Nice dodge.
You’re not giving anyone anything to dodge, just a lot of smoke.
Rubin would know about dodging. He’s been completely avoiding David Pakman (a former acquaintance) and Sam Seder, two of the progressives who would love to have an open discussion with him…all while grandstanding by saying only one side is willing to have dialogue, throwing out invitation offers on twitter to people on the left he knows are never going to come on his show.
Rubin has humiliated himself enough he is the lowest hanging fruit in this thread and it’s amusing you end up there vouching for his political self-description. A more interesting challenge would be some of the claims made about the Weinstein brothers.
Let me guess - he was inviting liberals with far more clout than him, like congressmen?
Yeah, Elizabeth Warren was one IIRC. My impression is he also does that with people who live on the other side of the country and would be logistically inconveniencing themselves.
This is a bit like having, say, The Young Turks insist that they’re perfectly happy to debate those on the right, and then have the only examples they give of people they’d like to debate be like… Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan.
The claim was that he was a reactionary. Unless that term means nothing anymore thanks to hysterical leftist overuse, he is in no way a reactionary.
The evidence that he is a reactionary has been simply that he calls mainstream media “fake news” and patted Alex Jones on the back.
There are plenty of scary things to call someone besides “reactionary” that would be more accurate in this case.
Rubin is disingenuous to the point I personally avoid labeling his orientation. I get why it happens though; I’ll give a couple examples.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCoN5uDPgNk[quote=“Covfefe, post:128, topic:827193”]
[/QUOTE]Ah yes, leftists. Well known for… hating… video games?
(Granted old Liberal congresspeople are another thing)
Okay, to actually explain this before someone links random leftists yelling at “gamers” to me. I see exactly what disingenuous (or misguided) thing Rubin is doing. Leftists do indeed have a beef with “gamers”, but it’s primarily the constructed identity and associated subculture of “Gamer”. (Young) Leftists do not and never have hated video games or people who play them and in fact there’s a gigantic left indie gaming scene, but there is a large rift between leftist gaming spheres and self-described “gamers”, even when we like a lot of the same video games. (Axiom Verge certainly ended up a darling of a lot of gaming media, left, right, or otherwise).
I guess that’s true about the social construct “gamers,” but, at this point, I tend to think of those guys as “the other guys” and “gamers” as the inclusive group. I consider the shitty group “old gamers” or even “Gamergaters,” when I want to go retro.
That’s not to say the inclusive group doesn’t sometimes have problems, too. But it’s nowhere near the toxic masculinity fest that it used to be. “Cosplay is not consent,” and all that.
“Stop legitimizing bad people!”, the crowd sneered.
That “imagine” BTW was when the poster told us to imagine how fundamentalists would treat people that would open the minds of their kids. The point is that there is really no need to imagine.
Of course the problem here is to willfully ignore that there are things like creationists that do not get many invite from the dark web guys. The problem is not that Creationism is mostly ignored here, but the fact is that there are indeed subjects were intelligent people do know that deserve not to be legitimized again after they were tossed into the dustbin by science before.
Point being that as we do fight against ignorance here it can not be ignored that there are many experts here, or there are many that are aware of what the experts do know, to allows us to report that there are more than a few items that many from the dark web are failing to notice that do deserve to be ignored like creationism is.
Wow, science has refuted Creationism? The Biblical account of the creation of man has been refuted? Abiogenesis has been proven? That’s heavy stuff right there.
You are aware you didn’t actually make an argument, right?
I mean, I guess this is snark, but it’s the type of snark you might say at an anti-liberal board, where everyone would give you likes and kudos and upvotes and such. It would just be repeating dogma.
I thought you said you came to this board because you liked how we debated topics. So what’s with this bullshit?
What is your argument? Bring it up, and we can discuss it, and find out where we disagree, and then you can argue for why you are right and we are wrong, and we can do the same.
Or don’t and be like the other conservative trolls who are just here to mock and see how many libs they can get to engage with them.
I’m not really too fond of hanging out with a bunch of people who just agree with me, but I have to say, being one guy versus ten isn’t the greatest. It’s nice to share a snarky quip with a like-minded individual.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Of course that was not the point, what you miss is that there is indeed a limit of who the dark web guys invite, and creationism has been refuted many times when in scientific settings or educational ones. For a board that fights ignorance the subjects that we should not give the time of the day are more than just creationism, it is bad indeed when one sees hosts from the dark web genuflecting or not interjecting any criticism to guys pushing subjects that clearly have no place to be in modern settings.
Okay, well, I don’t know about or care to defend the various “Creationist claims”, but the basic principle that God created life has, in fact, not been relegated to the dustbin by science. The day scientists are able to put a sterile rock in tub of goo, agitate it a bit, let it sit, throw in some sawdust and rainbow hematite, and voila, life, then creationism has not been refuted.
I will agree that the spiritual cannot be debated. It is, as a matter of course, based on faith. You can’t measure the spiritual, you can’t quantify it, you can’t study it. So it is perfectly understandable not to bother debating it.
You miss that we are talking about scientific settings, there no need for the hypothesis you talk about.
Like Tim Minchin said, “Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be NOT MAGIC.”
And therefore there are things that indeed are not worth the time to discuss, and even the dark web guys know it. Sadly I have noticed many examples where even the history of a science is ignored particularly when the discussion is set up with next to no critisism from a supposedly very intelligent host and the podcast or webcast ends as a repeat of ignorant talking points.
This would be funnier if it wasn’t literally refuted a handful of posts earlier. Like, fuck dude, read the fucking thread.
:smack:
Well, on the bright side, your comments on the IDW are no longer the dumbest thing in the thread, congratulations.