Eric Weinstein Part 1 -the secret seminar
idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com
idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com
What of these two episodes strikes you as the most condemning about Eric? Maybe something he did or some abhorrent position he holds or something verifiably false that he said on purpose?
Don’t care if somebody is awful or not, but care about if somebody can backup claims and Eric seems not able to.
http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2020/02/eric-weinstein-is-a...
http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2020/03/eric-weinsteins-con...
The uberfeminist seems quite obsessed with the Weinsteins. still the blogposts appear spot on in terms of reasoning.
If you find errors or proof for the claims the Weinsteins put out please post.
for me personally, the worst was when Eric Weinstein compared BLM protestors to the Reichskristallnacht (link bellow) ... then I just thought he has really no clue what he is talking about.
I’m happy to be proven wrong.
edit: typos
Calling Bret "a known idiot" in the first sentence is 1. disgusting. 2. has no basis, he didn't say anything stupid there. Maybe lineage conflict isn't the best frame for looking at WWII, but one of the frames nonetheless and the rhetoric of Fatherland etc. indeed shows that.
The supposedly contradicting "claims to victimhood" there are actually not contradicting if you listen to the portal episode. The fact that the Weinsteins didn't provide evidence doesn't mean it is false or evidence doesn't exist. It's just not for podcast episode. At the end of that episode Eric invided Carol to come and respond on that podcast. Also, regarding "claims to victimhood", I haven't really heard this story from him before that podcast when Eric ensisted that he tells it. So Bret is by no means claiming any victimhood.
Re: BLM and Kristallhacht, you didnt' include the link.
Sorry got confused ... the BLM thing was Bret not Eric.
As I said, I don't agree with the tone of uberfeminist. Yet, the blog posts have some valuable points (even though they attack the Weinsteins also personally).
Ok, if you claim sth, I just want to assess how much is true about it. In this case it's quite some claim. I just wonder, where is the evidence?
If Eric Weinstein can provide it, great. I will believe him . If he cannot, I wonder why he would mention these topics in a public podcast. Even if they are true, if you cannot at least provide some kind of evidence for them, they sound to me like conspiracy theories.
This is also not a singular incident in terms of just claiming sth. and not being able to back it up (COVID, 9/11 ... unity theory etc.). I mean he claims his family was kept from 3 nobel prices ... might well be, yet so far I find that far fetched. Just saying.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ... no?
I'm skeptical and like to hear/see things for myself. The "I don't speak German" podcast really makes some impressions I had more concrete (also the episode with Becca Lewis). It seems for me the Weinstein brothers are just utterly confused.
Regarding evidence I have a couple of thoughts - I don't think the situation was such that required publishing the evidence. If Carol or someone else would question the claims, showing the evidence would be necessary. (I don't count uberfemenist allegations since they are utterly disrespectful). Moreover, even if Bret doesn't have the evidence (like for the conversation with Carol over the phone), it doesn't mean that he should never tell about the story. Obviously we don't have to believe it either. Moreover, my impression is that Bret himself isn't very willng to dig into this story, it is mostly Eric pushing him.
I don't quite get what other claims he isn't able to back up. What did he claim about covid or 9/11 that he wasnt' able to back up? I only saw him questioning the explanation give about one of the buildings collapse. By unity theory - do you mean his physics theory? Whell, I haven't paid attention to that, but I'm not sure how are you supposed to back it up? If it contradicts the observation/experiment, or is self-contradictory, it is bust, but what does it mean to "back it up"?
Where did he made the claim about 3 Nobel prizes? He said that Bret might have had one in the video that is linked multiple times from the uberfeminist blog, but I haven't actually heard about the other two.
p.s. it is quite tedious to type that much, if you want we can chat by voice/video, just drop me an email by appending gmail to my nickname.
Around the 9:45 mark.
Is it about BLM protests though? I personally make distinction between people who protest lawfully against police brutality and racism - and I think it is totally warranted and honorable, and people who set things on fire putting lives at risk, who attack police simply for being police, who harass strangers to rise their fist in "solidarity", who put graffiti suggesting killing cops and journalists, who march through resident neighbourhoods in the night shouting and shining flashlights in people windows, etc. For example these people:
https://twitter.com/PghAutonomy/status/1307166700916412419 https://twitter.com/historyoarmani2/status/13245641457532354... https://twitter.com/PNWYLF/status/1323893149081677825
For me this interview with a black police officer was quite revealing of the other side to the protest even before the real mayhem starts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha-7SETmJD4
And on Kristallnacht, early in its history NSDAP didn't have their ideology formulated particularly clearly and were attracting all kinds of radicals and revolutionaries, hence "sozialistische" and "arbeiter" in its name.
Lawful protest? When did lawful protests change anything? MLK or Gandhi? Their protests were not lawful and were also very violent (the violence coming mostly from one side). There were also riots and pundits on the streets with them ...
https://twitter.com/Trevornoah/status/1269291643842289666
Again, with the comparison to the Kristallnacht Eric makes a dangerous comparison as I explained it bellow in the thread already and he should know because he's Jewish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht
He insinuates (for me at least) 1. BLM (or those riots in case you want to not associate them with BLM ... which I think he does over the title) is just some kind of pretext for totalitarianism 2. authorities are standing back and let them riot. (because that's what Kristallnacht was... it was organised with the OK from the authorities)
I don't think it's his intention, yet can you see how this is dangerous? He gives militias a reason to go out and "defend" themselves against the authorities who are in on it (like during the Kristallnacht as this was state sanctioned) like the group that wanted to kidnap Gov. Whitmer or the shooter who killed people in Kenosha. Again, I'm not saying that this is his intention or that he thought about it, yet I could see crazy people saying "I heard, the riots are just like Kristallnacht." and using it as a defence for more organised violence.
Yes there are crazy Antifa twitter accounts, so what? I didn't see them try to kidnap a governor ...
If you tell me, as a German, that Kristallnacht is happening in your country, I would be ready to help you and up for a fight (definitely not non violent!!). I know Eric is not making that claim, yet I feel for somebody appearing smart and trying to be a public intellectual, it's a dangerous comparison. I can see how it can be misused.
What do you mean with the NSDAP ideology was not formulated particularly clearly? The heads of the movement had a clear vision (I mean one of them wrote a book about it released 10 years before the Kristallnacht ...antisemitism was at the core ... the Kristallnacht was horrifically well organised by the way). The "sozialistische" and "Arbeiter" had to be there as otherwise it would have been not possible to get a mass movement. Yet, the underlying ideology from the leaders was clear from the beginning (check the bios of the SA and NSDAP leaders you won't find any communists or socialists there).
Speaking of socialists in NSDAP, Goebbels was sympathetic to socialism early in his career. That didn't last though.
the 3 nobel prices: https://twitter.com/uberfeminist/status/1219421671305564160
TBH all I see in this twitter account and the podcast is just crapping on people by nitpicking innocuous and respectful phrases or claims and trying to make them look like a proof of some grave moral fault. I don't really want to engate with this sort of content anymore, especially via my poor keyboard, sorry. And as another user wrote in the comment - why listen to this second hand stuff - just open The Portal or The Dark Horse podcasts and listen to the Weinsteins (and Heather) themselves - I GUARANTEE you, you'll learn much more than from those twitter accounts, especially if you have different opinions. On evolution, economics, physics, governance, and much much more.
But I'm still open to having a chat over voice/video, given how different our sources (and I guess opinions too) are we can have an interesting enriching conversation if we manage to have a respectfull constructive disagreement. Timezone-wise I'm in Europe.
I listened to Dark Horse a couple of times and really don't liked what I heard ... leading me also to post this podcast episode. Later, I was checking in with Majority Report. Most of the time Seder is unbearable to me, yet he makes some good points against the podcast and the IDW (Weinstein's, Harris etc.).
I grew up in the German hacker bubble. It's very positive about Antifa and generally anarchy, knowing my biases :)
Really like hackernews for the conversations here as well.
I would recommend you to listen a bit to Jeremy Scahill, and especially also Amy Goodman. She's an institution to me ... Just awesome work for all the years: https://www.democracynow.org/
https://theintercept.com/podcasts/intercepted/ The intercept got quite a bit heat recently, yet Jeremy is still just awesome (always to the point and careful in his analysis).
They are much more in line with my political bias. Yet honestly I find they make much more sense (and use a much more precise and easy to understand sentence structure/argumentation line).
I've never heard of this podcast before. Unless someone wants to make the case that it's much more than it appears to be on the tin, I'm going to write it off as the bland and uninspired "analysis of our enemies" flavor propaganda that it looks like. If someone wants to hate Weinstien, just listen to him and decide that for yourself. You don't need a big-brained podcast to do it for you.
They give a lot of context, go into details in the next episode and have also later Becca Lewis on the show to discuss some more about the Weinstein Brothers.
I found it quite interesting, to shed light on their claims from another perspective.
They didn’t go into name calling or labelling anybody.
Oh pleez, give it a rest. Eric Weinstein is "part of the current reactionary ecosystem. And what a part he is." In what universe is that not a label?
I'm not against categorizing people according to political category, but the more petty and fringe criteria you use , the more it takes on an inter-academic slanderous hue, a politics fixated on (famous) people and who-said-what, not on daily and pressing needs among people living in the slums and piled up in prisons.
I'm sure you don't agree, but have a nice day all the same.
Yet, I would say Eric and the IDW are not really helping people living in slums or are piled up in prisons. They are more in the intellectual celebrity camp, so I feel that podcast is really highlighting that.
I don’t listen to the creators much, I just find it annoying that Eric, Bret and others get so much exposure on hacker news. As there are some rather stupid elements in their argumentation (the podcast makes a good point there...).
Personally I’m a big fan of Democracy Now! Amy is doing stuff compared to just making podcast episodes and complaining about Evergreen ;)
Ironically, the very nature of the terminology validates concerns over 'cancel culture' which the podcaster & co. seem to lament. If 'one side' is worried about voices being suppressed, the 'other side' is labelling people 'Nazis' well you can see the problem.
I wonder what their reaction would be if Theil had an anti-Communist podcast called 'I don't speak Chinese' which lamented all their interlocutors and those with whom they don't agree as 'Communists'.
(Also surely you recognize the irony in this kind of nitpicking of someone elses speech while simultaneously bringing up free speech.)
The very nature of the podcast is to discuss 'Fascism' and I find including Thiel/Weinstein on the 'target list of Nazi-like people' though 'technically not Nazis' is intellectually offensive, and really defeating the purpose.
I don't care about Thiel, Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan etc. or any of these people really but it's troubling when people try to suppress them or try to marginalize them as 'extremists'. There's absolutely nothing these guys are onto that should be remotely problematic in terms of civil discussion.
At the end the elude to why they did the podcast episodes... check the last YouTube link of Eric .. that video is dangerous and stupid.
If it is, and you think this is 'dangerous' in any way I'm going to have to more than disagree, and suggest that any material issue over this video is probably a hint of something much more concerning. I really hope that wasn't the video you were referring to because I can't fathom any remotely reasonable person saying such a thing about it.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETcq7qqPhow
'Some Thoughts on Wokeness and Shame in light of events.'
You don’t think that’s stupid or dangerous?
I realise that a large chunk of HN are champagne socialists, but it would be great if they valued freedom of speech instead of starting to curb it.
Dangerous I added because he has a following and I think if somebody believes him that Kristallnacht is happening right now, they might do sth. stupid.
I’m all for free speech, yet if you say stupid stuff, you can get called out for. I can call something stupid and dangerous and I don’t want to censor anything of it.
Listen to the 2 podcasts about Eric. I find them quite well sourced. If there’s anything wrong about their assertions (meaning the “I don’t talk German” podcasters) I think they are happy to hear from you.
Me too, btw. I’m open to discussion and would not want to hinder free speech.
Comparing BLM to the Nazis is pretty stupid, imho. Yet maybe I’m wrong ;)
I'd always rather have dialogue than bans. Though maybe that's the European in me.
First - he's a Jew, literally with family members who died in the Holocaust - so he can make some comments about Kristallnacht.
Second - It's a some remarks while having an evening walk - this is not broadcast TV, a publication, some giant thing. It's an intimate conversation with some other nerds.
Third - parts of the 'equality' movement are violent, totalitarian, unwilling to compromise, breaking many laws, forcing their ideology onto all sorts of people without subtlety and without factual basis. is inflamed and supported by the press and academia,
The fact anyone would call this 'dangerous' - so 'dangerous' as to have him on a Podcast about Nazis is scary.
Comparing BLM to the Kristallnacht is stupid and dangerous, from a Jew or from anybody else. He is insinuating with that comparison that
1. BLM is just some kind of pretext for totalitarianism
2. authorities are standing back and let them riot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht
I don't think it's his intention, yet can you see how this is dangerous? He gives militias a reason to go out and "defend" themselves against the authorities who are in on it (like during the Kristallnacht as this was state sanctioned) like the group that wanted to kidnapp Gov. Whitmer or the shooter who killed people in Kenosha.
2nd an intimate conversation with 180k views (more than some TV programs)
3rd some might be. Yet, if totalitarian fascists are coming, count me stupid I would hope for help from the Anarchists and Antifa action. Can you give examples? (FBI sees right wing terrorism a much bigger threat).
They (I don't speak German folks) give quite some context why they talk about him, why his views are problematic (they also say that he is not even close on being a nazi or related to them ... don’t know why it is scary). You can engage with their arguments if you want (yet you did not so far)
Seriously? The largest 'reactionary ecosystem' is from the left, not the centre-left (Eric and his brother), or the centre-right/right. Has this past week taught you all nothing?
Also as I mentioned in another comment - it's very ironic to claim to care about free speech while trying to shut down someone elses criticism of someone.
I agree it makes you feel aggrieved but it won't be a call to arms for the free speech crowd to back you up.
But its most likely that I misunderstood. Do you want people to defend your arguments or the ability for you to make your arguments? or perhaps it's about someone else? Your comment was a root level one and was not in response to anything specific so I dont have much to go upon except the reference to another comment which read, to me, like an everyday argument on HN and one where you challenged. thus, this comment about free speech seems strange.
People are just pointing out that it's obviously ridiculous - and that's fine.