Forums / Discussion / General

Paul Joseph Watson is pure meme material by now, Ian Miles Cheong has shown to be a hypocrite on several occasions, Sargon of Akkad is unable to read more than one paragraph of an article he cites and he gets anxious and acts like a child when presented with any actual argument, Ben Shapiro is just a straight up asshole and so is Dr Jordan Peterson.
Not to mention the endless army of people ranting for hours about strawmen with nothing more than a picture of a muscular, cool and edgy cartoon version of themselves while insisting the imaginary opponent is the triggered one.

Why do they still get views? Do people really have so much time to watch someone rant for 10 minutes about some BS a blue haired college student said? It's all these people do, and especially after the Soyboy thing it should be clear that most of them are projecting their insecurites pretty hard

But maybe I missed something out and these people are actuallly a hundred times smarter than I think they are. Could someone explain?

PS: Never forget The Amazing Atheist, you banana in your butt loving wild SOB

They make people feel smart.

actually your mum gay triggered libtard

Troll libtards epic style in four easy steps:

1) Locate loose group of Intellectuals™ (the bigger their victim complex, the better)
2) Learn lots of big words
3) Parrot their exact beliefs back to them
4) Enjoy new swimming pool full of internet money

So you sayin'… you sayin'… we should drown conservatives?

The serious answer would be: because a lot of people are sick of seeing SJWs in media and will cling to anything that goes against them, even if they aren't very good themselves.

The meme answer would be: "cause we gotta own dem libtards haha obama never showed his real birth certificate"

the Soyboy thing it should be clear that most of them are projecting their insecurites pretty hard

I have no idea what does this have to do with the """Sceptics""", but this sounds like something a Soyboy would write.

All the KYM Soyboys complaining about this like to make the weird argument about projecting. Now this argument would hold in a completely anonymous conversation where people can't see each other. But we do know how Soyboys look like and we do know their character, so how's that projecting? By that logic would calling an objectively fat person fat also count as projecting?

And even if some people do project their insecurities, how does that make their targets any less Soyboys? Suppose I was a repressed homosexual thinking about big strong men every night while lying in bed, and getting increasingly frustrated because no bf. Would I make someone who's obviously gay not gay by saying he's gay because I'm projecting?

Boy, what a wonderful thread. Should have guessed at such a quality from the subject.

To oversimplify it: about five years back you had shit like police in the UK covering up rape rings and suing rape victims and Belgium police kicking in people's doors at night for them having nasty comments on twitter or such. Now because as soon as you call someone something like a "cunt muffin" or such people instantly pull out their smartphone everyone everywhere can be potentially watched by everyone. Cause of such a drastic change so quickly people who initially got their internet popularity for blowing the whistle don't have as much fuel anymore many individuals are scrapping the bottle of the barrel.

Basically:
Then, "Here's this morally fucked up thing that traumatized the victims that people are defending"
Now, "Here's this stupid person acting stupid"

Hey! Now what did I do wrong this time?

Judging by this reaction, I will make sure to stay clear of this guy.

Unless there is some utterly funny memes that can't be avoided.

Ben Shapiro doesn't deserve to be grouped in with these other jokers.

Granted, Ben is the most level-headed of them, but he's still a jerk

Okay, I'm not a fan either, but why is he a jerk? He says harmless things everyone can agree on, except he's much more eloquent than most people.

Edit: oh, I get it, you mean his love for Israel.

Jordan Peterson is the same, except not as eloquent. Says some very basic truths, gets rich and becomes a hero.

In fact, that's how you can describe most of the """"Sceptics"""", it's just some of them are more insufferable than the others.

Well when you have a culture that tells people you're wrong for saying something, or thinking something, or being something, and everyone denies that such a state exist, a counter-cultures formation is inevitable. It's probably a social survival mechanism, similar minded species grouping up and supporting those whose arguments gel with their own internal views, even if said arguments are poorly constructed and based entirely around opinions rather then fact.

Much as people over-use it, the fact is pretty much every single social group does this. It's a basic trait of humans to want to be with like minded individuals and converse with them about subjects they enjoy. The internet allowed for this to be taken to the next level, removing the usual geographic barriers and difficulty in forming a group. So now we have these groups of like minded people who support each other, but that can only get your so far. You need something to further strengthen the bond, to make people feel like being part of a group isn't just nice, but necessarily for survival. You need an antagonistic force, which is basically where the victim complex comes into play.

This kind of thing isn't just limited to politics, literally every group has a mentality that can be summed up as "We are strong together" and "People don't like us so we need to stay together". Gaming, Movies, Comic Books, Pets, Cars, Books, Science, Nature, Foods, and even Comedy has groups of people who support, and groups of people who denounce, and it creates a constant eco-system.

Without the SJW crowd, the Skeptics have nothing to criticize. Without the Skeptics, SJW's have nobody to point to as oppressors. Without the SJW's pointing at Skeptics as oppressors, the Skeptics don't have an audience to draw loyalty from. Without the skeptics having a loyal following, the SJW crowd don't have a antagonist to present as threatening them.

The two of them are Especially annoying precisely because they feed off one another to survive. It's basically a self-sustaining whine-fest that everyone else just has to ignore and put up with.

For a second there, I thought you mentioned Armoured Skeptic and ShoeOnHead because I was about to go apeshit there
I don't mind Sargon though, he became less interesting
Also I'm surprised you didn't even mentioned Milo

Milo likes attention too much.

He's a classical troll in all honesty. The prankster/shitposter variety rather then the new breed of dog/swat trolls.

i think a lot of them don't fit the true mold of a skeptic. It feels like they more often just disagree with an idea simply because its far left leaning instead of disagreeing with it because of any flaws in said idea. I used to be real big into a lot of those skeptic channels until i realized that. I think a better term for them is anti-sjw channels instead of skeptic channels

Also a lot of them are kinda assholes. Whether aggressively or passive aggressively they'll insult their opponents and then turn around and claim that their opponents are irrational for insulting them in return. This became apparent when they crashed anita's panel. They knew there was bad blood between them, and they knew that sitting at the front row would get a reaction out of her, and then they acted like she was in the wrong for not being okay with them being there.

" It feels like they more often just disagree with an idea simply because its far left leaning instead of disagreeing with it because of any flaws in said idea."

Thats probably because all the ideas being discussed are nothing but far left leaning solutions.

@Black Graphic T
May I add that by grouping skeptics together as a group, kind of implies that everything you said about the groups they are skeptical about can be used on themselves.

So you are in fact being skeptical of the group you choose to call skeptics.

-for me

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and it is a very important trait to have.
But leaning into the actual reason why a person is doing so causes the issues.

what a headspin

I read a great book by Daniel Ziblatt that described center-right conservatism as a "hinge of history", central to whether democracy can sustain itself after particularly traumatic sea changes (the recent backlash in the West against liberalism being one of those, I think). While I disagree with Shapiro on most things, out of all the potential ideological forebearers of tomorrow's conservatives I find him easily the best; he presents a rightist critique of the angst that the left's social politics have caused without veering off into the white nationalism of Richard Spencer or the nihilistic iconoclasm of Milo Yiannopoulos. I would say the same thing for Peterson and his provision of a philosophy for alienated young white men that stands in opposition to the politics of loathing cultivated by the alt-right. Conservatism is here to stay, and I would rather have Peterson's Boys than the Lost Boys.

That's interesting, since you mentioned Peterson could you please enlighten me as to what exactly is he providing to the alienated young white men? Because it seems to me that he provides exactly nothing. He's not the first person to criticize political correctness. He sells his inoffensive liberal message that could only be considered rebellious, edgy and transgressive in our bizarre bad trip world. Also what does he have to do with Conservatism?

The only thing he has going for him that I can think of is that supporting Peterson is not a social suicide yet.

Actually, I think Milo the Homojew for all his antics was somehow better. At least he was new and edgy at the time. Peterson doesn't even have that going for him. Bland and boring. I've heard about how PC is bad a billion times already. Please tell me one more time Professor Peterson, rek dem feminazis good. I'm sure it's all very entertaining if you're 14.

Ding ding ding!!!! @メムチキ・メモシキ and @Particle Mare

>nothing to do with OP and his Topic rofl

I thought we are discussing Skepticism and the frequent amount of YouTubers being skeptics.

Justicar IS the best among them no doubt but I'm not even sure what's up with the name or why we are talking about the or who the bloody hell you folks believing your addressing.
>JP, BS,Rubin
I thought we were talking about the YouTube fedora group that wandered off into anti feminism after elevatorgate split them and not just random anti-progressive personalities
skeptic clones as armoured shekeler would put it.
The self same community that imploded after Pregnant Trouts doxxed a spineless faggot.
Is girl writes what There?
Gaad saad?
Notorious centrist and orwell dream verniaculus
Actual pundents who arent hoy paloi fellas? Because it never peg shaperio as being in lock step with most boring Matt in the world.

>JP
> asshole
That needs explaining too, the fella is soft spoken, pilot and mild in all regards.

I thought we are discussing Skepticism and the frequent amount of YouTubers being skeptics.

The OP mentioned Peterson and Shapiro. I would also consider the two of them to be YouTube personalities now, Peterson to a greater and Shapiro to a lesser degree.

@メムチキ・メモシキ

If you're asking me why he has amassed such a large following, I can only guess. Frankly, it bewilders me as well. I would say the most likely answer is that unlike your average anti-SJW YouTube crusader, Peterson is an accomplished and well-presented academic and not a 30-year old highschool dropout. His unusual background has allowed him to dispense life advice and self-help material and basically establish himself as a surrogate father figure in the minds of his fans.

Don't expect me to argue that he's edgy or transgressive. He's obviously not, and I tolerate him on the basis of that fact, even though I've disagreed with just about every opinion I've heard him voice. He is a bland, boring pressure valve that siphons away the young white men that nationalists and fascists would rather be trying to redpill.

@Mare

Yes, I absolutely agree with you. I've said before that this new brand of youtube liberals is a bigger problem than SJWs. In fact, SJWs are not a problem at all they're an invaluable asset, and that's the whole point.

You can and should use SJWs to recruit young people, but that's about it. I'm sure that anyone with half a brain understands, that SJWs are not the enemy and are just a product of their environment.

People who earn their money and fame by targeting SJWs are much more insidious than leftists because many gullible people actually believe that they're on their side and are that they're actually accomplishing something. They basically make them the equivalent of Don Quixote fighting windmills.

I actually realized this when I found out that my younger brother really likes those "RETK DESTROYED FEMINISTT" videos and those YouTube liberals. Okay, watch it if it entertains you, but never forget the bigger picture. Try to be rational, carefully analyze everything that you see and hear. I guess that's the suggestion I would give to all the mid school kids.

"SJWs are not a problem at all they’re an invaluable asset"

I am still trying to wrap my head around how a group of people who only exist to bully and harass other people for not agreeing with their quixotic dogma are not a problem, but an invaluable asset?

I think you seem to conflate the ridicule and mocking of SJW rhetoric with actually agreeing with the anti-SJW point of view. People are able to enjoy mockery and ridicule (Re: how Will Ferrel Sasha Baron Cohen became famous) without agreeing with the politics behind it. I mean, SJW's are just so easy to target and make fun of particularly because their rhetoric is full of such low hanging fruit you'd have a hard time not unintentionally making fun of them. Its why Poe's law has become more well known in recent years.

Why do such channels get a mass following? Probably the same reason a channel about MRE's can get over 500k subs. People will watch anything.

@メムチキ・メモシキ

> Peterson is not the first person to criticize political correctness. He sells his inoffensive liberal message that could only be considered rebellious, edgy and transgressive in our bizarre bad trip world. Also what does he have to do with Conservatism?

He expounds the social value of tradition, customs and religiosity from a liberal's perspective, making it accessable and understandable to young modernist sceptics who previously might not have been confronted with these ideas in such a manner. For young men who grew up in a social enviroment that belittles tradition and conservative values as quaint, outdated or oppressive concepts that should be shaken off this is can be a good change of perspective.

In this sense JP does conservatism a good service, offering young liberals a stepstone towards conservative values that might not have been accessible to them before.

Skeptics are popular because people who agree but dont know enough to reference/cite examples in the moment and argue their point love that they can illustrate their ideas. I.E. if I was debating a gender issue I'd probably lack the knowledge to back up studies and use terms to make my points… where as a guy like Jordan Peterson- and expert in the related fields- can actually back up all his points and come off really smooth.

Some of these guys aren't really skeptics, they just get twisted like that due to their fanbase being extreme at times