6 ms·

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. C

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.
- graphov 6y ago
  Wait, I've listened to that piece and it doesn't mention broken glass there. Did I miss it? Do you have a timestamp? And I agree on all points that he makes. The only thing related to BLM protests is that he mentions some folks asking to kiss their shoes or asking others to knee, but even in those cases he is careful enough to clarify, that he doesn't thinke they are actually BLM protesters. And they are jerks for sure no matter what their skin color is. 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.
  - kgarten 6y ago
    Sorry ... just got up. different time zone. Wrong link again (I’m on the smart phone as away from the laptop) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PfAumoTIeik https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PfAumoTIeik Around the 9:45 mark.
    - graphov 6y ago
      Well, he was speaking about how a Jewish person feels seeing a lot of glass broken by a mob, I won't agrue with that although I personally wouldn't use this comparison. 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/PghAutonomy/status/1307166700916412419 https://twitter.com/historyoarmani2/status/1324564145753235458 https://twitter.com/historyoarmani2/status/13245641457532354... https://twitter.com/PNWYLF/status/1323893149081677825 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 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.

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.

graphov 6y ago
Wait, I've listened to that piece and it doesn't mention broken glass there. Did I miss it? Do you have a timestamp? And I agree on all points that he makes. The only thing related to BLM protests is that he mentions some folks asking to kiss their shoes or asking others to knee, but even in those cases he is careful enough to clarify, that he doesn't thinke they are actually BLM protesters. And they are jerks for sure no matter what their skin color is. 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.
- kgarten 6y ago
  Sorry ... just got up. different time zone. Wrong link again (I’m on the smart phone as away from the laptop) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PfAumoTIeik https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PfAumoTIeik Around the 9:45 mark.
  - graphov 6y ago
    Well, he was speaking about how a Jewish person feels seeing a lot of glass broken by a mob, I won't agrue with that although I personally wouldn't use this comparison. 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/PghAutonomy/status/1307166700916412419 https://twitter.com/historyoarmani2/status/1324564145753235458 https://twitter.com/historyoarmani2/status/13245641457532354... https://twitter.com/PNWYLF/status/1323893149081677825 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 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.