#bretweinstein

[mensrightsff]

DarkHorse demonetized and threatened on YouTube, @RWMaloneMD suspended on LinkedIn, @JoyceKamen barred from Medium. At what point does the public realize that false-information is protected by Terms of Service from displacement by actual information. #FollowTheMoney https://t.co/uc0FnpFhX4 https://t.co/yXhfjqLVNq

— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) Jun 30, 2021

[guyusinuartist]

My two favourite celeb humans on the planet, everyone needs to listen to these two giants. They can save the world! Maybe. 🙏🏿 #krays #bretweinstein @bret.weinstein @ericrweinstein #ericweinstein #thekrays #theportal #darkhorse #podcasts (at Guy UsinU - Artist.) https://www.instagram.com/p/CB79b5IAoC0/?igshid=1gnp4uz85pfn2

[goldingoldout8]

Bret Weinstein on #ShutDownSTEM

Bret: You need two characteristics to guarantee that all you have to add is time before you rediscover science. It doesn't matter what the nature of a truth-seeking self-correcting mechanism is, it will inevitably land there. And what that means is that the right thing to do if you really want to empower black people - and believe me I do - if you really wanna do that, the best thing you can do is you can arm them with the tools of science, rather than setting us back hundreds of years and waiting for some other method to converge on discoveries we've already got, you can arm them. You can democratize these tools. Which is exactly what we were doing at Evergreen. It is exactly why they had to come for us. Now this is the part that I think people are gonna be totally bewildered by. Why, if this movement is so interested in empowering black people, would it attack a tool that is really their best weapon in order to end whatever oppression remains? And here's the reason. This movement isn't what it looks like. This movement is a false version of something that doesn't exist to be found in large numbers. In other words, the energy has been captured by people who are not well-intentioned. And the reason they hate science is because science is a good mechanism for figuring out what's true. And what they are peddling is not true. So the last thing they want is people empowered to check their claims, because their claims don't stand up.

And we saw this all over the Evergreen debacle. When we said 'Okay, you're telling us that there is racism at Evergreen, where's the evidence?' And what did they say? They said 'to ask for evidence of racism is racism with a capital R.' Now that's obviously a preposterous circular bit of logic but the idea- Heather: More precisely, 'to ask for evidence of racism is evidence of racism.' Bret: Yep. It's inescapable. It's hermetically sealed by design. So now think about what you've seen. You've seen tens of thousands of people in the street marching behind banners that seem superficially like they might be pointed in the direction of something good, but are actually Trojan horses hiding something else. Heather: Most of them don't know they're carrying Trojan horses, I don't think. Bret: They have no idea. Heather: Yeah. Bret: And even the ones- Though you point to some of the tweets that people are- You said that people are basically saying 'Don't hurt me.' Heather: Mhm. Bret: That's certainly a component of it. But there's something far more insidious here. When these people, they see the mob coming. They look at their skin [and] they say 'Uh oh. I don't want to be backed against the wall.' And they figure out what you have to say in order to not get backed against the wall. Get the mob to move on to somebody else. A: They are externalizing harm onto the next person.

They have an obligation to stand up and by not standing up they make the mob stronger. And then the next person it backs against the wall has an even bigger problem. So this is not cool. But the worst part of it - and we've seen it hundreds of times - is the individual says this thing to get the mob to leave them alone. And then they've got a problem. How the hell are you gonna sleep after you've done that? Right? So what do they do? They tell themselves that it's true. They forget what they knew, and they tell themselves this is actually the right thing. 'That's why I did it.' And so now the point is, the mob didn't just move on. It actually captured their minds. Now, the reason that people like us were so animated after the Evergreen meltdown was that we saw this force take over. Lots and lots of people who should know better. And after it took them over, there was no place that you could say 'It stops here.' Which is why I said in that clip what I said. It's why I said the same thing to congress. This is going to eventually spill over into anything.

Now, truth be told, I'm impressed at the speed. Heather: (laughs) Bret: But nonetheless, the mechanism was obvious and, well, anyway. It is very important that you think 'what is the most parsimonious explanation for what I'm seeing? Is this an honest confusion about whether science is a good thing? Or is this a demonstration of power?' Heather: Yeah, it is. It's a demonstration of power.

---Bret and Heather 22nd DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Don't #ShutDownSTEM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0n6Q0o-bVg&feature=youtu.be&t=1400

[podscourse]

Joe: Gentlemen. We’re live. Here we go.

Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein: How are you guys :)

Weinstein: Doing very well. Excited to be here.

Joe: Thanks for coming! I’m excited to have you in!

Peterson: Hey! Should be fun.

[classic-liberal-today-blog]

#classicliberal #thinkforyourself #bretweinstein #gillette #toxicmasculinity #sjw #sexsells #wokesells https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs1TTYBgeYa/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=bur7palirysn

[goldingoldout8]

Sore Losers & Sore Winners of the Enlightenment

I'm glad you raised it. I was sitting here thinking this is amazing that we're talking about why the enlightenment is on the ropes and the only thing on the table is the Islamic threat to the enlightenment when in fact there's this whole other part of it that in the west is quite alive. Especially within the academy where people have begun to feel sophisticated arguing against the mechanisms of the enlightenment, the scientific method itself, the values of the enlightenment.

And you don't really imagine that people could- You could imagine that people are a little bit deaf to what those values are and how they work. But it's a little hard to imagine that people would actually explicitly argue against them until you've faced it. And I have faced it. I have brought up the enlightenment and said these values need protecting and I've been told that actually that's the problem.

So I think we have to disentangle a couple of things here in order to see what's going on. The enlightenment by largely an accident of history is a European phenomenon. And there are a lot of folks who are looking at the world and noting that it appears to be rigged in a particular way that preserves a kind of power that is resident in Europe and amongst people of European descent elsewhere like Australia, the US, et cetera. And they are not phrasing their argument particularly well, nor do I think the argument is particularly strong. But the argument is something like: You're telling us, the world, that the enlightenment is the path forward. And it just so happens that you, in the European-derived west, are ahead in the use of these tools which you claim are the route to discovering the truth of how the universe works. So are you really telling us that it just so happens that the way forward for all of us is a way in which you are all ahead? That sounds like bullshit to us. Right? That sounds like you deciding that it just so happens we're gonna settle military matters from now on with basketball. Oh really? Basketball? That's the game you're gonna use to settle it? It's not gonna be soccer or something? It's gonna be basketball? So the thing that I think we have to notice is that there is truth in the part of this that says that yes, the power that derives from enlightenment values is not evenly distributed across the globe. But the question is are we really supposed to reject the power of the enlightenment or are we supposed to democratize the power of the enlightenment? I think democratize the power of the enlightenment is a slam dunk. And I would point out actually I feel in a good position to say this because although I am of European descent I'm also Jewish. And the enlightenment is not a Jewish phenomenon. But I'm gonna wield those tools like a broadsword because they're the best tools. They don't come from my ancestors but they are useful to me and they will be useful to my descendants. Anybody who wishes to be powerful on earth by virtue of understanding how things actually function should level up through the acquisition and enhancement of this particular toolkit. So that's really I think the battle we're in. Are we supposed to reject the toolkit in order to level the playing field? Or are we supposed to bring everybody on board with the toolkit so that everybody has access to these most powerful tools for discovering how things function?

Bret Weinstein - A Day of Reckoning 4 - Sydney, Australia August 12, 2018

[finnes]

Bret Weinstein 🏔🏔🏔 ⠀ The Fermi Paradox to the Final Frontier of Humanity, Bret Weinstein's work on evolution, technology, and philosophical inquiry is thought-provoking and important as homo sapiens evolve toward a better future. ⠀ ⠀ #happpyNES #bretweinstein #thefinalfrontier #fermiparadox #biologicalevolution #science #inquiry #scientificinquiry #technology #patreoncreator #inktober2018 #inktober #brothers ⠀ https://www.instagram.com/p/Bo6T8MHBRoV/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1hihmag8sz1qa

[goldingoldout8]

Thought Prisons

(...) ’Thought Prisons of the Left’ and the idea was exactly this. There’s a set of arguments that is hermetically sealed such that it cannot be accessed by reason. Once people are deploying these things, there’s very little hope of persuading them.

Maybe it's even more insidious than that because many of these stigmas have a particular character to them. I've said, as you mentioned in New York, that the truth of the stigma is unimportant. But even worse is that these stigmas often have a contagious nature. So somebody, a journalist actually believe it or not, a guy named Owen Higgins, accused me on Twitter the other day of being a grifter. And this struck me because grifter is a very interesting term. For one thing, you don't hear it very often. It's archaic. But you know we all have a relationship with the term because of its use in particular tropes in literature.

The thing about calling somebody a grifter, in this case, if you know anything about me, whatever you think I might be wrong about, this doesn't ring true. I've been with the same partner for thirty years. I've held down a job at a college for fourteen years and gotten rave reviews from my students who didn't then go on to be angry with me. I have a good relationship with both my undergraduate and graduate advisor. I got an advanced degree. It's all sorts of stuff that just doesn't fit with the idea of a grifter who's not what he says he is and goes from place to place conning people.

But if you say that somebody is a grifter, then anybody who finds themselves persuaded by that person is now a mark. So by calling somebody a grifter you are effectively delivering a penalty not just to the person, but to anybody who would entertain what they are saying. Because if you say 'No actually Bret doesn't sound like a grifter to me' then the point is 'Oh well I guess you've been conned.' So anybody who doesn't know the story now experiences a penalty for trying to find out about it with an open mind. I find this very insidious.

Even worse, in this case, the person leveling the accusation is actually associated with FAIR, the organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. And with the intersect. So this is a person at two important institutions that are dedicated, ostensibly, to promoting fairness, clear-headed analysis of events in the world. And yet their reporter is wielding a stigma designed to get people not to listen to other points of view. This strikes me as a dangerous situation.

- Bret Weinstein, So to Speak podcast March 8, 2018