Official "Intellectual Dork Web" Fanboi Containment Thread - Page 40 - Politics and Economics

Meanwhile Kissinger and Brezinski, ie the US Government, were supporting the Khmer Rouge.

This is what Chomsky said more than 25 years ago "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."

The outrage here is totally ****ing fake.

Like this is the one thing that comes up, that Chomsky retracts when he finds more convincing evidence, and aholes like asscreature dolt from straight out of the ancien régime use it to dismiss 60 years of political commentary.

Last edited by microbet; 07-19-2018 at 05:48 PM.

07-19-2018 , 08:58 PM

#977

simplicitus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,840

https://twitter.com/onlxn/status/102...243124736?s=19

07-19-2018 , 10:28 PM

#978

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 56,483

God dammit, it should have been "asscreature a'dolt".

07-21-2018 , 01:45 AM

#979

ecriture d'adulte

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 5,913

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

That’s really question of belief, and plenty of people believe that.

07-21-2018 , 01:50 AM

#980

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

That’s really question of belief, and plenty of people believe that.

07-21-2018 , 03:06 AM

#981

aflametotheground

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,851

entricure is probably talking about whether or not jesus existed, but thats not in question here i think. The thing here is that muslims didnt exist before some hundreds of years after jesus was alive.

07-21-2018 , 05:10 AM

#982

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,845

ecriture has got to be being sarcastic

07-21-2018 , 05:28 AM

#983

SuperUberBob

Not interesting enough

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 48,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

That’s really question of belief, and plenty of people believe that.

Yeah and those people have a ****ty sense of humor.

07-21-2018 , 10:26 AM

#984

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Max, if that was a joke, how funny is it that your outspoken JP fandom meant it didn't land because we all think you might sincerely be defending Dave Rubin now?

07-21-2018 , 10:52 AM

#985

+rep_lol

banned

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 14,900

^personally i think it's pretty hilarious

07-21-2018 , 11:57 AM

#986

ecriture d'adulte

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 5,913

Quote:

Originally Posted by aflametotheground

No, Muslims believe Jesus, Mary etc WERE Muslims. Like Abraham or even Adam. Muhammad was the last Muslim prophet, not the first. There is pretty solid historical consensus that Jesus existed and a few particular standard Bible stories happened. There is obv no religious consensus to his relationship with the god of Abraham aka Yahweh aka Allah.

Last edited by ecriture d'adulte; 07-21-2018 at 12:05 PM.

07-21-2018 , 12:14 PM

#987

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

I agree that this a-historical concept of "Muslim" exists, but I sincerely doubt it's the concept of "Muslim" that Rubin was using. Rather it seems pretty obvious that he was using the term the way it is conventionally used by non-Muslims and simply got the history wrong.

I mean I also think that this concept is objectively wrong in an important way, but I like that it's wrong in a somewhat more universalizing way. Sort of like Justin Martyr proclaiming that anyone who lived according to logos was Christian, so as to adopt various Greek philosophers. It's a better inclination than saying all those people are going to hell, or were infidels, or whatever. But since the inclination arises from soteriological exclusiveness to begin with (they want to call Jesus a Muslim because if he's not Muslim than he's evil in some sense; same with Justin Martyr) a better solution is just to leave behind that soteriology :P

07-21-2018 , 12:27 PM

#988

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 56,483

Who is this Dave Rubin that Max is white knighting?

07-21-2018 , 12:32 PM

#989

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 56,483

His wiki makes him sound a lot (or as Max would say "alot") like Max.

Quote:

Rubin has described himself as a classical liberal.[24] In the 2016 presidential election he voted for Gary Johnson, but says he regretted this decision a few months after.[25] He has opposed elements of the progressive movement he identifies as the regressive left,[26] and has said that he considers being politically progressive to be "a mental disorder"[27]. In an interview in March 2018, Rubin said he would vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election if a progressive like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Gavin Newsom is running against him.[28] Rubin also characterized President Trump as a political moderate, saying "he's a Democrat in a lot of ways," and spoke favorably of Trump's cuts in government regulations.[29]

07-21-2018 , 12:48 PM

#990

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 56,483

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Max, if that was a joke, how funny is it that your outspoken JP fandom meant it didn't land because we all think you might sincerely be defending Dave Rubin now?

Based on the wiki description of DR why would anyone think Max isn't a fan?

A reminder of who Max is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max

This election cycle has done alot[sic] to convince me that we need to keep money in politics to avoid ridiculous populism.

07-21-2018 , 12:54 PM

#991

Kafja

adept

Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 941

I also had to google Dave Rubin, who's name i've heard but i know nothing about. Here is a selection of guests he's had on his youtube show:

Milo Yiannopoulos
Sargon of Akkad
Mike Cernovich
Paul Joseph Watson
Katie Hopkins
Tommy Robinson

from this i have concluded that dave rubin and all his fans should drink bleach

07-21-2018 , 01:10 PM

#992

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Don't saddle Dave Rubin with your onerous purity tests!

07-21-2018 , 01:17 PM

#993

6ix

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 4,783

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

I agree that this a-historical concept of "Muslim" exists, but I sincerely doubt it's the concept of "Muslim" that Rubin was using. Rather it seems pretty obvious that he was using the term the way it is conventionally used by non-Muslims and simply got the history wrong.

I mean I also think that this concept is objectively wrong in an important way, but I like that it's wrong in a somewhat more universalizing way. Sort of like Justin Martyr proclaiming that anyone who lived according to logos was Christian, so as to adopt various Greek philosophers. It's a better inclination than saying all those people are going to hell, or were infidels, or whatever. But since the inclination arises from soteriological exclusiveness to begin with (they want to call Jesus a Muslim because if he's not Muslim than he's evil in some sense; same with Justin Martyr) a better solution is just to leave behind that soteriology :P

amen brother hallelujah

07-21-2018 , 01:21 PM

#994

ecriture d'adulte

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 5,913

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

Right. That’s why I said it was a matter of belief. Not that he was actually correct. Non believers in Christendom will scoff at the claim that Jesus lived around Muslisms a lot more than they will the claim that there was a large Jewish population in Egypt in Pre Davidic times.

Quote:

I mean I also think that this concept is objectively wrong in an important way, but I like that it's wrong in a somewhat more universalizing way. Sort of like Justin Martyr proclaiming that anyone who lived according to logos was Christian, so as to adopt various Greek philosophers. It's a better inclination than saying all those people are going to hell, or were infidels, or whatever. But since the inclination arises from soteriological exclusiveness to begin with (they want to call Jesus a Muslim because if he's not Muslim than he's evil in some sense; same with Justin Martyr) a better solution is just to leave behind that soteriology :P

The difference is Jesus being a Muslim is not some add on to a core set of Islamic beliefs. A Muslim can no more deny Jesus as a prophet of Allah than he can Muhammad. For non believers it’s really just cultural bias to say the notion that Jesus lived around Muslims is historically ignorant while even more dubious claims about King David or Moses being Jewish are accepted parts of the “historical folklore” of the region. It’s basically the same as preferring beautiful church bells to the ugly call to prayer.

07-21-2018 , 01:24 PM

#995

Louis Cyphre

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,025

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

No, Muslims believe Jesus, Mary etc WERE Muslims.

Do you have a citation for that? Is it only Jesus and people close to him? Who is etc.?

I am aware that Jews and Christians are considered people of the book and are therefore different from idolators. I have never heard of them being referred to as Muslim. If etc. does not refer to Jews and Christians in general then saying Jesus was surrounded by Muslims because after all he lived in the Middle East makes no sense.

Also, what well named said.

Last edited by Louis Cyphre; 07-21-2018 at 01:31 PM.

07-21-2018 , 01:29 PM

#996

6ix

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 4,783

And yeah, 'muslim' literally means 'one who submits to God' with the God being the same God as all the People of the Book so it can and has been used interchangeably, but, that's playing fast and loose and even faster and looser to give Rubin credit for knowing and applying this.

07-21-2018 , 01:30 PM

#997

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

Right. That’s why I said it was a matter of belief. Not that he was actually correct.

OK. I interpreted "matter of belief" to imply that there wasn't a relevant question of fact at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

For non believers it’s really just cultural bias to say the notion that Jesus lived around Muslims is historically ignorant while even more dubious claims about King David or Moses being Jewish are accepted parts of the “historical folklore” of the region.

I agree that many popular Christian notions, especially about ancient Hebrews, are as historically ignorant as thinking that Jesus lived among Muslims (using the conventional meaning of "Muslim" to denote current practitioners of the religion).

I suppose I chose to allude to this equivalence by bringing up Justin Martyr specifically because he redefines "Christian" in a similarly a-historical way. So I was thinking about the way the concept works, not trying to think of equivalences in ignorance.

I also think the ignorance being mocked in the tweet is Rubin's, and not really that of Muslims. But by way of mocking historical ignorance I'm certainly down with making fun of Christians who think Jesus spoke English, that the author of Job was a monotheist, or that the concept of "apostolic authority" in the modern church is coherent.

07-21-2018 , 01:32 PM

#998

6ix

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 4,783

Didn't think I'd be grunching that p.s.

07-21-2018 , 01:37 PM

#999

6ix

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 4,783

Max is attempting an advanced move right there.

07-21-2018 , 01:38 PM

#1000

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Nathan J. Robinson on the Intellectual Dork Web (in addition to his previously linked individual pieces on Shapiro and Peterson): Pretty Loud For Being So Silenced

Quote:

The members of the Intellectual Dark Web are attacked, supposedly, for their “ideas,” which they are eager to discuss “civilly” but which the left will not debate because it hates rational discourse. It’s a strange definition of civility, though. Shapiro’s speeches contain such civil remarks as “you can all go to hell, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackasses,” and he has repeatedly made vile racist remarks about Arabs. Peterson, when criticized in the New York Review of Books, did not respond with an extended rebuttal, but by calling the writer a “son of a *****” and a “sanctimonious prick” on Twitter, and threatening to slap him in the face. (Not the first time that criticism has caused genteel conservative “civility” to give way to threats of violence.) Sam Harris goes from cool reason to angry denunciation and accusations of bad faith when people dare to suggest to him that Charles Murray is a racist.

Quote:

Here’s another reason why I’m skeptical that our national Martyrs for Free Speech and Rational Debate are interested in actually debating ideas: I’ve tried to get them to do it. I wrote a long explanation of why I thought Ben Shapiro’s logic was poor and his moral principles heinous. Shapiro mentioned me when we both gave speeches at the University of Connecticut. Did he rebut my case? No. He said he hadn’t heard of me and that my crowd was smaller than his. (I admit to being obscure and unpopular, but I’d ask what that says about which speech is mainstream and which is marginal.) When I wrote about Charles Murray, explaining in 7,000 words why I think his work is bigoted, Murray dismissed it with a tweet. When I wrote 10,000 words meticulously dissecting Jordan Peterson’s laughable body of work, Peterson responded with about three tweets, one misunderstanding a joke and another using fallacious reasoning. (See if you can spot it!) The wonderful ContraPoints recorded a highly intelligent 30-minute explanation of why Peterson is wrong. Peterson’s only reply: “No comment.” So much for wanting a debate with the left.

And yet I’m so eager to discuss ideas! A while back, a student group at a large public university contacted me asking me if I’d be willing to debate Dave Rubin on their campus. I said I’d do it for the price of a plane ticket, and if they couldn’t afford a plane ticket, I’d go anyway. They called me back the next day informing me that the debate wouldn’t be happening because Rubin’s representatives had asked for $15,000. So perhaps some of these guys are theoretically willing to engage the left. They just make it prohibitively expensive for anybody to actually make it happen.

I’m open to being proved wrong here. I’m waiting for Shapiro/Peterson/Murray/Rubin to call and ask me (and/or a certain other leftist who is known to be perfectly willing to engage conservative ideas) to come and clean their clock in a debate. But so far, what I’ve seen is that when you do seriously challenge their arguments, they scamper away and pretend they haven’t heard you.

(a couple months old but hasn't been posted here yet I don't think)

Page 40 of 50

First

20 30 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Last

...

Page 40 of 50

First

20 30 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Last