My affair with the intellectual dark web by Meghan Daum

[Bald1]

But cultures have always been changed by outsiders. The US used to be seen as an Anglo-Protestant nation, now its seen as a "Judeo-Christian" nation. Was it wrong for the non-Anglo-Saxon cultures like the Irish and Italians to assert themselves and dilute the Anglo-Saxon element in US society? Was it wrong for Jews and Catholics to assert themselves and change America from a Protestant nation to a "Judeo-Christian" one?

Let's say a hypothetical country passed my ideal alcohol laws; public consumption is completely restricted. No bars and no alcohol served at restaurants and certainly no consumption allowed on the street(already illegal in parts of the Western world btw). Also all public ads for alcohol are banned. But there are liquor stores, which exist the way adult video stores exist in America today. Always in a seedy corner with no windows and people feel a little embarrassed going in due to social stigma against it. But you are allowed to buy alcohol there and take it back to your residence and consume it there to your heart's content.

Let's not play that game where you pretend that recently diverged Christian denominations are as dissimilar from each other as they are from Islam. You know the bible is looked at as mans narrative while the Qur'an is the literal word of god. That's a fundamental game changer.

 

[DIDM]

Can we all agree that "intellectual dark web" is one of the cringiest terms in recent memory that needs to be forgotten as soon as possible?

Also here's the author

Looks like quite the battleslut doesn't she @waiguoren?

Why does every bat shit crazy person have the same eyes?

 

[jeffk]

Harris just had Haidt on (disappointed he only really talked about his new book) and just released a podcast with Yuval Noah Harari. That is why his podcast is good. There are few people who can have good and long conversations like him with high level people. Sure, there could be brighter people working in a lab. Okay. Fine. But Harris does have a good podcast for the most part. He did go through a string of podcasts with some people that did not interest me for a period there.

Rubin doesn't know anything and models himself after Larry King and just gives softball questions. I don't listen to his show that often anymore. His show is almost completely driven by the guest. If you like the guest, it is interesting to hear a long interview with him/her. If you don't like the guest, you sit there thinking why doesn't he ask this?

Rogan has really improved when he gets a good guest. He is entertaining and has good guests more and more often. It is hard to take him too seriously and that is fine. He generally puts on a good show when I like the guest. When Musk was on the show it took maybe 30 minutes and some drinks and finally Musk relaxed and loosened up and made for a good interview. I don't think Musk usually hears someone interviewing him say that Harris made him shit his pants talking about AI.

I haven't listened to the new Sean Carrol podcast yet. I think it would probably be mostly like the Harris podcast.

When John McWhorter is on the Glenn Loury show, he is great. That is the first show the lady in the article talks about. McWhorter is a linguist but gets going on other topics I always like what he has to say. Mostly he talks about race issues. It is kind of funny how they all tie together. McWhorter is friends with Bari Weiss.

Peterson has his own game going. He has to be the most popular of all of them right now.

Pangburn tried to get the IDW to have big live events at big arenas and make some money off it all. But he has a shit business model. Pangburn thought these events would be like a big ppv mma or boxing match. He dreamed that in the future he could charge $70 to $100 for a live stream.

When he had to cancel one event, he didn't refund people quickly at all and then didn't pay all the bills for another event. So now the big event he had planned in New York with a bunch of the IDW (though I still don't know who is exactly in and out) lost Peterson, Harris and Maajid Nawaz. They weren't happy with Pangburn. People who paid $500 a ticket are going to be not too happy with those guys pulling out.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Let's not play that game where you pretend that recently diverged Christian denominations are as dissimilar from each other as they are from Islam. You know the bible is looked at as mans narrative while the Qur'an is the literal word of god. That's a fundamental game changer.

You didn't answer the question, was it wrong for those outside immigrant groups to change the fabric of America? And I reject the idea that its a fundamental game changer, especially since many Christians do believe the Bible is the word of God.

Besides, you're sidestepping the fact that the Jews inserted themselves into the picture as well and they're quite different from Christians. If anything Muslims are closer to both Jews and Christians than either are to each other historically. In fact the term Judeo-Christian was a pejorative used whit the connotation of suspicion towards Jewish communities that converted to Christianity in the Reconquista, which of course saw the Christians expel both Muslims and Jews.

Not allowing restaurants to serve alcohol is too far for me. Imagine caring what other people in the restaurant are eating and drinking.

We're not talking about pork here, we're talking about alcohol. Why shouldn't we care about the fact that others drink in public when drinking and driving kills so many? In fact your country punishes it more harshly than mine because of how bad it is over there. I agree with that, we should be as harsh as you guys are about it.

 

[sub_thug]

To some extent it shouldn't matter I suppose. I mean, if he's making the same argument before and after the neuroscience PhD it doesn't suddenly become stronger afterwards right? The argument should be evaluated on its own terms regardless of the source. But the point is Harris and his fans are the last people who should be claiming authority on the basis of his PhD when its about as flimsy as a basis of academic authority as possible. There are thousands of obscure, no name PhDs with far more academic credentials than him.

Peterson is very legit though. Doesn't mean you have to buy what he's selling but his academic credentials are solid.

Specifically, Harris makes some claims about free will based on scientific studies conducted. Those studies show neurological chemistry and activation of the brain before we make choices, and so, Harris’ arguments are predicated on good science. I trust his interpretation of that science less because of his lack of experience in clinical/experimental neuroscience. His arguments may still be 100% spot on, but they simply require revalidation.

 

[dontsnitch]

We're not talking about pork here, we're talking about alcohol. Why shouldn't we care about the fact that others drink in public when drinking and driving kills so many? In fact your country punishes it more harshly than mine because of how bad it is over there. I agree with that, we should be as harsh as you guys are about it.

I don't follow the logic of not allowing alcohol to be served in restaurants because of drinking and driving. One can get behind the wheel at anytime after drinking. Having a meal at home with alcohol shouldn't bother you anymore than at a restaurant if that is your reasoning.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't follow the logic of not allowing alcohol to be served in restaurants because of drinking and driving. One can get behind the wheel at anytime after drinking. Having a meal at home with alcohol shouldn't bother you anymore than at a restaurant if that is your reasoning.

Think of it this way; of all those who attend restaurants, some % are going to drive there(a higher one in the US I imagine to be fair). Of that %, some will drink and of that % some will drink to the point of being a risk behind the wheel and of them some will decide to get behind the wheel. When you drink at home or the residence of a friend, I think you are less likely to take the risk of driving home; wouldn't you agree that if you got too drunk at a friend's house you'd be more likely to stay the night or sober up there than if you got too drunk at a restaurant?

In addition, I just believe people should have more freedom on in their own residence than in public. People may still drink and drive if restricted to their homes but I think trying to extend the state's prohibition there is a greater evil than that possibility. Ideally I'd like to see less freedom in public with a more strict morality enforced(e.g. no alcohol consumption) and more freedom in one's private residence and private property(e.g. looser zoning laws).

 

[Bald1]

You didn't answer the question, was it wrong for those outside immigrant groups to change the fabric of America? And I reject the idea that its a fundamental game changer, especially since many Christians do believe the Bible is the word of God.

Besides, you're sidestepping the fact that the Jews inserted themselves into the picture as well and they're quite different from Christians. If anything Muslims are closer to both Jews and Christians than either are to each other historically. In fact the term Judeo-Christian was a pejorative used whit the connotation of suspicion towards Jewish communities that converted to Christianity in the Reconquista, which of course saw the Christians expel both Muslims and Jews.

We're not talking about pork here, we're talking about alcohol. Why shouldn't we care about the fact that others drink in public when drinking and driving kills so many? In fact your country punishes it more harshly than mine because of how bad it is over there. I agree with that, we should be as harsh as you guys are about it.

You can change toppings on a pizza and still be left with a great slice. Hell, you can even make a casserole type of thing, call it Chicago deep dish and have it resemble the original. What you can't do is make a salad and call it a pepperoni pizza. Euro mutts did the former in NA while SA fueled Islam is doing the latter globally. Islam has undergone some unsavoury (to keep with the food theme as I'm hungry) changes within our lifetime. As reasonably liberal minded dude I don't think it passes the smell test any more.

Christians have less and less influence in the political arena globally while Islam seems quite resistant to secularization. Sorry, i can't, and won't be swayed on the benefits of Islam in free societies until the numbers of its whackier members are diminished to numbers per capita nearing that of the Westboro idiots within Christianity. Meaning to negligible numbers.

And just because - You keep bringing up Hungary as some sort of gotcha with their desire to remain a Christian nation. I've listened to Orbán quite a bit as well as Peter S. (foreign minister, excellent debater) in both languages. No mention of scripture or specific religious motives. No mention of God wills it or any such bullshit as they would be laughed out of office. It's a culturally Christian country that's been under the thumb of foreign powers for centuries and is hell bent on deciding their own faith without alien influence. And Islam tends to make changes instead of undergoing them in an effort to accommodate.

 

[Limbo Pete]

was it wrong for those outside immigrant groups to change the fabric of America?

Corollary food for thought:
The Federal government designed and forceably implemented a boarding system that specifically destroyed as much of native culture as possible.

 

[dontsnitch]

Think of it this way; of all those who attend restaurants, some % are going to drive there(a higher one in the US I imagine to be fair). Of that %, some will drink and of that % some will drink to the point of being a risk behind the wheel and of them some will decide to get behind the wheel. When you drink at home or the residence of a friend, I think you are less likely to take the risk of driving home; wouldn't you agree that if you got too drunk at a friend's house you'd be more likely to stay the night or sober up there than if you got too drunk at a restaurant?

In addition, I just believe people should have more freedom on in their own residence than in public. People may still drink and drive if restricted to their homes but I think trying to extend the state's prohibition there is a greater evil than that possibility. Ideally I'd like to see less freedom in public with a more strict morality enforced(e.g. no alcohol consumption) and more freedom in one's private residence and private property(e.g. looser zoning laws).

I think we're moving away from the initial point, in that this is no longer an argument about a religious person's conviction. If religous people don't want alcohol being served in restaurants, it's not because of drunk driving fatalities, it's because they believe it's sinful. Even if you successfully defend this point, you've only argued that restaurants should not serve alcohol because of the inherent danger. And there are some risks associated with serving alcohol in public, I agree, but we have determined those risks fall under an acceptable level in a free society. Instead of banning alcohol, we ban drinking and driving. Personally, I think this is best, though ymmv.

 

[Bald1]

Corollary food for thought:
The Federal government designed and forceably implemented a boarding system that specifically destroyed as much of native culture as possible.

And we all agree that it was an inexcusable crime. I know people directly affected by it and she's still sour with white people, family ties be damned. But that's what happens when competing cultures clash. Especially if one is of the supremacist and intolerant kind.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You can change toppings on a pizza and still be left with a great slice. Hell, you can even make a casserole type of thing, call it Chicago deep dish and have it resemble the original. What you can't do is make a salad and call it a pepperoni pizza. Euro mutts did the former in NA while SA fueled Islam is doing the latter globally. Islam has undergone some unsavoury (to keep with the food theme as I'm hungry) changes within our lifetime. As reasonably liberal minded dude I don't think it passes the smell test any more.

Christians have less and less influence in the political arena globally while Islam seems quite resistant to secularization. Sorry, i can't, and won't be swayed on the benefits of Islam in free societies until the numbers of its whackier members are diminished to numbers per capita nearing that of the Westboro idiots within Christianity. Meaning to negligible numbers.

And just because - You keep bringing up Hungary as some sort of gotcha with their desire to remain a Christian nation. I've listened to Orbán quite a bit as well as Peter S. (foreign minister, excellent debater) in both languages. No mention of scripture or specific religious motives. No mention of God wills it or any such bullshit as they would be laughed out of office. It's a culturally Christian country that's been under the thumb of foreign powers for centuries and is hell bent on deciding their own faith without alien influence. And Islam tends to make changes instead of undergoing them in an effort to accommodate.

You're still dodging my question man, why not just answer it straight instead of with some clumsy pizza analogy? America has changed a lot over its lifetime in response to incoming immigrant populations, was that wrong of the immigrants to do? Should America have remained an Anglo-Protestant country at the expense of the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Catholics? That seems to be what you're saying in culinary speak but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Some of the Euro countries with large Muslim populations like the UK and France aren't just random countries Muslims decide to immigrate to, there's a colonial connection. France tried to annex coastal Algeria entirely and fought a bloody war that's well within recent memory to do so. They went over there and asserted their culture on the land of another to the extent that they claimed it as their own but can't accept any change coming from them? Are North Africans only okay when they win a World Cup for France but not when they want to practice their religion?

 

[Limbo Pete]

And we all agree that it was an inexcusable crime. I know people directly affected by it and she's still sour with white people, family ties be damned. But that's what happens when competing cultures clash. Especially if one is of the supremacist and intolerant kind.

There's plenty of disagreement over whether or not those schools were good/bad. It's my area of expertise and I see it all the time.
But that's kind of neither here nor there
It wasn't "competeing cultures clashing". Boarding schools were a government policy of forced assimilation. But the assimilation part, at least in many cases, wasn't really assimilation as you might think of it.

 

[Bald1]

You're still dodging my question man, why not just answer it straight instead of with some clumsy pizza analogy? America has changed a lot over its lifetime in response to incoming immigrant populations, was that wrong of the immigrants to do? Should America have remained an Anglo-Protestant country at the expense of the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Catholics? That seems to be what you're saying in culinary speak but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Some of the Euro countries with large Muslim populations like the UK and France aren't just random countries Muslims decide to immigrate to, there's a colonial connection. France tried to annex coastal Algeria entirely and fought a bloody war that's well within recent memory to do so. They went over there and asserted their culture on the land of another to the extent that they claimed it as their own but can't accept any change coming from them? Are North Africans only okay when they win a World Cup for France but not when they want to practice their religion?

I'm not dodging it. I'm telling you some changes are acceptable while others are not in my opinion. The places Islam has changed are unrecognizable from the original while Euros changing US isn't. Note - I'm not talking about what happened to the Natives in NA but rather changes on the USA once established as a country.

Why the strawman of "Are North Africans only okay when they win a World Cup for France but not when they want to practice their religion?" bs? I'm not talking about restricting religious freedoms. My point is that freedom from religion should never be compromised by freedom of religion. As long as there are folks saying crap like alcohol should be restricted due to their holy books I'll mock them mercilessly. Or try to implement religious courts. Or restrict artistic freedoms by telling others what they can't draw. Or any other authoritarian crap Islam tries to pull globally. Do you really think I'd have a problem if such things aren't currently happening everywhere? I have the same problem with pushy Christians, crazy far-leftists and all sorts of folks on moral high horses.

And I beg your pardon but that pizza analogy was divine! Lol. Yeah. Not so much, but it got the point across.

 

[Bald1]

There's plenty of disagreement over whether or not those schools were good/bad. It's my area of expertise and I see it all the time.
But that's kind of neither here nor there
It wasn't "competeing cultures clashing". Boarding schools were a government policy of forced assimilation. But the assimilation part, at least in many cases, wasn't really assimilation as you might think of it.

I know exactly what they are. Inexcusable. But now we see a pushback were Native kids are taken out of foster homes and settled on reserves against their will so they can be in touch with their heritage. And the host of problems that come with life on the rez. Trying to fix one wrongdoing with another never works.

Other than that I can't speak of the 1st Nations experience as while I'm familiar with many on a personal level I'm just an outsider looking in. Immigration on the other hand I'm well versed in.

Newcomers have an option that conquered indigenous folks never had - don't like the system? Don't go there. I think it's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm not dodging it. I'm telling you some changes are acceptable while others are not in my opinion. The places Islam has changed are unrecognizable from the original while Euros changing US isn't. Note - I'm not talking about what happened to the Natives in NA but rather changes on the USA once established as a country.

You only say this because of historical hindsight but the people who lived in Anglo-Protestant America didn't even consider Jews white and certainly wouldn't have considered them acceptable immigrants and would see the change they and the Catholics have caused as unrecognizable.

In fact I argue that tension remains today though thankfully its not expressed in antisemitic terms most of the time. Its instead expressed in the tension between the cultural proclivity of the coasts versus the fly over states, between Hollywood/NYC and middle America. The former are where Jews and Catholic immigrants predominated while middle America remains more Anglo-Protestant and you still see a large cultural divide to the point where the latter claims the former are trying to unrecognizably change America, the same thing you claim Muslims are trying to do.

Like I said, you can pretend the divide between Catholics and Protestants isn't that significant(though I think you're downplaying it) but the difference between Jews and Anglo-Protestants is definitely greater than you're conceding here.

Why the strawman of "Are North Africans only okay when they win a World Cup for France but not when they want to practice their religion?" bs? I'm not talking about restricting religious freedoms. My point is that freedom from religion should never be compromised by freedom of religion. As long as there are folks saying crap like alcohol should be restricted due to their holy books I'll mock them mercilessly. Or try to implement religious courts. Or restrict artistic freedoms by telling others what they can't draw. Or any other authoritarian crap Islam tries to pull globally. Do you really think I'd have a problem if such things aren't currently happening everywhere? I have the same problem with pushy Christians, crazy far-leftists and all sorts of folks on moral high horses.

And I beg your pardon but that pizza analogy was divine! Lol. Yeah. Not so much, but it got the point across.

Are only Muslims not allowed to have religious courts? Because despite all the crying about sharia courts in the UK there are Jewish and Christian arbitration courts as well. Ah but they're "Judaeo-Christian"(whatever the fuck that even means) so they're okay right?

 

[Bald1]

You only say this because of historical hindsight but the people who lived in Anglo-Protestant America didn't even consider Jews white and certainly wouldn't have considered them acceptable immigrants and would see the change they and the Catholics have caused as unrecognizable.

In fact I argue that tension remains today though thankfully its not expressed in antisemitic terms most of the time. Its instead expressed in the tension between the cultural proclivity of the coasts versus the fly over states, between Hollywood/NYC and middle America. The former are where Jews and Catholic immigrants predominated while middle America remains more Anglo-Protestant and you still see a large cultural divide to the point where the latter claims the former are trying to unrecognizably change America, the same thing you claim Muslims are trying to do.

Like I said, you can pretend the divide between Catholics and Protestants isn't that significant(though I think you're downplaying it) but the difference between Jews and Anglo-Protestants is definitely greater than you're conceding here.

Are only Muslims not allowed to have religious courts? Because despite all the crying about sharia courts in the UK there are Jewish and Christian arbitration courts as well. Ah but they're "Judaeo-Christian"(whatever the fuck that even means) so they're okay right?

Fair, if double edged point on historical hindsight. After all, if one only listens to doomsayers then the Irish were parasites, Italians and Easter n Euros weren't really white and the Joos are puppet masters. The flipside of that coin is wherever Islam establishes itself it is forever changed and indeed a Muslim holding forever after.

I'll even concede I'm downplaying the division within Christianity itself to illustrate my point.

The thing with other religious courts is that they're overwhelmingly concerned with dealing within their own group, while attempts at establishing "Sharia zones" are a real thing.

So yes, while I'm minimizing some of your points you seem to be ignoring most of mine.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Fair, if double edged point on historical hindsight. After all, if one only listens to doomsayers then the Irish were parasites, Italians and Easter n Euros weren't really white and the Joos are puppet masters. The flipside of that coin is wherever Islam establishes itself it is forever changed and indeed a Muslim holding forever after.

I'll even concede I'm downplaying the division within Christianity itself to illustrate my point.

I have already mentioned the Reconquista ITT though. Reconquista'd from who? From the Muhammadans and Juden!

The thing with other religious courts is that they're overwhelmingly concerned with dealing within their own group, while attempts at establishing "Sharia zones" are a real thing.

So yes, while I'm minimizing some of your points you seem to be ignoring most of mine.

The Sharia courts are about dealing with their own though. These Sharia zones, to the extent that they exist(which I am skeptical to say the least) are often enforced by young ruffians who are not connected to the sharia arbitration courts.

So sure, there are unique issues with integrating Muslims. But the US has done a well enough job of it. And in India, despite communal tensions which shouldn't be ignored or downplayed, the very large Muslim population is not nearly as radicalized as it is in some European countries. And like I said earlier, in the case of certain countries given their colonial connection to the Muslim world and their willful effort to allow them in with along with their failed integration policies at some point the blame has to be shared. At what point is the host country to blame given they set the conditions for entry and integration?

 

[Bald1]

I have already mentioned the Reconquista ITT though. Reconquista'd from who? From the Muhammadans and Juden!

The Sharia courts are about dealing with their own though. These Sharia zones, to the extent that they exist(which I am skeptical to say the least) are often enforced by young ruffians who are not connected to the sharia arbitration courts.

So sure, there are unique issues with integrating Muslims. But the US has done a well enough job of it. And in India, despite communal tensions which shouldn't be ignored or downplayed, the very large Muslim population is not nearly as radicalized as it is in some European countries. And like I said earlier, in the case of certain countries given their colonial connection to the Muslim world and their willful effort to allow them in with along with their failed integration policies at some point the blame has to be shared. At what point is the host country to blame given they set the conditions for entry and integration?

I'm going to cut this short, but just want to get to this point.

A few in number and probably not connected to any legit organizations, yet still trying to force their interpretation of Islam on those who don't practice it.

I think the blame falls squarely at the feet of the ignorant who allow newcomers to change their societies without realizing the implications. In the case of the EU I also include Merkel for her unilateral invitation to the 3rd world as well as Brussels for trying to force migrants on sovereign states who don't want to accept them.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm going to cut this short, but just want to get to this point.

A few in number and probably not connected to any legit organizations, yet still trying to force their interpretation of Islam on those who don't practice it.

I think the blame falls squarely at the feet of the ignorant who allow newcomers to change their societies without realizing the implications. In the case of the EU I also include Merkel for her unilateral invitation to the 3rd world as well as Brussels for trying to force migrants on sovereign states who don't want to accept them.

Yeah we're way off topic. Even though this conversation is far more interesting its still technically a derail, sorry about that @Limbo Pete!

Anyway cheers, always a pleasure!