SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-don't-agree-with-it,-but-I-will-defend-your-right-to-say-it dept.
[janrinok] For those of you who do not want to read about the 'extremes' of US politics (alt-right or left-wing) I suggest that you skip this story and wait for the next one. If you feel that we shouldn't publish any story that does not accord with your own, probably less extreme, views then perhaps you should remind yourself that we try to give everyone in our community the benefit of free speech and we do not intentionally censor or promote any particular view or political leaning. Of course, you are welcome to contribute your own comments in the subsequent discussion that will follow.
This MSNBC Guest Just Showed Why The Intellectual Dark Web Exists
On Tuesday, The New York Times’ Bari Weiss appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe to discuss her new in-depth piece on the so-called Intellectual Dark Web – an agglomeration of thinkers from all sides of the political aisle who have been cast out by political correctness and now converse with one another regularly and publicly (full disclosure: I’m a charter member, along with friends including Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, and others). The entire premise of the IDW is that many on the Left refuse to acknowledge good-natured disagreement; instead, all disagreement must be due to nefarious evil on the part of those who disagree.
Proving the point on MSNBC was guest Eddie Glaude Jr., chair at the Center for African-American Studies at Princeton. When Weiss cited the discussions between me and Sam as evidence for the diversity of the movement, Glaude responded, “What allows you to describe these folks as intellectuals of sort? Let me say it differently. They’re connected intellectually by what common commitments? So you might have different ideological spaces, but when you talk about Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro in one sentence, I can see the connection between those two.” Weiss responded, logically enough, “Which is?” And Glaude explained:
Having something to do with how they think about race, having something to do with how they think about diversity in the country and the ways in which diversity is talked about, right? The way in which they think about political correctness. Weiss responded, “Yeah, they’re anti-identity politics, for sure.”
To which Glaude launched into a full defense of identity politics: “Identity politics is a phrase that kind of is a red herring. Identity politics is just simply questions of justice, right?”
At this point, Joe Scarborough jumped in and hit the nail directly on the head:
Eddie, you have just made Bari Weiss's point, that you disagree with the way Bari Weiss views the world, so you're going to help her view the world more the way you view the world. The entire purpose of the exercise is to have honest conversations with people, and to not question their morality, or their wisdom just because they don't view the world exactly the same way that you do.
The "Intellectual Dark Web," Explained: What Jordan Peterson has in Common with the Alt-Right
Bari Weiss, an opinion writer and editor at the New York Times, created a stir this week with a long article on a group that calls itself the "Intellectual Dark Web." The coinage referred to a loose collective of intellectuals and media personalities who believe they are "locked out" of mainstream media, in Weiss's words, and who are building their own ways to communicate with readers.
The thinkers profiled included the neuroscientist and prominent atheist writer Sam Harris, the podcaster Dave Rubin, and University of Toronto psychologist and Chaos Dragon maven Jordan Peterson.
Some assertions in the piece deserved the ridicule. But Weiss accurately captured a genuine perception among the people she is writing about (and, perhaps, for). They do feel isolated and marginalized, and with some justification. However, the reasons are quite different from those suggested by Weiss. She asserts that they have been marginalized because of their willingness to take on all topics and their determination not to "[parrot] what's politically convenient."
The truth is rather that dark web intellectuals, like Donald Trump supporters and the online alt-right, have experienced a sharp decline in their relative status over time. This is leading them to frustration and resentment.
[janrinok] And another contribution from Ari reviews Amanda Marcotte's new book:
Birth of a "Troll Nation": Amanda Marcotte on How and Why Conservatives Embraced the Dark Side
Interview at Salon with author Amanda Marcotte:
I had no role in editing Amanda Marcotte's new book, which bears the amusing and highly appropriate title, "Troll Nation: How the Right Became Trump-Worshipping Monsters Set on Rat-F*cking Liberals, America, and Truth Itself." None of it previously appeared in Salon, to be clear;
But "Troll Nation" is not about the election of Donald Trump. Amanda and I have certain areas of cheerfully-expressed political disagreement, but I think we share the view that Trump was the culmination of a long process, or is the most visible symptom of a widespread infection. Amanda's analysis is, as always, calm, sharp-witted and clearly focused on available evidence. American conservatives, she says, used to make rational arguments and used to present a positive social vision. Did those arguments make sense, in the end? Did that "Morning in America" vision of the Reagan years conceal a vibrant undercurrent of bigotry?
[...] How we got from the supercilious, upper-crust conservatism of William F. Buckley Jr., the dictionary definition of an elitist -- the dude could read and write Latin, for God's sake -- to the delusional ignorance of Alex Jones and #Pizzagate, the small-minded hatred of Charlottesville and the unquenchable thirst for "liberal tears" is one of the darkest mysteries of our time. It's also the story of "Troll Nation."
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 13 2018, @07:47AM (7 children)
In order to "have Nazis on the right", the situation has to be like 1930s Germany, with the only serious alternative being communism. All of mainstream politics in the USA is far right of Nazi stuff.
Nazis favored gun control. (needed if you want to kill Jews) Who in the USA endorses gun control today?
Just as Hitler started with euthanasia of disabled people, the UK is doing it today. (Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans) These children were both prohibited from seeking medical care in other countries. The UK's socialized healthcare system wanted them dead. Alfie took 4 days to starve. Who is it in the USA that endorses socialized medicine?
Hitler found capitalism's judgement of man by paycheck to be unseemly. He opposed capitalism. He wanted socialism instead. What USA party tolerates this view?
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday May 13 2018, @08:55AM (4 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfie_Evans_case [wikipedia.org]
No - he didn't starve, he continued to be fed until his death. You are simply trying to put a convincing argument by claiming an emotional lie as a fact. He was unable to breath without assistance.
Wrong again - the NHS could not judge in this matter. Arguments were presented in the High Court, and several appeals were allowed in both cases to ensure that all facts were known and considered. It was the High Court that judged that neither child would enjoy any quality of life and that prolonging life would be causing unnecessary suffering with no hope of a cure. The High Court eventually ordered that life support could be withdrawn in the best interests of the child in each case.
The 'medical support' being offered from overseas in the case of Alfie Evans was not a cure nor even a palliative treatment. It was simply to provide for assisted breathing.
In the Charlie Gard case the courts and medical experts eventually agreed that the 'experimental treatment' offered no hope of a cure:
[Emphasis mine in all instances]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 13 2018, @09:04AM
Sorry - I should explain that GOSH is the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. It is a specialist children's hospital.
Note also that the rulings were upheld by the Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights in the Charlie Gard case, and by the Appeals Courts and Supreme Court in the Alfie Evans case.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 13 2018, @02:16PM (2 children)
What is strange to me is the altering of these children's stories so to prove some point of government wants to kill kids. Adding in pure lies or leaving out subtle truths. Both with an end goal. The state wants to harm us.
All the while guns in America are killing children with far less complicated health issues. Most of them healthy enough to be killed at school.
But just like the left can't give an inch in abortion the right can't give an inch on guns. And so we get these weird twists in truth.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday May 13 2018, @05:07PM (1 child)
I'm a lefty and Pro2A. Leaving aside the actual statistical rarity of being killed by a rifle in America, I always find it shocking that virtually every gun control measure has exceptions for police and national guard (rooted in a collective 2A worldview no doubt) when these groups have ever been the tools of oligarchy. Only 100 years ago, Rockefeller Jr was paying the Colorado NG troops' salaries when they burned down a miners' encampment (the miners had been evicted from the Company Town) and in the process incinerated 11 kids and 2 women. They fired machine guns at the encampment. They shot the leader of the miners in the back during a negotiating session after beating him over the head with a rifle so severely the rifle stock broke.
Please explain how it is a progressive value to ebsyre that the tools of oligarchy are the only group who should have access to self-defense when most often, those Tools use those weapons offensively.
On the Ludlow Massacre: https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-ludlow-massacre-still-matters [newyorker.com]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday May 13 2018, @05:08PM
ebsyre=ensure
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Sunday May 13 2018, @11:26AM (1 child)
> Just as Hitler started with euthanasia of disabled people, the UK is doing it today. (Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans) These children were both prohibited from seeking medical care in
> other countries. The UK's socialized healthcare system wanted them dead. Alfie took 4 days to starve. Who is it in the USA that endorses socialized medicine?
The UK, and it is far from alone in this, has a legal system where the courts can decide what is or is not in the interests of an individual who cannot give consent. Simple demographics says most such individuals are children. Some parents think they are the sole arbiter of a child's consent, but it is much more complicated than that in law, and courts can and do overrule parents in the interests of the child.
Note: the courts. In every case. Not the doctors, not the "socialized healthcare system".
Now, personally, I think that in a health system with limited resources where people do actually die because of limited intensive care availability, when the consensus is that there is no more that medical science can do it is time to say goodbye and get off the ventilator so it is there for someone else who needs it for a week or two to actually have a chance to recover and live. It's fine to believe in miracles, but if they do happen then they can happen without ventilators and did happen before we had ventilators, so leave the ventilator for someone who doesn't need a miracle.
In the USA of course, and some other places, no one really cares as long as someone is paying the bill. See how long the life support stays plugged in if the bill isn't paid. But then I guess in some world views that is fine, because Hitler wouldn't have liked it...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 13 2018, @03:11PM
That is why EVERYONE should have a document that specifies their care in the event of being unable to speak for themselves. Parents should have one for their children too. If the parents and children are both in a state where they cannot make decisions, then these documents will speak for them.