I couldn’t stand SRD. The cringe there was suffocating. One idiot was whining about /r/drama being a doxxing paradise, others were circlejerking about how the sub leans slightly right but is really moderate. And as you note OP, they all fuckin whine about Daddy, altright, and idiots who can’t get laid.
Everyone always forgets that chapter in 1984 where big brother wouldn't allow people to use their preferred platform to beg online for money to start an ethnostate
I’m all for freedom but it’s gone too far when (((people))) abuse their freedom to hurt Sam Harris’s feelings. The government should strictly mandate what people are allowed to do so that this never happens again. I’m a libertarian, btw.
are you retards still doing this nonsense argument?
"i dont like trump so i will enjoy the internet being taken over by very few companies who push whatever narrative they want. oh btw i am for the working class."
Someone is trying to be pedantic and still missing the point.
You think all those sites came to this Independently? That Stripe and MasterCard don't have them by the balls? Patreon stopped taking prepaid cards just because?
But I'm not the bootlicker police so if you need to slobber over corporate leather in case Hitler is reborn I won't stop you
A chapotard. That's why you love sucking corporate dick so hard. It's a lady dick so be sure to mind your pronouns as you get face fucked in the name of progress
The left has been saying for the past 50 years that the consolidation of media companies will lead to market failures. We’re a little skeptical of your solutions now that the market failures are hurting your side. It’s just “force companies to do what we want” right?
the left hasn't been saying that. are you retarded or just a partisan hack? the left owns the majority of the media. you can literally google "concentration of media ownership" and read the wikipedia article of the top 5 companies. conservative judges are the ones that shot down any media fair share laws.
can someone with above average IQ give a valid argument so i dont have to deal with these idiots?
the american left, which is basically the european alt-right
fiscally maybe.
But socially? Only in the imagination of the American far left.
With the possible exception of the UK and Sweden, all that white/male guilt nonsense doesn't really have much influence in Europe as it has in the US. Only the far left is demanding legal abortions after week 15, and the whole diversity shit for corporations is low key at best -- there are no MBE contracts, no billion dollar activist social justice extortion industry.
Europe did have the whole refugee nonsense, that's the one way in which you could argue they're further left than the US. But that whole thing is dead in the water now, after the population got to experience the past 3 years.
And what I said above is true for western Europe. Eastern Europe is much further to the right.
Check out /r/europe. It's closer to the overall European ideological landscape than the national subs, most of which are heavily censored in favor of left wing positions.
So your defense is bringing up a book by Noam “it’s good to hate USA” Chomsky? gee I wonder if his stance is in defense of socialism?? The book doesn’t support your argument either when you said the left. Seeing how Neolibs are true majority of the left. Retard.
Yeah, anyone who takes an issue with people being deplatformed for The Good of The PeopleTM is just a butthurt rightoid.
Also, claiming that you were against this in the first place, but then turning around to deepthroat corporate cock to own the alt-right is just as hypocrtical as the retards on the right.
“Large media companies are bad” isn’t a hot take on the left. Being skeptical of corporate power and believing it needs to be, at the very least, regulated to prevent market failures is one of the dividing issues between right and left.
The reason the right gets so mad about this issue is because their worldview is that free choice by individuals will always be the most beneficial to everyone. For most of their lives that was what benefitted them the most. Now that there is one instance where it hurts them they cry for government intervention to correct this one problem. But, without dealing with the fundamental problem, these companies are too big, their policies will just be bandaid fixes.
according to gallup polls, among people on the left, 50-60% trust mass media. on the right that number is 15%. fox news for people on the right is below majority approval for trust.
youre totally right though! the left is totally the side that questions mass media!
Those aren’t the same thing, you moron. There’s a difference between thinking the Washington Post isn’t making up mean stories about Trump and believing that the government should prevent media consolidation.
thinking "mass media" (however the fuck thats even being quantified) isnt literally making up lies is not the same as "loving it." like i "trust" the wsj in the sense that im confident that the things they say happened actually happened, or at least the source theyre citing actually did say that they did, that doesnt mean i dont recognize theyre a sycophantic mouthpiece of capital run by crypto-fascists. these things can be simultaneously true, unless youre completely blinded by ideology.
keep coping. your entire political party is for literal idiots and you are too dumb to realize you are one too. you would believe it if it was printed in Vox though
lol i didnt say i dont vote or something retarded like that, i just find the idea of engaging with dem party politics exhausting and of limited use. realistically i probably should anyway but like, how you would feel if you had to walk around knowing youre a registered democrat? it wouldnt be great for my self-esteem, thats for sure
...at least that's what John Oliver says, I get all my political opinions from that intelligent satire show... but don't point out when he's bullshitting, because it's just comedy lol.
keep gobbling up what mass media says. "b-but infowars", while vogue magazine is giving political opinions now. yikes! what you said is not an argument to the statistics. the left bends over to whatever mass media opinion.
You're right. The smaller percent that believes the fringe must be the (((enlightened ones))), that's why /r/conspiracy is where many top minds collaborate, and routinely outsmart the most well funded, well equipped and diabolical organizations on earth.
the left bends over to whatever mass media opinion
Damn leftoids, believing Trump colluded with the Russians instead of taking a look at pizzagate or the gay frogs smh.
I don't care for the abstract "left" and "right", because it doesn't reflect what I'm seeing.
"Large corporations are bad" not being a hot take on the left means jack shit when there are enough people on that side who will instantly start cheering those very same corporations on doing whatever the fuck they want as long as it is against their enemies.
There are people (presumably) on the left using the very same arguments against regulations that people on the right used and they're not doing it in a "see, this argument is pretty dumb, right?" way. The fact that anytime anyone says 'hey, maybe Google and co. are actually too large with too much power' people will just respond with 'you're just mad you're now getting targeted, lol' tells me that neither the left nor the right are even just a smidgen honest about this topic.
try and complain about a company doing anything in any other context and it'd be 'literally anything a company does is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, since the benevolent invisible hand of the free market guarantees that if it were bad they'd go out of business. If you don't like it then go and start your own google, commie'
Yeah that would be a really fucking stupid thing to say, so you obviously agree that google and mastercard thought policing the internet is a terrible idea.
Trying to argue in good faith with the right or the alt-right is a fool's errand; they use the left's goodwill to ram their agenda down the nation's throat and or to score cheap points among their side. They need to be silenced and shown that their useless worldview won't be tolerated anymore.
Takes mean less than actions. Clinton literally signed the act allowing all these mega media mergers and nobody on the left went to the streets to protest. Bezos bought WaPo under Obama who was a media darling
Lol there isn't a market failure. Tech companies who alienate a fat segment of their market by virtue signalling will lose the segment to new competition.
This won't happen instantly, but it will happen after a little trial and error. I give it 6-12 months before a viable Patreon alternative pops up that utilizes payment processors that won't be compromised by BS politics.
you literally offer ZERO solutions. all the left does is whine like babies about everything and take an anti-whatever trump says stance. if you agree what i said is an issue then you're not so bad, if you don't you are retarded. period.
i know you are trying to get by without agreeing with me that it's a problem. if you dont think it's a problem you are the biggest idiot on reddit. there's no agreed upon solution yet but i can do that same exact argument to you on global warming, which you cannot give a valid solution for yet that doesn't hurt the economy.
give me your solution to global warming that doesn’t hurt our economy to the point of China taking #1 spot. if you can’t give one you are a retard who can never complain about global warming again.
im sure china will care in the meantime which is much closer on the timeline. let me know if that doesn't make sense. my IQ is a lot higher than yours so i'm not sure how much i have to dumb that down.
You're right. If only the government could step in and start forcing companies to do things they don't like. I love free speech btw
The government provides a massive liability shield to all these guys if they're making a "good faith" effort to "restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". They have complete civil liability immunity, no matter how they do it or what they do.
But yeah private companies' speech lmao. Companies that are only able to have these functions without immediately getting fuckpwned by a million lawsuits because the government has given them complete immunity for any civil consequences to actions taken to restrict constitutionally protected speech. Hmm, but you know what, when the government gives somebody a special exemption to any consequences for their actions, and they use that special privilege to restrict constitutionally protected speech, technically that's not the same as the government doing it, so it's fine.
I think most people would be okay with forcing large companies to provide services to all people (as long as it's reasonable e.g. nothing 'obscene'), it's only iffy when it comes to very small companies/single people.
Yeah, the classic free speech case is that Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc, all effectively comprise (and present themselves as) a "public forum," and thus the right to free speech overcomes the right to private property, as in Marsh v. Alabama (1946) where free speech rights were determined to trump private ownership. This would effectively police sites like Twitter but not every random web forum with 10,000 users. However this requires the SCOTUS to make such a decision; it is difficult to predict whether they would come to the "right" decision and in any case is unlikely to occur any time soon.
However, significantly curtailing the liability shield provided by Section 230 (say, to making a good faith effort to restrict speech which is not constitutionally protected), is a simple statutory adjustment which would severely curtail the ability of these companies to randomly ban people because they said the n-word or Mastercard said to or they posted pictures of a boobie or whatever the hell else.
If that liability shield were removed all of this would have been removed long ago. There is a reason traditional news outlets aren't just unedited alt right dumpster fires. You want to use that liability shield to *require* them to carry violent, hateful, and harassing content?
If that liability shield were removed all of this would have been removed long ago. There is a reason traditional news outlets aren't just unedited alt right dumpster fires. You want to use that liability shield to require them to carry violent, hateful, and harassing content?
That's a different liability shield. 230(c)1 establishes that a company is not held responsible for what is posted on their service, because otherwise Zuckerberg would have gone to prison for 100,000 years for all the child porn on Facebook. This is against all liability, criminal or civil.
230(c)2 establishes a civil liability shield for companies engaging in "Good Samaritan" policies, which in practice means deleting people's Youtubes because they said faggot. Removing it wouldn't "require" them to carry violent, hateful, and harassing content, any more than a library is required to, or anybody else without this insane, vast liability shield is. It would just mean they would think twice about banning people without just cause, because people could and would sue them, whereas right now, they absolutely can't.
It is not the fault of the left that the right is so hateful and violent. That is your own fault.
everyone knows that free speech society is at its best when critical service providers are free to deny service to whomever they want.
I mean we've already stepped too far away from peak freedom because my Water and Sewage service provider are prohibited from cutting me off if they don't like things I saw, and my electricity provider is still forced to let me heat my home in winter.
But at least we still recognize that financial transactions are completely optional to today's life, so there is definitely no reason for the government to force the few private companies providing this optional service to our society, to do anything they don't want - like servicing people I want unpersoned.
This is either a market inefficiency which can be filled for massive profit (in which case these people should be happy for the opportunity), or their ideas harm the income of the brands they associate with, in which case they have no right to be affiliated with them.
One doesn't even need to be that specific -hell, really any rights are okay to deny to people once we've established* that we are doing it to ...
sinner
traitor to motherland
misogynist
v.2018+: 'white nationalist' (misogynist still implied)
*Status, as established in-arguably and without right to appeal, by solid and simple rule of 'someone said so, so it must be true'
Now that this process has been tested and checked out, 2020s are gong to be great.
Get online, get offended at someone, start calling that dude 'white nationalist' online until enough bloggers jump on bandwagon, watch the system take over as every company takes their turn to virtue signal by unpersoning him.
Laugh as he whines about shit being unfair to them - fuck'em though, if they kept their mouth shut and didn't say anything, wouldn't have a reason to notice them.
When a dozen atheist jews are being called alt right and nazis for so being deplatformed it's no longer a fallacy, stop being dumb enough to think one thing won't lead to another
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that same "non fallacy" being used to explain gay marriage would lead to people marrying chairs and pot use would lead to heroin addiction was actually not a fallacy but in fact what happens now.
This is what you're arguing if you agree with the comment I took issue with. Also show me the people being "deplatformed" which in non-sperg english actually here is "being kicked from a private service for breaking their terms" and why they deserve a government enforced platform hosted by a private entity. It's insanity, you fucking rightoid morons are arguing for government intervention, literally while your entire ethos bases its' theory of government on "it's too controlling".
So lets see, by his EXACT logic then after the 1950's leftists should have been able to go around calling random right wingers commies and having their lives ruined simply because they said so and because that was what McCarthyism was. Weird thing though, that didn't happen. Why not? Because that's a fucking idiotic logical fallacy.
Slippery slopes are not a fallacy - they are observable reality describing vast majority of trends in human society.
only people who actually buy that bullshit of it being a fallacy, are those whose lifespans or memories are too short to be able to take stock of society at 5+ year intervals.
You're literally trying to claim the same logic that gave us "gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals and chairs" and "pot is a gateway drug its' use WILL lead to heroin and cocaine" is sound. Fuck how do you get as stupid as you are? Which 5 year interval do you want? Back when McCarthyism was in full swing and people had their livlihoods destroyed based on total rumors and not because they spewed racist garbage into a megaphone called the internet that is saved FOR ALL TIME?
God fucking damnit I can't even comprehend your stupid.
I mean we've already stepped too far away from peak freedom because my Water and Sewage service provider are prohibited from cutting me off if they don't like things I say.
Isn't this unironically what libertarians believe though?
Patreon just makes recurring payments easy to set up. And PayPal obfuscates credit card details so they don't have to deal with the burden of setting up a secure transaction system. It's completely possible to set up possibility for payment on your own website, it's just hard. It should not come as a surprise that if you are controversial some entities might not want to do business with you.
Not all criticism of behavior is an endorsement for government intervention. I can say someone is being shitty without implying I think they should be put in a cage for it.
To this day, mail service, telephones and airlines operate under “common carriage” law and must serve all customers regardless of their political, religious or social views.
These protections have a long history. Precedents from the 17th century outlawed discrimination by docks, ferries and bailors. Common-law courts extended the idea, as technology developed, to railroads and telegraphs, and then eventually to telephones and air travel. Administrative agencies later codified the protections into regulation.
Where the fuck would we be if phone companies couldn't disconnect your phone line because you called someone a cunt? Or your ISP disconnecting your Internet connection because you participate in this retarded place? Or the postal service refusing to send out your letters because your last one was really strongly worded?
Where would we be if airlines and railroad companies couldn't deny you service because of your political opinions? DEREGULATION NOW!
Are you seriously implying that access to a telephone line is the same thing as having access to the postal service?
Some brainlet just like you, 100 years ago, arguing that the owners of the telephone lines should be allowed to deny service to their political opponents.
Are you seriously implying that access to the postal service is the same thing as being allowed to travel across the country?
Some brainlet just like you, 200 years ago, arguing that the postal service should be allowed to deny service to their political opponents.
I have not made any distinction, I said you were making false equivalencies and that your point is bad.
And in time Facebook will fall away and a new platform will arrive, and we can go through this whole song and dance again. A platform to speak at large is inherently different than private communication, which I might point it Facebook is not.
are you seriously implying that access to a telephone is the same thing as having access to the postal service?
some low-T brainlet just like you, 120 years ago, arguing that the owners of the telephone lines should be allowed to deny service to their political opponents.
The idea that companies like that can and should be able to do anything they like is utterly idiotic and unworkable. Some of these new mass communication networks/digital public squares are getting to be a lot more important than telegraphs or ferries potentially ever were. Increasingly certain kind of professions even need these services to do their jobs, some even draw their whole income from services like YouTube, Twitch or Twitter. They're also increasingly places where people choose to petition the government, "protest" against it or where reporting on current issues happens.
If you believe they should and can do absolutely everything "because private company" without incurring regulation due to their size and importance you're retarded.
Not just that. He just said that deregulation will somehow make this better. How the hell? Deregulation means money talks and when money talks, Patreon kicks out rightoids.
Protecting freedom of speech without regulations is impossible, but I guess that's too hard to understand.
These companies are more like publishers, not carriers. Honestly the only reason they haven't been sued into oblivion for carrying these lies and hateful garbage before is their civil immunity. Any traditional publisher who carried alt right content promoting violent and the establishment of a single race state would quickly be out of business.
The funny thing is those protections/immunity is predicated that they are and remain content neutral like a phone company or the postal service would be. By increasingly narrowing down the kind and sort of content allowed on it they de facto become publishers instead of carriers and should have the same legal liabilities as other publishers like The New York Times or The Washington Post and similar.
Ultimately speech is too important and it just won't do that two or three MegaCorps from San Francisco control what, how and to whom billions of people worldwide can say.
Yeah, government stepping in to force a company which has effectively a monopoly on this financial service that constitutes main source of income for some independent media and artists/authors to not remove users/customers who didn't break any of their written rules without a warning would be such a bad thing. /s
Yeah I read that one. I liked it, but damn the ending was goddamn brutal. I liked The Road as well which at least had some hope at the end. I've got All The Pretty Horses around here too, but I tried to start it and it didn't really hook me, I should probably go back to it one of these days.
Man, Orwell really fucked up there by deciding to focus that book on 'how it turned out' rather than 'how it started'
I wonder if he would have written it if he was forewarned that his book would be forever used afterwards by people defending every single step toward that state with 'but we aren't all the way there, yet so there is nothing to worry about'
Man, Orwell really fucked up there by deciding to focus that book on 'how it turned out' stage of his dystopia rather than 'how it started'
Uncle ted already did it and he wasnt a pinko retard
Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. [14] Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.
In paragraph 127 we pointed out that if the use of a new item of technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional, because the new technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology. This applies also to the technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children are put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program, because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which so many people suffer in our society. If large numbers of people choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to increase the stress-producing pressures. In fact, something like this seems to have happened already with one of our society’s most important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce (or at least temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment (see paragraph 147). Our use of mass entertainment is “optional”: No law requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines. Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along today without using ANY form of mass entertainment. (Yet until quite recently in human history most people got along very nicely with no other entertainment than that which each local community created for itself.) Without the entertainment industry the system probably would not have been able to get away with putting as much stress-producing pressure on us as it does.
and tbh orwell comes up with some very similar ideas to this passage in 'the road to wigan pier', with a distrust of modern technology that verges on anprim (only with less random killing)
Yeah, because calling people who want an ethnostate white niggers is totally justifiable reason to ban someone. Meanwhile I could get on CNN and call Kanye a house nigger and nobody would blink.
Sam Harris is a bit stupid? Have you ever actually listened to one of his lectures or podcasts? Dude is incredibly thoughtful, measured, and intelligent
he’s smart, usually handles himself very well in discourse, but he does do that thing where he’ll say things in deliberately ambiguous, controversy-baiting ways, and then throw a fit when people take it at face value.
like “how could you possibly think I was advocating racial profiling when I said that police and TSA should profile potential Muslims?”
i’d never compare him to Sargon, though, as Sam does actually have a brain
Why does his sexuality, or mental capacity have anything to do with this? You may find him boring, but I don't think that warrants such ad hominem attacks, it just makes you look mentally weak in comparison, because you're unable, or unwilling to effectively articulate your issues with him, besides him being a "gay retard". Good job
I know. I fucking hate it. The laws suck, restrictions are heavy, and taxes are high. Additionally, there are a bunch of anti-free speech "progressives" who want to silence those they don't agree with, but this is where I was born, and where I've built my business. It would be too costly to move at this point. I've got places I can go in a few other states too though, just not my business. Anyway, glad we could find something to agree on, and again, I hope you have a wonderful day.
Commercial Knife sharpener and bladesmith. Smithing is more of a hobby as it's too labor intensive to make lots of money. You were pretty close though. Good guess
I'mnot saying I agree with his stance, but his argument is this:
Tens of millions have been murdered, and are continually murdered in the name of religion. Religion has been the greatest dividing force among humans for millenia. Rape, while awful, is a very rare incident, and is already very illegal. Perhaps more prosecution is in order.
Orders of magnitude fewer people have been raped for the sake of rape, than have been raped or murdered in the name of religion
Fair enough. I still support his right to say whatever he wants, so long as it doesn't incite violence. It's the duty of others to point out the logical falacies in his arguments, so that consumers of information have a fuller picture of the facts, and can then make their own informed decisions. Whether a person is right or not is far less important than if they get you thinking about your own positions. Informed stance on varying policies is only tennable when fully informed by all the available information
It's not a stupid argument but its deffo a gay retard argument. Lol I mean if it wasn't for religion I'd almost certainly have killed multitudes of people by now.
You're half right, but based on the context he was very likely using it in a disparaging way. Either way, his mental capacity is of little question, and his sexuality is a non issue.
I saw this debate with him and it was genuinely embarassing. Seemed like they put a 16-yo /r/atheism subscriber on the same panel as a bunch of reputable Ivy league professors.
Also, everything he's ever said about philosophy has been wrong, including both his books on that.
I don't know anything about his podcast though, maybe he's a good interviewer and has good guests? He's an expert on precisely nothing so I'm not sure what else he could offer.
Fair enough, he's not everyone's cup of tea. I disagree with him about free will and religion, but I feel he has some valid points philosophically. Again, to each their own, I just respect the fact that he is standing up for the open parlay of knowledge and discussion, as opposed to trying to shut down those he doesn't agree with. I appreciate the intellectual integrity necessary to truly listen to your debate opponent and try to see things from their perspective.
Thank you VERY MUCH for being the only person to reply to me in a meaningful manner on this subject. I really appreciate it, and hope you have a great day.
but I feel he has some valid points philosophically
Well, they would have been valid points 500 years ago, just like geocentrists had valid points back then. It's just that philosophy and astronomy have progressed quite a bit since then and when a panel full of experts tells you that, you should listen and learn, not start arguing with them and revealing even more of your ignorance.
Someone telling a room full of NASA scientists that actually, they are wrong and the sun revolves around the earth because that's consistent with observations you made on your handmade telescope in your backyard is definitely someone I'd call "a bit stupid".
When did he say that the sun revolves around the earth? Dude is a philosopher and neuroscientist, I have a hard time believing that he actually thinks something that asinine.
But morality isn't a scientifically proven fixed principal. Morality shifts from location to location, culture to culture, and even among individuals. Therefore it's a poor analogy. If he were arguing that atmospheric pressure had no affect on the phase shift of water, I would say your analogy was applicable. For him to argue points on philosophy, morality, religion, society, gender, is completely different because as I've stated, these are not scientifically fixed principals, and are all relavent topics pertaining to our current modern society. Again, maybe he's wrong, but the debate of these matters is very very important. It's the only way that the public can be truly informed, and the only way we can move towards a more inclusive, and accepting world
Morality shifts from location to location, throughout time, from culture to culture, and even among individuals.
You aren't making much sense. Just because philosophy isn't science doesn't mean you can't make false and entirely stupid statements. He doesn't understand Hume's is-ought gap, for example, and that's painfully obvious by all the stupid shit he says about it.
but the debate of these matters is very very important.
Debate between actual experts on relevant topics is important, people with no idea what they are talking about making arguments that people have dealt with and proven bullshit 300 years ago isn't. There's a reason philosophers just ignore Harris, just like physicists ignore flat-earthers.
Okay, fair enough, and I'm not familiar enough with Sam or with philosophy to have anything productive to add to that discussion. If he is irrelevant and or incorrect, you can ignore him. If he has an audience, then the free market says that people resonate with his ideas. I feel the only way to sway these people towards objective truth is to offer ideas in opposition to Sam's, and let the debate play out. When he's shown to not know his stuff, or for his ideas to be logically unsound, people can choose to stop following him if he doesn't shift his views in light of superior logic.
Or do you feel that he's not even justified in talking to people you reguard as relavent philosophers?
All kinds of retards saying stupid shit all the time have followings. Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc. Stopping stupid people from listening to other stupid people is difficult and not a particularly appealing task.
When he's shown to not know his stuff, or for his ideas to be logically unsound, people can choose to stop following him if he doesn't shift his views in light of superior logic.
This has happened several times, his fans don't care.
Or do you feel that he's not even justified in talking to people you reguard as relavent philosophers?
Of course he is? It's of course sad that he was on that panel, so instead of an actually interesting discussion we got them explaining philosophy 101 to him.
Sure they are, but a vague label misses the fact that most of what Harris says is retarded. Like that if we believe Hume then it's impossible to argue against the Taliban, or this beautiful twitter chain https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/951276346529009665
the idea of deriving morality from science seems absurd to me, but maybe the way he intends this to be understood is a way that makes sense. haven't read his stuff
I like his podcast, he's a decent interviewer and gets good guests. Sam Harris is by far the worst part of the Sam Harris podcast, like 90% of his comments are just facts good, science good, Trump bad, SJWs bad.
Which place? r/drama? One of the many hundreds of subs I subscribe to. I enjoy dealing with people who's views vary from my own, so I seek them out on the internet, and try to engage in friendly, thoughtful debate. Usually I just get flamed at. Lol
Ah. Well I'm notoriously not hostile even when others are to me.
Odd that he disliked feminists and Trump supporters, they seem to be on rather opposite ends of the spectrum.
Anyhow, I don't necessarily want to argue, so much as give my views and try to understand those who disagree and why they hold their views. My hope is to build bridges between people, so we can work towards commonality instead of the constant divisiveness and hate I see everywhere
Just watch the Four Horsemen videos to see through the sham that is Sam Harris. Nothing but a clinger-on to other pseudointellectuals who eclipse him 😹
Free speech should be free, even if you don't agree with it. If we can censor those we don't agree with, it's only a matter of time until we ourselves are censored. Free speech is about an economy of ideas, when a bad idea is put out, good ideas counter it, and highlight it's social, or logical falacies. Limiting people's free speech only emboldens them, and brings more attention to their idiocy. Free speech for all!
Ooh, ad hominem, you must be truly talented in debate. How about an actual discussion as to what you feel, and why you feel that way, instead of calling names? I mean, you can call me whatever you want, but it doesn't increase the validity, or salience to your opinion
43 years old and you sound like a kid who's trying to stand up to his middle school bully with logic.
25 years after graduating high school do you still jerk yourself to sleep every night after reading the Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged thinking about how their popularity and good looks are fleeting but your intellect will always be greater than them? And the real irony is how after all of these years, they were the ones who got over high school and moved on while you still relive it.
Entitled? Of course not. But as I understand it, Sam Harris has purchased his own equipment, and built his own audience. Therefore it was through his own labor that he is where he is. I wouldn't call that entitlement.
Does that not mean open borders? I'm confused. Last I checked if there are border controls, that means that there are restrictions as to who may live there.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, and also internet payment platforms are obligated to provide service to anybody who wants it
god dammnit I was sure of it and you confirmed, it's impossible to both post on TD and having basic reading capabilities. Maybe if you go at it slowly ?
Wrong. Good ideas should be encouraged, and bad ideas should be discouraged. The notion that there is some kind of difficulty in identifying which is which is an Enlightenment-era fad that was unfortunately popular in the 18th century.
I subscribe to undress of subs. I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm certainly glad Hillary didn't win. Im what you'd describe as a classical liberal. Anyhow, I hope you have a wonderful day
True but both Richard Spencer and the Daily Stormer have openly thanked him for helping lure gullible retards into joining up with the alt-right though. Definitely a useful idiot for sure.
It's not surprising because the politics of fascism/ethno nationalism or whatever you'd like to call it are purely cynical and inherently dishonest. The reason it looks so ridiculous all the time is they're forced to support things piecemeal because no candidate is actually as abhorrent as their real views (no real candidates, anyway). It's dishonest because they don't really support candidates, or ultimately modern liberal democratic forms of government; it's all a means to an end.
Some chapotards told me the Soviet Union was true communism the other day, and unironically pointed to the government doing stuff as socialism. It was a bit surreal.
Why would that be surprising? It’s just an ‘enemy of my enemy’ situation, like how some European far rightists support Islamists in the Middle East against Israel.
And he didn't completely exclude meat. He may have been vegetarianish because of health reasons but it's not very clear because of conflicting accounts.
I'm so proud of my lord and Savior Sam Harris . He is very brave letting go of those large Patreon payments . Idk if he will be able to afford his mansion and beautiful electric automobile though so I sent him more money directly to his website!
Patreon sent an email indicating that patrons were leaving the platform after it banned conservative YouTuber Sargon of Akkad.
Sargon's not even really a conservative IMO; he has pretty permissive views on a lot of things. He's really just a dyed-in-the-wool classical liberal. He's less of a 'stuffed shirt', and more of the standard-issue middle-English, above-average-educated politically centrist bloke who you could find in almost any UK student union bar. I can't really see him fitting in with many UK conservatives because they are often so cloistered, awkward and embarrassing. Consider for instance Michael Gove.
Graphtreon estimates that Harris made between $23,000 and $65,000 from Patreon per podcast episode.
Sargon's not even really a conservative IMO; he has pretty permissive views on a lot of things. He's really just a dyed-in-the-wool classical liberal.
And as we all know, classical liberals love UKIP!
If he really was a classical liberal he would be for loosened immigration rules, considering that most of the influential libertarian economists (like Friedman) were very much pro-immigration.
You're writing as if adherence to a given political philosophy defines one's views on every subject, and that's a false assumption. He could be a classical liberal overall, while holding conservative views on certain topics. Not everyone's political beliefs are as homogeneous or consistent as you make them out to be.
Everyone I don't like is Alt-Right. I had to go to a checkup because I wasn't peeing so well. The "Urologist" wanted to rape me with his fingers so I called him "Alt Right."
Not only did I get out of being fisted, he gave me a free prescription for xanax.
333 comments
1 BussyShillBot 2018-12-17
I couldn’t stand SRD. The cringe there was suffocating. One idiot was whining about /r/drama being a doxxing paradise, others were circlejerking about how the sub leans slightly right but is really moderate. And as you note OP, they all fuckin whine about Daddy, altright, and idiots who can’t get laid.
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 SnapshillBot 2018-12-17
If you find yourself comparing politics to sex you should neck yourself, because you're clearly doing both wrong.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 MikeStoklasaAlcohol 2018-12-17
Isn't he an actual, honest to god (((classical liberal)))?
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
yes. and?
If I was him I also wouldn't want to stay complicit with the thought police.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-12-17
Everyone always forgets that chapter in 1984 where big brother wouldn't allow people to use their preferred platform to beg online for money to start an ethnostate
1 Frptwenty 2018-12-17
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on Sargon of Akkad's face — forever.
-1984
1 MajorGiraffe1 2018-12-17
wtf I support fascism now
1 Nerdlinger 2018-12-17
Indeed.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-12-17
Fascism when????? 😩👌
1 SkipperPauline 2018-12-17
I can only tread water for so long baby, finish me off!
1 Black_Bird_Cloud 2018-12-17
go on ..
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
This argument was euphoric, and not because of any phony god's blessing, but because, you're enlightened by your own intelligence.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-12-17
Lol
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
Lol
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-12-17
No u.
1 nmx179 2018-12-17
Sorry you've never read a book that wasnt a signed to you for a class.
1 seshfan2 2018-12-17
You're right. If only the government could step in and start forcing companies to do things they don't like. I love free speech btw
1 solastsummer 2018-12-17
I’m all for freedom but it’s gone too far when (((people))) abuse their freedom to hurt Sam Harris’s feelings. The government should strictly mandate what people are allowed to do so that this never happens again. I’m a libertarian, btw.
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
are you retards still doing this nonsense argument?
"i dont like trump so i will enjoy the internet being taken over by very few companies who push whatever narrative they want. oh btw i am for the working class."
1 MajorGiraffe1 2018-12-17
Seriously. I'm all for watching Sargon cry but cheering for credit companies over someone who disagrees with you is bourgeois as fuck
1 LighthouseToLunar 2018-12-17
What if that someone was Hitler
Or OniChan
Would I be allowed to cheer for the "credit companies" (Patreon and Paypal are apparently credit companies?) then?
1 MajorGiraffe1 2018-12-17
Someone is trying to be pedantic and still missing the point.
You think all those sites came to this Independently? That Stripe and MasterCard don't have them by the balls? Patreon stopped taking prepaid cards just because?
But I'm not the bootlicker police so if you need to slobber over corporate leather in case Hitler is reborn I won't stop you
1 LighthouseToLunar 2018-12-17
Ah yes it's (((Big Credit Companies))) at it again
Post proof chud
1 MajorGiraffe1 2018-12-17
A chapotard. That's why you love sucking corporate dick so hard. It's a lady dick so be sure to mind your pronouns as you get face fucked in the name of progress
1 LighthouseToLunar 2018-12-17
Classic impression of an incel bro it's very convincing
1 solastsummer 2018-12-17
The left has been saying for the past 50 years that the consolidation of media companies will lead to market failures. We’re a little skeptical of your solutions now that the market failures are hurting your side. It’s just “force companies to do what we want” right?
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
the left hasn't been saying that. are you retarded or just a partisan hack? the left owns the majority of the media. you can literally google "concentration of media ownership" and read the wikipedia article of the top 5 companies. conservative judges are the ones that shot down any media fair share laws.
can someone with above average IQ give a valid argument so i dont have to deal with these idiots?
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-12-17
He's talking about the people to the left of corporate Democrats.
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
he's talking about the people who used to be left wing 20 years ago, but are now considered right wing.
1 gw65kg 2018-12-17
he's talking about the american left, which is like european alt-right
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
fiscally maybe.
But socially? Only in the imagination of the American far left.
With the possible exception of the UK and Sweden, all that white/male guilt nonsense doesn't really have much influence in Europe as it has in the US. Only the far left is demanding legal abortions after week 15, and the whole diversity shit for corporations is low key at best -- there are no MBE contracts, no billion dollar activist social justice extortion industry.
Europe did have the whole refugee nonsense, that's the one way in which you could argue they're further left than the US. But that whole thing is dead in the water now, after the population got to experience the past 3 years.
And what I said above is true for western Europe. Eastern Europe is much further to the right.
Check out /r/europe. It's closer to the overall European ideological landscape than the national subs, most of which are heavily censored in favor of left wing positions.
1 solastsummer 2018-12-17
Have you heard of manufacturing consent? You should at least read the Wikipedia article on it.
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
So your defense is bringing up a book by Noam “it’s good to hate USA” Chomsky? gee I wonder if his stance is in defense of socialism?? The book doesn’t support your argument either when you said the left. Seeing how Neolibs are true majority of the left. Retard.
1 westofthetracks 2018-12-17
oh lmao youre actually retarded, i understand now
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
youre right Bernie, the progressive, beat hillary, the neolib, in a landslide. btw that is sarcasm. Just making that clear because you are a retard
1 westofthetracks 2018-12-17
yeah the center-right candidate won the primary of the mostly center-right party, not sure what your point is
1 9SidedPolygon 2018-12-17
You mean... regulation?
1 solastsummer 2018-12-17
Obviously they’d be regulations. what kind of regulations would you be passing?
1 UnprovableTruth 2018-12-17
Yeah, anyone who takes an issue with people being deplatformed for The Good of The PeopleTM is just a butthurt rightoid.
Also, claiming that you were against this in the first place, but then turning around to deepthroat corporate cock to own the alt-right is just as hypocrtical as the retards on the right.
1 solastsummer 2018-12-17
“Large media companies are bad” isn’t a hot take on the left. Being skeptical of corporate power and believing it needs to be, at the very least, regulated to prevent market failures is one of the dividing issues between right and left.
The reason the right gets so mad about this issue is because their worldview is that free choice by individuals will always be the most beneficial to everyone. For most of their lives that was what benefitted them the most. Now that there is one instance where it hurts them they cry for government intervention to correct this one problem. But, without dealing with the fundamental problem, these companies are too big, their policies will just be bandaid fixes.
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
according to gallup polls, among people on the left, 50-60% trust mass media. on the right that number is 15%. fox news for people on the right is below majority approval for trust.
youre totally right though! the left is totally the side that questions mass media!
1 solastsummer 2018-12-17
Those aren’t the same thing, you moron. There’s a difference between thinking the Washington Post isn’t making up mean stories about Trump and believing that the government should prevent media consolidation.
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
they literally are. it's the same reason moderates were around 30% for media approval according to same poll. the left was nearly double.
1 westofthetracks 2018-12-17
thinking "mass media" (however the fuck thats even being quantified) isnt literally making up lies is not the same as "loving it." like i "trust" the wsj in the sense that im confident that the things they say happened actually happened, or at least the source theyre citing actually did say that they did, that doesnt mean i dont recognize theyre a sycophantic mouthpiece of capital run by crypto-fascists. these things can be simultaneously true, unless youre completely blinded by ideology.
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
keep coping. your entire political party is for literal idiots and you are too dumb to realize you are one too. you would believe it if it was printed in Vox though
1 westofthetracks 2018-12-17
vox is trash. also im not registered for a political party
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
yyaaaaa maaaannnnn game is rigged. dont register for a political party. only way to win is not play. let’s smoke sooommee dooobbbieeesss
1 westofthetracks 2018-12-17
lol i didnt say i dont vote or something retarded like that, i just find the idea of engaging with dem party politics exhausting and of limited use. realistically i probably should anyway but like, how you would feel if you had to walk around knowing youre a registered democrat? it wouldnt be great for my self-esteem, thats for sure
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2018-12-17
Brb kms
1 westofthetracks 2018-12-17
u should
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-12-17
this guy still mad about NPC meme?? 😹😹😹
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
not an argument... sigh...
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-12-17
Here's some statistics, refute that!
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
i have aspergers and the only emotions i feel is rage and victory when beating libtards like you in debate. i havent lost once.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-12-17
https://i.imgur.com/lZCgeOP.jpg
1 ItsSugar 2018-12-17
Never closing the shit-faucet where your tongue resides doesn't count as winning an argument, no matter how much you and donaldo want it to.
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
uh oh i hear the waahhh bulance. wwwwaaaahhhhhhh wwwwaaaaaaahhhhhhh
"but drumfph!"
1 ItsSugar 2018-12-17
Is your argument really "Rightoids are more likely to believe zerohedge, infowars, et al"?
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
keep gobbling up what mass media says. "b-but infowars", while vogue magazine is giving political opinions now. yikes! what you said is not an argument to the statistics. the left bends over to whatever mass media opinion.
1 ItsSugar 2018-12-17
You're right. The smaller percent that believes the fringe must be the (((enlightened ones))), that's why /r/conspiracy is where many top minds collaborate, and routinely outsmart the most well funded, well equipped and diabolical organizations on earth.
Damn leftoids, believing Trump colluded with the Russians instead of taking a look at pizzagate or the gay frogs smh.
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
ya the cia, nsa, and fbi never have bias or corruption. that's why we found all those WMD's in iraq. oh shit wait
1 ItsSugar 2018-12-17
Rich coming from someone who's literally ban exempt just so we can see where he ranks in the biggest retard of the year contest.
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
meanwhile you wouldnt even be recognized for any contest. no name bitch. remember by username faggot.
1 UnprovableTruth 2018-12-17
I don't care for the abstract "left" and "right", because it doesn't reflect what I'm seeing.
"Large corporations are bad" not being a hot take on the left means jack shit when there are enough people on that side who will instantly start cheering those very same corporations on doing whatever the fuck they want as long as it is against their enemies.
There are people (presumably) on the left using the very same arguments against regulations that people on the right used and they're not doing it in a "see, this argument is pretty dumb, right?" way. The fact that anytime anyone says 'hey, maybe Google and co. are actually too large with too much power' people will just respond with 'you're just mad you're now getting targeted, lol' tells me that neither the left nor the right are even just a smidgen honest about this topic.
1 WHOMSTDVED_DID_THIS 2018-12-17
try and complain about a company doing anything in any other context and it'd be 'literally anything a company does is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, since the benevolent invisible hand of the free market guarantees that if it were bad they'd go out of business. If you don't like it then go and start your own google, commie'
1 OnePercentOfMonster 2018-12-17
Yeah that would be a really fucking stupid thing to say, so you obviously agree that google and mastercard thought policing the internet is a terrible idea.
1 WHOMSTDVED_DID_THIS 2018-12-17
Yes. Anyone who unironically believes in 'the free market' and also thinks that is a hypocrite though
1 parduscat 2018-12-17
Trying to argue in good faith with the right or the alt-right is a fool's errand; they use the left's goodwill to ram their agenda down the nation's throat and or to score cheap points among their side. They need to be silenced and shown that their useless worldview won't be tolerated anymore.
1 MajorGiraffe1 2018-12-17
Takes mean less than actions. Clinton literally signed the act allowing all these mega media mergers and nobody on the left went to the streets to protest. Bezos bought WaPo under Obama who was a media darling
1 Anarcho_Autism 2018-12-17
Lol there isn't a market failure. Tech companies who alienate a fat segment of their market by virtue signalling will lose the segment to new competition.
This won't happen instantly, but it will happen after a little trial and error. I give it 6-12 months before a viable Patreon alternative pops up that utilizes payment processors that won't be compromised by BS politics.
1 MajorGiraffe1 2018-12-17
If it's a centralized service that can be pressured, it will be. And Bitcoin is too autistic for people who give money on Patreon.
1 solastsummer 2018-12-17
lol, when this doesn’t happen you’ll become a Nazi.
1 froibo 2018-12-17
Or YouTubers!
1 seshfan2 2018-12-17
Listen, they targeted YouTubers. YouTubers.
1 WHOMSTDVED_DID_THIS 2018-12-17
or, in a bold stride forward in bipartisanship , videogame youtubers
1 Bluest_waters 2018-12-17
ok? and?
what is your alternative? how will you accomplish it?
all I see ar eyou right wingers whining like babies about this, while offering ZERO solutions.
solutions or stfu
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
you literally offer ZERO solutions. all the left does is whine like babies about everything and take an anti-whatever trump says stance. if you agree what i said is an issue then you're not so bad, if you don't you are retarded. period.
1 froibo 2018-12-17
I have a solution. Ban crowdfunding.
1 Bluest_waters 2018-12-17
I'm not the one whining, you are
so what is your solution to the problem you are whining about?
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
i know you are trying to get by without agreeing with me that it's a problem. if you dont think it's a problem you are the biggest idiot on reddit. there's no agreed upon solution yet but i can do that same exact argument to you on global warming, which you cannot give a valid solution for yet that doesn't hurt the economy.
you are so embarrassing it hurts.
1 Bluest_waters 2018-12-17
so you have absolutely zero solutions.
got it
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
give me your solution to global warming that doesn’t hurt our economy to the point of China taking #1 spot. if you can’t give one you are a retard who can never complain about global warming again.
1 Bluest_waters 2018-12-17
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/renewable-energy-80-percent-us-electricity.html
there you go.
now your turn
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
moving to renewable energy which is less cost efficient will hurt the economy you absolute retard
1 Bluest_waters 2018-12-17
destroying the climate will destroy our economy you smart young man
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
im sure china will care in the meantime which is much closer on the timeline. let me know if that doesn't make sense. my IQ is a lot higher than yours so i'm not sure how much i have to dumb that down.
1 froibo 2018-12-17
Destroying the planet faster to own China
1 Bluest_waters 2018-12-17
it doesn't
1 selectrix 2018-12-17
Idiots. I bet they can't even invent perpetual motion machines either.
1 9SidedPolygon 2018-12-17
The government provides a massive liability shield to all these guys if they're making a "good faith" effort to "restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". They have complete civil liability immunity, no matter how they do it or what they do.
But yeah private companies' speech lmao. Companies that are only able to have these functions without immediately getting fuckpwned by a million lawsuits because the government has given them complete immunity for any civil consequences to actions taken to restrict constitutionally protected speech. Hmm, but you know what, when the government gives somebody a special exemption to any consequences for their actions, and they use that special privilege to restrict constitutionally protected speech, technically that's not the same as the government doing it, so it's fine.
1 froibo 2018-12-17
But then anyone can force you to make a gay cake, and no one wants that.
1 UnprovableTruth 2018-12-17
I think most people would be okay with forcing large companies to provide services to all people (as long as it's reasonable e.g. nothing 'obscene'), it's only iffy when it comes to very small companies/single people.
1 froibo 2018-12-17
The Supreme Court said corporations are people.
1 UnprovableTruth 2018-12-17
False and also irrelevant. Are you retarded or just a shill?
1 froibo 2018-12-17
Supreme Court ruled shills are people
1 Strictlybutters 2018-12-17
Lol speaking like a conspiratard really enhances your credibility
1 UnprovableTruth 2018-12-17
Retarded posts deserve retarded replies.
1 froibo 2018-12-17
Exactly.
1 9SidedPolygon 2018-12-17
Yeah, the classic free speech case is that Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc, all effectively comprise (and present themselves as) a "public forum," and thus the right to free speech overcomes the right to private property, as in Marsh v. Alabama (1946) where free speech rights were determined to trump private ownership. This would effectively police sites like Twitter but not every random web forum with 10,000 users. However this requires the SCOTUS to make such a decision; it is difficult to predict whether they would come to the "right" decision and in any case is unlikely to occur any time soon.
However, significantly curtailing the liability shield provided by Section 230 (say, to making a good faith effort to restrict speech which is not constitutionally protected), is a simple statutory adjustment which would severely curtail the ability of these companies to randomly ban people because they said the n-word or Mastercard said to or they posted pictures of a boobie or whatever the hell else.
1 McFluffTheCrimeCat 2018-12-17
Uh no marsh vs Alabama doesn’t mean what you’re trying to say it does.
1 watermarx06 2018-12-17
If that liability shield were removed all of this would have been removed long ago. There is a reason traditional news outlets aren't just unedited alt right dumpster fires. You want to use that liability shield to *require* them to carry violent, hateful, and harassing content?
1 9SidedPolygon 2018-12-17
That's a different liability shield. 230(c)1 establishes that a company is not held responsible for what is posted on their service, because otherwise Zuckerberg would have gone to prison for 100,000 years for all the child porn on Facebook. This is against all liability, criminal or civil.
230(c)2 establishes a civil liability shield for companies engaging in "Good Samaritan" policies, which in practice means deleting people's Youtubes because they said faggot. Removing it wouldn't "require" them to carry violent, hateful, and harassing content, any more than a library is required to, or anybody else without this insane, vast liability shield is. It would just mean they would think twice about banning people without just cause, because people could and would sue them, whereas right now, they absolutely can't.
I'm not right wing lol.
1 MayNotBeAPervert 2018-12-17
everyone knows that free speech society is at its best when critical service providers are free to deny service to whomever they want.
I mean we've already stepped too far away from peak freedom because my Water and Sewage service provider are prohibited from cutting me off if they don't like things I saw, and my electricity provider is still forced to let me heat my home in winter.
But at least we still recognize that financial transactions are completely optional to today's life, so there is definitely no reason for the government to force the few private companies providing this optional service to our society, to do anything they don't want - like servicing people I want unpersoned.
1 seshfan2 2018-12-17
I don't really think "letting people throw money at you for your white nationalist youtubes" is really a same right on the level of water and sewage.
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
reaching levels of intellectual dishonesty we never thought possible
1 seshfan2 2018-12-17
You're right, acting like having your Patron taken away is as bad as losing access to water is totally normal and not dishonest.
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
what else?
1 dramasexual 2018-12-17
Ahh yes, the ability to air political opinions the giant megacorps don't like isn't at all critical to a functional democracy.
1 dogwheiner 2018-12-17
Free markets only reward profitable ideas.
This is either a market inefficiency which can be filled for massive profit (in which case these people should be happy for the opportunity), or their ideas harm the income of the brands they associate with, in which case they have no right to be affiliated with them.
1 Heydammit 2018-12-17
Not being able to receive money from one donation site is not removing the ability to air political opinions. Such pearl clutching nonsense.
1 MayNotBeAPervert 2018-12-17
I agree.
One doesn't even need to be that specific -hell, really any rights are okay to deny to people once we've established* that we are doing it to ...
sinnertraitor to motherlandmisogynistv.2018+: 'white nationalist' (misogynist still implied)
*Status, as established in-arguably and without right to appeal, by solid and simple rule of 'someone said so, so it must be true'
Now that this process has been tested and checked out, 2020s are gong to be great.
Get online, get offended at someone, start calling that dude 'white nationalist' online until enough bloggers jump on bandwagon, watch the system take over as every company takes their turn to virtue signal by unpersoning him.
Laugh as he whines about shit being unfair to them - fuck'em though, if they kept their mouth shut and didn't say anything, wouldn't have a reason to notice them.
No freedom from consequences, right?
1 djlewt 2018-12-17
No matter how you dress it up, this is still just a slippery slope fallacy.
1 SNCommand 2018-12-17
When a dozen atheist jews are being called alt right and nazis for so being deplatformed it's no longer a fallacy, stop being dumb enough to think one thing won't lead to another
1 djlewt 2018-12-17
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that same "non fallacy" being used to explain gay marriage would lead to people marrying chairs and pot use would lead to heroin addiction was actually not a fallacy but in fact what happens now.
This is what you're arguing if you agree with the comment I took issue with. Also show me the people being "deplatformed" which in non-sperg english actually here is "being kicked from a private service for breaking their terms" and why they deserve a government enforced platform hosted by a private entity. It's insanity, you fucking rightoid morons are arguing for government intervention, literally while your entire ethos bases its' theory of government on "it's too controlling".
So lets see, by his EXACT logic then after the 1950's leftists should have been able to go around calling random right wingers commies and having their lives ruined simply because they said so and because that was what McCarthyism was. Weird thing though, that didn't happen. Why not? Because that's a fucking idiotic logical fallacy.
1 MayNotBeAPervert 2018-12-17
Slippery slopes are not a fallacy - they are observable reality describing vast majority of trends in human society.
only people who actually buy that bullshit of it being a fallacy, are those whose lifespans or memories are too short to be able to take stock of society at 5+ year intervals.
1 djlewt 2018-12-17
You're literally trying to claim the same logic that gave us "gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals and chairs" and "pot is a gateway drug its' use WILL lead to heroin and cocaine" is sound. Fuck how do you get as stupid as you are? Which 5 year interval do you want? Back when McCarthyism was in full swing and people had their livlihoods destroyed based on total rumors and not because they spewed racist garbage into a megaphone called the internet that is saved FOR ALL TIME?
God fucking damnit I can't even comprehend your stupid.
1 CadicalRentrist 2018-12-17
Chapo is on the level of sewage and Richard Spencer is a fan, does that count?
1 seshfan2 2018-12-17
tbh if Chapo gets kicked off patreon I'll be the first to start celebrating
1 CadicalRentrist 2018-12-17
They won’t, though :(.
1 SNCommand 2018-12-17
One drunk binge and some rape later they will be
1 WHOMSTDVED_DID_THIS 2018-12-17
Isn't this unironically what libertarians believe though?
1 hgjkg 2018-12-17
But they are not denied financial transactions.
Patreon just makes recurring payments easy to set up. And PayPal obfuscates credit card details so they don't have to deal with the burden of setting up a secure transaction system. It's completely possible to set up possibility for payment on your own website, it's just hard. It should not come as a surprise that if you are controversial some entities might not want to do business with you.
1 aqouta 2018-12-17
Not all criticism of behavior is an endorsement for government intervention. I can say someone is being shitty without implying I think they should be put in a cage for it.
1 seshfan2 2018-12-17
smh get this nuanced take out of here
1 IE_5 2018-12-17
You mean like this? https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-response-to-online-shadow-banning-1533496357
Where the fuck would we be if phone companies couldn't disconnect your phone line because you called someone a cunt? Or your ISP disconnecting your Internet connection because you participate in this retarded place? Or the postal service refusing to send out your letters because your last one was really strongly worded?
Where would we be if airlines and railroad companies couldn't deny you service because of your political opinions? DEREGULATION NOW!
1 Strictlybutters 2018-12-17
Are you seriously implying that access to YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and patreon is the same thing as having access to a telephone or transportation?
1 coldfirerules 2018-12-17
They cant help, they're retarded.
After all, people have been using planes and trains to directly spread hateful political ideologies for decades now.
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
Some brainlet just like you, 100 years ago, arguing that the owners of the telephone lines should be allowed to deny service to their political opponents.
Some brainlet just like you, 200 years ago, arguing that the postal service should be allowed to deny service to their political opponents.
1 coldfirerules 2018-12-17
You do not need youtube to live sweaty. You are not entitled to a platform.
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
some brainlet like you, 100 years ago.
some brainlet like you, 200 years ago.
1 coldfirerules 2018-12-17
Ahhh, its actually retarded.
1 Heydammit 2018-12-17
Man that is the falsest of equivalencies.
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
it's the truest and straightest equivalence in the history of ever
1 Heydammit 2018-12-17
It is a super gay equivalence rooted in petty entitlement and faghoty whinging.
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
You're just horny for censorship, because your brain is bean sized. So you keep making artificial distinctions.
More people are communicating through facebook than through mail.
1 Heydammit 2018-12-17
I have not made any distinction, I said you were making false equivalencies and that your point is bad.
And in time Facebook will fall away and a new platform will arrive, and we can go through this whole song and dance again. A platform to speak at large is inherently different than private communication, which I might point it Facebook is not.
1 rtk-03 2018-12-17
​
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
You're just horny for censorship, because your brain is bean sized. So you keep making artificial distinctions.
More people are communicating through facebook than through mail.
1 rtk-03 2018-12-17
> So you keep making artificial distinctions
imagine thinking making a distinction between patreon and your ISP is artificial. you are a huge brainlet and you need to kys.
don't pretend you give a shit about censorship, you'll gladly ban libcucks from your website if you had your way.
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
no dispute here.
1 Frensel 2018-12-17
Access to social media is considerably more important than access to airlines, railroads, and landline telephones.
1 onenight1234 2018-12-17
lmao
1 ItsSugar 2018-12-17
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
some low-T brainlet just like you, 120 years ago, arguing that the owners of the telephone lines should be allowed to deny service to their political opponents.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-12-17
https://i.imgur.com/IkRD7aY.jpg
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
you already did
1 Strictlybutters 2018-12-17
Not gonna lie I skimmed it and edited my comment after taking an initial look.
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
Now you do.
Not 100 years ago, when the telephone was a recent invention.
1 IE_5 2018-12-17
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/31/hurricane-harvey-social-media-and-mobile-tech-come-to-the-rescue-in-texas/
Btw. Facebook services over 2.5 billion users: https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/25/facebook-2-5-billion-people/
Google has 7 different services servicing over a billion users, additionally to near monopoly on Search and duopoly on mobile: https://d1avok0lzls2w.cloudfront.net/uploads/blog/58c461095d00a1.85677020.jpg
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/17/google-has-2-billion-users-on-android-500m-on-google-photos/
The idea that companies like that can and should be able to do anything they like is utterly idiotic and unworkable. Some of these new mass communication networks/digital public squares are getting to be a lot more important than telegraphs or ferries potentially ever were. Increasingly certain kind of professions even need these services to do their jobs, some even draw their whole income from services like YouTube, Twitch or Twitter. They're also increasingly places where people choose to petition the government, "protest" against it or where reporting on current issues happens.
If you believe they should and can do absolutely everything "because private company" without incurring regulation due to their size and importance you're retarded.
1 glarbung 2018-12-17
Not just that. He just said that deregulation will somehow make this better. How the hell? Deregulation means money talks and when money talks, Patreon kicks out rightoids.
Protecting freedom of speech without regulations is impossible, but I guess that's too hard to understand.
1 coldfirerules 2018-12-17
1 watermarx06 2018-12-17
These companies are more like publishers, not carriers. Honestly the only reason they haven't been sued into oblivion for carrying these lies and hateful garbage before is their civil immunity. Any traditional publisher who carried alt right content promoting violent and the establishment of a single race state would quickly be out of business.
1 IE_5 2018-12-17
The funny thing is those protections/immunity is predicated that they are and remain content neutral like a phone company or the postal service would be. By increasingly narrowing down the kind and sort of content allowed on it they de facto become publishers instead of carriers and should have the same legal liabilities as other publishers like The New York Times or The Washington Post and similar.
Ultimately speech is too important and it just won't do that two or three MegaCorps from San Francisco control what, how and to whom billions of people worldwide can say.
Or as someone else put it: https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1071216823742291968
1 Matthew1J 2018-12-17
Yeah, government stepping in to force a company which has effectively a monopoly on this financial service that constitutes main source of income for some independent media and artists/authors to not remove users/customers who didn't break any of their written rules without a warning would be such a bad thing. /s
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-12-17
DAE tell the internet about how they read for fun?
1 nmx179 2018-12-17
Sorry you're a retard I guess.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-12-17
Give me book recommendations or I won't believe you are actually sorry.
1 charming_tatum 2018-12-17
Blood Meridian. It's a tough read, at times I wanted to put it down but I'm glad I read it. One of the most violent and depressing things I've read.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-12-17
Yeah I read that one. I liked it, but damn the ending was goddamn brutal. I liked The Road as well which at least had some hope at the end. I've got All The Pretty Horses around here too, but I tried to start it and it didn't really hook me, I should probably go back to it one of these days.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-12-17
u still mad about NPC meme bro?? 😹😹😹
1 TotesMessenger 2018-12-17
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 MayNotBeAPervert 2018-12-17
Man, Orwell really fucked up there by deciding to focus that book on 'how it turned out' rather than 'how it started'
I wonder if he would have written it if he was forewarned that his book would be forever used afterwards by people defending every single step toward that state with 'but we aren't all the way there, yet so there is nothing to worry about'
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-12-17
And somehow that's not even the worst point in your post.
1 preserved_fish 2018-12-17
Jesus was a historical person. Probably not the son of God though.
1 kaczynskireborn 2018-12-17
Uncle ted already did it and he wasnt a pinko retard
Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. [14] Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.
In paragraph 127 we pointed out that if the use of a new item of technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional, because the new technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology. This applies also to the technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children are put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program, because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which so many people suffer in our society. If large numbers of people choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to increase the stress-producing pressures. In fact, something like this seems to have happened already with one of our society’s most important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce (or at least temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment (see paragraph 147). Our use of mass entertainment is “optional”: No law requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines. Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along today without using ANY form of mass entertainment. (Yet until quite recently in human history most people got along very nicely with no other entertainment than that which each local community created for itself.) Without the entertainment industry the system probably would not have been able to get away with putting as much stress-producing pressure on us as it does.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-17
Have you owned the libs yet?
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 kaczynskireborn 2018-12-17
Yes
1 OnePercentOfMonster 2018-12-17
man, ted is one smart son of a bitch
1 WHOMSTDVED_DID_THIS 2018-12-17
and tbh orwell comes up with some very similar ideas to this passage in 'the road to wigan pier', with a distrust of modern technology that verges on anprim (only with less random killing)
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2018-12-17
1984 is meme-status.
Brave New World is closer to what's happening.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-12-17
I wish, our drugs are still bullshit compared to that sweet, sweet soma.
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
neither is close to what's happening.
I think the meaning of "thought police" is pretty clear and independent of "1984", even though it was coined in that book.
1 lol_te_gusto 2018-12-17
1 tHeSiD 2018-12-17
Not this bullshit argument again.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-12-17
I gotta say, I'm pretty happy to learn how triggering 1984 is to you guys.
1 nanonan 2018-12-17
Yeah, because calling people who want an ethnostate white niggers is totally justifiable reason to ban someone. Meanwhile I could get on CNN and call Kanye a house nigger and nobody would blink.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-12-17
I have no idea what you are saying but it sounds like you should go for it.
1 infinitysnake 2018-12-17
beg online for money to start an ethnostate<<
Who was doing this?
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
All I know about him is that he is a bit stupid, so he probably has a similar fanbase to Sargon.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Sam Harris is a bit stupid? Have you ever actually listened to one of his lectures or podcasts? Dude is incredibly thoughtful, measured, and intelligent
1 grungebot5000 2018-12-17
he’s smart, usually handles himself very well in discourse, but he does do that thing where he’ll say things in deliberately ambiguous, controversy-baiting ways, and then throw a fit when people take it at face value.
like “how could you possibly think I was advocating racial profiling when I said that police and TSA should profile potential Muslims?”
i’d never compare him to Sargon, though, as Sam does actually have a brain
1 ScaledDown 2018-12-17
If youre going to quote people, quote them. His reason had nothing to do with looking like a Muslim.
1 grungebot5000 2018-12-17
what the fuck are you talking about lol
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
sam harris is a gay retard whos voice could put me to sleep after digesting 120mg of adderall
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Why does his sexuality, or mental capacity have anything to do with this? You may find him boring, but I don't think that warrants such ad hominem attacks, it just makes you look mentally weak in comparison, because you're unable, or unwilling to effectively articulate your issues with him, besides him being a "gay retard". Good job
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
call me weak again and i will break kick your retarded sissy ass. last warning.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
I have no idea if you're weak or not, but your arguments certainly are. That being said...
Come see me bro. 1650 palm Ave apartment 2 San Mateo California. 94402. Do you need a Google map?
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
lol...not even worth it. dont bother replying.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Exactly.
Have a wonderful, blessed, and fulfilling day. I hope this world delivers to you knowledge, understanding, and patience. God bless
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
i hope you step on a used heroin needle and wander in a forest fire. your state sucks ass.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
I know. I fucking hate it. The laws suck, restrictions are heavy, and taxes are high. Additionally, there are a bunch of anti-free speech "progressives" who want to silence those they don't agree with, but this is where I was born, and where I've built my business. It would be too costly to move at this point. I've got places I can go in a few other states too though, just not my business. Anyway, glad we could find something to agree on, and again, I hope you have a wonderful day.
1 RandolphCox 2018-12-17
let me guess your business is protecting gay retards like Sam harris online
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Commercial Knife sharpener and bladesmith. Smithing is more of a hobby as it's too labor intensive to make lots of money. You were pretty close though. Good guess
1 bartisyou2 2018-12-17
I'm at Berkeley, California
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
I was in Berkeley last night! Howdy neighbor!
1 bartisyou2 2018-12-17
Let's see, how does it ... is it ... Get Off My Lawn!!
1 Me-llamo_jeff 2018-12-17
- Some gay rapist retard.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
I'mnot saying I agree with his stance, but his argument is this:
Tens of millions have been murdered, and are continually murdered in the name of religion. Religion has been the greatest dividing force among humans for millenia. Rape, while awful, is a very rare incident, and is already very illegal. Perhaps more prosecution is in order.
Orders of magnitude fewer people have been raped for the sake of rape, than have been raped or murdered in the name of religion
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
Now that's a genuinely stupid argument.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Fair enough. I still support his right to say whatever he wants, so long as it doesn't incite violence. It's the duty of others to point out the logical falacies in his arguments, so that consumers of information have a fuller picture of the facts, and can then make their own informed decisions. Whether a person is right or not is far less important than if they get you thinking about your own positions. Informed stance on varying policies is only tennable when fully informed by all the available information
1 Me-llamo_jeff 2018-12-17
It's not a stupid argument but its deffo a gay retard argument. Lol I mean if it wasn't for religion I'd almost certainly have killed multitudes of people by now.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Obviously fear of going to hell is the only thing that keeps us all in line
1 heavenlytoaster 2018-12-17
You should read your magic book better, it tells you that you can kill people.
1 Me-llamo_jeff 2018-12-17
Not unconditionally, unfortunately :(
1 heavenlytoaster 2018-12-17
I mean not completely, but close enough.
1 Me-llamo_jeff 2018-12-17
- Death penalty for murder.
- In self defence.
- When two peoples are killing each other, help to kill the one bigger arsehole.
Luckily for you getting smack talked on the internet didn't make the list 😂
1 Patsy02 2018-12-17
Nah, you're just stupid. QED.
1 grungebot5000 2018-12-17
He never said being a gay retard wasn’t okay or makes him wrong though
He just stated the fact that he’s a gay retard
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
You're half right, but based on the context he was very likely using it in a disparaging way. Either way, his mental capacity is of little question, and his sexuality is a non issue.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-12-17
☝️I agree with this NPC☝️
1 Kuonji 2018-12-17
yeah man and who likes gay retards. yuck
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
I saw this debate with him and it was genuinely embarassing. Seemed like they put a 16-yo /r/atheism subscriber on the same panel as a bunch of reputable Ivy league professors.
Also, everything he's ever said about philosophy has been wrong, including both his books on that.
I don't know anything about his podcast though, maybe he's a good interviewer and has good guests? He's an expert on precisely nothing so I'm not sure what else he could offer.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Fair enough, he's not everyone's cup of tea. I disagree with him about free will and religion, but I feel he has some valid points philosophically. Again, to each their own, I just respect the fact that he is standing up for the open parlay of knowledge and discussion, as opposed to trying to shut down those he doesn't agree with. I appreciate the intellectual integrity necessary to truly listen to your debate opponent and try to see things from their perspective.
Thank you VERY MUCH for being the only person to reply to me in a meaningful manner on this subject. I really appreciate it, and hope you have a great day.
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
Well, they would have been valid points 500 years ago, just like geocentrists had valid points back then. It's just that philosophy and astronomy have progressed quite a bit since then and when a panel full of experts tells you that, you should listen and learn, not start arguing with them and revealing even more of your ignorance.
Someone telling a room full of NASA scientists that actually, they are wrong and the sun revolves around the earth because that's consistent with observations you made on your handmade telescope in your backyard is definitely someone I'd call "a bit stupid".
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
When did he say that the sun revolves around the earth? Dude is a philosopher and neuroscientist, I have a hard time believing that he actually thinks something that asinine.
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
It's an analogy. He did basically the same, just about morality instead of astronomy.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
But morality isn't a scientifically proven fixed principal. Morality shifts from location to location, culture to culture, and even among individuals. Therefore it's a poor analogy. If he were arguing that atmospheric pressure had no affect on the phase shift of water, I would say your analogy was applicable. For him to argue points on philosophy, morality, religion, society, gender, is completely different because as I've stated, these are not scientifically fixed principals, and are all relavent topics pertaining to our current modern society. Again, maybe he's wrong, but the debate of these matters is very very important. It's the only way that the public can be truly informed, and the only way we can move towards a more inclusive, and accepting world
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
You aren't making much sense. Just because philosophy isn't science doesn't mean you can't make false and entirely stupid statements. He doesn't understand Hume's is-ought gap, for example, and that's painfully obvious by all the stupid shit he says about it.
Debate between actual experts on relevant topics is important, people with no idea what they are talking about making arguments that people have dealt with and proven bullshit 300 years ago isn't. There's a reason philosophers just ignore Harris, just like physicists ignore flat-earthers.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Okay, fair enough, and I'm not familiar enough with Sam or with philosophy to have anything productive to add to that discussion. If he is irrelevant and or incorrect, you can ignore him. If he has an audience, then the free market says that people resonate with his ideas. I feel the only way to sway these people towards objective truth is to offer ideas in opposition to Sam's, and let the debate play out. When he's shown to not know his stuff, or for his ideas to be logically unsound, people can choose to stop following him if he doesn't shift his views in light of superior logic.
Or do you feel that he's not even justified in talking to people you reguard as relavent philosophers?
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
All kinds of retards saying stupid shit all the time have followings. Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc. Stopping stupid people from listening to other stupid people is difficult and not a particularly appealing task.
This has happened several times, his fans don't care.
Of course he is? It's of course sad that he was on that panel, so instead of an actually interesting discussion we got them explaining philosophy 101 to him.
1 ILieToCaptchas 2018-12-17
He didnt though. Utilitarianism and moral naturalism are pretty much alive.
The problem with Harris is that he doesnt justify this beliefs. He just takes them for granted
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
Sure they are, but a vague label misses the fact that most of what Harris says is retarded. Like that if we believe Hume then it's impossible to argue against the Taliban, or this beautiful twitter chain https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/951276346529009665
1 froibo 2018-12-17
The person you are responding to is /r/atheism incarnate.
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
Perfect. I love arguing with actual retards.
1 UnprovableTruth 2018-12-17
what? The dude has a phd in cognitive neuroscience. I don't know anything else about him, but anyone who has a phd is at least an expert in something.
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
Afaik he published 3 or 4 fmri studies sometime back. So he probably knows a little about that.
1 FolkLoki 2018-12-17
“The brain scan shows that religion is dumb.”
1 trilateral1 2018-12-17
the idea of deriving morality from science seems absurd to me, but maybe the way he intends this to be understood is a way that makes sense. haven't read his stuff
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
Oh I just noticed I didn't link the actual debate. Check out from this timestamp onward, it's hilarious how stupid he seems:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytnXO5TudU&t=1h37m37s
1 DonnysDiscountGas 2018-12-17
I like his podcast, he's a decent interviewer and gets good guests. Sam Harris is by far the worst part of the Sam Harris podcast, like 90% of his comments are just facts good, science good, Trump bad, SJWs bad.
1 froibo 2018-12-17
How did you stumble on this place?
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Which place? r/drama? One of the many hundreds of subs I subscribe to. I enjoy dealing with people who's views vary from my own, so I seek them out on the internet, and try to engage in friendly, thoughtful debate. Usually I just get flamed at. Lol
1 froibo 2018-12-17
Alright, so you are bizzaro pizzashill got it.
Gee.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
What's a pizzashill?
I'm just an old man who likes to talk to people who don't agree with me
1 froibo 2018-12-17
Someone that used to post here a lot.
He's a bit like you only he was hostile and liked arguing with Trump supporters and feminists.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Ah. Well I'm notoriously not hostile even when others are to me.
Odd that he disliked feminists and Trump supporters, they seem to be on rather opposite ends of the spectrum.
Anyhow, I don't necessarily want to argue, so much as give my views and try to understand those who disagree and why they hold their views. My hope is to build bridges between people, so we can work towards commonality instead of the constant divisiveness and hate I see everywhere
1 pepperouchau 2018-12-17
He thought he was "one of the good liberals" because he liked talking about how the sjws had gone too far or whatever
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Well, I kind of think they have gone too far, personally.
1 Osterion 2018-12-17
yikes
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-12-17
Just watch the Four Horsemen videos to see through the sham that is Sam Harris. Nothing but a clinger-on to other pseudointellectuals who eclipse him 😹
1 snallygaster 2018-12-17
Are you trying to make /r/drama die of smug overdose?
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-12-17
Yes? 😸
1 snallygaster 2018-12-17
Great idea! 😻
1 grungebot5000 2018-12-17
he’s not exactly stupid, he’s just gotten increasingly narrow-minded and petulant over the years. leading an internet cult hasn’t been good for him
that being said, he’s fucking leagues above Sargon
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
Eh, everything I've seen from him made him seem like a stupid guy trying to appear smart.
1 grungebot5000 2018-12-17
that’s because when stupid people try to appear smart, they imotate him
1 Mikeavelli 2018-12-17
This is at least the second time you've started seriousposting in r/drama about your hate boner for Sam Harris. Did he run over your dog or something?
1 Snowayne2 2018-12-17
Hate boner? I'm just calling a stupid guy stupid buddy. And I like arguing with retards, so making his fans mad is always fun.
1 watermarx06 2018-12-17
Sam Harris is a concern troll, he's always been sympathetic to rightists and just pretends to be a good freethinking liberal just asking questions.
1 iamusingplebbit 2018-12-17
He is even a motherfucking liar and an idiot.
A fucking neuroscientist that doesn't even know what the definition of depression is beyond "being sad".
1 Patsy02 2018-12-17
sauce that shit or you're a liar
1 TotesMessenger 2018-12-17
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 MikeStoklasaAlcohol 2018-12-17
It's over for featured-on-an/r/drama-post-cels
1 As-a-xxx 2018-12-17
In a related story, two dozen neck beards now have sufficient cash flow to buy a new xbox game.
1 Alicesnakebae 2018-12-17
Why would mommy give them that much
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2018-12-17
Look, they may be NEETs but they understand they deep complexities of GBP and Gross Domestic Tendies.
1 PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2018-12-17
Each one of them, or all 12 combined?
1 escebar_ortez 2018-12-17
2 dozen you mathlet
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Free speech should be free, even if you don't agree with it. If we can censor those we don't agree with, it's only a matter of time until we ourselves are censored. Free speech is about an economy of ideas, when a bad idea is put out, good ideas counter it, and highlight it's social, or logical falacies. Limiting people's free speech only emboldens them, and brings more attention to their idiocy. Free speech for all!
1 froibo 2018-12-17
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Well stated, logical, and airtight argument. You're obviously a matter of debate
1 froibo 2018-12-17
1 shadowbannedlol 2018-12-17
Shut up, nerd.
1 HansCool 2018-12-17
Dear God someone debate me I'm gonna cuuuuuuuum
1 capthazelwoodsflask 2018-12-17
Shut up, nerd.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Ooh, ad hominem, you must be truly talented in debate. How about an actual discussion as to what you feel, and why you feel that way, instead of calling names? I mean, you can call me whatever you want, but it doesn't increase the validity, or salience to your opinion
1 Warhammy_ 2018-12-17
Please tell me you're taking the piss, nerd.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Taking the piss? No I'm on an aerodine bike. Why would I be taking a piss?
Also, I am a nerd. I don't mind being one. Been one all 43 years of my life
1 angrypotato1 2018-12-17
Lol nerd
1 tartr10u50 2018-12-17
Yea you're right we need to rise up. Gamers are in fact the most oppressed group in society, a thing that we all live in.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
You and your gamer buddies should rise up
1 tartr10u50 2018-12-17
No u
1 capthazelwoodsflask 2018-12-17
43 years old and you sound like a kid who's trying to stand up to his middle school bully with logic.
25 years after graduating high school do you still jerk yourself to sleep every night after reading the Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged thinking about how their popularity and good looks are fleeting but your intellect will always be greater than them? And the real irony is how after all of these years, they were the ones who got over high school and moved on while you still relive it.
1 Alicesnakebae 2018-12-17
He's a loser from the Donald this thread lured out a bunch of cockroaches
1 Ghdust2 2018-12-17
Shut up, nerd.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Why are you so mean? I may be a nerd, but I'm entitled to just as much latitude as anyone else. I hope you have a nice day
1 Ghdust2 2018-12-17
Shut up, nerd.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
I see this is a game of attrition, not an actual conversation, so I acquiesce. You win. I still hope you have a wonderful day
1 Ghdust2 2018-12-17
Shut up, nerd.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
I love your persistence
1 Ghdust2 2018-12-17
Shut up, nerd.
1 Mikeavelli 2018-12-17
Note to self: write bot.
1 ___Moufasa___ 2018-12-17
BRAAAAAAAP
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Do you identify as an A-10? Or as a dirt bike?
1 ghostchamber 2018-12-17
All of those people still have their freeze peaches.
1 Marcus_McTavish 2018-12-17
They aren’t entitled to a microphone tho dingus
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Entitled? Of course not. But as I understand it, Sam Harris has purchased his own equipment, and built his own audience. Therefore it was through his own labor that he is where he is. I wouldn't call that entitlement.
1 Marcus_McTavish 2018-12-17
I wasn’t referring to SH but other wannabes that have received the boot
1 Ghdust2 2018-12-17
Free speech was a mistake.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
There are places you can go live that don't allow it. You're not restricted to where you live
1 shadowbannedlol 2018-12-17
Sounds like someone believes that all borders should be open
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
You're quite wrong about that
1 shadowbannedlol 2018-12-17
Does that not mean open borders? I'm confused. Last I checked if there are border controls, that means that there are restrictions as to who may live there.
1 DonnysDiscountGas 2018-12-17
Yep, right there in the first amendment
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
Exactly
1 Black_Bird_Cloud 2018-12-17
god dammnit I was sure of it and you confirmed, it's impossible to both post on TD and having basic reading capabilities. Maybe if you go at it slowly ?
1 Crowbar-12 2018-12-17
mfw I see a seriousposter in my drama sub
1 UmmahSultan 2018-12-17
Wrong. Good ideas should be encouraged, and bad ideas should be discouraged. The notion that there is some kind of difficulty in identifying which is which is an Enlightenment-era fad that was unfortunately popular in the 18th century.
1 coldfirerules 2018-12-17
LOL I genuinely thought you were just shit at being ironic but you're an actual T_D retard...what a crazy world we live in.
1 DopeMeme_Deficiency 2018-12-17
I subscribe to undress of subs. I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm certainly glad Hillary didn't win. Im what you'd describe as a classical liberal. Anyhow, I hope you have a wonderful day
1 Oh_hamburgers_ 2018-12-17
Lol that title. Sargon is a lot of things but he isn't alt right.
1 seshfan2 2018-12-17
True but both Richard Spencer and the Daily Stormer have openly thanked him for helping lure gullible retards into joining up with the alt-right though. Definitely a useful idiot for sure.
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-12-17
Daily stormer has unironically endorsed jeremy corbin with a long throughtout post explaining why.
1 duckraul2 2018-12-17
It's not surprising because the politics of fascism/ethno nationalism or whatever you'd like to call it are purely cynical and inherently dishonest. The reason it looks so ridiculous all the time is they're forced to support things piecemeal because no candidate is actually as abhorrent as their real views (no real candidates, anyway). It's dishonest because they don't really support candidates, or ultimately modern liberal democratic forms of government; it's all a means to an end.
1 Patsy02 2018-12-17
It's a bit like communism but without any of the principles.
1 SNCommand 2018-12-17
Implying communists have principles
1 Mikeavelli 2018-12-17
Some chapotards told me the Soviet Union was true communism the other day, and unironically pointed to the government doing stuff as socialism. It was a bit surreal.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-12-17
The principles of thermodynamics apply, i.e. starvation in the absence of energy from food
1 ___Moufasa___ 2018-12-17
But theres a huge difference. Sargon makes shit content on youtube about sjws, Corbyn is a leftist politician.
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-12-17
Yes. Corbyn has far more power and influence than sargon does.
1 gorgeousbshaw 2018-12-17
He's going to more soon too comrade.
1 cimarafa 2018-12-17
Why would that be surprising? It’s just an ‘enemy of my enemy’ situation, like how some European far rightists support Islamists in the Middle East against Israel.
1 Prysorra2 2018-12-17
I'm not clicking that nazi shit. Someone summarize please.
1 my-iPhone 2018-12-17
Do people transform into Alt Right when they get thanked or praised by those two?
Strange form of authority fallacy.
1 Kuonji 2018-12-17
if bad person likes something you do that makes you automatically bad
1 tathrowaway666 2018-12-17
Hitler was an environmentalist and vegan (could be wrong on that last one, can’t remember for sure) so the logic holds up there.
1 ParticularDrummer 2018-12-17
Hitler was a vegetarian not a vegan.
And he didn't completely exclude meat. He may have been vegetarianish because of health reasons but it's not very clear because of conflicting accounts.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-12-17
Imagine unironically defending mr alt-lite himself
1 Oh_hamburgers_ 2018-12-17
You just did the same thing though by calling him alt-lite, no?
1 ineedmorealts 2018-12-17
naw alt-lite is just alt-right but for pussies
1 Mother_Jabubu 2018-12-17
imagine being such a cummie you think Sargoy is alt-lite
1 Chicup 2018-12-17
Sargon is alt-right?
1 iamusingplebbit 2018-12-17
Well actually, to be fair, the deleted accounts where actually associated with hate groups which were used to put gay ops out there.
Like Mumkey's and Sargon's doxing servers.
1 ___Moufasa___ 2018-12-17
Mumkey had doxing servers?
1 Bufashoop 2018-12-17
Mumkey was a good boie he dindu nuffin
1 ___Moufasa___ 2018-12-17
still making dindu jokes in current year + 3
1 geardumpling 2018-12-17
I'm so proud of my lord and Savior Sam Harris . He is very brave letting go of those large Patreon payments . Idk if he will be able to afford his mansion and beautiful electric automobile though so I sent him more money directly to his website!
1 double-happiness 2018-12-17
Sargon's not even really a conservative IMO; he has pretty permissive views on a lot of things. He's really just a dyed-in-the-wool classical liberal. He's less of a 'stuffed shirt', and more of the standard-issue middle-English, above-average-educated politically centrist bloke who you could find in almost any UK student union bar. I can't really see him fitting in with many UK conservatives because they are often so cloistered, awkward and embarrassing. Consider for instance Michael Gove.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ScentedCrispHare-size_restricted.gif
1 idp5601 2018-12-17
And as we all know, classical liberals love UKIP!
If he really was a classical liberal he would be for loosened immigration rules, considering that most of the influential libertarian economists (like Friedman) were very much pro-immigration.
1 double-happiness 2018-12-17
You're writing as if adherence to a given political philosophy defines one's views on every subject, and that's a false assumption. He could be a classical liberal overall, while holding conservative views on certain topics. Not everyone's political beliefs are as homogeneous or consistent as you make them out to be.
1 friend1y 2018-12-17
Everyone I don't like is Alt-Right. I had to go to a checkup because I wasn't peeing so well. The "Urologist" wanted to rape me with his fingers so I called him "Alt Right."
Not only did I get out of being fisted, he gave me a free prescription for xanax.
1 normie_girl 2018-12-17
ALRIGHT ANYONE TALKING SHIT ON SAM HARRIS NEEDS TO FIGHT ME IRL