well you are from Denmark you gave up Valhalla and the Norse Gods a long time ago

they were replaced by the effeminate god of lesser men

for political reasons

Non Christians killed more than Christians, if we're going to go comparing numbers and ignore context.

Lobsters i wonder why 🤔

Maybe it is because when some people eat shell fish their throat closes up and die 🤔

All hail red lobster

nobody is ignoring numbers or context

Also, the reformation wasn't a change in their core beliefs, it was a change in how they were respecting the core beliefs. Which is one of the reasons Islam can't be reformed, it's murderous in its source material; while the Church, with the help of the state, was allowing corruption to take hold.

something I'm not really arguing against

I'm sure there was probably some contextual reason for lobsters and carrion eaters being pointed out in the bible, possibly ancient political reasons, or in the case of carrion eaters it might be because of the diseases that you risk contracting if you eat those

but to claim this has much (if any) value in a modern context, I'm going to have to call into question

>Taking matters into their own hands and deciding who deserves to live or die, based on their intrepretations of their own delusional beliefs, yeah, not related to religion at all I'm sure
You seem to be implying non-Christians don't kill. Or that Christianity is what caused Christian human beings to kill. Or is this the "bro, what about the Crusades?"

in the context of witch hunts, very much so.

are you trying to claim that religion had nothing to do with that?

Jesus said, nobody but God has the right to punish sins. That one statement removed the religious authority to anyone that would wish to oppress based on religious views. Doesn't mean said religious leaders respected it. But it's there in the source material.

I'm not implying that you need a religious motive for killing people, that is ridiculous to assume

Hitchens did.

pretty sure he didn't

but okay

His whole shtick was that religions turned good men into evil men.

so he claimed that you need religion to kill people

?

doubt it

And that justified his hyperbolic characterization of Bible as being "murderous from cover to cover", etc.

sure, I'll take your word for it

JBP openly stated that he would have loved to debate Hitchens, he thinks he was very wrong in some of his positions on Christianity.

I would have liked to see it

sadly that won't be possible

Maybe we can get interviewers to ask him to elaborate on his disagreement with Hitchens.

I suppose. There's enough material of Hitchen's out there

Would be interesting to hear Jordan's thoughts on whatever issues he had with Hitchen's views

Maybe some non-pleb can get a superchat in during the Rubin Report.

I saw Harris is having another talk with him at some point? I'd like one where it doesn't devolve into some weird debate about the definition of truth

but the live settings are kind of... meh...

a lot of pandering to the audience, it feels like. Which is fine, but doesn't really work for someone who isn't there, I feel

There's been an interesting Sam Harris vs Ben Shapiro recently.

yeah, I watched it, it was a good talk

despite being live

in front of an audience, I mean

Can't even get remotely close to a JBP v Hitchens debate since his brother seems to think of JBP as a new age cult leader

Sam has the opinion that western moral values have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian tradition.

Christopher Hitchens didn't agree much with his brother at all, though

I think he thought of him as a bit of a stuck up buffoon, to be honest

I think you mean Steven Weinberg with that quote

For good people to do evil - that takes religion

Hitchens quoted that, so I'll assume he shares the same opinion.

Gulag Archipelago is enough of a refutation of that.

Then, going back to my claim of intellectual deficiency, Hitchens calls every bad ideology "religion."

That's a fucking strawman of an argument.

He wasn't interested into finding out whether religion was good or bad, true or false. He *defined* religion to be bad and false.

To the point of calling communism a religion to stack up with Christianity, point at it and say "see, religion caused all those deaths too."

only look at the Athesist movements and how they fight amongst themselves like cats

they agree and will not sit next to eachother

That's why you part Kittens out

or drown them in a bag

DanielKO that said there is common ground between religions and most terribad ideologies

Once you reject what evidence shows and go off the deep end?

anything goes as a conclusion

Reminds me of neo-Marxists redefining words.

Feminists like to say "toxic masculinity". Try asking them what masculinity isn't toxic? All of it is toxic. Masculinity itself is defined to be toxic.

>"Racism" isn't just prejudice based on race. It's prejudice + power. So black people can't be racist because they don't have power.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to call all evil ideologies "religion" just to reinforce your argument that religions are evil, you're climbing up some circular logic. You might think you got the high moral ground, but everyone else is looking down on you.

So, with that definition, if a religion is objectively good, and not evil, it can't be called religion.

That was Hitchens playing the postmodernist game of twisting words, to shuffle things around into categories until they fall into the ones that he's attacking, thus "proving" his point.

Was there video, or just audio?

I was referring to the Ben - Harris thing, but discord had cut off the last four or five messages

Might have to check this one out too though

I'll look it up after the Rubin Report is over.

How would you define religion then?

That's a hard question to answer. But it's easy to point out at things that aren't religion.

Here's the latest Ben vs Sam debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTWCl32j8jM

And this is Ben's thoughts about it, if you don't have two fucking hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlUBl64krMo

Audio only, on the first one.

Thumbnail is misleading.

That's the one where the woman asked Sam, "I have a 5 years old son, what do I teach him?" and he said "Lie to him."

I don't remember anything about a woman with a 5 year old son, or her asking about what to teach him. I do remember a woman with an 18 year old son, who asked how she could stop him from doing "stupid things", if he has no free will. I don't think not telling your child that some philospher argues that there is no such thing as free will, is somehow lying to them.

Harris said something about lying at the very end, and it felt more like a joke than anything. The audience laughed at it, and it didn't connect with what he had been explaining earlier, nor the fact that he's written a book about lying, and how there are more often than not unconsidered and unwanted consequences to even the smallest white lies, and that people should make the effort to not tell lies at all.

I was quoting Ben. He might have remembered the age wrong. Doesn't change much though.

If you have to lie to convince your son to be a decent human being, maybe your moral positioning is not sound.

I mean, the question sounded legitimate, why the fuck was Harris being sarcastic on his answer?

Maybe only people with very high IQ can derive morality through secularism? "Sorry, you're a pleb, you're better off lying to your child than try to do what I do."

"i wrote a whole book on it"

the soundest of logical arguments

he wrote a book on the subject of lies and how harmful they are, and you take a joke as him advocating for lying. I suggest you go back and listen to it again, and Ben probably should too if he thinks not telling your child everything is somehow lying to them.

he told ben he wrote a book on the subject instead of making an argument

and ben said i read it

don't remember him saying that in the QA, but if he did, I can understand since it was the last question before they ended the show

it was during the debate

i was just talking about when Ben was trying to get into the details of his ideas

he said I wrote a book on it

in that case, that is not very helpful to a debate

I remember the question.

And I remember he indeed answered it like that, "lie to him". Not the exact words, but pretty much.

What I'm saying is, even if he's just being sarcastic, making a joke, that's inappropriate.

I don't think the woman wanted a sarcastic answer.

no, he argued that she didn't need to tell him about free will in order to make him stop doing stupid things, and then at the end they were joking

But who is to judge on whether his actions and decisions are stupid?

the mother said so

JBP mentioned that on one of his lectures, "it's not clear that taking advantage of people isn't on your best interest. Why shouldn't you take advantage of people whenever you can get away with it?"

so clearly, in her mind, the kid's actions were stupid, she wants to stop him, but she thinks that because he has no free will, he'll be unable to learn how to stop doing these things

what does that have to do with not telling your child that they do not have free will?

She wasn't worried about the child struggling to cope with the non-existence of free will. She wanted to know how to make sure he grows to be a good person.

if I understood her correctly, she wanted him to learn why what he was doing was stupid, but she didn't understand how that would be possible if he had no free will. I feel as if it's more her lack of understanding on the subject of free will, or the lack thereof, that is what Harris was trying to tell her about. But I might be wrong.

Harris told her, jokingly, not to tell the child, because of what an 18 year old might do if they're told they do not have actual control over their own actions.

That is not advocating lying, no matter how you attempt to twist his words.

otherwise, every parent that hasn't transfered all of their collective knowledge to their children, would be classified as liars.

Here's the transcript:
- I have kids. So when it comes to free will, I get it, I'm completely on board, Sam, with your idea that there's no free will. When it comes to raising kids, where's the ...
- Don't tell them.
[laughter]
- I have an 18 year old boy who's gorgeous and when I'm trying to tell him to do the right thing and he does something stupid, and then I want to find out why he did that, I don't even ask, because that's a stupid question, because he doesn't even know why he did it. Because he's an 18 years old boy. But when I'm looking at impacting his future behavior, where's the practical separation between knowing that there's really no free will, and wanting your children to be responsible in their behavior and what they do in the world.
- [Sam proceeds to just bullshit a response that makes no sense, some rambling about discipline] But as far as what to tell kids, you need a strong sense of agency, that the measure of what to tell kids, or what to tell anybody ultimately, is what true and useful, right? You just don't download random truths, because some truths are not worth knowing at certain moments in life.

I'm not twisting words. She's clearly worried about morality. She wants her son to be a decent human being for society.

Also, he thinks an 18 years old is a child that can't handle the "there's no free will" truth.

Found this thing I got from google during a career fair.

Are you a white male?

If you are, you should ask about the prospects of career progression as a white male, inside Google. You heard they really hate white males.

And if you aren't, you should still ask things related to their affirmative action policies.

"I'm an oppressed minority group, is Google going to do the right thing and pay me proportionally to my oppression points?"

https://twitter.com/Harry1T6/status/958754276863455232

🤔

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26614/breaking-white-house-reveals-likely-release-date-ryan-saavedra

time to find out if this is explosive or just a firecracker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA0rnucyLeE

I think you're being overly charitable with Shapiro, and not at all with Harris. Not my problem though, and I doubt you'd agree to this observation regardless.

I don't think Harris demonstrated the intellectual honesty or depth to deserve respect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEegl8ZAD-o

Sam Harris playing the Guilt By Association game.

That's how you burn your reputation to the ground.

Yet he still managed to demonstrate just how silly Shapiros religious views were.

Did he? I guess that's your opinion, so okay.

But again I doubt you agree

You know, I'm making the effort to demonstrate why I think what I think about Sam. I'm not just calling him an idiot, a fraud, or whatever other shallow insult.

The bit about being unable to reconstruct particular religious views if a particular holy book was lost, I found to be quite well reasoned.

I don't think you can accuse somebody of being guilty for talking to somebody "detestable", and keep your moral superiority. It's proof you're being dishonest, poisoning the well.

It was well reasoned, but in what way was it against Shapiro's views?

And you're entitled to your views, I've just not found your arguments convincing (haven't watched the video) but I confess to a certain bias against religion.

He couldn't defend his superstitions beliefs, and yet continues to hold them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqR-phb3Wkk

Lul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYqua6MhbSo

It's RedPillWhite

but she ain't a White

she's Indian and Jew

so she's a fucks if I knows

this is a very strange and interesting panel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ijFQFiCgoE

Seriously? Is that all you have to say?

Obviously nobody can do two things at the same time.

The diversity is too diverse bigots

NHL should have the same proportion of blacks as the NBA!

whatever the fuck is on trevor noah right now us the most culturally retarded bougie up your own ass through sunday bullshit I have ever heard

You watch Trevor Noah? Why do you hate yourself?

My family enjoyed him when he was doing stand up on his journey from South Africa to America as a sideline skit to Gabriel Iglesias but I haven't seen him be funny since he signed onto the Daily Show

And then there's this story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gLMyRHdk8

dumb as a rock

No my dad watches Trevor Noah.

Yeah. I don't even know.

The Daily Show writers gave up on comedy and turned to propaganda.

If anyone is looking for a historical document, this site seems to have a good selection. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/default.asp

https://twitter.com/theveindoc/status/959346044655079424

fuckin' wot

yeah no

it's unrealistic

but that's hard Left Labour for you

that would not last 5 mins in my City

my City is Lefty but it's BASED

and it does not like FUCKERY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k41PI54ExFc

Maajid Nawaz, anti-Muslim extremist
-SPLC

🤦

Well it’s the SPLC what did you expect?

https://thebristolcable.org/2018/01/council-no-plans-work-immigration-enforcement-kick-rough-sleepers/

`The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.

Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.

The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.

DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to DOJ information about Steele's bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming president.`

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26685/breaking-bombshell-memo-released-heres-what-it-ryan-saavedra

`"Democrats paid to get false information so Democrats could go to FISA and get an approval under false pretenses so other Democrats could spy on Trump."`

🤔

https://www.wsj.com/articles/memo-reading-for-nonpartisans-1517530297?shareToken=st2970f114d2f540e48731de9fa29f34e8&reflink=article_email_share

https://youtu.be/qgyUZmv0DFU

this video is incredible

4 minutes in and I gave up. That faggot uses too many words to say nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLqLQvTbo-Y

[important political discussion]

gay

gay

This is some hilarious mainstream news. This guy even says "half of this country thinks the mainstream media lies" lmfao hmm I wonder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWRyLIrevSo

"TRUMP OVERRULES FBI OBJECTIONS"

who the fuck was elected President again?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26717/watch-people-trash-quotes-obamas-sotu-when-they-frank-camp

🤣

@Reaps goddamn those "students" are so fucking retarded

On the topic of the mainstream media, I think a vast majority of the US knows the main stream media says a lot of bullshit, whether they're republican or democrat. Most people understand corruption and biased reporting is bipartisan and loved by everyone.

Everyone I know around my town doesn't trust the main stream media 100%, but maybe that's just a thing in the south.

The problem is, it normalizes flinging lies. It's the other side's responsibility to refute them.

So it's all about which side has the worst lies smeared on them.

It doesn't matter that Hillary betrayed the country, stole relief money from starving victims of disaster, harassed victims of sexual abuse, and corrupted her own party... Trump got called literally Hitler.

I think the thing Sargon says about how they could've destroyed Trump based on things he actually did is the best way to sum up the left's error with Trump in the election.

Maybe the reason we're not seeing the sane intellectuals in the USA standing up for reason is that the media is actively trying to suppress any shred of reasoned discussion.

They [the left] also picked the least charismatic candidate possible, and on top of all that shit, they went with the worst approach possible. They appealed to the progressives, the most hated political group there is. It was a shit show, and it was painful to watch unfold.

But that's a bit off topic.

It wasn't just charisma, Hillary had a very dirty baggage behind her. And she couldn't convince anyone that wasn't already ideologically possessed.

I think the media chooses different approaches based on which side of the spectrum they're on. The progressive media outlets simply pretend people with differing opinions either don't exist or are fascist, racist, Nazis; conservatives seem to do a good job illustrating that there are other opinions, however, they use very spotty evidence for many of their claims, don't look far enough into things, and act as though other opinions are stupid; and, in conclusion, they're all bad new sources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBnLUPyeFtU

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVJbxOFVwAEKaSI.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42936613

Wait, isn't this pierce Brosnan in the last movie with Jackie Chan?

north or south korea?

I really like the point Sargon makes about diversity in his Thinkery video "Two More #Feminid Arguments: Forced Diversity and Fascist Theocrats", where he talks about not really caring about diversity as long as they don't mention "hey, did you notice we have coloreds in this movie? it's diverse!" I think that that is the best way of phrasing how to "fix" the push for diversity thesedays.

First, let's define diversity, to paraphrase Jordan Peterson.

Like, instead of focusing all your efforts in creating this diverse charcter into making them have special genitals or darker skin, you should focus on making the character interesting and then add on the black pussy afterwars

by diversity I mean representing minorities in media and such

YOU would think diversity means having all races together. THEY think diversity means non-white.

When they say "we want to reach 100% diversity", they mean "we want to have no whites."

Well, white males, since white women get a pass, sometimes.

Pasting it here because it's relevant:
>Drake says research suggests that millennials especially will spend more on brands that support causes they care about.

That was a comment from a PR guy from T-Mobile.

I'm talking about how the minorities are a harder minority in entertainment, not the silly anti-white SJW shit narrative you're talking about.

It's almost shocking to see them being so honest about it.

Well, radical left opinions are becoming much more normal and accepted thesedays.

People in colleges can call themselves socialists without being bullied to shit, I guess.

but that's aside from the point

The radical left operates on historical compensation, so in their mind "all black"(for example) is "diverse" to counteract historical "all white" in specific areas

They also have the unfortunate habit of perceiving "minority status" as "oppressed status". Hypothetically, they would see that since there are less, let's say, purple people, and they'd perceive that as oppresion and start a "purple lives matter" group to protest the lack of rich purple people, when purple people have nearly the same proportion of rich to poor as the orange majority.

Not a habit.

An ideology.

They combine sloppy reasoning with partial truths and create a false reality that they base their entire narrative off of.

There's no reason to come up with refined theories that would make their actions appear sensible. They aren't. As in, you're putting in way more thought than they are.

The saddest part of the whole thing is that most of them likely genuinely believe the shit they push. It's like Alex Jones or any of the other mad conspiracy theorists,

They don't analyze the unfortunate situation of black people and then conclude it's a class struggle. They **start** from the class struggle ideology, then try to shove everything into it.

If they did reach the class struggle conclusion from logical steps, they'd be able to argue something when challenged.

That does also make a lot of sense. I've been trying to understand what it is I'm missing about the progressive ideology. I thought that surely it isn't that they're just dumb, or manipulative, or willfully ignoring facts. How else could they have so much support?

I think what you're saying makes a bit more sense.

Watch Jordan Peterson, my dude. He breaks it down beautifully.

Understanding ideologies, specially the very destructive ones, is his specialty.

Yeah, I've seen a bit of his content, I'd consider myself a fan.

Watch it again. I watched many of his videos multiple times. I realized I just didn't get the simplicity of the words he was saying the first time I watched many of his videos. He really craft his sentences with precision.

When he says "it's simpler than that", he really means it.

Jordan Peterson is very good at saying things in a way that isn't condescending or rude, and the left could learn a thing or two about that from him.

Somebody (I think Crowder?) made the point, the left has no center. It's not that the "center" of the left is radicalized, it's that people that claim to be on the left, without reservations, are not even sure of how extreme their positions are, and are willing to go all the way if other leftists push them to it.

Or if they're confronted by conservatives, or even classical liberals.

I'd consider myself left-wing, but I try not to say that because it lumps me in with progressives.

You can see for instance when they talk about abortion. Crowder can easily push pro-abortion people to say the women have the right to abort a baby at 9 months pregnancy.

They get uncomfortable, but ultimately they accept that's the inevitable consequence of their ideology.

It starts "if a woman was raped, she has the right to abort", but very quickly becomes "it's never too late to abort."

I think it should be up to the mum if she wants to abort a 9 month old baby or not. It is their choice, is it not? The same way it's your choice to eat fast food until you have a heart attack, or to fuck with everyone in your college dorm until you have more STDs than fingers and toes.

So at 9 months, it's still not a baby?

The difference between eating yourself to death is, it's your life only that's being in danger.

I personally think it is a baby, but, I think it should be up to the mother to decide.

Should mothers have the right to kill their babies?

Should the mother have the right to take drugs and drink alcohol, and cause permanent damage to the baby's development?

No, because a baby is certainly another human. As long as the mother is not yet in labor, the baby is part of the mother, as far as the government is concerned. If the mother says the 9 month old baby is not a baby, the state can't insist it is.

So if it's inside her vagina, it's not a different life that deserves protection?

Mothers are already (in practice) allowed to take drugs and such and fuck up their kids, is there any way to prevent that without imprisoning mothers and forcing them to do things against their will?