David Icke live, taken down from Youytube 97k viewing, still available here

[Vince B]

LOL, exactly.

Vince knows that all he can do is call someone racist or sexist when they disagree with him using facts, and since that isn't working as well as it did throughout his adult life, his opposition has forced him into a situation where he has to use actual facts to make points, rather than insults.

Being unable to do that, Vince prefers censorship.  Obviously that would be the case.

I remember being politically incorrect before it was cool.  Now THAT was hard to do.  But I NEVER wanted censorship of my opposing side.  All I wanted was more speech to be encouraged all around.

Anyone with a losing argument like Vince would want censorship though.  It's like an admission that on some level, he knows he is wrong.  Like he and other lefties can feel it in their bones that they are wrong.

If David Icke is such a nutter, let the man speak!  If it's as obvious as Vince claims it will be, most people will see it.

And most people DO see it.  I feel that way about both him AND Alex Jones...but they do make good points at times, and I definitely don't want to see them banned for exercising their ability to speak their minds.

Matt, you are full of shit. I call some nasty Getbiggers sadistic perverts. They have no shame. Just like you when you allowed dickheads to moderate your forum.

I have two degrees in philosophy. To me, guys like Icke are the enemy of truth and free speech. That guy has profited from his bullshit and I find that reprehensible.

Why any sensible person would defend that asshole is beyond decent. Let people like Christopher Hitchens speak, but Icke, no. That lunatic should be kept as silent as possible.

[joswift]

The thing is YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., are businesses. None of them support total freedom of speech. How can they?

In my opinion lots of bullshit should be booted from those media. I am disappointed that so much crap is on YouTube. The uneducated and simpleminded cannot

discriminate among them so end up believing all manner of nonsense. I also would prefer that there were no religions or churches. All bullshit and man made.

Nothing should be off limits, if you start censoring things then it doesn't ever get discussed

Take racism for example, if racism is banned and punishable by imprisonment and fines simply for speaking then racists will always be racists, it racist speech is allowed then racists can be identified and people then can engage them in discussion and at some point they may change their mind if their arguments dont hold up

Banning it and they will always be racists.

And you can replace "racism" with any other subject in the analogy.

[Griffith]

'Banning' people whose views you don't agree with has the opposite effect from those intended, it doesn't silence them, it makes them even more vocal. It almost always backfires.

I'm surprised that some people on here fail to grasp this.

[Vince B]

'Banning' people whose views you don't agree with has the opposite effect from those intended, it doesn't silence them, it makes them even more vocal. It almost always backfires.

I'm surprised that some people on here fail to grasp this.

Absolute total rubbish. Ron bans people here who seriously break the rules. Those who are banned are completely silenced until they try to return as someone else.

In my opinion guys like Icke have no integrity. He lies and distorts and bullshits and profits from it because so many people accept his crap....even, incredibly, defend him!

I claim to have integrity. I cannot and will not tell untruths about the world and the people in it. I never change the past nor do I fabricate what happened.

I attended 7 universities in Canada and Australia. When you have an advanced degree you have an obligation to behave in the way of highly educated people.

You cannot go around spouting absolute bullshit about viruses and other important things. That is a no no and people who do that deserve no platform whatever.

So, sure, freedom of speech is import. So is responsibility. I take total responsibility of everything I say and post. Icke does no such thing. He says stuff that

will impress the gullible and simpleminded out there. He makes a good living doing just that. A fraud and a sham.

If anything I post can be refuted then I will change what I believe. That is the scientific way and I am committed to doing exactly that.

When I imagine a new piece of exercise equipment I then have to sit down and precisely design it. Next step is building a prototype. This is not an easy thing

to do but I taught myself to do fabrication and engineering. My machines work and are all unique designs. You simply cannot bullshit when it comes to

engineering.

[pellius]

Nothing should be off limits, if you start censoring things then it doesn't ever get discussed

Take racism for example, if racism is banned and punishable by imprisonment and fines simply for speaking then racists will always be racists, it racist speech is allowed then racists can be identified and people then can engage them in discussion and at some point they may change their mind if their arguments dont hold up

Banning it and they will always be racists.

And you can replace "racism" with any other subject in the analogy.

Then start your own live stream service, granny face. Youtube can publish or not publish any legal content they want for any reason or no reason. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and can say what they want but they don't have the right to demand someone provide them with a platform to express their ideas. If a site wants to publish only pornography and nothing else it's their right. Youtube is under no obligation to publish anything just because you want them to. You cannot force another private entity to publish content that you don't want. Youtube has already been sued for censorship and won. Ron censors this site. Every place of business has limits on speech, behavior, and dress/appearance. Your right to free expression is that you don't have to be involved in their business or entity.

[pellius]

'Banning' people whose views you don't agree with has the opposite effect from those intended, it doesn't silence them, it makes them even more vocal. It almost always backfires.

I'm surprised that some people on here fail to grasp this.

I doubt YouTube thinks they can silence anyone. They just want them silenced when they're in YouTube's house.

[Van_Bilderass]

I claim to have integrity. I cannot and will not tell untruths about the world and the people in it. I never change the past nor do I fabricate what happened.

I attended 7 universities in Canada and Australia. When you have an advanced degree you have an obligation to behave in the way of highly educated people.



If anything I post can be refuted then I will change what I believe. That is the scientific way and I am committed to doing exactly that.


.

No you will not change your opinion on anything. You have been booted off many forums for spouting rubbish, by "science guys". I'm not for banning you or anyone else, but that's what happens if people are free to censor anyone who disagrees.

"Science" can be abused. Scientists disagree among themselves all the time. You think if "science" is the measuring stick then you will never be censored but in reality you are the first to go, for being disagreeable, as has happened many times.

You would prefer it if religion was censored alltogether and a small elite of technocrats decided everything but you obviously don't realise the danger in concentrating power in a small clique of elites. I bet you also believe in democracy, like all the censors say they do. But that makes no sense. How can you believe in democracy if 90% of the ppublic can't think?

[Van_Bilderass]

Jesus is the answer to Covid-19

[joswift]

Then start your own live stream service, granny face. Youtube can publish or not publish any legal content they want for any reason or no reason. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and can say what they want but they don't have the right to demand someone provide them with a platform to express their ideas. If a site wants to publish only pornography and nothing else it's their right. Youtube is under no obligation to publish anything just because you want them to. You cannot force another private entity to publish content that you don't want. Youtube has already been sued for censorship and won. Ron censors this site. Every place of business has limits on speech, behavior, and dress/appearance. Your right to free expression is that you don't have to be involved in their business or entity.

why dont you read my post properly before you comment, it will save you looking stupid

Where have I mentioned Youtube?

[Vince B]

No you will not change your opinion on anything. You have been booted off many forums for spouting rubbish, by "science guys". I'm not for banning you or anyone else, but that's what happens if people are free to censor anyone who disagrees.

"Science" can be abused. Scientists disagree among themselves all the time. You think if "science" is the measuring stick then you will never be censored but in reality you are the first to go, for being disagreeable, as has happened many times.

You would prefer it if religion was censored alltogether and a small elite of technocrats decided everything but you obviously don't realise the danger in concentrating power in a small clique of elites. I bet you also believe in democracy, like all the censors say they do. But that makes no sense. How can you believe in democracy if 90% of the ppublic can't think?

Wow, what a nasty individual you are. You misrepresent me. I change my mind often about matters of fact. No one can watch YouTube or read books and stay the same.

I wasn't booted off lots of bodybuilding discussion forums. Only IronAge and they never gave me a reason.  Two other heavy contributors were also banned at the same time.

I stopped posting on HST and other forums. I wasn't banned.

I don't believe in censoring religion. But I don't like when they are organised and become institutions. Individuals can still believe what they want.

[Vince B]

I spent a long time listening to Jordan Peterson give a talk at Oxford University. He discusses free speech and also hate speech. He believes that attempts to define hate is impossible because it depends on who is defining it. Therefore trying to restrict people espousing hate is usually worse than allowing it. He believes that when most people hear the hate speeches they will decide what is proper and right and reject such beliefs. So I suppose he would let Icke be on YouTube so that others can make up their own minds about what he has to say.

The issue on YouTube was that Icke was espousing views relating to the current health crisis that was seen as harmful and so was banned from the medium.
Icke will keep doing his thing and many people will believe much of what he says or writes. I won't be one of his supporters.

You have to listen to the whole presentation to hear him answer questions about free speech and hate speech.

[Griffith]

I doubt YouTube thinks they can silence anyone. They just want them silenced when they're in YouTube's house.

Either way, the video appeared back on Youtube and got 6 million views.

[Griffith]

Icke has enjoyed the attention paid to him as a result of the controversy around the broadcast, with Google search interest in his name spiking as a result.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/20/tv-stations-interview-with-david-icke-posed-threat-to-public-health

As usual, such 'bannings' usually have the opposite effect, especially of a public figure and help create free media exposure.

Even we're talking about him now.

[Van_Bilderass]

I spent a long time listening to Jordan Peterson give a talk at Oxford University. He discusses free speech and also hate speech. He believes that attempts to define hate is impossible because it depends on who is defining it. Therefore trying to restrict people espousing hate is usually worse than allowing it. He believes that when most people hear the hate speeches they will decide what is proper and right and reject such beliefs. So I suppose he would let Icke be on YouTube so that others can make up their own minds about what he has to say.

The issue on YouTube was that Icke was espousing views relating to the current health crisis that was seen as harmful and so was banned from the medium.
Icke will keep doing his thing and many people will believe much of what he says or writes. I won't be one of his supporters.

You have to listen to the whole presentation to hear him answer questions about free speech and hate speech.

So you agree that censorship isn't that clear cut, who to censor and not? Youtube and other online media censor people completely arbitrarily. A scientist could argue that any religious unscientific views are harmful so should be censored. But what happens is that only some people are silenced according to certain political aims.

I didn't listen to the Jordan speech but I would say "hate speech" is a completely ridiculous and meaningless term. Everyone hates something. According to the TPTB there is good hate and bad hate, but what is termed bad hate is completely arbitrary. Same with "hate crimes". A white beating a black is a hate crime whereas a black beating a white isn't even if the black says he is beating the white due to his race. Criticizing Islam or Judaism is hate whereas criticizing Christianity is completely fine. You can wish death on white males but not on minorities.

[Van_Bilderass]

I will say that Brian Rose's claim of being for free speech rings hollow to me. Of course Brian isn't for free speech per se, only for free airing of his programs. I can think of a number of topics and opinions and "conspiracy theories" he would never lend credibility to. That's fine, but the point is that there is always an agenda. He isn't asking hard questions either nor really challenging his guests on the more outrageous theories. Would be more interesting if he did that IMO.

[Vince B]

About David Icke.

[friedchickendinner]

There's a lot of stuff you cant find on youtube.

Why is it more important that David Icke gets to talk than showing two males making sweet love?

[Megalodon]

Peterson was an interesting character. He was part of the self-proclaimed "intellectual( ) darkweb" which was comprised of moderate gatekeepers who were promoted as "right wing". Peterson was the token non-Jew, which is odd because over 96% of American IQs over 145 are non-Jewish and Peterson, although well-spoken, has an IQ very comfortably below 130. His daughter Mikhaila became known for posting pictures of herself in her underwear just around the time Peterson entered rehab for physical addiction to clonazepam and was placed in a medically induced coma.

Required reading:

[SF1900]

Vince Basile, you are a major hypocrite.

You picking your own judges for the 1970 Mr. Canada is no different than a scientist cherry picking data, in order to fit his hypothesis and generate a specific conclusion. You cherry picked your own judges to generate a specific conclusion (you winning).

Yet, you talk about scientific integrity. Any learnt scholar knows that you can't cherry pick the specific variables to generate a specific conclusion. But, you did that when you rigged the 1970 Mr. Canada.

[Humble Narcissist]

Absolute total rubbish. Ron bans people here who seriously break the rules. Those who are banned are completely silenced until they try to return as someone else.

In my opinion guys like Icke have no integrity. He lies and distorts and bullshits and profits from it because so many people accept his crap....even, incredibly, defend him!

I claim to have integrity. I cannot and will not tell untruths about the world and the people in it. I never change the past nor do I fabricate what happened.

I attended 7 universities in Canada and Australia. When you have an advanced degree you have an obligation to behave in the way of highly educated people.

You cannot go around spouting absolute bullshit about viruses and other important things. That is a no no and people who do that deserve no platform whatever.

So, sure, freedom of speech is import. So is responsibility. I take total responsibility of everything I say and post. Icke does no such thing. He says stuff that

will impress the gullible and simpleminded out there. He makes a good living doing just that. A fraud and a sham.

If anything I post can be refuted then I will change what I believe. That is the scientific way and I am committed to doing exactly that.

When I imagine a new piece of exercise equipment I then have to sit down and precisely design it. Next step is building a prototype. This is not an easy thing

to do but I taught myself to do fabrication and engineering. My machines work and are all unique designs. You simply cannot bullshit when it comes to

engineering.

"In my opinion guys like Icke have no integrity."  So your opinion should be the litmus test for free speech?  If these people are so crazy why suppress their speech?  Wouldn't it be obvious and therefore discrediting in itself?  What are you afraid of and why must they be silenced?

[Vince B]

Peterson, although well-spoken, has an IQ very comfortably below 130.

Nonsense. His IQ is well beyond that.

[Vince B]

"In my opinion guys like Icke have no integrity."  So your opinion should be the litmus test for free speech?  If these people are so crazy why suppress their speech?  Wouldn't it be obvious and therefore discrediting in itself?  What are you afraid of and why must they be silenced?

How is one supposed to have an intellectual discussion with people who simple are unable to comprehend what is written?

Because I believe Icke has no integrity doesn't make me the test for free speech. Since when am I against free speech? I am not trying to silence Icke or anyone else.

I said I was glad he was booted off YouTube. That was for philosophical reasons. That guy doesn't deserve a platform. Period.

[Megalodon]

Nonsense. His IQ is well beyond that.

No. Peterson is not brilliant. 

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/12/mailvox-creation-of-jordan-peterson.html


"It would be interesting to know if the Canadian LSAT was also an IQ proxy, as this would prove that Peterson has been exaggerating his IQ. There are already some anomalies in his self-description of it; the fact that such an ambitious individual first attended a regional college also tends to suggest that his test scores were less than superlative.

You can see exactly how trivial a figure Jordan Peterson was prior to October 2016 from this Google Trends comparison from 2011 through the end of September 2016. Keep in mind that this chart begins more than 7 years after a 13-part televised series dedicated to Peterson's first book.


UPDATE: If it is true that Peterson applied to law school but did not get in, then he is lying about his supposedly high level of intelligence. From the Canadian Mensa site concerning prior evidence it accepts of a 98th percentile IQ.

LSAT Prior to 1982: 662. Effective 1982 (total percentile rank): 95. The average LSAT accepted by the University of Alberta Faculty of Law is the 90th percentile. In current terms, the 90th percentile is a score of 164, which equates to an estimated IQ of 124. That is the ceiling on Jordan Peterson's IQ.

UPDATE: Jordan Peterson's IQ claim:
I don't know what my IQ is. I had it tested at one point. It's in excess of a hundred and fifty but I don't know exactly where it lands now.... I'm not overwhelmingly intelligent from a quantitative perspective, you know. I think my GRE scores for on the quantitative end of things for about 70-75th percentile which isn't too bad given that you know you're competing against other people who are going into graduate school, but there's a big difference between 75th percentile and 99th percentile, and I think that's where it was verbally, something like that.

Now remember, Jordan Peterson is a habitual liar. Also note that if we put together the 75th percentile and 99th percentile on the GRE that he claims would indicate that he is at the 87th percentile combined. We can see that Mensa equates the 95th percentile on the GRE with the 98th IQ percentile, so adjusting for the difference in populations would move him up to the 90th percentile, or an IQ of 120, which fits right beneath his estimated IQ ceiling of 124.

UPDATE: Boom. Got him. I cannot believe I missed this! From Maps of Meaning.
"I wanted to become a corporate lawyer—had written the Law School Admissions Test, had taken two years of appropriate preliminary courses. I wanted to learn the ways of my enemies, and embark on a political career. This plan disintegrated. The world obviously did not need another lawyer, and I no longer believed that I knew enough to masquerade as a leader."

So, he did take the LSAT, he does know his IQ, and now, so do we."

[Griffith]

No. Peterson is not brilliant. 

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/12/mailvox-creation-of-jordan-peterson.html


"It would be interesting to know if the Canadian LSAT was also an IQ proxy, as this would prove that Peterson has been exaggerating his IQ. There are already some anomalies in his self-description of it; the fact that such an ambitious individual first attended a regional college also tends to suggest that his test scores were less than superlative.

You can see exactly how trivial a figure Jordan Peterson was prior to October 2016 from this Google Trends comparison from 2011 through the end of September 2016. Keep in mind that this chart begins more than 7 years after a 13-part televised series dedicated to Peterson's first book.


UPDATE: If it is true that Peterson applied to law school but did not get in, then he is lying about his supposedly high level of intelligence. From the Canadian Mensa site concerning prior evidence it accepts of a 98th percentile IQ.

LSAT Prior to 1982: 662. Effective 1982 (total percentile rank): 95. The average LSAT accepted by the University of Alberta Faculty of Law is the 90th percentile. In current terms, the 90th percentile is a score of 164, which equates to an estimated IQ of 124. That is the ceiling on Jordan Peterson's IQ.

UPDATE: Jordan Peterson's IQ claim:
I don't know what my IQ is. I had it tested at one point. It's in excess of a hundred and fifty but I don't know exactly where it lands now.... I'm not overwhelmingly intelligent from a quantitative perspective, you know. I think my GRE scores for on the quantitative end of things for about 70-75th percentile which isn't too bad given that you know you're competing against other people who are going into graduate school, but there's a big difference between 75th percentile and 99th percentile, and I think that's where it was verbally, something like that.

Now remember, Jordan Peterson is a habitual liar. Also note that if we put together the 75th percentile and 99th percentile on the GRE that he claims would indicate that he is at the 87th percentile combined. We can see that Mensa equates the 95th percentile on the GRE with the 98th IQ percentile, so adjusting for the difference in populations would move him up to the 90th percentile, or an IQ of 120, which fits right beneath his estimated IQ ceiling of 124.

UPDATE: Boom. Got him. I cannot believe I missed this! From Maps of Meaning.
"I wanted to become a corporate lawyer—had written the Law School Admissions Test, had taken two years of appropriate preliminary courses. I wanted to learn the ways of my enemies, and embark on a political career. This plan disintegrated. The world obviously did not need another lawyer, and I no longer believed that I knew enough to masquerade as a leader."

So, he did take the LSAT, he does know his IQ, and now, so do we."

150 IQ? lmao

What a bullshitter!

[SF1900]

150 IQ? lmao

What a bullshitter!

Hs IQ really doesn't matter and I don't even know why its up for discussion.

I am sure Jordan Peterson is established and intelligent in his chosen profession.

My beef with him is that he got caught up in the hype and started to discuss areas in which he is not an expert in (e.g., history, nutrition).