in order to do so.

Also, you need to better understand how IQ works than Ezra does to have the conversation Ezra does. I recall that he tries to use Flynn to say that IQ could be explained entirely through environmental factors or at least the gap could be. The probability of that is very low yet not absolutely zero. That is what Flynn is saying because that's how something like this works. For "oppression" to account for this entirely you have to throw out the biological. For biology to account for it all then you have to throw out environment. You don't do that either. 

It's just not reasonable to cry out at Sam for not invoking enough of the history of oppression when Sam is looking at ti scientifically. Oppression is a universal human experience, especially once you go evolutionary and extend what you're looking at over hundreds to thousands of years. Slavery and Jim Crow are just too small a piece of history to blame it all upon. You have to throw out the distribution whole, because you would have to explain how the highest ends of that population escape the problem. You'll notice how Ezra completely avoids discussing how Asian groups score higher than others or how Jews score higher. Both of those groups have gone through great periods of oppression.

It's best dealt with by looking at the individual, which Ezra does not do. The scientists he drags in are dishonest about the subject. They are cherry picked to defend the attack. When you're dealing with such a highly controversial topic then you are going to have people who abuse the political climate to prop themselves up as defending the moral good rather than be honest about the topic.

And the end result isn't anything of value is done, but that the topic is left to the shadows of science or in the hands of the ethnic supremacists. My view is that Klein and Vox are just puppets for higher ups who don't want Blacks to look at social programs as possibly not working for them. The same as immigration, its largely a fucking war over vote outcomes rather than any real moral battle. Because the moral battle would realize its handing the topic over to the white supremacists and that's dangerous. The alt-right will know the science and warp it to their aims. If the public doesn't know that's happening then you're handing over the entire topic to the worst people.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #803 on: April 11, 2018, 08:55:52 PM »
Also, you need to better understand how IQ works than Ezra does to have the conversation Ezra does. I recall that he tries to use Flynn to say that IQ could be explained entirely through environmental factors or at least the gap could be. The probability of that is very low yet not absolutely zero. That is what Flynn is saying because that's how something like this works. For "oppression" to account for this entirely you have to throw out the biological. For biology to account for it all then you have to throw out environment. You don't do that either.

Anyone spotting the same underlying assumption to this that I am?

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #804 on: April 11, 2018, 09:22:23 PM »
Not a good look, oblivion

Regarding what?

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #805 on: April 11, 2018, 11:22:52 PM »
Your reaction to Loury reads like "oh, he's one of those", which is not a good sign.

I mean, you made a reference to him being a professor at Brown as if that somehow made him apolitical, and that his words should be heeded more than most other black intellectuals.

Though, for record, I don't think anyone is (or can be) apolitical, but let's not simply brush away the idea that Harris referenced someone who just coincidentally happened to align with his own views on race.

Quote
Why does there have to be the sort of stink that exists for talking to Murray? This racist, eugenics stuff is nonsense.

No, it's not. Just listen to some of his quotes that Ezra mentioned in the discussion, where he talks about Black women and immigrants, and his hilarious conclusion in that other book where he measured black people's contributions to civilization by the number of entries they had in Encyclopedia Britannica. We're talking about a guy who didn't seem to know that cross burning was associated with the KKK.


Quote
And it doesn't change the fact that the information is there. This is why Harris brings up the neandrathal point. We'll find out things over time. We need to be able to handle them.

This is a very dumb strawman that both you and Harris have brought up. Nobody on the Left (as far as I know) is arguing that we shouldn't study certain things cause the "truth" may be uncomfortable or whatever. That part is fine, and there are people who study this stuff (like the people Ezra had to write that initial article), who nobody finds as controversial as Murray. Hell, the recent meltdown Harris had was because he tweeted an article from the NY Times about race and IQ to Ezra, who he was sure would raise hell, but in fact had very little issue with it.

But (once again), the issue is that such data collected needs to be examined carefully, with context, and not just mindless acceptance (this is another amusing thing about Harris, one of the founders of the Skeptic community, that seems to feel zero need of being skeptical for things like IQ).

Quote
When Ezra says his fear is Murray's impact on policy, he's really crying out that he's threatening a pet democratic voter base of the eternally dependent.

Tell us more about these "eternally dependent" demographics.

Quote
Which is why Harris bringing in the SPLC is relevant, because the SPLC is basically a political tool that uses the same scare tactics to shakedown wealthy, sheltered east coast white liberals for donations. And it really doesn't care who it runs over with slander in order to do so.

Yup, all the major democratic donors bow at the feet of the might SPLC. That's exactly how it works.

Quote
Also, you need to better understand how IQ works than Ezra does to have the conversation Ezra does. I recall that he tries to use Flynn to say that IQ could be explained entirely through environmental factors or at least the gap could be. The probability of that is very low yet not absolutely zero. That is what Flynn is saying because that's how something like this works. For "oppression" to account for this entirely you have to throw out the biological. For biology to account for it all then you have to throw out environment. You don't do that either. 

It's just not reasonable to cry out at Sam for not invoking enough of the history of oppression when Sam is looking at ti scientifically. Oppression is a universal human experience, especially once you go evolutionary and extend what you're looking at over hundreds to thousands of years. Slavery and Jim Crow are just too small a piece of history to blame it all upon. You have to throw out the distribution whole, because you would have to explain how the highest ends of that population escape the problem. You'll notice how Ezra completely avoids discussing how Asian groups score higher than others or how Jews score higher. Both of those groups have gone through great periods of oppression.

It's best dealt with by looking at the individual, which Ezra does not do. The scientists he drags in are dishonest about the subject. They are cherry picked to defend the attack. When you're dealing with such a highly controversial topic then you are going to have people who abuse the political climate to prop themselves up as defending the moral good rather than be honest about the topic.

1) How are the scientists that Ezra chose "dishonest" about the subject?
2) Why the hell should we accept Murray's work and conclusions on the subject considering he himself has no formal background or education in biology or genetics? (He has a history degree and a poli sci degree for crying out loud)
3) Why didn't Sam accept Ezra's offer to have him debate the topic with one of the scientists he chose?

Quote
And the end result isn't anything of value is done, but that the topic is left to the shadows of science or in the hands of the ethnic supremacists. My view is that Klein and Vox are just puppets for higher ups who don't want Blacks to look at social programs as possibly not working for them.

So the bleeding heart libs aren't bleeding heart libs at all?

Quote
The same as immigration, its largely a fucking war over vote outcomes rather than any real moral battle. Because the moral battle would realize its handing the topic over to the white supremacists and that's dangerous. The alt-right will know the science and warp it to their aims. If the public doesn't know that's happening then you're handing over the entire topic to the worst people.

You know, this kind of sounds like a similar argument made by the same people who are against the idea of tearing down Confederate monuments because that means nobody will know how to argue that the Confederacy and slavery was bad.

But to reiterate yet again, just like the monument argument, people are fine discussing the topic, but with proper context.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #806 on: April 11, 2018, 11:43:38 PM »
I feel like most of your response is a dodge.

Why do you think scientists in the field keep contacting Harris to say that Murray is right about the data but are afraid to talk about it because of the atmosphere? And what is the skepticism of IQ?

I suggest you go down the intelligence rabbit hole, because it is the most depressing thing I've learned in the past year or so. We spend a lot of energy and research trying to find a way to improve it because of its relation to success, but have found little that does. Also, you may find that if you go down the research IQ by nation or by group hole, you'll find one of the results to be American Renaissance, which is a a Jared Taylor website. Taylor being one of the major figures of the far right white identity sect.

People like Ezra will spit bullshit and dodge accountability. Then people will go out and research this and find the alt-right with the data. You talk about handling the topic with responsibility, but that is not what Vox is doing at all. You don't understand what the responsible thing to do is. This is a far larger impact than the race obsessed discussion that has occurred. A part of Murray's argument is that an increasingly technology driven world is creating higher demand for cognitive ability which is stratifying the developed countries by IQ and creating division. Further, a rough estimate is that about 10% of the population isn't intelligent enough for the military to accept, which means they likely aren't capable enough for even the most low entry jobs out there. These are the scary problems we need to talk about, but we can't with people running away from the conversation.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 11:50:49 PM by etiolate »

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #807 on: April 12, 2018, 01:18:25 AM »
This is sorta a response to Oblivion's post that touched on some of Murray's failings but also some stuff regarding dismissing or whatever Murray as a person. Charles Murray did himself and any arguments he may have made no favors when rather than explain himself, he shifted to instead pursue a position within the "conservative academia" and to double down on what were his more questionable bets.

Losing Ground was generally uncontroversial, and The Bell Curve was as well initially, he even defended it rather successfully to where the consensus became that research was needed in the areas he pointed to because of a lack of it otherwise. Then five years later he decided he was best off confirming all the more heated or racial criticisms of the book, he also no longer had the non-controversial co-author of the book who had died, by pursuing to prove that small part of the book, and then write some really shitty follow ups like Coming Apart that seemed to be more about proving his greatest critics right than to confirm his original stance of "just reporting the data" and now updating it with further studies.

He's further not helped his case by spreading out to women, and any other groups he can fit into his model, all while withdrawing further and further into his ideological bubble.

Normally when you pull the "just asking questions" defense, you're not supposed to spend the next 20 years confirming your detractors right for what they indicated you were "really saying" and it does Harris or others interested in the base argument of The Bell Curve no interest in dusting off Murray himself to investigate some of the rather more interesting questions in the book and then trying to ignore Murray's time spent since then rather than simply crediting it for causing a revisiting of the discussion.

You're hitching yourself to an anchor, rather than acknowledging the work and moving onto the better responses to Murray's questions, especially considering Murray has presented his own that both contradict and undermine any value The Bell Curve had and allow you to be weighed down by making the debate once again about Murray personally.

And lord knows I irrationally (and rationally) but most importantly unfairly despise Ezra Klein, as I'm sure Mandark can at least attest to, so any cover I'm giving to him should be seen as inadvertent. But I also don't much respect Sam Harris either so...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that after Zizek debates Peterson, he should debate Ezra Klein. And Yglesias, at the same time. Actually, it should be Slavoj Zizek vs. All of Vox Media. With no specified topic.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #808 on: April 12, 2018, 02:42:18 AM »
Normally when you pull the "just asking questions" defense, you're not supposed to spend the next 20 years confirming your detractors right for what they indicated you were "really saying"

Yup.

Feels like it was pretty clear from the jump. For all the complaints that the racial analysis was only a small fraction of the book, they leaned on it for promotion. When TNR ran an excerpt, they didn't say "don't use the race chapter, we don't want the controversy to drown out the other lessons from the book," it was "hell yeah go with the race chapter, and put that shit on the front page!"

Also, I stand by this:
Charles Murray, smh.

If that dude was on holiday in Europe he'd wind up counting the number of whites vs. non-whites he saw out in public.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #809 on: April 12, 2018, 02:51:05 AM »
Yes, I know you'd think that Mandark. Because you can't play the fair game. You play the game with loaded dice.

I'd say it was unwise to let that fraction of the book out as an article, but once you've been marked for that there's no shedding it. It is the game with the loaded dice.

Look at the shit Peterson gets associated with him despite being very against the alt-right.  It's a dishonest game.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #810 on: April 12, 2018, 02:54:10 AM »
Yes, I know you'd think that Mandark. Because you can't play the fair game. You play the game with loaded dice.

What, you don't think he's that kind of dude?

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #811 on: April 12, 2018, 02:55:45 AM »
I don't think so. I do recall you saying the bell curve was completely racist nonsense. Many many years ago.

I don't believe you have a real understanding of most things and are a hack of the highest order. You hang out here to avoid people like me who call your bullshit out.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #812 on: April 12, 2018, 02:56:19 AM »
Peterson says enough dumb shit about those bible stories that it's hilarious to me that people still feel they need to engage media.routine.smear('alt_right', 'nazi); on him. Just call him a goober for taking life lessons from the book of Jesus weebs and deal with what he says on merit, there's enough there to not make yourself look like a distinguished mentally-challenged fellow smear ninja.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #813 on: April 12, 2018, 03:02:39 AM »
his clinical psychology doesn't seem to be all that great either based on his lectures that i watched, also how he describes his advice to/treatment of patients

but maybe that's because of canada's marxist health care

Mandark

  • Icon
You've got cider in your ear
« Reply #814 on: April 12, 2018, 03:03:37 AM »
I don't think so.

Interestingly, it's not just speculation on my part, but it's something he literally did and blogged about.

Quote from: Charles Murray, December 23, 2009
I’ve been marooned in Paris the last three days, waiting for a plane home after the snowstorm mess (“Poor Charles,” you’re all saying). Last night, having been struck by how polyglot Paris has become, I collected data as I walked along, counting people who looked like native French (which probably added in a few Brits and other Europeans) versus everyone else. I can’t vouch for the representativeness of the sample, but at about eight o’clock last night in the St. Denis area of Paris, it worked out to about 50-50, with the non-native French half consisting, in order of proportion, of African blacks, Middle-Eastern types, and East Asians. And on December 22, I don’t think a lot of them were tourists.

Mark Steyn and Christopher Caldwell have already explained this to the rest of the world—Europe as we have known it is about to disappear—but it was still a shock to see how rapid the change has been in just the last half-dozen years.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #815 on: April 12, 2018, 03:06:11 AM »
I'm sorry, I meant hat I don't think he's a racist. Not that you would take an experiment and draw out that veiled accusation. I know you'd do that. I just retain that its a dishonest game that's very easy to play for cowards since they never do or say anything worth noticing.

curly

  • cultural maoist
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #816 on: April 12, 2018, 03:07:32 AM »
lol

Peterson says enough dumb shit about those bible stories that it's hilarious to me that people still feel they need to engage media.routine.smear('alt_right', 'nazi); on him. Just call him a goober for taking life lessons from the book of Jesus weebs and deal with what he says on merit, there's enough there to not make yourself look like a distinguished mentally-challenged fellow smear ninja.

(((the media))) loves to smear an honest man
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 03:11:44 AM by curly »

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #817 on: April 12, 2018, 03:20:47 AM »
curly, you're an idiot and you need to stop talking to me, serious.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #818 on: April 12, 2018, 03:21:05 AM »
the ignorance in that blog entry is even funnier when you consider that probably many of those blacks, asians, arabs, etc. are "native French" since it was well into the 1950's and 1960's that Algerians, Moroccans, Vietnamese, etc. stopped being French citizens

also he seems to be under the impression that Paris, one of the most international cities of the West historically, was lily white/immigrant free in like 2003, not even 1983 or some date decades earlier

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #819 on: April 12, 2018, 03:23:49 AM »
Wait till he finds a picture of Alexandre Dumas.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #820 on: April 12, 2018, 03:28:38 AM »
at least he acknowledged the problems with the sample, something cowardly college intellectual cucks continue to refuse to do with the fraudulent climate data

curly

  • cultural maoist
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #821 on: April 12, 2018, 03:28:58 AM »
curly, you're an idiot and you need to stop talking to me, serious.

i'm making this feud happen whether you agree to it or not

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #822 on: April 12, 2018, 03:52:41 AM »

I'd say it was unwise to let that fraction of the book out as an article, but once you've been marked for that there's no shedding it.

It's actually super fucking easy to shed a negative reputation.

1) You renounce and apologize for said controversial thing(s) that people criticized you for
2) You disassociate yourself with the people that liked the thing you were criticized by the other group for and start criticizing your former friends instead
3) Repeat 1) and 2) forever

See: John Cole, Charles Johnson, etc.

This also works in the reverse directions (see: Ian Miles Cheong).

Hell, you don't even have to completely change your entire ideology either (see: Rick Wilson, Anna Navarro)

What you DON'T do, is double down on doing the things you were criticized for and then complain that people keep getting the wrong idea.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 04:00:16 AM by Oblivion »

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #823 on: April 12, 2018, 04:03:37 AM »
Charles Johnson

To anyone who was reading political blogs in the aughts, it's fucking wild that he's the "good" Charles Johnson now.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #824 on: April 12, 2018, 04:21:37 AM »
curly, you're an idiot and you need to stop talking to me, serious.

i'm making this feud happen whether you agree to it or not
Find someone else, I dont come on here to argue  :stahp

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #825 on: April 12, 2018, 08:38:24 AM »
There goes Mandark the coward, playing with his loaded dice again.  :snoop

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #826 on: April 12, 2018, 08:37:55 PM »
Walter Kaufmann certainly did not believe so.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #827 on: April 12, 2018, 08:50:37 PM »
also he seems to be under the impression that Paris, one of the most international cities of the West historically, was lily white/immigrant free in like 2003, not even 1983 or some date decades earlier

There's a real tendency from people who are concerned with the browning of Europe to overstate how purely white it was recently and how quickly that's changing.

Sam Harris, for example, wrote in 2006 that even with zero immigration, birth rates meant France was on track to be majority-Muslim by 2031. We're almost at the halfway point of that projection and the Muslim share of the population is 5-10%. Whoops.

CatsCatsCats

  • 🤷‍♀️
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Wank Dad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #828 on: April 12, 2018, 08:53:35 PM »
Once more I’m just here to drive by post that Wank Dad is a better title and recommend everyone edit the subject line before posting itt

jakefromstatefarm

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Wank Dad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #829 on: April 13, 2018, 03:06:14 AM »
Did I read this wrong?
kind of. Was he an antisemite? I’d say unequivocally yes, though my criteria for determining racism might be different than some on this board. He’s a racialist, in that good late 19th century sense that views populations as discrete units that carry essentialized ‘cores’ of, say, values, temperaments, and mores that can then be evaluated and compared as to their worth. But Nietzsche is primarily a moral psychologist: he autistically analyzes character types in terms of their ethical consequences/interest. ‘Races’ are really personalities writ broad for Nietzsche, and I think it’s in this light that we have to call him a racist.

His anti-semitism needs to be qualified further; stro is right to point out that he isn’t an antisemite if we mean “in league with the antisemitism of his day”. This couldn’t be clearer from his correspondence corpus. In his evaluation of Jewish culture, he sees good and bad. The Old Testament is good, their passivity is bad but largely caused by the necessity of living under the yoke of a hostile European culture. I think it’s also worth noting that in the later Nietzsche -so, including genealogy of morals- his project is a demolition of the metaphysical and ethical baggage that accompanies a Christian worldview. This isn’t the primary concern in his earlier mature works which are less polemical and more phlegmatic, cf. section 205 of Dawn.

So he’s not a hyper nationalist (if anything he endorses a kind of pan-European identity), he’s an antisemite that happens to harbor deep felt admiration for Jewish culture, and he’s not a fascist in any relevant sense for the 20th century because the kind of etatism that necessitates a state cult isn’t anywhere in his work.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 03:10:44 AM by jakefromstatefarm »

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #830 on: April 13, 2018, 05:49:39 PM »


perfect

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #831 on: April 14, 2018, 10:27:34 PM »


 :dead at when the white girl gets incredulous at the black dude for being in the audience instead of joining them in trying to get the speaker to leave*

when the law school "students" start chanting "FUCK THE LAW" because the law is a construct of the white male oppressors :lawd

spoiler (click to show/hide)
*also when she says "you can't speak like that to us, we're adults!" to the administrator
[close]


Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #833 on: April 19, 2018, 01:12:56 AM »


Sam talks about Murray apparently, havent heard this yet, going to listen later

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #834 on: April 20, 2018, 02:30:27 PM »
Yeah I liked what Sam had to say here, I still cant care about Murray, but Sam's a sensible bloke.

this doesnt really fit here, but it doesn't fit anywhere else, this is actually super good lol

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #835 on: April 20, 2018, 02:40:24 PM »
Majiid is an interesting case. I've heard criticism that he was far more into terrorism than he admits, but reform is a needed movement. He's also slick as fuck and I think that triggers the conservative Muslims.

You can't discuss IQ with some people. That would include Ezra/Vox. The SPLC being a joke is well established. They exist to scare money out of east coast liberals pockets.

There is an interview with the guy who made that mix. Some Dj from LA.

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #836 on: April 20, 2018, 04:27:55 PM »
Indeed. The kinds of people to trust on the subject of racial IQ differences is someone like a guy who didn't know cross burning was associated with the KKK.


In other news, it seems Daddy will be making an appearance on Real Time tonight:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/986732691381874688

Normally, I’d be interested in watching such a thing, but after Maher’s utter shitshow when he invited on Milo last year, I have little doubt he’s going to press Peterson on anything. Similar with Milo, he and Peterson will bond over their mutual hatred of college kids insisting people not use the n-word. Maybe he’ll surprise me. We’ll see.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #837 on: April 20, 2018, 04:29:05 PM »
Well I'ms ure we'll all sit back in anticipation of whether Bill Maher can impress Oblivion.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #838 on: April 21, 2018, 03:46:07 AM »

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: The Intellectual Dank Wad [ ot ] Hour Long Youtubes unf unf
« Reply #839 on: April 21, 2018, 05:10:53 AM »
As I expected, it was a total ballwashing session. Very disappointing overall, but I did like that Bill threw Peterson a curveball (maybe this wasn't intentional) when he mentioned that Professor who sent those tweets about Barbara Bush, and Peterson kinda just sat there not sure how to respond since this wasn't the type of FREEZE PEACH he normally supports.

The rest of the panel was amazingly useless as well with the exception of Alex Wagner, who made an admirable attempt to push back, though I felt she could have done more with what Peterson provided.

As for Peterson himself, he was mostly on good behavior (though obviously not by choice, given the venue), though he still had few eyebrow raisers like concern trolling over liberals being mean to the poor widdle Trump supporters, and whining about polarization while completely ignoring his own contributions to said polarization.