Newsweek attacks Mark Dice

fake news in a nutshell right there.

Youtube removed his video about the media not covering the church shooting in TN like they did the Dylan Roof one.



I think they were mad because he took a shot at Youtube at the end of the video for demonetizing his videos.

Ain't censorship great?

Newsweek said the shooter was a Christian because his scam artist father said he was a pastor to scam a bingo parlor

quote:

---

cuckeye

---

And maybe there an appropriate andclever insult. I'm terrible at making approaches and clever insults so I'll ask for you help for this one.

What would be a good one for a man who must enjoying watching goofy videos of another man so much that he has to share them with others? And apparently he shows them because he wants other's to fawn over the man's videos? And when someone dares to point out information in the video is factually incorrect, he can't just acknowledge the man was wrong, he has to create new arguments to defend the man, and if those arguments are shown to be factually incorrect, he again has to create a third argument go defend the man? And when the man is just criticized for his plain ridiculousness, he must take it personal and defend the man's honor with an insult?

Got any good ones for that?

quote:

---

If we can get debate of Eichenwald v. Dice, it would be a great match up highlighting the terrible, faux outaged, attention-seeking, neophytes relying on emotional appeals of the left v. right.

Then we could have the debate of Harris v. Shapiro immediately follow, and we would how great match-up of highlighting the great, rational, topic-based, polymaths relying on their evidence-based logical conclusions of the left v. right.

Both would be entertaining match-ups, and hopefully show that both sides can be terrible and both sides can be great, so people can see that we should stop valuing the emotional opinions of the terrible of both to start considering the evidence-based reasoning of the great.

---

You are so very correct, and that is a great example of polar opposites in the debate for mindshare. People like Parmen who fall down and slobber the knob of drones like Mark Dick just perpetuate the stupidity of emotion-based argument.

quote:

---

Buckeye v upgreyedd in a contrarian no holds barred? (I may have the players wrong. But you get the sentiment).

---

I'm not sure why I'm always called the contrarian, when displaced_buckeye is way more of a contrarian than I am.

And now after writing that, I just realized maybe you were referring to him in the first place.

quote:

---

You are so very correct,

---

Happens sometimes:

quote:

---

and that is a great example of polar opposites in the debate for mindshare.

---

Obviously a debate tends revolve around topics of disagreement, but this could be a productive for a change. But in reality, I know that share views in common since I follow them on Twitter, and I bet they share even more.

But Dice's of the world want (and he probably thinks) that a conservative and liberal couldn't agree. He did make a recent video about Liberalism being a Brain Eating Virus afterall, and I'm sure if I get around to watching it, it will he highly factual and objective, with no bias or emotion at all--basically scientific.

But in my view, the traditional views of liberalism and conservatism are clear and concise because at their core they represent what are basically bidmodal differences in how we perceive then process the world. And of these then lead to basic differences conclusions, decisions, values, and principles. But that doesn't mean there isn't overlap in areas, and the differences aren't absolute, their more of a difference in the weighting.

So knowing there is an objective reality and that there is overlap and the differences are absolute, we should be able to find common-ground on things, and if we also value evidence and look at it empirically, we should be able to find agreement if we are willing to accept and choose the ideas and solutions that may be counter to our worldview but are supported by the evidence. Although flawed like all of us, Shapiro and Harris are good representions of that, at least far better most everybody else with an audience.

This is why I despise what the Mark Dice's of the world. Yeah it's amusing to point outthe stupidity of the other side, but it's easy to put out the stupidity of any side, and even any person, especially the most irrational. But that doesn't make anything better, especially if it's always unidirectional and never highlighting any good and providing any solutions. But ironically, Dice would be an easy target for the other side because he represents the same things he's mocking.

Unfortunately, I pay too much attention to it, so I am complicit too. I just wish we would all at least acknowledge this and try to focus on the Shapiro and Harris approach occasionally.