Aftermath of the bigoted channel 4 interview and other sensationalist muckrakers.

[Moralgy]

What would be an intellectual in your view?

Xarim at least once pretended to be "smart", but now he has gone down this rabbit hole of being "anti-pc" so far that he is comparing Joe Rogan and a self help guy to Hitchens and Dawkins. It is sad really.

We aren't going to do this silly argument over "what defines an intellectual" because you and I both know this is a pointless discussion and that was nothing more than a hit at Xarim being absolutely silly in that post.

[Theodarzna]

Xarim at least once pretended to be "smart", but now he has gone down this rabbit hole of being "anti-pc" so far that he is comparing Joe Rogan and a self help guy to Hitchens and Dawkins. It is sad really.

We aren't going to do this silly argument over "what defines an intellectual" because you and I both know this is a pointless discussion and that was nothing more than a hit at Xarim being absolutely silly in that post.

Would being Anti-PC be not smart or not intellectual in your view? I personally only count Dawkins as particularly intellectual, and Hitchens was clever sure but did not think seriously about his views IMHO. He falls into a lot of traps that once critically looked at fall apart. Namely his Neo-Con warmongering and his refusal to interogate the basis of his ideal society.

[Moralgy]

Would being Anti-PC be not smart or not intellectual in your view? I personally only count Dawkins as particularly intellectual, and Hitchens was clever sure but did not think seriously about his views IMHO. He falls into a lot of traps that once critically looked at fall apart. Namely his Neo-Con warmongering and his refusal to interogate the basis of his ideal society.

Like I said, this discussion is pointless and please don't try shit on me, again. There is a difference in being "anti-pc", and being so far down that ideological rabbit hole that you start comparing a self help dude and mma guy to the likes of those that spend their lifetime combating ignorance.

[Theodarzna]

Like I said, this discussion is pointless and please don't try shit on me, again. There is a difference in being "anti-pc", and being so far down that ideological rabbit hole that you start comparing a self help dude and mma guy to the likes of those that spend their lifetime combating ignorance.

I wouldn't say either Hitchens or Dawkins did much in that respect. Well maybe Dawkins did, Hitchens, I'm less convinced. He was a big champion of Iraq War.

[igualitarist]

Like I said, this discussion is pointless and please don't try shit on me, again. There is a difference in being "anti-pc", and being so far down that ideological rabbit hole that you start comparing a self help dude and mma guy to the likes of those that spend their lifetime combating ignorance.

He's not just a "self help" dude, hes a Ph.D clinical psychologist with more than 25 years of experience and a professor at the University of Toronto.

He's is pretty damn qualified in his area.

[Moralgy]

I wouldn't say either Hitchens or Dawkins did much in that respect. Well maybe Dawkins did, Hitchens, I'm less convinced. He was a big champion of Iraq War.

Hitchens had some shitty views regarding war, but he also did a great deal with fighting religious overreach. Dawkins is far more of an "intellectual" in my eyes than Hitchens, but Hitchens was more popular cause of how he talked really. In all honesty, all of the "four horsemen" are only really popular cause of their atheist views.

I would take Harris over either of them tbh, but Dawkins has this old grandpa feel to him that I can't get over.

- - - Updated - - -

He's not just a "self help" dude, hes a Ph.D clinical psychologist with more than 25 years of experience and a professor at the University of Toronto.

He's is pretty damn qualified in his area.

His whole shtick is teaching young men how to be the best them they possibly can, he is a self help guy at his core rofl.

[Theodarzna]

Hitchens had some shitty views regarding war, but he also did a great deal with fighting religious overreach. Dawkins is far more of an "intellectual" in my eyes than Hitchens, but Hitchens was more popular cause of how he talked really. In all honesty, all of the "four horsemen" are only really popular cause of their atheist views.

I would take Harris over either of them tbh, but Dawkins has this old grandpa feel to him that I can't get over.

I would take neither or any of them honestly. All four had a deep seeded war lust and seemed ideologically committed to an ideological post-Cold War stasis that we really ought to get around. Not that Peterson and company are any different.

[Moralgy]

I would take neither or any of them honestly. All four had a deep seeded war lust and seemed ideologically committed to an ideological post-Cold War stasis that we really ought to get around. Not that Peterson and company are any different.

Dawkins has a lust for war? Harris it wouldn't surprise me, I'm vaguely aware of Dennet so I can't comment, but Dawkins is a weird one. I honestly really only kept up with them years ago cause of the religious angle.

[shimerra]

He's not just a "self help" dude, hes a Ph.D clinical psychologist with more than 25 years of experience and a professor at the University of Toronto.

He's is pretty damn qualified in his area.

I mean the shithead that started the whole anti-vaxx movement with his vaccines cause autism, and they irrefutably do not, wasn't exactly a freshman doctor. Hell Dr. Phil has a Phd in Psychology wouldn't say he's anything more than the new Jerry Springer/Maury.

He's a self help guy with a degree. It's already been demonstrated he religiously spouts soldily debunked "research" to support his claims/sell his books, lectures, etc. He's demonstrated that he's pretty not qualified honestly.

[igualitarist]

Hitchens had some shitty views regarding war, but he also did a great deal with fighting religious overreach. Dawkins is far more of an "intellectual" in my eyes than Hitchens, but Hitchens was more popular cause of how he talked really. In all honesty, all of the "four horsemen" are only really popular cause of their atheist views.

I would take Harris over either of them tbh, but Dawkins has this old grandpa feel to him that I can't get over.

- - - Updated - - -



His whole shtick is teaching young men how to be the best them they possibly can, he is a self help guy at his core rofl.

He's a self help guy ? Yeah, no doubt about it.

He's only a self help guy ? Hell no.

Saying he's only a self help guy is like saying Dawkins is just a miltant atheist.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean the shithead that started the whole anti-vaxx movement with his vaccines cause autism, and they irrefutably do not, wasn't exactly a freshman doctor. Hell Dr. Phil has a Phd in Psychology wouldn't say he's anything more than the new Jerry Springer/Maury.

So, lets disqualify every qualified person because of this ?

[shimerra]

So, lets disqualify every qualified person because of this ?

I updated my previous post. No you disqualify him because of his actions which again are religiously spouting solidly debunked research because this debunked research "proves" what he's trying to sell in his books and lectures. Which are really less self help and more just masturbation material for the people he panders to.

Doesn't mean if the anti-vaxx guy gave me a lasange if I had a sore throat I'd say he's wrong and I need aids medication, but it means he himself has debased his own "qualifications".

I mean honestly if a doctor tells you chopping your dick off it'll grow back bigger than it was before would you? I'd sure hope not but by your logic the mere fact he's a doctor is proof enough despite his history of making similarly stupid claims and even after those claims are debunked still harping on how true they are.

[Theodarzna]

Dawkins has a lust for war? Harris it wouldn't surprise me, I'm vaguely aware of Dennet so I can't comment, but Dawkins is a weird one. I honestly really only kept up with them years ago cause of the religious angle.

I guess we fall on different tracks then.

[Deleted]

That's false. Repeating the falsehood over and over doesn't make it true. You're completely wrong on this. It's why "black" is not a protected class, but "colour" is. Because it is not restricted in the way you're claiming, without providing any shred of evidence to back you, when a simple reading of the law directly contradicts you.

And you repeating a falsehood somehow does make it true... Right! Meanwhile people can still be not hired due to the color or their skin, and it is legal when they do so.

[artemishunter1]

And you repeating a falsehood somehow does make it true... Right! Meanwhile people can still be not hired due to the color or their skin, and it is legal when they do so.

can you prove it? Do you have evidence to back it up? You made a VERY BOLD claim. Honestly, do you have any evidence to prove this?

[Tijuana]

Can i get a tldr. I don't keep up with random internet drama very well.

The root relevance was a point in the interview where this lady asks him, "Why does your right to free speech supersede another person's right to not be offended?" This is a common argument made by the Left in America and Canadia, and it's obviously very silly. If we can't speak for fear of offending someone, soon none of us would be able to speak at all, and then nothing can be solved. He points that out, and how she herself might be using her free speech, at that very moment, without regard for him being offended. And then a hilariously pronounced light bulb moment occurs on her face.