6 ms·

I listened to the "secret seminar" part in the beginning and found their arguments really bad. 1. ...who knows what the real story behind this is... Okay, bu

I listened to the "secret seminar" part in the beginning and found their arguments really bad. 1. ...who knows what the real story behind this is... Okay, but that can be said against almost any claim uless there is a video or many people are willing to talk about it. If you claim that he is lying, the burden of proof is on you. Also that somehow doesn't stop them from hypothesising about personal tensions with the adviser as an explanation for non-invitation. 2. ...not being invited to a seminar is no biggie, 6 billion people weren't invited.. C'mon, if that seminar is run by your adviser on your topic of interest it is not the same as for the rest of the planet. 3. ...he is already elite of of the elite in a PhD program at Harward... Okay, so what? Put up with corruption? Ignore the fact that the system is rigged and not in your favor? 4. ...It's childish to have a revelation when discovering all this backscratching and deals going behind the scenes in academia... Really? Should a person expect it as normal? Maybe looking for a secret meeting should be the first step one should make in their academic career? 5. Stuff about him being paranoid/having prosecution complex. Making a diagnosis from a several minute podcast clip to conclude with ad hominem argument is beyond the pale IMHO. 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?

kgarten 6y ago
They discuss later Eric Weinstein’s claims towards Carol Greider. they also link to the uberfeminist. although I don’t like the tone, the analysis and take away seems sound. 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-awful-person.html?m=1 http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2020/02/eric-weinstein-is-a... http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2020/03/eric-weinsteins-conspiracy-theories.html?m=1 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
- graphov 6y ago
  Well, I didn't find much analysis and arguments there. Most of the links to the twitter account of the same name doen't prove what they are claimed to prove. 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.
  - kgarten 6y ago
    I meant further down on the page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETcq7qqPhow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETcq7qqPhow 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.
    - 6y ago

kgarten 6y ago

They discuss later Eric Weinstein’s claims towards Carol Greider. they also link to the uberfeminist. although I don’t like the tone, the analysis and take away seems sound. 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-awful-person.html?m=1 http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2020/02/eric-weinstein-is-a... http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2020/03/eric-weinsteins-conspiracy-theories.html?m=1 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

graphov 6y ago
Well, I didn't find much analysis and arguments there. Most of the links to the twitter account of the same name doen't prove what they are claimed to prove. 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.
- kgarten 6y ago
  I meant further down on the page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETcq7qqPhow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETcq7qqPhow 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.
  - 6y ago