You must be materially fortunate if you are taking the privileged position of using the state to limit cheap energy production. I would wager these scientists are fortunate enough to endorse your views and live on the dole from that same state.
Well that was a perfect example of why Willfarnaby is in the wilderness. As even right wing sources are talking in favor of solar power as solar on other sources are getting cheaper, the reality is that propaganda is indeed making guys like him go against the interests of his current and future descendants.
So, back to the subject at hand:
Yep, and as Vox noted, a lot of the new reactionaries can press on their bonafide left leaning positions, but as we can see, the conspiracies they fall for are geared toward discouraging progressive or even scientifically based policies.
I tend to agree with Ezra Klein, what we are seeing is the rise of a kind of a right wing that is evolving. The sad reality is that the right wing in power now is crazy and going to the middle (and no, that is not the center left as dunderheads like WillFarnaby think they are) is marginally “better”, it is as better as a creationist stopping the demands to teach creationism in school and demanding now that we “teach the controversy” in schools.
Clearly the reactionaries do know that change is happening, so if they can not continue with the past ways at least they request that they continue to miseducate others on the meanings or the subjects liberals and progressives should identify with.
The rise of YouTube’s reactionary right, by Ezra Klein
As I said, I agree with a lot that Klein says, but I also add to all those reactionary issues, their falling for conspiracy theories that are geared to be against progressive ideals.
Censorship is bad. I don’t know exactly what Peterson was talking about, but in general, censoring opinions you don’t like is bad. Talking about political or cultural opinions here. And Louis CK is a comedian. Comedians often push the boundaries for comedy. How does defending Louis CK’s right to tell offensive jokes make Joe Rogan a bad guy? Not trying to strawman here if that’s what it looks like, but you definitely seem to be implying Joe Rogan is a bad guy because he committed all of these offenses here in your quote.
What’s wrong with being linked to the IDW? I don’t think he’s refuted it.
I don’t think he’s “the one guy who goes against them”, he’s just one of the many considered in the “IDW”, with his own views. You seem to think IDW is a monolith, when it’s really a bunch of people with wide-ranging views.
I don’t know why you think that because I find Joe Rogan a reasonable guy that I must also love everyone else in the IDW. I disagree with some of them, I find some of them reasonable. Some of them I’ve never even listened to.
Missed this one. Progressives have a nasty habit of enshrining their world views and opinions as sacrosanct, and if anyone disagrees with that world view, they are “hateful”, “bigots”, etc. And what do you do with hateful bigots? You silence their “hate”. Censorship. Restricting freedom of speech.
Imagine every time you disagreed with a Christian fundamentalist about God, they called you a hateful anti-religious bigot, and then sought to censor you to protect innocent young Christians from being hurt by your assault on their Christian identity?
I’d imagine that you’d argue they are limiting freedom of speech by “fighting bigotry”. And that your opinions should be heard and debated on their merits, not silenced out of the discussion.
I was agreeing with you a bit about Joe Rogan but you lost me here, what a very long winded thread about Sam Harris showed me is that the charges of the bigots or ignorant being silenced or censored makes very little sense in the age of the internet. Considering that in the case of Charles Murray Sam Harris ended giving a much bigger megaphone to Charles Murray than the one he already had.
I’m just saying, in general, fighting to have people removed from major platforms like Twitter or Facebook, and stripped of funding by removing them off Patreon or Paypal, all because they disagree with someone politically or culturally, that’s bad. And it seems to really only come from one side. Mostly on cultural issues. Jordan Peterson was banned from Youtube, appealed it, and was denied. Then the Internet blew up, and they backtracked. How many people who don’t have the following he had are going to just get squished the moment they have the wrong opinion about something?
You lost me even more by pointing at Jordan Peterson, as I pointed out, teaching the controversy does not make a bankrupt idea better just because it is shown in new media.
Okay well try to avoid the people then and just on the point: censorship is bad. Unless it’s like, literal Nazi recruitment, ISIS propoganda complete with beheadings, something like that. Cultural and political disagreements? Should not be censored.
But should be 100% clearly understood, though.
This presents a problem: given its scale YouTube must rely on a large degree of automated moderation. It’s quite likely that what happened to Peterson was not due to malice by YouTube staff, but rather the result of a process that had very little human input from their side. (As has happened to other less controversial YouTubers over the years. Peterson isn’t a special right wing snowflake here.)
But what’s the alternative? Let everything through? Manual review of every video would be an impossible nightmare.
Nary a day goes by when I don’t hear about someone getting suspended from twitter or facebook for slagging off transphobes or white people or men. And lo and behold, it took me all of five seconds to find an antifascist website complaining about getting banned from Patreon after right-wing backlash. Enjoy.
In a world where we are literally awash with information, and where the biggest problem isn’t “saying whatever you want” but rather “finding a way to let people know about what you’re saying”, people with large followings like Rogan or Rubin hold considerable sway. And who they tend to interview and invite on their shows tells us far more about their politics than anything else. These are the viewpoints they are choosing to elevate in the public sphere. This is who they think are worth talking to/about. Rogan comes off better here; he tends to interview a fairly large mix of people (although anyone choosing to elevate Milo Yiannopolous multiple times rightfully deserves a few knocks for it - Milo is and always has been nothing more than a shitty troll and bully who deserves a platform the way DildoSchwaggins69 does). But that’s why it’s such a joke that anyone calls Rubin a “left libertarian” or describes his show as “liberal” - as of september, of the 63 guests he had on his show, maybe two would even remotely count as liberal. There are priorities here in what to display.
Almost none of the “censorship” here deals with governments censoring individuals. It’s all private companies or individuals. It’s all social - “please stop encouraging and giving a platform to person X, or suffer some social backlash”. And yeah, social censorship is a thing, but it needs to be seen in a very different context from government censorship, because everyone does it, and indeed, it’s very important that everyone does it. I’d say it’s what separates StraightDope from 4chan - but even 4chan does it; you’re still not allowed to post ponies outside of /mlp/ and if you try to do so they will “censor” you. And this is because in the context of social censorship, speech applies social pressures to conform. You typically will not have a community space that is made up largely of transphobes and also contains a bunch of trans people - one of those two groups will necessarily be forced out by the other. This is particularly relevant here - we’ve been having this debate on the Straight Dope about misogyny for quite a while, and what set it off was a lot of female posters feeling very uncomfortable around the rampant misogyny spewed by certain shitbags around here and just deciding to leave for other forums where they don’t have to deal with that shit.
Hell, when it comes to Louis CK, even that is going too far - nobody is even trying to deplatform him. We’re just telling him on twitter and in opinion pieces to shut the fuck up because his jokes are tasteless and unfunny. Y’know, the same treatment any other shitbag hack comedian might get in a review, regardless of whether they’re also sexual predators punching down at school shooting survivors. Louis CK’s “right to tell offensive jokes” has never once been under attack. Which is why you should maybe wonder why it’s necessary to invite someone on to defend that right. It isn’t necessary, it isn’t even pressing. There’s no need to do it. Joe Rogan is just doing it because… Well, I’ll be honest, I haven’t seen the podcast, I’m going off hearsay. Why did he invite that guy on? Was it to promote his stand-up routine?
Well, shit, what would you call it when Milo intentionally misgenders and deadnames a trans student in front of her college? I mean, that it’s hateful bigotry is pretty much beyond question at this point - I’d call it harassment, honestly, except that the law hasn’t quite caught up yet (indeed, Peterson got his start in the public eye lying about a law intended to fix that oversight).
Look, you can nutpick a few fringe individuals to point out leftists who would censor anyone who disagrees. Indeed, Sargon has made a whole career out of it, the spiteful cunt. But the idea that this is somehow the prevalent tone on the left, that progressives “treat their worldview as sacrosanct”… No. Just no. Typically, people get called bigots for doing bigoted shit.
…“Imagine”? 
Whoops, “the 63 guests he had had on his show in the last year”. Don’t know how I got that one wrong. Sorry!
Wait, what does left-libertarianism commonly mean in mainstream US political discourse? Because online when I hear it left-libertarianism usually means Libertarian Socialism or Libertarian Marxism which are all closer to anarcho-communism than anything. It’s all about common ownership of resources, often abolition of currency and markets, abolition of private property (with respect and a distinction for personal property), etc, which are all comically far from anything Rubin would dream of supporting.
Like, Noam Chomsky is a flavor of left-libertarian, and Rubin hates Chomsky. (Granted, a lot of actual left-libertarians hate Chomsky too, but for different reasons… it’s not a happy family). I realize that in the US “libertarian” got associated with right-libertarianism, but is left-libertarian really used here to mean “right-libertarianism but maybe supports a few things democrats support wrt social issues or whatever” because if so I haven’t ever heard that.
Again, can you point to a single conspiracy theory pushed by Rubin? As I said I have only skimmed his work (watched 2-3 interviews) and have never heard any conspiracy stuff. Perhaps the activist opinion pieces you read nonstop have provided some evidence.
Patting oft-times antiwar Alex Jones on the back while calling war propagandists like the Times and Post “fake news” is not a conspiracy theory.
I imagine Rubin has a hard time getting leftists or liberals on his show because of their fear of conversing with anyone who is attached to an “unapproved” person.
She also believes Russian collusion is a “continuing operation”, IOW not only did the Russians determine the election, they are still controlling Trump.
“What’s getting to be, I think, particularly unsettling, is that simultaneously, we are … number one, nailing down more direct connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government at the time the Russian government was influencing our election. Number two, at the same time, we are also starting to see what may be signs of continuing influence in our country. Not just during the campaign but during the administration. Basically, signs of what could be a continuing operation.“
-Maddow
She believes Putin orchestrated the leak of CIA spy tools.
“Consider what the other U.S. agency is besides the State Department that Putin most hates? That Putin most feels competitive with? That Putin most wants to beat? It’s the CIA, right? Spy versus spy. Putin is ex-KGB. He’s an ex-FSB officer… Smart observers say this is the largest dump of classified CIA material maybe ever, and it really could be a devastating blow to the CIA’s cyber war and flat-out spying capabilities, and that dump was released by WikiLeaks.” -Maddow
Even US intelligence disagrees with that: CIA contractors likely source of latest WikiLeaks release - U.S. officials | Reuters
She believes that Russia has made actions classifiable as “international warfare” on the US. She further believes we are still engaged in this warfare:
“This is not part of American politics. This is not, you know, partisan warfare between Republicans and Democrats. This is international warfare against our country. And it did not end on Election Day. We are still in it.”-Maddow
She plays “what-if”, a favorite of conspiracy mongers. She suggests we start prepping for non-specific consequences, what I, hopefully mistakenly take as a hint to prep for war with Russia:
“If the worst is true, if the presidency is effectively a Russian op, if the American presidency right now is the product of collusion between the Russian intelligence services and an American campaign — I mean, that is so profoundly big, we not only need to stay focused on figuring it out. We need to start preparing for what the consequences are going to be if it proves to be true.”-Maddow
After this post in which I have identified direct quotes of a crazy person, I know two things for sure.
- Similar quotes from Rubin will not be forthcoming.
- A loud minority of crazy people in this post will try to substantiate the conspiracy theories promulgated by Maddow.
TBC, I don’t think I’ve ever even heard the term left-libertarian in US political discourse. If it was used it certainly wouldn’t mean anything vaguely related to Marxism because that’s not even on the radar in the US.
I’m just trying to figure out if it does have some use I’ve apparently never seen until now.
It is. Ignoring the context is your biggest failure, that the mainstream makes mistakes is known already, what is a conspiracy is to call all their reporting fake news so as to protect and prop up the misinfirmation that right wing media or new media bloggers, were ignorance is a cherished quality, are spewing.