What is the worst 'intellectual' community? I would say either the Alt Right or New Atheism

What is the worst 'intellectual' community? I would say either the Alt Right or New Atheism

Other urls found in this thread:


the whole Sargon type "sceptic" crowd

Dark enlightment retards, hoppe

I swear to god I hate those pricks so much. Their whole discussion is pretty much

Anti-intellectualism taking the intellectual high ground, smh

IDK much about the shortcomings of Dawkins, Dennett, or Hitchens. How are they on the hypocritical level of Harris?

What exactly is wrong with Sam Harris?

AFAIK he think Buddhism is logically more sound than other religions. Turns out he as raised a Buddhist He also seems to have feels for Israel, rather than reals for Israel. Also, "Morals can be objective" though I don't think this is 100% without merit.


God damn I need to read some Niels Bohr!





He just searches for things on Google Scholar, doesn't even read them and bends them to support whatever anti-intellectual shit he believes

and he interviews like actual fucking retards like white nationalists and gives them an audience of his hundreds of thousands of subscribers instead of just dismissing their nonsense outright

His mind is so open that all his brains have fallen out long ago

I thought he studied under a guru in his 20's?


but don't forget, he's not right wing! Anyone who calls themselves a "classical liberal" must be left wing by definition. repeating alt-right talking points ad nauseam just makes you open-minded!


There was one thread in /r/badphilosophy about Sammy's PHD thesis and how ridiculously small group was tested and hand picked to justify his claims.

This and every other Youtube rationalist

If that is actually what he believes then that's retarded, but I have a feeling Sam has a better more nuanced argument for the conclusions you just posited.

One thing I will say I don't like about him is he is stuck up and kind of humorless in his thinking. There are clearly concepts and ideas that just don't ping on his radar because he thinks he is intellectually above them.

I'd really like a source or link for that.

cricket sounds
more cricket sounds
the terrorists have won, freedom is dead



New Atheism is just a meme philosophy that is inherently limited in discussion

What is it about New Atheism or the Alt Right that is so popular with lolberts anyways?

Their normie conservatives that thing their being edgy contrarians

fuck my illiterate ass

Revleft (technically dead) and turd position (Autistic larpers)


Fuck I need to stop drinking while shitposting

Anyone have a good piece on rationalism?


usually people who get so offended by LE ATHEIST ARMY they feel the need to make threads moaning about scientism are are religious themselves or muslim apologists. i find them kinda annoying, but i agree that liberals are too sympathetic to islam and that religion in general is holding back society.

I just find organized religion pretty spooky. Faith as a concept I really hold no issue with though

It's Jimmy Dore but I have no idea what specific video it is.

lolberts believe that markets are all about muh rational choice, new atheists usually believe in muh free market of ideas.
Both ideologies fetishize rationality because they think they are objectively right about everything.

When did he say that?

I haven't paid attention to Harris or any of them in a few years so memory might not serve…



What happened?

New Atheism is certainly more honest than philosophical theology and postmodernism.

These fucking mealy mouthed jackasses represent everything wrong with modern politics. They try to tackle issues from the standpoint of someone who is completely uninterested in political discourse.

Late stage capitalism brought with itself the ideology fitting it.

people stopped giving a shit about the humanities because working in STEM usually gets you a higher paycheck.
I wonder who could be behind this?



You do raise a good point, I forget if it wasn't for Muslims, we wouldn't have to bother with such ridiculous security checks.

Unless of course this predates Islamic terrorism.



honestly this

im more sympathetic to people like dawkins than zizek

good worker

You can learn morals from studying science but it isn't a source of morals itself.



Get out

what does it


It's just metadata bro.

morality is subjective, it arises from your own thinking

You aren't living in a vacuum. Your beliefs, morals, modes of enjoyment, etc. were all formed by society, and typically those people think that they shat out the fucking universe who didn't yet realize this and thus couldn't even BEGIN reassessing their own values.

Morality in action!


some people learn morality reading the hadiths, others learn it studying microbes

it just turns out differently depending on what you learn



No, you define, using your own words, giving us examples what "postmodern" texts you read and what was the problem with them.

The Left



"b-but why do you hate them, user?"


Comrade Dore bringing the heat yet again.

Pic very related.

Any community that thinks being an 'intellectual' is a bad thing.

Self-identifying as an "intellectual" is highly conceited and at least partially proof that you're anything but.

The same fallacy applies to you guys, too.

source on this?


True genius need not adhere to the base desire for pseudo-humility. If it is self evident, and should one be wise enough to witness his own brilliance, there is no crime in letting it be known to the world.

it's from Reddit Absurdity's old video on the Sargon/LSR drama. I'm pretty sure he deleted it though when he remade his channel.

What exactly gives you the impression that we want to restore some legendary feudal past?

Generally, the more knowledge you gain into a complex subject, the less you feel you genuinely know about it, so most people I know of who claim to be "intellectuals" have barely dipped their toes into real intellectual pursuits.

I get butthurt whenever I'm reminded of this

Also love the first pic

lol yeah we all love the khmer rouge here. Even most tankies fuckin hate pol pot. Whereas on the aut-right side, people actually love and idolize hitler.

What makes retards like Sargon and MundaneMatt so hilarious is that they are "rationalists" yet their arguments are pathetically fallacious.


This guy tears Sargon a new arsehole.

contemporary atheists actually take themselves seriously

And yet that feeling is an illusion, because you admit you have gained knowledge. Why follow basic feelings when we are creatures that have been endowed with reason?

Mundane Matt should have never showed his face

He's just a fucking pudgy dork

the people who use queer- as a prefix for everything

i still don't understand what it means except for non-heterosexual behavior as a performative ritual of sjw ideology

you might as well just replace "queer" with faggot

there booth slurs in certain context, but faggot makes more sense

Holy shit, to think I used to believe Sargon was an intellectual. I knew he was alt-right, but I still thought he was intelligent.

Also, I think I just became a feminist.

Watch all that guy's videos, it's a great channel

It's like a ratio of knowledge to questions K:Q. For every bit of knowledge attained, one or more questions arise. Knowledge is very rarely attained without the resultant unknowns revealing themselves as a result. Thus, as one becomes more knowledgeable, the more vast the seas of unexplored possibilities becomes.

Marxian theology is best theology

Be careful about just jumping into an ideology because you were proven wrong once.
I am reminded of newfags on Holla Forums somehow.

This is a real thing?

my problem with the scientism claims, is it's often paired with something like creationism, flat-earth, racialism
thinks that have no backing whatsoever, rather than critiquing actual flaws in our approaches (problems with reproduction of experiments, edge cases getting the most attention, etc)

No, it's not like that. I never got feminism before watching Sargon and his buddies will do that to a person I imagine, it just all looked like a bunch of whiny women who browbeat their men into submission.

But somehow this video helped me see the logic when I just couldn't before.

Hell, it took me forever to genuinely embrace communism, even though I've been on Holla Forums since 2015. I genuinely felt a ton of apprehension because I still equated communism with unfeeling bureaucratic statism a la USSR, and it wasn't until I understood that that was not at all communism, and when I finally understood what communism actually was, I fell in love.

And this video was the first stepping stone for me towards removing the misinformation and stigma surrounding feminism. It will take me a while to fully understand it the way I do communism, but I definitely do not see it as some dystopian authoritarian evil any longer.

Hi Holla Forums, proud of yourself?

Academic feminism is pretty alright. I don't know if I'd call myself a feminist but I'm sympathetic to it.

I tend to stick to all the academic stuff and don't even bother with blue hair, dyed armpit, kill all men crap

Holla Forums, by leagues and miles

Oh, definitely. I'm watching his Thunderf00t video now, and into the trash that guy goes as well.

I never ever ever Ever EVER thought anyone could convince me to give an ounce of respect for Anita Sarkeesian. I'm not jumping the shark and going to go Full McIntosh not without more research anyways, but if the people attacking her wilfully misrepresent her, that does say a lot.

R u avin an oppression cishetlord?

jk I hear you


Are you saying with Sargon or now? Please elaborate.

The video uses the usual tactic of "let me tell you about real feminism and how we got everything covered", it appeals based on definition, not on feminism as it actually exists.


No, he's pretty similar in his own logic and doesn't understand ideology.

Likely with the other set of videos. I tend to agree. There is nothing controversial in saying "men and women suffer because of gender roles," but there is in attributing it to "patriarchy" as a construct.

I don't know fam. This sounds a lot like you've been redpilled.

Something about someone suddenly being drawn to a controversial ideology after being strongly against it for a long time makes me nervous.

Maybe with both?

No one said the scientific method doesn't have its limits. The problem comes when grad students with philosophy majors try to tell you that their philosophizing is just as good as your science. It simply isn't.

"good" as in paid as good?

What IS new atheism? Is it an atheist alive today?

support for state violence against islamic populations

In the past atheism was basically stirner, new atheism is the pop-version of it.

New Atheism is pretty much trying to turn Atheism into a social movement.

As I said, it will take me a lot of research before I decide whether or not I embrace it.

Very true. The only archy I believe in is the Porktriarchy which created all this mess in the first place.

If it makes you feel better, I'm a devout Stirnerist. It's all spooks in the end, I'm just seeing this particular spook from a perspective I hadn't before.

As in able to find answers to actual fucking problems. Science is really good at making models and predictions. That's why the modern world exists. My problem is that when we say that you can inform certain questions with science, that doesn't mean we think science can answer those questions by itself. The one interaction I had with this type was with a group of, I'm guessing, Christian philosophers. The topic came up and I told them I didn't actually believe in God. So they went on endlessly about how it's meaningless to ask for evidence of such a God, and that God must logically exist anyway, and so on, ignoring the fact that none of that shit makes any sense if you think about it for more than a second. Science does not claim to provide you with "truth" which philosophy fags are so fucking hung up about. The philosophical quest for "truth" is meaningless as shit. There is no technological advance that will ever allow them to answer that question. The main problem they had is that they couldn't grasp how I could just assume things without evidence while also not assuming their claim of God as well. My reasoning is that my assumptions require less of a leap than theirs, and the got butthurt and said that an assumption is an assumption, no matter what. It's bullshit.
Now, I can't argue philosophy because I never studied it fully, but I didn't need it to learn about Marx. Science does not tell me I should want communism, but I want it because I think it would be better if things were like than instead of how they are. Science would work even if I wanted everyone dead.

A name to describe people who don't give a pass to Islam when talking about the litany of abuses of religion against human beings.

It's from rebel's video.
You can ask him about it, he'll probably tell you.

Science and philosophy aren't competing disciplines. What you're describing is more the conflict between science and religion.

Philosophy is, ultimately, less about what to think and more about how to think.

I don't want to seem like I'm pressuring you. I was amused by how he broke down Sargon myself.

Yeah, and that's cool, but philosophyfags didn't get that shit then, and we get people on here bitching about people who think highly of science all the time, bitching about muh scientism, and then bitching about having to provide evidence of their claims. I do not have a problem with philosophy. It's the people who jack off to philosophy that I have a problem with.


Bunch of fucking retards that make a mockery of wildlife wellbeing and conservation efforts.

Add those TED Blabbers. They're the ideologues of our dystopian future.

Sargon got fucking rekt

People and aliens and neither.

They're bitching about anti-intellectuals like Dawkins, see .

Are memes confirmation bias in itself?

school of life

NRx is by far the cringiest thing on the planet

Sam accuses people of misrepresenting his position all the time, but in reality he has very clear and very obvious idealogical leanings that is obvious to everyone except him when placed in very clear language.

Oh ok :)

Its fucking absurd. What the user is saying is a perfect surmise of his views on religion in general

I wish I was making this up. Never the fact that Islam is primarily practiced by non-sand niggers, yet every single Muslim comes under this category. Also he keeps calling the Enlightenment the Reformation which is something i've onlt ever seen Christian fundies do, so he doesn't even Islamaphobe like an atheist would.

Yeah no shit it was poorly done. He determined something about how
Pray = bad
Meditation = good
And stopped their with the inquiry because he found what he was looking for. He didn't ask why this was, under what conditions, who these people were, what exactly is happening during prayer vs meditation etc. What a joke.

Evidently i've seen similar "studies" that show people who pray to have big frontal lobes regardless of the method taken so whatever telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10914137/What-God-does-to-your-brain.html

Why can't these new atheists come up with their own secular esotericism, without stripping Buddhist scriptures of devas and the supernatural, while saying Buddhists are full of shit and doing it wrong for being religious?

Are they afraid of going too dangerously close to, say, Carl Jung, or what they believe is the so-called continental philosophy, of which he is a part?

Yeah, there's Dennett, who calls for the empirical studies and inquiries of religions, including their practices, but it doesn't suprise me as he is the philosopher of the bunch.

Could it be they are scared they might help create the next Scientology? As if New Religious Movements weren't already mushrooming all over the place without such work of theirs.

For a second I thought that was Ben Stiller

They do, its called new age shit and Sam seems particularly interested in "studying" DMT as a "peculiar" phenomenon samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven youtube.com/watch?v=NS7OUSLklrI

They would probably justify tbh.

Its not Ben Stiller, its Sam Harris

Indeed Zizek is boring. Like all academics. Fuck him. Those turds and theory have 0 value outside of fucking college. What the fuck do they know? I have worked in hotels and factories, i am always close to the working class.
My former fake leftist teachers in film school loved him. The guy says basic shit, only panders to mediocrity.

Seriously there's nothing more that i hate than pseudo intelectualism of "fine arts" schools. They are all cancer always judging on everybody.
"Oh yes i like to listen to Stockhausen, i am so much better than everyone else"

the alt left idpol liberal community

Well, what do you recommend?


But the New Age struck me as pre-dating the New Atheists.

In fact, I would say that that New Age is the mirror opposite to the New Atheists, exactly like liberal idpol are the opposite of the alt-right.

For example 'all religions are equally good' becomes 'all religions are equally bad.'

I can't be the only one that thinks New Atheists are a reaction against religious progressivism and innovation, and gone well beyond the criticism of American creationists conservatism.



You would think so but not in Sam's case

The "public intellectual" left certainly.

Silicon valley libertarian types have to be some of the most obnoxious and deluded.



where are you from?

Don't worry, the next market crash and 80% of them will be left bankrupt.

what the hell is "New Atheism"?

Atheists that feel the need to act superior towards religious people

when you're talking to someone about politics/society and you say something like "recently I read a book about this topic, the author claims-" and the other guy interrupts you with something like:

Positivism, but with a quasi-religious twist.


Philosophy is at its core,anti-Intellectualism,it doesn't have any grounds to prove it's ideas and must then treated with mockery.

Unironically, Trump has taught me to use 5th grade vocabulary to convince normies.

Protip: It works. The hard part is trying to simplify things into a 5th grade vocabulary.

atheist fundamentalists

probably the Austrian school of economics

You mean Feuerbach?


ah…yes…i see now….science….is the one answer….to everything…we can make economics based on science (Elon Musk)…a political system based on science (#Rationalia)…literature based on science (academic journals)…

thank you for enlightening me, sir.

Geeze, if the contemporary left hadn't been so full of apologists of every kind, right up to the brim maybe there wouldn't have been the need for a new secularist movement?

majoring in physics was a mistake, i am surrounded by idiots like this every day

Pretty sure stirner btfo'd fundamentalist atheist in the first chapter of his book, saying they're often just as spooked by their obsession with the nonexistence of god, as religious people are with the opposite.

I don't even think the alt right pretends to be intellectual the way the New Atheists do.

lol has anyone on this board even read the shit they spew about?

That is dumb, but not really the problem.
the real problem is that he's your New Atheist type positivist.

He proposes scientism, and yet, at contradictorily, at the same time, he believes in some concepts from Eastern thought!!

His "buddhism" is also secular, self-gratifying bullshit where he just get rid of anything he doesn't agree with because he doesn't want to look embarrassed

He's a fraud.

That's not exactly anti-intellectualism. This has been a debate in science in recent years in that philosophers try to write about science and fail fucking hard. Bohr, Einstein, and others were not basing their theories on philosophizing, but on actual evidence, otherwise they remain fanciful thoughts. If you only concern yourself with thinking about meanings and shit like that, you won't make progress. Science is about progress, and it makes little difference if there is meaning in it or not.

Well, I read the first chapter of 'Muh Ego", and so I'm fairly confident that I remember him saying this. I always leave room for error. Hence why I say "pretty sure".

Oh hey, you're that bisexual asian that appeared yesterday in the gamergate Holla Forums general.

religious studies major reporting in

sometimes i feel some sympathy for sam harris. i dont know if there's anyone who is a bigger laughing stock of an entire academic department, yet he takes himself so seriously and really thinks he's more informed than most on the subject.

that said, he's wrong about everything concerning religion on such a fundamental level, it's almost hard to believe. i wouldn't be surprised if he's somehow never read a single text on the theory of religion, despite all of the ruckus he makes. the guy's """insights""" are sub-babby tier. somehow freud, who had some pretty dogshit enlightenment-era theories himself, is leagues beyond him. dude is a pathetic man with a pathetic career

Is Carl Jung really a crypto-fascist (like Ernst Bloch said) who totally got Freud wrong?

Isn't religious studies an especially reactionary field? Aren't literal Fascists like Joseph Campbell and mircea eliade the big names in this discipline? Are there any leftists in religious studies?

That's not what philosophy of science is retard. The philosophy of science, is the philosophy of how to conduct the scientific method. The falsification axiom added by Karl Popper for example, has become a staple of the scientific method but its legitimacy is still contested till this day.

As a result philosophers have either gone back to talking about metaphysics, or ethics, the point of life etc since we have an effective method of investigation for ontology.

Science started as a branch of philosophy and was arguably still a part of it until Kant reconciled the schism that was created by Hume. When Schrodinger says "the plurality we perceive is only an appearance" he's taking the knowledge he's discovered using the scientific method and using it to draw a metaphysical conclusion. He's using ontological observations to expand the field of metaphysics, or rather to give support to a position. You have no idea what you're talking about.

isn't that a bit like majoring in santa claus studies?


I find it rather depressing that this needs to be explained.

Would you say that studying ancient myth and legend, like the Illiad, is little more than "majoring in Santa Claus studies"?

Obviously not, because ancient myth and legend is an insight into the social zeitgeist of ancient peoples. Religion is no different, after all the only difference between religion and myth is that myth constitutes religions that no one believes anymore.

They are both ends of extremes really. Zizek uses a pseudoscience and ignores science, Dawkins goes full scientism and ignores non-science.
And even Dawkin's scientific ideas are not all correct. Most of his ideas about selfish genes, which are highly popular but mostly wrong. Memetics turned out be nothing useful too.

What pseudo-science does Zizek use?
The Lacan?

I hold similar view as you. But it has more to do with philosophers ignoring science.
And yes, I wish that philosophers would use more clear language. I am studying ecology and was interested in philosophical works on nature. I tried Timothy Morton, and well he wrote in obscure language which shouldn't be necessary.

I do not buy the "you don't get it, you need to read x and y". I expect, especially the modern kind of philosopher, to write in clear language.

Anyway, I do think that philosophy still has a role. One, science cannot explain everything and two, we cannot derive all values from science.

Old philosophers shouldn't be worshipped that much but can still be valuable. If only for the history of ideas.

Yes psychoanalysis. Doesn't mean it necessarily discredits Zizek's ideas by the way.
I mean even Dawkin's own ideology isn't created by the scientific method. But I do think it is important to have some groundwork in reality.



campbell has pretty much no serious academic following, at least in my experience. most of the popular "religious studies" authors are really just new-age influenced pop philosophers who unknowingly regurgitate christian doctrine.

as for the leftism question, i learned everything i know about marx and weber (although i guess weber's political standing is kind of iffy) from a theory of religion class, so there's that. for the most part, the political standing of the field is nearly identical to most notable anthropology departments

side note: im a bigger Freud apologist than most, but all of his religion theory outside of totem and taboo is unforgivable quasi-functionalist trash

well memed

i have no idea how anyone could read future of an illusion and not laugh at that part where he goes full autismo about the god "Logos"

He's an anti-statist so no, God being replaced by the State leads to "the individual psychically undeveloped with extreme feelings of marginalization."

He understood fascism and the cultural Zeitgeist in pre-War Germany very well, but he clearly wasn't into them.

What he was is an anti-Semite in denial.

His biggest break were on the topic of libido and the unconscious. He found psychoanalysis too focused on sex, started drifting way by gnostically considering his collective unconscious as too much of a reality, and before he knew it he found himself writing foundational texts for religious folks interested in perennial philosophy and comparative religion, as well as fiction writers.


I was going to say SJW idpol fags and the alt right fags but I really have to agree with you on the Dark enlightment people, now they are truely next level on the horrid scale.

What is "Dark Enlightenment" and who are its followers?

It's for people who actually understand Deleuze and Guattari.


A group of Neo-reactionaries who stay on isolated elitist blogs who consider themselves the intellectual aristocrats of future society.

I don't mind him doing that, since I talk to nationalist here a lot.
What annoys me is how he's not willing to challenge them the same way he does leftist.
Somehow he's able to have a civil conversation with Nationalist, but will screech like a 12 yo high on mountain dew when a leftist shows up. I don't like SJW's, but many times what he criticizes them for, he does himself. It's hard to take seriously

ehh that's not really true, he's had SJWs and shit on for civil discussions, I just think he should stop talking about far left ideologies like socialism and stuff because he's really lost, he even pulled the "look at Venezuela!" lines in one of his recent vids

I've seen that, but I still haven't seen him not lose his cool with Marxist. I haven't watched his vids in a while, so I could be wrong. Every encounter I've had with him on twitter, he's really salty.

It is 100℅ without merit
You can't scientifically prove a moral

I feel like Sam has conflated morals with ethics, or at least that's the sense I got from reading his book.

he does seem to ignore Rebel from what I've seen, that's true. For some reason he seems to think the way leftists used the words "libertarianism" and "socialism" is redefining the words

Nietzsche is good tho

How about someone like Micea Eliade?

Well isn't that already one step closer to being a fascist beliefs? I mean it's hard to deny the relationship Fascism has had to anti-antisemitism.

this is hilarious. these guys are dressing up a lot of pretty well known academic anthropological theory as some kind of terrifying secret. it's weirdly endearing

also the tone of it is distinctly 2009 pre-meme culture which is pretty interesting. the writer clearly is an internet regular, but before the current obsession with ironic distance took over

First heard the term on /lit/ and never once have I seen it used in the context you claim

Not quite, anti-Semites can be of any color, whether it is brown (fascist), green (Muslim), yellow ("libertarian"), red ("left-wingers"), etc.

Jung was being a German in 20s-30s doing what the other Germans where doing, ideologies gonna ideology.

Anyway, I keep Jung around when I have to interpret anything that isn't the individual person.

For example, a guy like Charles Manson has a lot of fangirls sending him letters. Why is that? Just by looking at pic related I can't help but see a Trickster archetype in him. He moves, talks, acts above and beyond social norms. He's basically the Joker IRL. He doesn't give a fuck.

But would this Jungian thingy be just as useful to interpret what and how Manson HIMSELF thinks? Not how he is perceived, but how he perceives himself? Yes according to Jung, not as much according to me.

i'm not too familiar with most of his stuff, but the little i do know i have some issues with. mostly, anyone who claims to have a theory on religion applicable to all religion is dishonest to some degree. it just isn't a homogeneous thing. usually, these kinds of theories are guilty of some serious cherry-picking and end up subtly regurgitating christianity (all of that 'spiritual/religious experience,' where someone encounters the universal divine or whatever, shit is almost solely a western, christian idea. these people always refer to some of vedantic hinduism as 'proof' but most of that was created as an appeal to the western religious parliament by hindus anyway lol).

if you ever see something following the formula of "well all religion is ACTUALLY about this…" you should be skeptical. the majority of those kind of theorists have little to no field research outside of the west, and sometimes even then not even research outside of historically christian territory which is absurd to base any kind of universalist theory on.

jung is a quack who got the hermeneutic which is supposed to be used to explain reality confused with reality itself.

psychoanalysis took a long time to recover from jung's quasi-spirituality

Huh I thought all Freudposters on Holla Forums were strict Lacanians and pro-enlightenment

He sounds like Julius Evola, both believing in some orientalist Neopagan perennial mysticism in relation to their fascism

They are anti-liberal liberals who still maintain the smugness of liberalism.
Its another level of liberal smugness that I can't fucking stand

I know where I am but
Come on, moot was alright

Computing Forever's Audience
The people who think Sargon is a Marxist

I find it hilarious when conservatives associate anything liberal with the left.
In Australia liberalism refers to the neoliberal conservative party - they called themselves liberal both in reference to classic liberalism and as a reaction against the big scary big gubmint soviet union.
The idea of thinking a classic liberal is anything other than right wing makes all the uneducated American jokes too real.

Anacoms / Antifa by far

Now imagine Zizek at TED.