Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

Scott Adams explains how the way you think about a problem can either hinder or help you find a solution. He predicts a coming "golden age" when we are able break out of our mental prisons and learn to solve problems that are problems of thinking not actual physical problems that require technology to solve.

Thanks for this video Jim. Great stuff.
 
Did you watch the Rubin video? Democrats have legislated against free speech... In addition they frequently silence individuals they disagree with, or do 'no platforming' to prevent people from speaking at all more and more frequently across school campuses and other locations.

I thought we were all on the same page here that both parties represent big money first and foremost.
left vs right is a joke and if there is a left, its certainly not interchangeable with democrats.

With things like the progressive stack being implemented in mainstream protests such as occupy and black lives matter I don't think you can claim that the 'left' isn't against free speech for they certainly believe in privileged speech.

You can read more about identity politics and the 'left' here - https://www.theguardian.com/society...tity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division


They use this report from the white house as the source- https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180322/108023/HRPT-115-1.pdf


Come on now, we both know the immigrants being protected in sanctuary cities are predominantly not white.

I did watch the David Rubin video and found nothing that I haven’t heard already.Republicans/Conservatives also silence those they don’t want to hear. When the college kids protested against that one gentleman that they didn’t want speaking at their campus, conservatives got into an uproar. Why? The right to protest is also an Amendment and they were using their right to free speech. I agree that big money comes first to both sides. What does Black Lives Matter have to do with free speech?

That Guardian article is a joke. I had to force myself to read past the first sentence. More left blaming. Can we get over ourselves for a minute? I’m a progressive and a left wing person. I’m assuming you are a conservative and/or right leaning, like many others on this forum. Now that’s out of the way, can we have a discussion about race WITHOUT bringing up sides? It’s entirely useless and is getting very annoying. That’s tribalism unlike what the Guardian article thinks is tribalism.

I’ve read the report before and I know where it came from. I was simply saying that it is probably better to not use Fox News as a source in the future.

To be honest, immigration isn’t my area of expertise nor are the sanctuary cities, so I can’t really discuss it until I look into it further when I have the time.
 
Last edited:
I did watch the David Rubin video and found nothing that I haven’t heard already.Republicans/Conservatives also silence those they don’t want to hear.
While I agree, its irrelevant that reps/cons do it too when the original claim you made is that democrats DON'T do this
Democrats/the Left are NOT against free speech.
What does Black Lives Matter have to do with free speech?
They utilize the progressive stack.

When the college kids protested against that one gentleman that they didn’t want speaking at their campus, conservatives got into an uproar.
Except they've done this to dozens of speakers now, sometimes even employing violence. We should all strive to an ideal culture of an open marketplace of ideas so that we can rationally address beliefs instead of pushing them to the sidelines to fester extremism. Also I don't see why we shouldn't be just as worried about corporate entities censorship as we are about government censorship when organizations like Google and Facebook have far more power over the realm of ideas.

I’m a progressive and a left wing person. I’m assuming you are a conservative and/or right leaning, like many others on this forum.
There's no definition of right/left I agree with. My primary interests are government corruption and antiwar. I mostly use the wonderful Antiwar.com for my daily news, The Intercept and Wikileaks.

Now that’s out of the way, can we have a discussion about race WITHOUT bringing up sides?
Okay, what would that look like?

To be honest, immigration isn’t my area of expertise nor our the sanctuary cities, so I can’t really discuss it until I look into it further when I have the time.
Fair enough.
 
While I agree, its irrelevant that reps/cons do it too when the original claim you made is that democrats DON'T do this


They utilize the progressive stack.


Except they've done this to dozens of speakers now, sometimes even employing violence. We should all strive to an ideal culture of an open marketplace of ideas so that we can rationally address beliefs instead of pushing them to the sidelines to fester extremism. Also I don't see why we shouldn't be just as worried about corporate entities censorship as we are about government censorship when organizations like Google and Facebook have far more power over the realm of ideas.


There's no definition of right/left I agree with. My primary interests are government corruption and antiwar. I mostly use the wonderful Antiwar.com for my daily news, The Intercept and Wikileaks.


Okay, what would that look like?


Fair enough.

My claim was meant in a general sense. Once again, some are. There is no arguing against that. But, in my opinion, you cannot apply that statement to the whole side.

I don’t agree with using violence to protest, but they are allowed to protest given that it is a Constitutional right to do so. They are expressing their beliefs. I’m personally willing to discuss with someone regardless of party, but I can understand not wanting to hear someone speak at your campus. We all do it to a certain degree I think. I basically disagree with (almost) everything that comes out of Neil Degrasse Tyson’s and Richard Dawkins mouths, so I avoid reading their material or listening to them speak. I would guess many members of this forum do the same thing.

I have no opinion about Google or Facebook censorship.

Having a race discussion without bringing up sides is pretty easy to do. It’s about presenting research that isn’t bias in your favor. The moment an article starts blaming the Left(or even the Right), I stop reading it. It throws away all credibility imo. I can make a statement, provide evidence to back it up, without neither parties having to be mentioned. Opinion based articles are almost entirely useless because, by default, opinions are bias. I’ve seen threads about psi on this forum that have conductive discussions that don’t constantly bring up the fact that someone is a “skeptic” and the other is a “proponent”. It reinforces an Us vs Them mentality and is tribalism at its finest.
 
There's no definition of right/left I agree with. My primary interests are government corruption and antiwar.
Spot on - the definitions of Left and right have been cynically skewed in recent times in the hope that people who see themselves as left, can be sucked into some pretty nasty policies.

I wouldn't support Trump if I ceased to believe that he is fundamentally anti-war.

David
 
I checked out Antiwar.com and it’s actually a pretty good site. Surprised I’ve never heard of it, so thank you for introducing me to it.
For what it's worth, one of the founders of the site, Justin Raimondo, has been an implacable enemy of neoconservatives and other warmongers for the past couple of decades. He's one of just a handful of real journalists consistently exposing their lies and treachery, regardless of party affiliations. As if the Evil Empire wasn't enough to contend with, he was also diagnosed last year with late-stage adenocarcinoma cancer.

His Twitter page can be found here:
https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo
 
the definitions of Left and right have been cynically skewed in recent times in the hope that people who see themselves as left, can be sucked into some pretty nasty policies.
If you're talking Blair and Obama, sure. But Sanders and Corbyn are fairly traditional left candidates, imo. By extension, I would presume most of their supporters are too.
the left (whom I traditionally associated with) no longer represent my values.
Maybe you've just turned into a grumpy conservative with age? It happens.:)
 
I thought this was interesting...I offer it without comment:


-- except, perhaps, to say that this young woman seems to me to be talking a lot of sense and cheers me up enormously.
This video is garbage. Do you know who Stefan Molyneux is? If not, please check out his YouTube channel. He’s a dispacable human being who doesn’t know basic history and twists facts to represent his agenda. He denies mental illness is real and called psychiatry “pseudoscience”. He denies the Native American genocide. To top it off, he’s an advocate for “race science”. There’s other things wrong with him, but I don’t feel like writing an essay. Candance is, imo, an idiot. Why anyone take her seriously is beyond me. Like I previously said, she’s an Uncle Tom and a token black person for the alt-right so they can say, “ A black person agrees with me!!! That means I’m right!” Which is more or less what Stefan is doing in the video.
 
Truth.

The Truth about the Native American Genocide:

There Is No Such Thing as Mental Illness:

Stefan Molyneux on Race and IQ(Pt.2):


You may want to do research before you claim I’m lying. This took about four minutes for me to find.
 
Top