patrick.net

marcus says

and even many above average folks are susceptible to propaganda,

Hypnotists will tell you that above average people are easier to manipulate. Pretending like you are immune to manipulation is about the surest way to be manipulated.

marcus says

as CBOE did with is rather extreme mischaracterization of Jordan Peterson point about IQ.

You are the one mis-characterizing JP, and using his statements to rationalize your bias. I've asked you to clarify your statements, but you wont. I, however, have been crystal clear.

JP specifically calls out the SJW types who blame the patriarchy as a misguided, when in fact differences of success are largely explained by IQ differences. He has been very clear about this many, many times. Please explain what you feel is missing in this perspective

marcus says

Google will ultimatley have to adjust based on what deeper analysis reveals to have been an error.

Or they will just label facts as racist and censor everything, which is what they've been doing. https://torontosun.com/2017/08/01/free-speech-advocate-jordan-peterson-suspects-political-reasons-might-have-been-behind-google-shutdown/wcm/41894f5b-5dca-4ad1-a076-ed7267b4ace4

marcus says

Isn't "evil" a little strong for erring on the side of political correctness

No, political correctness is about thought control. It is well deserved to be described as evil.

marcus says

I believe that at this point the yearly numbers of new doctors in the U.S. are higher for women than for men.

I dont know exact numbers, but it my understanding that women out number men for entry level medical doctors. It is also my understanding that this is not due to bias, just a representation of women being highly interested in and attracted to the profession. ^^ if true, there is NOTHING wrong w this.

If the medical profession decided to put limits on women vs men for equality purposes, THAT would be WRONG. Unfortunately, in every respected field where men dominate this is happening. This is exactly why James Damore spoke out. Absolutely evil to oppress him for discussing facts. I'm shocked that anyone would disagree but here we are. #moderateleftist

CBOEtrader says

when in fact differences of success are largely explained by IQ differences. He has been very clear about this many, many times. Please explain what you feel is missing in this perspective

Actually he uses the word competence, which is not the same as IQ. Btw I did clarify my point in post # 99

This is what you said earlier, first you stated this gem:

CBOEtrader says

go tweet an article discussing the IQ differential between blacks and whites. Watch how quickly you get shut down.

Then in a later comment this:

CBOEtrader says

Do you disagree with your hero JP who feels this IQ discussion is at the core of societal importance? Sorry, I do agree w JP. If society wants to fixate on equality of results, it is imperative to discuss differences in IQ levels that drive those results rather than blaming white patriarchy.

Taking these points together - you seem to think that African Americans who feel disenfranchised, or libtards speaking on their behalf, want to blame the Patriarchy for their difficulties, when in fact the true cause of difficulties are their intherant inferior intellect. And that somehow Jordan Peterson is on your side backing this point of view.

Please explain what I'm getting wrong here.

By the way, Jordan Peterson actually is on the record agreeing that people with your point of view shouldn't even be allowed to be in the conversation.

See the part that starts at 12:30

www.youtube.com/embed/E1PeOfbT_q0

marcus says

when in fact the true cause of difficulties are their intherant inferior intellect

That may play a small part as JP said but it's the culture which is the true cause. There are plenty of successful AAs and they all have one in common - they left the leftoid plantation victim culture. The real oppressors are the leftoids/Dems who tell AAs which way they must vote (clearly an admission that leftoids erroneously think they are mentally superior) and even have the audacity to insult and harass AAs that don't conform to their plantation politics (e. Candace, Diamond & Silk etc.).

CBOEtrader says

You mean when he expresses his opinion on his social media channel or personally owned radio station?

When someone spreads conspiracy theories as if they are proven and being hidden by the government, that is theories that actually hurt people or that hurt political candidates with only that intention, or even if it's not intended, and just propaganda generated by Oligarchs *Russian or our own) it's far different than someone simply expressing an opinion.

This is even more true when hate and fear rage so high on the right. It's immoral and against America's best interest to manipulate people based on that hate and fear that's been nurtured so much by the right wing media for decades now. He calls himself an entertainer, and he feels self righteous becasue of the haters that love having justification for more fear and more hate.

Decreasing extremism on both sides of the political spectrum would be beneficial, if we hope to ever productively address very real problems that are going to need to be addressed.

marcus says

Actually he uses the word competence, which is not the same as IQ

He specifically mentions IQ differences between races. I'm not sure why you are rejecting this fact.

marcus says

When someone spreads conspiracy theories as if they are proven and being hidden by the government, that is theories that actually hurt people or that hurt political candidates with only that intention, or even if it's not intended, and just propaganda generated by Oligarchs *Russian or our own) it's far different than someone simply expressing an opinion.

Who gets to decide what speech equals what you describe? I think Rachel Maddow is a comically unhinged conspiracy theorist. Should RM be banned? So far there is zero evidence of Russian collusion w Trump. Should Trump use the federal govt powers to shut down CNN and others who parrot the Russian conspiracy theory?

Again, the point is that no person should have this power. The only reasonable solution is an iron clad 1st amendment. The only alternative is a ministry of truth. Unfortunately people disagree on truth, so who gets to be the minister of truth?

marcus says

you seem to think that African Americans who feel disenfranchised, or libtards speaking on their behalf, want to blame the Patriarchy for their difficulties, when in fact the true cause of difficulties are their intherant inferior intellect. And that somehow Jordan Peterson is on your side backing this point of view.

Please explain what I'm getting wrong here.

This is accurate. JP points out the difference in IQ levels among races, and the resulting predictive nature of IQ on success in life. JP even goes specifically into Ashkanazi Jews who have a much higher than average verbal IQ, and their resulting success as journalists/play-writes/authors.

What part of this is confusing to you?

marcus says

you seem to think

LOL, when did i ever say what i think? I have repeated what JP says. You should stop making assumptions.

marcus says

By the way, Jordan Peterson actually is on the record agreeing that people with your point of view shouldn't even be allowed to be in the conversation.

You have legit gone off the deep end man. Refrain from ad homs please, and discuss the topic only.

For the record, you are representing the #moderateleft in a terribly extremist way. Sorry, I will not have you call me a racist, had to mark your comment as personal... though mostly it was just stupid.

Disqus ends commentary provision for all Infowars sites, citing non-specific violations of the Terms of Service.

marcus says

CBOEtrader says

when in fact differences of success are largely explained by IQ differences. He has been very clear about this many, many times. Please explain what you feel is missing in this perspective

Actually he uses the word competence, which is not the same as IQ.

Do you read what you write or no?

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

But I do enjoy the same people who bitch about "Net Neutrality" claiming that ISPs can censor or at least speed or delay speech that they like or dislike, defend content platforms censoring speech (and not in a transparent, objective way).

I'm confused about who "the same people" are. Net neutrality was upheld under Obama and repealed under trump. So you are saying republicans claim ISP's can censor are also defending platforms that censor speech. That's very odd. All the republicans have been screaming that platforms are censoring their conservative speech in every outlet from breitbart to cnn. So they favor it secretly while speaking out against it publicly? That makes sense using patnet "logic".

Either a little fuzzy on the concept or deliberately disingenuous here, ISP's are frequently government sanctioned monopolies like cable carriers or phone carriers and under net neutrality are not allowed to use their monopoly position to restrict competing products from other companies from their customers. Content platforms have no monopoly. If you can't want to watch alex jones on youtube then you are certainly fee to go directly to the infowars site. That's a far cry from actually locking ISP customers out competing services like phone company isp's locking out vonage. Freedom of speech doesn't include being too lazy to to type in infowars.com if you don't see it on youtube.

Freedom of speech in the first amendment has nothing to do with what any private company does. It only applies to government regulation. The supreme court has held in many decisions that a "clear and present danger" test as described by Justice Holmes and "advocacy of action" are the standard for judging what is not constitutionally protected free speech that could be regulated by the government.

Nice bit of meaningless hyperbole though.

bob2356 says

Freedom of speech doesn't include being too lazy to to type in infowars.com if you don't see it on youtube.

The legal argument version of this should be interesting to watch.

bob2356 says

Either a little fuzzy on the concept or deliberately disingenuous here, ISP's are frequently government sanctioned monopolies like cable carriers or phone carriers and under net neutrality are not allowed to use their monopoly position to restrict competing products from other companies from their customers.

Yes, your statement is both.

Leftists just finished insisting that Comcast (a private company) shouldn't be able to charge Facebook or it's Users or it's Customers more money to have speedy access. Or, feel obligated to provide rapid, updated connections to somebody's shitty Wix website rather than offer it at the slowest speeds.

We were told that would have a chilling effect on Free Speech, and allow a few companies to decide "What content you can access on the Internet"

Now the same Leftists who fought for Net Neutrality are insisting that Facebook and Youtube should have the power to censor outright. In other words "What content you can access on the internet"

Just like a handful of ISPs have a near monopoly in most areas, a handful of Social Media companies have a near monopoly.online. If it's not on there, it pretty much won't be seen.

It's pretty clear and not at all complicated.

Yes. It's scary how leftist/democrats can show their true skin when content they disagree with is censored. Ideologically, they don't care if viewpoints they don't agree with are censored, and are more than willing to suppress free speech.

A couple of people have really shown their true colors, and I suspect the true colors of leftists in general.

Goran_K says

A couple of people have really shown their true colors, and I suspect the true colors of leftists in general.

Yep.

It's actually kinda similar to what happened in the past year at Pat.net.

Despite a perfectly good "Ignore" button, some insisted that some users be banned from Pat.net for their content they thought was conspiratorial, false, or whatever.

Mere months after peak "Ban this guy", many of these same users got bounced or flounced when Patrick imposed an ad hom ban and they ran afoul of it, screeching "Muh Free Speech".

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Despite a perfectly good "Ignore" button, some insisted that some users be banned from Pat.net for their content they thought was conspiratorial, false, or whatever.

Mere months after peak "Ban this guy", many of these same users got bounced or flounced when Patrick imposed an ad hom ban and they ran afoul of it, screeching "Muh Free Speech".

Perfect example.

On the whole though, it shows the dangers of collectivist mind set versus the power of the individual. Collectivist are okay with trouncing on people as long as they are "outside of the group", while Constitutionalism favors the individual right over the group think. Collectivism lead to the formation of the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the USSR, it's an extremely dangerous ideology, and it's sad to see people here cling to it.

Anyone who finds joy in Alex Jones being censored, while not illegal, should never call themselves liberal, constitutional, or even American. This is collectivism, and by extension, totalitarianism that you support.

Oh, and the Legacy Media in favor of Social Media Giants banning Alt Media have competitive motive$ to support it.

But some from the Kronkite Era can't imagine a world without large corporate Media entities having some special magic power of discernment.

CBOEtrader says

Lets be clear. Answer this question: would you rather have a 1st amendment, or a ministry of truth? There is no 3rd option.

I choose a 1st amendment. You?

No, no, no...
I steel manned your argument with my example of propaganda run by nazi Americans during a war against nazi.
I get to do that because your position is absolute: people always have free speech, in all cases, period.

My position on the other hand is pragmatic and flexible: I recognize free speech, especially at the individual level, and I believe all ideas should be debated, however there are a few cases that should raise eyebrows, especially when the intent itself is to systematically mislead. Which outlet exactly should be prescribed is complicated. All I said is foreign enemy propaganda should typically be proscribed.

Covering this as "ministry of truth" is not a steel man, it's a straw man.

Heraclitusstudent says

foreign enemy propaganda should typically be proscribed

You are arguing for a minister of truth. Yup, in your mind this level-headed administer of soft censorship only on important propaganda matters will be totes reasonable? What happens when Trump chooses Bannon as the minister of truth? What happens if the dems choose Ariana Huffington? Who gets to decide what propaganda is and how/what foreign means? Do you really want a partisan admin appointing beaurocrats to administer this truth?

So yet again, the ultimate question is who gets to be the minister of truth? You wont answer because you cant. There is no good answer.

Choose: minister of truth or 1st amendment. There is no 3rd option.

Goran_K says

Collectivist are okay with trouncing on people as long as they are "outside of the group", while Constitutionalism favors the individual right over the group think. Collectivism lead to the formation of the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the USSR, it's an extremely dangerous ideology, and it's sad to see people here cling to it.

The way you use the world collectivist here is to mean tribalism. This is not what "collectivism" means. Tribalism is not an ideology, it is human pattern of thinking that underlies many ideologies.

By the way your opinions here display a strong tribalism with the American political right, as you combat ideas the "outside of the group" - the left - and almost all your thinking is strongly aligned with that of your group/tribe. Your reverence for your leader is also a tribal attribute.

CBOEtrader says

You are arguing for a minister of truth. Yup, in your mind this level-headed administer of soft censorship only on important propaganda matters will be totes reasonable? What happens when Trump chooses Bannon as the minister of truth? What happens if the dems choose Ariana Huffington?

You are assuming there are no objective and reasonable criteria that can be used, and that therefore this will always be left to the individual judgement of whoever is in power. This is typically not the case.

As a simple example other countries have strong libel laws or laws against hate speech. Some European countries have laws forbidding denying the Holocaust. Big deal.

You want to call this "minister of truth"? Whatever.
You want to equate this to some sort of "Baghdad Bob"?... hummm just a little bit disingenuous.

Heraclitusstudent says

The way you use the world collectivist here is to mean tribalism. This is not what "collectivism" means. Tribalism is not an ideology, it is human pattern of thinking that underlies many ideology.

By the way your opinions here display a strong tribalism with the American political right, as you combat ideas the "outside of the group" - the left - and almost all your thinking is strongly aligned with that of your group/tribe. Your reverence for your leader is also a tribal attribute.

Wrong, very wrong. I meant what I said. People can be in tribes and still believe in individual rights (e.g - I'm a member of the NRA, but I believe non-NRA members have the right to own firearms). Collectivism is DIFFERENT. It is the base ideology for socialism/communism/nazism/leftism/democrats, at its basic "group over the self" which is why I describe the Constitution and individual rights. Seriously, read the Federalist papers some day, it lays out in very simple terms collectivism vs individual rights. If you support the censorship of Alex Jones (which you clearly do), you have lost all moral right to claim free speech, and the 1st amendment, as a platform or even ethos because you have grasped collectivism, which is a very dangerous ideology that killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century.

By the way, I don't care about your opinion on my political stance, and your accusation that I support the "political right" (which is wrong), keep it non-personal, or your shit is going to get nuked, plain and simple. Last warning.

Heraclitusstudent says

Goran_K says

Collectivist are okay with trouncing on people as long as they are "outside of the group", while Constitutionalism favors the individual right over the group think. Collectivism lead to the formation of the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the USSR, it's an extremely dangerous ideology, and it's sad to see people here cling to it.

The way you use the world collectivist here is to mean tribalism. This is not what "collectivism" means. Tribalism is not an ideology, it is human pattern of thinking that underlies many ideology.

By the way your opinions here display a strong tribalism with the American political right, as you combat ideas the "outside of the group" - the left - and almost all your thinking is strongly aligned with that of your group/tribe. Your reverence for your leader is also a tribal attribute.

You are missing his point. Everyone is tribal by nature, just like everyone is violent by nature.

Libertarian values of individualism over collectivism is the only viable solution.

Jonathan Haidt talks about personality types and how they lean politically. Libertarians share some traits from both conservatives and leftists. Yet while both conservatives and leftists are very tribal, libertarians shun group identities. They often dont do the whole super sports fan thing, dont organize into groups as well, etc. Personally, I cant agree w a crowd until I research something in totality. For ex, when Trump ran for president I thought he was a joke. The constant barrage of "racism" and the resulting hate mob against him inspired me to research each and every claim. My conclusion is that the hate mob was indeed being manipulated by lying media, over and over and over again.

I think a lot of libertarians did the same, which is why Trump is popular w the libertarian crowd. Just my theory

Heraclitusstudent says

As a simple example other countries have strong libel laws or laws against hate speech. Some European countries have laws forbidding denying the Holocaust.

Yes and the results have been tyrannical. If this is what you are suggesting I would fight this to the end. It would be the end of free speech in the US just like these laws are in the UK.

Goran_K says

Collectivism is the base ideology for socialism/communism/democrats

If we cant agree on this then we are speaking different languages.

CBOEtrader says

Collectivism is the base ideology for socialism/communism/democrats

Seriously.

It's an extremely simple concept.

Collectivism = Group over self.

Socialism = Check.
Communism = Check.
Nazism (which is a form of national socialism) = Check.
Democrat Party = "Health care is a right!", "Minimum wage!", "Social Security", Check.

Notice all of the ideologies above eventually lead to WIDE SPREAD national oppression of certain groups that lead to millions of people suffering. Socialism/Communism had its purges, Nazism had the holocaust, Democrats had slavery. etc.

If people are going to be willfully ignorant and how dangerous the current Democrat party is, then the debate with words is over, and eventually if a civil war sparks off, the debate will have to be won with arms.

CBOEtrader says

You are missing his point. Everyone is tribal by nature, just like everyone is violent by nature.

Libertarian values of individualism over collectivism is the only viable solution.

When you talk of Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan, these were systems that had private enterprises as a form of organization. They were not collectivists. Collectivism is a form of organization that removes private ownership, and Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan SIMPLY DID NOT DO THAT.

You are right that Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan, insisted on the importance of the group, and their superiority as a group, which is tribalism, not collectivism. Words matter.

@Aphroman, @Heraclitusstudent, knock it off with the ad hom attacks.

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

Just like you can't go into a McDonalds swinging your dick around, you can't swing your dick around here either. Make sense guys? Let's debate ideas, not engage in ad homs to satisfy your egos and I will do the same. Thanks!

As far as your ideology of Libertarianism: the idea that people should be pure individuals and totally free is pure hypocrisy as far as I can tell. People always do some things in common. And when you live in a city, almost everything is in common: sewers, roads, transportation, laws, cops, justice, insurance, education, etc, etc... Your freedom ends, where the freedom of the next guy starts, which is in front of your nose.
When there is a plague, people get together and organize better sewers.
When there are barbarians at your gate, people get together and fight them.
When there is a flood, people who are unaffected help the others.
The way humans organize their lives is always in a top down system, that then has to leave sufficient scope for bottom up individual initiatives.
This has been the pattern for all of human civilizations.
The only exception was probably people living on a wild frontier. Some Americans apparently still think they are on one.

Goran_K says

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

The censorship rules of a private forum.

Heraclitusstudent says

Goran_K says

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

The censorship rules of a private forum.

Aphroman says

Free Speech is being censored at Patnet

Is this the goal @Patrick?

Guess what, Patrick said he'd give you guys server space and you both can form your own FREE SPEECH forums of your own. Go take him up on his offer..

But then you'll have nothing to bitch about when you're in charge.

Heraclitusstudent says

Nazi Germany

Heraclitusstudent says

were not collectivists

Literally every academic disagrees w you. I dont know how to argue that up actually means up and down actually means down.

Nazi germany and Soviet Russia and socialist Venezuela failed for the same collectivist reasons. A collectivist society always tends towards more and more centralized power eventually ending in a tyrant rule. Collectivist society will necessarily oppress individuals, ban free speech from wrongthinkers, and eventually murder these troublesome dissidents.

Libertarian individualism is the solution.

Aphroman says

Nobody is engaging in ad homs

Relax

Facts shouldn’t trigger people

I'm starting to like the aphroman.

Heraclitusstudent says

the idea that people should be pure individuals

noone said the ever. You are arguing w the straw man in your head.

I said libertarian personality types tend away from groups. I'm not sure how professor haidt measured this, so yes I am repeating it blindly but it seems to make sense.

Legally speaking, ibertarian values are enshrined in the constitution. We choose to believe that rights are inherent to the individual, we allow govt to rule us on the agreement that the constitutional republic will be upheld. Therefore a mob isnt supposed to be able to vote away the rights of an indivual.

A constitutional republic is the best protection against collectivist tyrants. It would be a travesty to embrace UK/canada anti-hate speech laws.

I'm not typically active in politics, but destruction of our first amendment would be worth fighting for.