You're all uneducated. Knowing one side of an argument doesn't mean that you understand the subject.
Name one person that you disagree with, politically, but who you respect as an intellectual. What do they do that gives you a respect for them despite your disagreement?
I personally think that you all just scream into your echo chambers and enjoy tearing down poorly constructed rhetoric.
Prove me wrong.
Other urls found in this thread:
ieet.org
twitter.com
>Name one person that you disagree with, politically, but who you respect as an intellectual. What do they do that gives you a respect for them despite your disagreement?
(You).
You fail to take into account that we hear the "other side" of the argument nonstop, 24/7, drilled into our heads constantly from all news sources, all social media, and most of our friends and family. We hear their talking points, and it trips our bullshit detectors. We could just handwave it away, internalize it, and believe it, but instead, we choose to think critically WHY our bullshit detectors are being tripped. We look at patterns over long periods of time and draw from them useful heuristics that continually aid in predicting and understanding current world events, instead of shouting down wrongthink because we disagree with it.
I respect you though because you didn't make a complete shitpost and idk, this thread might be worth bumping from page 10.
>You're all uneducated.
You made the claim, now you get to prove it.
source on all 'our' educations
I said that to get (you)'s so that the thread might get traction. My point is that people aren't willing to think about the people who make good points against. Case and point: you didn't answer the question.
You're argument is silly. There's a lot of people who I respect even though I disagree with their politics. Hell, I hate niggers but am listening to Robert Johnson, watch NBA, and will listen to and agree with intelligent black men like Thomas Sowell.
You're just a typical liberal falling into that all too familiar "make a strawman for the people I disagree with and attack that emotionally."
One user above me made a good point about identifying heuristics that Liberal faggots use. It's really easy to spot how your mind works. And you don't really make me angry, this board is mainly about shitposting your ideas away by not giving them the credence or respect that easily influenced people get overcome by.
...
I get why you day the thing you do, and it laudable the way you find information. I'm asking you to consider the thinkers on the other side who do similarly.
I'm asking you to think about the rational free-thinkers across the spectrum from you. Not the Neo-Nazis holding kill all blacks signs, the transtransemotionalgenderunbinaries, or the UC Berkley dueling mobs.
Who the fuck said I was a liberal? I want lefty pol to talk about conservatives they listen to as well. The further we can respect each others arguments, the easier it will be to discuss.
I'm not talking about Sup Forums I'm talking about actual policy makers, and literary political contributors.
tl;dr youre probably a LOSER hahaha
Here is the thing, I used to have respect for the other side. I used to be on their side. However than I realised that I had been lied to. I found a dark truth that had been covered up. The truth eroded my trust and my respect to the level that I can't look up to anyone on the other side anymore. Also we hear the lefts rhetoric all of the time. We hear it in the news, on social media, in our schools, from our peers and from our families. There is no way to avoid it anymore. We know their argument and we found major flaws when we critically analysis ed them. Want an echo chamber? Try reddit, tumblr, facebook or twitter. Where the right makes one politically incorrect move and they are banned. At least here the admins here don't target people based on their political views. Though it doesn't matter since you think we are all a bunch of stupid redneck who are below you.
If you think that MSM and your friend's armchair politician of a mom are important thinkers for an opposing side, then you are a dumb person. I'm not just talking about the right, the left, or even centrist scum. I'm talking about the fact that "muh MSM" isn't a reliable source on ideas, whether you agree with the message, or not.
test? getting connection errors while trying to reply
>I'm asking you to think about the rational free-thinkers across the spectrum from you.
Literally, who?
Modern popular Liberal/Leftist politics boil down to convincing you about something by attaching a strong emotional trigger to a thought-pattern in your brain, such that if you come across that thought-pattern, you instantly become overemotional...
Wait, okay, now you've lost me. What mentality are you challenging, if not the "right-wing" mentality here? I'm confused now. Are you just being contrarian for the sake of it?
Have you ever wiped your ass without having blood on it? Becaue you are a LOSER!
>I'm asking you to think about the rational free-thinkers across the spectrum from you.
The free thinkers "across the spectrum" from the user's here are other user's here, or those with their arguments. We are the outsiders. The shunned. The censored. The ignored. We are all here already.
Our opponents lie at the "center", the nexus of empire, the seats of power and propaganda. They have no arguments, only megaphones and soundbites. They justify policy with hysteria, and their ideologies by empty psudeo-academics.
Your asking us to find intellectuals worthy of our respect, in a swamp that rejects and attacks all intellectualism, rationalism, and discourse that does not meet the demands of corrupt technocracy. You ask the proles to identify a patrician who works the soil. But these are the dying days of Rome.
Go watch CNN if you'd prefer to believe it.
Noam Chompky
I'm challenging the mentality that says, "I'm right, and you're wrong, because everyone who listens to your side are idiots."
Also, Amartya Sen has some interesting views on the nature of trade-offs in political economics.
*Chompsky
oops, typo
>1(one) answer
I enjoy anarchist theorists, some have very high iqs. But I do not prefer the ideology or believe that it is viable.
...
user if you think not tolerating opposing opinions is a problem on the right side of the spectrum relative to the left you need to get your fucking eyes checked.
You have a point OP. I'm still waiting for any coherent argument coming from the left that doesn't involve much racism or gibsmedat. Sanctuary cities, open borders, disarming citizens...no one is coming forward with compelling arguments for these things. They defy all logic. I'd love to be more 'centrist' but one side refuses to face the overwhelming statistics that defy nearly all of their positions and just shriek like jackasses. Red pill me with some wise lefty please.
>I'm challenging the mentality that says, "I'm right, and you're wrong, because everyone who listens to your side are idiots."
Ah, see, now here's where I actually, unironically, get my feelings of intellectual superiority vs. most other people: I'm not 100% convinced that my beliefs are absolutely, irrefutably correct. If I'm presented with legitimate evidence that goes contrary to my current belief system, I will be more than happy to process that data through my learned heuristics and see if it makes it out the other side. if it does, I'll definitely change my mind about things. This has happened frequently in the past few years; I went from growing up in the conservative Midwest around mostly straight white people, to learning about the LGBT spectrum and coming to terms with it and respecting it, to understanding that most of the LGBT "spectrum" is about 90% meme garbage, 10% legitimate mental illness.
Only the truly foolish believe that just because they have a certain set of beliefs and rationalizations at this current point in time, then they are definitely right and everyone else is definitely wrong. ESPECIALLY when said beliefs involve things like the government and how it really works, when none of us actually know jack shit, we just hear about stuff on the news and react to it.
>Dem/GOP equates to left/right
left vs right is a spook, all that there is, is the guy getting fucked and the guy who is doing the fucking
It was bait. I'm trying to draw people into a conversation that a lot of people don't want to think about. There's nothing scarier than a rational right, or an objective left.
>I'm challenging the mentality that says, "I'm right, and you're wrong, because everyone who listens to your side are idiots."
Your first sentence was "You are all uneducated". You then demanded that we provide respect worthy intellectuals who advocate the "arguments" that have driven us to a place like this.
Do you really think everyone here is a skinheaded neo-nazi? That everyone is "right-wing", or accepts such a thing? Have you bothered to lurk at all before posting?
You are asking me to find a respect worthy intellectual who advocates neo-liberalism, endless austerity, pervasive public corruption, foreign interventions, political coercision, mass surveillance, and that video games are tools of the patriarchy? Implied in your question is the idea that I _must_ find some opponent worthy of respect before I can find disgust with these pernicious and insane concepts. What patent rubbish.
Only the idea matters. We discuss ideas on here. Policies if you like. We find them wanting. If you can't get on here and defend your idea without leaning on credentials, or status, or running anyway from insults, then find somewhere else to intellectually preen yourself. This is a Tuvan throat singing forum.
Exactly. So at this point it's just a matter of where you get your news instead of actual theory and debate.
I'd argue that there are people who are legitimately trans, who know it's a mental illness, but that doesn't change the fact that they still aim to transition, because there's no other way to fix themselves in their brain. That is the treatment that works and makes them happy. Let them have it. It's their money. It's the people who want to be androgynous who are dipshits.
And you can watch Senate live. You can read any law that passes. Anyone who says that you can't is incorrect, at least for the US.
I'm still waiting to hear why bringing refugees here is a good thing. All the left can ever say is "well if you disagree you're an islamophobe!" But they can never say why it's a good thing. Also, waiting for an explanation of the lefts favorite phrase, "diversity is our strength!" I'd like to hear EXACTLY WHY this is, but again all I ever hear is "if you disagree you're racist/nazi/fascist/white supremacist/etc" I just want to know why it's a strength
I'm not aiming at right wing. Stop projecting. I'm aiming at anyone who believes that people are incapable of rational thought because they disagree on policy. That looks like you, and though you are right, it doesn't mean I was targeting you because you're right.
This was aimed at you, because you think there are only extremes on the left while rationalizing the right, while people on the left think the same about you.
>I'd argue that there are people who are legitimately trans, who know it's a mental illness, but that doesn't change the fact that they still aim to transition, because there's no other way to fix themselves in their brain. That is the treatment that works and makes them happy. Let them have it. It's their money. It's the people who want to be androgynous who are dipshits.
Totally; I went to high school with such an individual. They never asked for special treatment or anything, and we thought he (previously she) was weird, but nobody really cared. And that's here in the straight white Midwest. Nobody gave a fucking shit about trannies until it started being politicized, and it became a way for people to start thinking they're special, and then people started trying to pretend like they're a marginalized group on par with "the blacks" or "the gays" or whatever. Complete horseshit, top to bottom.
Still not really getting what the point of your thread is. At least you're responding to me, but you're not even replying to based Ireland, who is doing a better job than I am of deconstructing your thread's entire premise.
Unfortunately the left has been degraded in such a way that most deserve little respect. It's not an easy question to answer. I respect Dennis Kucinich who was at least very consistent in his principles. No one else really measures up to his standard. I have just a bit of respect for Bill Maher even though he is controlled opposition and an asshole. At least he can see what Islam is. Do black nationalists count as the opposition? I can respect their viewpoint.
For the left it's mostly a morality issue. Whether the America we live in can actually claim its superiority over other nations while taking What is seen by many as a moral low road. We're denying admittance to refugees that we more or less created. It's not economically feasible, but denying them might be geopolitical strain, which can hurt trade, which hurts job creation.
slavoj zizek
he realizes communism was an utter failure and the left has yet to get back to the drawing board to give a proper answer to neoliberalism
Suck my cock op.
As a liberal, posting here regularly I am doing exactly that.
Stop wasting everyone's time and post your master list of thoughtful liberal writers we should be reading. I beg you.
>You can't.
Legitimately, unironically curious: how long have you been here? And have you changed your mind about anything since you've started posting here? This is not a "lol newfag" post, I'm legitimately curious.
I am trying to reply to him, but he has good points, It looks like I'm trying to ascribe status as something that gives credence to thought, and I'm trying to think of how best to answer that accusation while also watching a movie.
I guess I'm just looking for examples of people who can overcome the divide of ideas, so that I can emulate to become a better thinker, and arguer in general.
I don't ask questions I know the answer to, because I'm not a condescending faggot.
Have you considered applying your own argument to yourself? Do you respect any far right thinkers or are you just as biased ad you claim we all are?
I'm not far left.
Knowing one side of an argument?
you give them way too much credit.
fpbp
>For the left it's mostly a morality issue.
Jews did this to you, you have no reason to feel bad about the jewish wars in the middle east. If they want the land over there they can take the refugees.
> denying them might be geopolitical strain, which can hurt trade, which hurts job creation.
keeping people in their own countries doesn't create geopolitical strain, unless of course were talking again about what Israel considers to be strain. In which case yes of course ship tons of Muslims to your country goy. Multiculturalism is good for you.
> because you think there are only extremes on the left
I am "on the left" you pretentious twit. As you might reckon it. How obvious do I need to make it or do you require lessons in basic political talking points? Have you understood a single sentence I've written?
> while rationalizing the right
You think I waste my days rationalising the Turner diary fantasies of this board? I don't give a dam what the opinions of anonymous shitposters are. I'm here to discuss the slow motion train wreck that is our modern world. I'm here to try and find something outside the echo chamber of insanity the modern public sphere has become.
Instead I find the likes of you, pompously upbraiding everyone here for not accepting the sham intellectual games played out in modern debate. For not respecting those who have shut down, barred, and done everything in their power to silence serious discussion of almost all serious issues. I find you, demanding of me, that I run off and find among the liars, the sellouts, and the insane who support the dismantlement of rational policy, enlightenment values, and a stable shared society someone who I can "respect" for anything other than the gall of their rapacity, while you can go off and watch a movie.
What is _your_ position? Can you give _any_ concrete examples of arguments or ideas you've read here, and reason why they are lacking. Beyond of course, their lack of "credentials". I wonder, what "credentials" do you think are acceptable currency for ideas.
Dickhead, you called Sup Forums uneducated because you seem to think we are ignoring some vast body of knowledge that presents compelling arguments for our positions. I'm asking you to suggest ONE lefty writer who should not be ignored. I genuinely want to read this persons thoughts. And...you can't. Should I read Carl Marx? Obama's book? Tell me.
>Was a Bernie supporter etc all the stereotypical thoughts and feelings from primaries to supporting Hillary as a lesser of two evils to being confused when Trump won
>Leading up to this my cousin would text me "muslims" every day and wed get into huge arguments.. id use Typical liberal arguments
>When trump won I saw something about meme magic, did googling all the while being genuinley curious about trump victory, decided there must be a reason he won and wanted to have an open mind
>5 months later black people have lower IQs, Jews rule everything and the holocaust didnt happen but I wish it did.
Any other questions?
I'm just explaining the argument as it was explained to me. It makes us look Athenian. Might makes right, and we can deny any consequences so long as we win. I disagree, but it's not a huge logic jump considering what a cunt George Sr and Reagan were to the middle east.
Conservatives dont need intellectuals. We have facts on our side.
I respect Chris Hedges even though I disagree with him on major issues frequently. He has a solid moral center.
I'd be hard pressed to find one person that I actually do agree with 100% on politically and I think most of us here are the same. But naturally, we can respect people that are "close enough" to us, which was part of why Trump got so much support. I don't think anyone here thought he was a perfect candidate, but we knew someone that we could get behind when we saw one.
I think the best example of someone who I disagree with quite often, but still respect is David Rubin. He began as a leftist, but he's no longer that, floating somewhere in the center instead. As you watch him interview all kinds of people with all sorts of different perspectives, beliefs and backgrounds, you can really tell that he's on a quest for truth unhindered by any sort of agenda pushing or bias. He just wants to know what the facts can tell us and what conclusions we can draw from them, no matter how uncomfortable they may be
There was no point in answering bait honestly, so I responded with bait. The fact that you responded to me is evidence that you are no better than the people you are decrying with this thread.
This, fuck the true center who plans on chainging nothing of our shitty situation and votes on his own behalf.
>Dave Rubin
>Tim pool
>Putin
>Duterte
>(((Them)))
>Sam Harris he is a 10/10 on the Asperger spectrum
There are people who are otherwise intelligent who go stupid on these issues. Just look at Sam Harris.
He gets called everything including a Nazi and a genocidal maniac, then becomes just like them on certain topics.
"them" being his accusers, to clarify
He has an even keeled attitude but does he actually voice his opinions? I've watched him and like his choice of guests but damned if I can tell you one thing he actually believes besides sjw's have gone too far.
Ok. That's fine. I was just asking a question. I'm not demanding anything, other than that people care about learning issues holistically instead of from a constrained viewpoint. I'd like names, because they're easier to search for in a library, or on Youtube to become better informed, and I don't want the people that people listen to out of devotion, because there's a lot of blind-eye turning when it comes to value-based debate.
The show is mostly about his guests, but you can get a sense of his opinions because he does occasionally ask leading questions that betray his own beliefs. Obviously, it's more pronounced when he disagrees with his guests or had never considered certain ideas, such as his first interview with Larry Elder
Pope Francis. He's the sheer definition of cucked but I think he really is legit compassionate and not just a virtue-signalling SJW, and he's a great theologian who manages to base most of his teachings in the gospel.
>Proving the Pope is 10x smarter than you
>Guy is the one of the MOST corrupt human beings on the planet and definitely traffics children get the fuck out of here schlomo
Nice reddit spacing, based centipede
Thank you for not just attacking the premise, and actually responding.
I respect Karl Marx, Sargon of Akkad, Stephen Molymeme, Martin Luther King Junior, Gandhi, Trotsky, and Pinochet despite disagreeing with them to varying degrees.
OP BTFO.
I think you are conflating this board with people like (((gavin))) and (((Posobiec))) who just post what they find on this board most people here will listen to people they hate to hear the other side even if they call you retarded at the end
...
I'd argue that the posts like this Contradict that, but I think poltards get a bad rep, a lot. You guys know your shit. I'm just curious about what you know about the other guy's shit.
>Sargon of Akkad
Dude fuck you.
What's wrong with Sargon?
>value-based debate.
This thread is void of value. You've presented no side, no position, only made accusations and demands which you have refused to justify or defend.
You are moving goalposts and leaning on the near-comical vagueness of your arguments. What constitutes "respect"? Who are you going to accept as an "intellectual"?
When are you going to justify the central thesis of your thread: that we _must_ provide such respect-worthy intellectual opponents _before_ we can criticise an idea?
Accept that the majority of Sup Forums is stupid. White Nationalism is an idea that is extreme appealing to the dumbest members of society as it allows them to veil their ineptitude behind a veil of pink skin. They are the barely useful idiot. Barely useful because every single one considers themselves intellectuals in their own right.
There may be a political spectrum from which people arrive from the normie center to the Sup Forums right, however almost as important is the progression of stupidity, down which paths branch into many ideologies.
Pol doesn't like him because he's not an alt right stormweenie
He actually thinks and has some interesting points. I think he makes a decent argument for classical liberalism and the state. I like him quite a lot. I also like the fact that I can go to him to get a quick rundown on the dumb shit in the news without having to browse the news.
He isn't the brightest but he at least respects the stuff that makes one an intellectual.
Everything. He's a stupid manchild who appeals to other stupid children who ignore all his bullshit because he tickles their ideological funny bone.
This. Well said, user. Well said indeed.
>Alt-right
hmmmm
Nobody here reads books, OP
It's not an idea. It's a premise. I don't care if it's too vague for you to tear it down. It exists now, and people will bring their own meaning into it.
Are you playing the "I'm not alt right." card
A debunked premise mind you, at least in terms of it's wide applicability to the demos of Sup Forums. Your generalization fell flat.
Yes.
How's the 11th grade?
I misread, so my middle doesn't make sense, but my point still stands.
Chomsky*
I was fine with this old man before but the way he talks about libertarianism is absolute garbage.
>"muh traditional libertarianism and lack of hierarchies"
Seriously, fuck this guy. Senile cunt
what a zinger!
Maher. He actually invites discussion instead of screaming matches and I think genuinely wants to understand the other side.
I don't agree with anyone 100% politically. I haven't ever.
fpbp rings true for once.
>I'm asking you to consider the thinkers on the other side who do similarly
A really big part of the problem is it's almost impossible to have a dialogue with them because pop culture and academia hammers into their heads that anyone who dares oppose their believes is bad and must be silenced or physically menaced.
They advocate for ideas that lead to mass murder while out the other side of their mouths saying WE want to kill THEM.
In *my* ideal world they are free to voice their opinions and are part of society. In *their* ideal world I'm jailed for what they define as hate speech.
No it's because he's a leftist who hasn't realized that leftism is what bread all the SJWs and gave the government absolute power to import refugees without asking the population and indoctrinate kids through public schooling.
Literally what is wrong with traditional libertarianism and lack of hierarchies? I'm sure you've got an argument against them but what is so bad about the idea?
Reminder that if you're not a Jewish Supremacist then you don't understand statistics.
There are some interesting elements that come with the rise of SJWs, and it involves several different groups, some of which don't actually get along with each other. Consider the communists in education, who breed gommunist lite sjws on campus. They are entirely separate from the corporate interests importing gingers. While an argument can be made that the JQ ties them together into a master web work of schemes, it is none the less important to realize that leftism isn't a united front in the west today.
I bet you've got a flushed out argument for this one...
>Name one person that you disagree with, politically, but who you respect as an intellectual.
Jim Webb. He's an old school Democrat and the only sane one on stage during the first Democrat debate last presidential Primaries. While I didn't agree with a lot of what he said, I understood what he was saying and respected his positions and why he said them. The Democrats don't deserve such a man.
the one thing i think we need is a flat tax on everyone. A Flat Universal Tax. Maybe 10%. If we take the same proportional amount away from everyone then deflation will make the remaining money worth more. Thus, it will be as if no tax ever happened. Then the 10% can be used to fund projects agreed upon by everyone.
I'm a libertarian socially, and even economically except for the mandatory 10% tax but the net effect of it won't be noticed by the taxed populace.
Of course, you could just print off 10% more currency than there is and just spend that and you won't need to tax anyone.
Both sides argue against 1% of the other. We usually only hear the extreme view points because it triggers people and they get those clicks/viewers, so they must be able to separate people as wide as possible.
There's people protesting free speech while shutting down speech. They are so deeply programmed, they haven't got a clue what they're doing. The internet is responsible, its a bittersweet situation. Truth will win out.
I don't know why you think the truth will win out. There is nothing inherently powerful about objective truth in an age of propaganda.
I do.
Ashkenazi Jews are the highest IQ ethnicity in the world, average is at least 110.
ieet.org
And this has real world consequences: Ashkenazim are behind every single major scientific breakthrough, Darwin, Einstein, Rockets, comedy, zuccbook...
Look at how much wealth Jews hold if the above doesn't change your mind.
In a better timeline we had Webb vs .Kasich for president.
>IQ scores prove that whites are better than blacks
>IQ scores do not prove that jews are better than whites
Sup Forums in a nuthsell