First, Hi! I'm not dead and I'm still here. Sorry for the absence. Apologies if this is being discussed in the Serious Thread or one of the tech threads already. Last week, Patreon booted Sargon of Akaad for what appears to be not even a violation of their own terms. He used the word "n*gger" in an ironic way when he was in a combative exchange regarding a verbal attack he had been subjected to by neo-Nazis. There is a large network of intellectuals or public thinkers - Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, the Weinstein brothers, Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, etc - who have nothing in common except that they don't conform to the ultra-left rules and hysteria. They've all had an enormous reaction to Patreon and in this video: Seems to suggest that rather than be subjected to the whims of the monopolistic platforms that have emerged, they're taking matters into their own hands and generating direct-funding models and perhaps a direct-access model that will omit the big guys like YouTube, Paypal, etc. Topic: What do you think of the current climate that seems to clamp down on any speech deemed inappropriate? Has anyone else noticed that it skews entirely to the right and that the left is reaching Communist critical-mass? Alt Topic: Would you contribute to such an alternate network? Is the IDW (tough to really call them a group, given how disparate they are as individuals and that they do not share any ideologies) a valid solution to the restrictions private companies are placing on free speech? *I didn't want to edit the n-word, because this notion that some words are so bad you can't even utter them is fucking ridiculous, but I was worried it would flag an algorithm or something.
Silencing speech (including hate speech), for any reason, is wrong. Any excuse anyone makes to the contrary is bullshit and those people are idiots. Its nothing more than a shroud to protect themselves from ideas that challenge their own because they equate a challenge with invalidation.
The IDW is mostly twats either speaking outside of their area of expertise, or having no area of expertise to begin with. They have been subjected to no government sponsored censorship, and have been censored by private organizations much less aggressively than pornography has. Wake me up when someone bothers making a free speech argument on private networks about literal twats before bothering me about figurative ones.
I really like Jordan Peterson. He's certainly interjected himself into the whole campus safe space fray. It's too as he should be lauded more for his psychological work which really is a standard many of the seemingly lost millennials need to check out. Fairly simple in the end too, push yourself to struggle for tough goals and do things that help others. A long but decent interview that wasn't a total hit piece on him.
Peterson and Sam Harris are really good. Brett Weinstein is a pretty interesting person to listen to and his story is insane. Dave Rubin is ok. Ben Shapiro is annoying but pretty intelligent. Rogan is Rogan.
Ben Shapiro does his homework, has a great memory and I would like him more if he didn’t sound like a Myna bird selling me Radio Shack goods. Slow DOWN, little fella. Peterson I like the best and he serves as a great touchstone to just how fucking stupid people are who think that feelings and opinions are important in an adult’s life. The fact they’re attacking THIS guy like he’s George Wallace; when he’s really a critical thinker, scholar, and intellectual. He hides from no question and never gets painted into a corner that he can’t escape from using logic. When a person you know starts trashing Petsrson...yeah, that’s a person to avoid.
It sounds like you're just the person to answer my most pressing question about Peterson. With Peterson only eating beef and salt, how bad does his cum taste?
What is happening isn't anything to do with free speech or taking a stand or anything other than cold hard cash. These companies make money by people who use their platforms, so they try not to piss off anyone who they think are their biggest supporters. It's fairly easy math... piss off the relatively small followings of those who they cut service to, or the apparent larger group who are against them? It's all about marketing and revenue and brand association. It's no different than YouTube and the rest kicking InfoWars out.
While you're free to say whatever the fuck you want under the "free speech" umbrella, there's absolutely nothing saying that you need to be provided a platform for saying that speech.... go build your own and preach all you want.
Ok, I looked up this story, and unless The Atlantic is doing an absolute hitjob on him to the level of just straight up making up quotes and attributing to them, he comes off like anything other than a critical thinker. Apple cider incapacitated you for a month and you didn't immediately jump to either: a) this all beef diet has really fucked up my digestive system something badly; or b) this is all psychosomatic and I have really tweaked my brain and its perception of food in a completely unnatural way?
If you're a masochist who wants to get the stupid straight into your veins, here is the link to the exact bit in the rogan interview
We don’t delete posts to silence opinions and ideas, we delete posts for organization and keeping things on topic. We always tell people to take their comment to another part of the board, not shut them down completely. If we wanted to close down discussion in one thread or another or even PMs, we could. And how often are people actually banned? Once every few years, maybe? And usually, it’s someone here not in good faith like the girl clearly advertising her other forum and wanting a paid moderation job. I think we do a pretty good job of not swinging the hammer on anyone we disagree with.
I get it but the math isn’t so easy, though. There’s an obvious lack of consistency in enforcing TOS standards. I can’t imagine the vast majority of twitter users support accounts held by self-proclaimed ISIS followers or extremists on the next rung down like Linda Sarsour. The decision making on who gets yanked is arbitrarily decided by Twitter mods and not some algorithmic methodology based on revenue generation. Alex Jones had nearly a million followers on Twitter and his videos had hundreds of thousands of views, for better or worse. How is that not supportive of a revenue model? If they would come out and said, “We’re banning this guy because he’s damaging our business and reputation,” I would be perfectly fine with that. But don’t do it under some vaguely defined banner of hate speech.
Totally agree. It’s easy math, but they get it wrong a lot. Part of that is due to scale, part of that is due to hidden/unknown agendas, and part of that is due to stupidity and overreaction.
Yeah the whole 100% meat all the time thing is bonkers. Still not willing to completely write off the guy and his ideas because if it. There is a growing segment of the left that thinks pumping prepubescent children with hormone blockers is just dandy, each side has their kookiness.
Yeah, have you ever tried DMT? Jon Jones is the pound-for-pound best fighter in the world. Also this one time I was hunting elk with my buddy Steve Rinella in Alaska. Then suddenly I was laughing my ass off at the comedy store because Joey Diaz was doing a set. Hold on, Jamie pull up that video of the gorilla ripping a giraffe in half.
My problem is that a lot of these "IDW" guys are being hailed for the things they should be written off when talking about. If Jordan Peterson stuck purely to his field as a psychologist, he'd probably be what thousands of others are: an unknown academic doing work that slowly adds to the sum total of human knowledge. To receive the level of fame/infamy these guys have gotten, they have to go far afield from what they are truly experts in (if such a thing exists) and present themselves as far more broadly knowledgeable than they are and far more confident in their conclusions than they should be. They become professional polemicists, not critical thinkers or academics.
He isn’t a well versed political wonk. He certainly wouldn’t have been shot into pop culture without his protest to Canada’s speech and gender laws. But of the material I’ve heard from him when it’s not a a hit piece interview or one, like the GQ one, that isnt totally focused on the politics, are 90+% about his work in psychology. I think it just happenstance that his theories in psychology are abrasive to the current climate on campuses not that he set out to rebut social science academia. Side note: personally the phrase intellectual dark web is a stupid pompous self titled term.