Most Controversial thinker(s) you know?

[Jnowhere]

For years I've been seeing these subtle "shifts of nuance" where perception is gradually manipulated piecemeal here and there. They always seem to go in one direction, attacking Western tradition and minimizing its achievements.

Plato is absolutely an ideological battlefield, as the pre-eminent Western philosopher. I've even alluded before to Open Society and its Enemies, which specifically attacks Plato, and to the machinations of the Open Society Foundation, which has funded leftist activism and "donated" serious coin to Wikipedia.

So, no, it's not hyperbole to think there might be some ideologically motivated editors at Wikipedia, unless you really think it's appropriate to believe that "philanthropic" organizations throw around millions of dollars without expecting it to have an impact in line with their stated fucking ideals.

I don't agree with all you stated but, there is a hypocritical double standard in so much that the leftist do and say.
Why do only leftist get a pass on their manipulations of the truth and trying to hide and deny any truths that do not fit their narrow, ridiculous, foolish bullshit?.
They are not questioned about their actions, sinister motives or anything they say.
I just cringe when these rich left wing scumbags give so much money to non profit organizations so they can have the power to manipulate the western world into believing absolute bullshit.
So many of the billionaires, are spending a fortune by trying to ruin the western world so that they can have a one-world government, a global currency, a one world religion and ultimately a global dictatorship which will like any big government, will trample the rights of individuals.

Tolerance they scream. That only applies to the cowardly morons who walk in lock step, and agree with them.
Freedom of speech is about protecting the rights of those who disagree or have a different view.
I admit that they don't care, unless it goes against the bullshit that they are trying to force on people.
Canada is a prime example. The government actually goes after and freezes the assets of those who protest or will fire government employees who dare to disagree or try to point out reality.
Truth is not valid if it in anyway goes against their narrative.
Also croney capitalism and corporate monopolies which get rich fleecing the people. No competition means they can charge what they want and don't have to worry about other companies offering better products at a better price.
They let sex offenders and violent criminals off the hook but went after Christian minister's who stood up against the government's Covid regulations by keeping their churches open.
They were basically political prisoners, while real criminals are part of the catch and release policy.
From what I have read, the cops in Canada are not around to protect the people, but at the same time you can get into big trouble for defending yourself and your property.
We can't protect you and you are not allowed to protect yourself, your family, friends and property. What kind of bullshit is that?

Now the left is pro nuclear power, because people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, have decided to build nuclear power plants.
For so many decades the leftists went ape shit and protested nuclear power and made it impossible to build new ones. Now so many are pro nuclear power; the same group that protested, chained themselves to security gates and kept predicting that the next Chernobyl was going to happen if we don't get rid of nuclear power.
They were told what to think, and like good little automatons, now they call it green energy. Some will even deny/ lie that the left ever went against nuclear power.
Then there is the police. The left calls them brutal racist thugs. Then when asked about people having guns for protection; they say that only the police should have them. Only the brutal racist thugs, really?
Defund the police and crime goes up. Their solution, take away guns from private citizens and not allow them to defend themselves, family or property.

Writer Williams S Burrows had a great quote " After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military"

I forget which historical figure said this but it so true. " The best defense against tyranny is an armed population."

I could keep going on but, I am not here to force my beliefs on anyone, and besides, I am not George Soros, who as a rich leftist is doing everything he can to force the whole world to walk in lock step with his bullshit globalist ideas.

 

[thujone]

For sure - I think there are likely SOME. I just don't find arguments that it's a significant issue very persuasive. Especially since most of the people who say that it is have their own far more obvious and overtly sinister agendas. ie, whatever it was Elon Musk said, Wokepedia or Dickipeda or something. Your mention of "funding of leftist activism" I admit is another example of this to me since I don't think "leftist activism" is an issue we should be that concerned about either.

As for Plato though, I admit I'm not well versed on the fine details, so can't comment further on that and will concede perhaps you're right. Although just about that point specifically - not the broader point about leftist activism on Wikipedia. Perhaps I should read a few books and then make an assessment.

.

I don't really pay attention to what Elon Musk (or anyone) says on Twitter, I just see the intrusion into Wikipedia of activist editors to be an extension of the "large march on the [educational] institutions" that the New Left movement has done to eliminate diversity of thought in higher education. Much has been written about that and about the conflicts between tenured professors and leftist administration clamping down on expression.

The climate at higher education in the liberal West is such now that 60% of students fear openly expressing controversial opinions

Self-censorship is pervasive across top-ranked and bottom-ranked schools alike; 63% of respondents worried about damaging their reputation because someone misunderstood something they said or did. An equal percentage said that students shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus was acceptable to some degree.

Recently NPR was also accused of such bias and creating a hostile work environment for those of different opinions, which is more or less in line with falling faith in newsmedia -

70% of Democrats, 14% of Republicans, 27% of independents trust media

Americans' Trust In Media Remains Near Record Low

Americans' trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly remains near the historical low, with sharply differing views among partisans.

news.gallup.com

Notice how strong the ideological pull is there. Anyone who doesn't call themselves a liberal pretty much feels alienated from what the schools, newsmedia and governments preach in the West today.

It constitutes a bit of a crisis to think that trusted institutions are being hijacked by zealots. When most white collar jobs now require university education, how is an ideological outsider even supposed to reach positions of influence within these orgs? If reform is made impossible then revolt is the only option left.

I don't agree with all you stated but, there is a hypocritical double standard in so much that the leftist do and say.
Why do only leftist get a pass on their manipulations of the truth and trying to hide and deny any truths that do not fit their narrow, ridiculous, foolish bullshit?

How does a man go from doctor to murderous jungle warlord? That's what happened to Che Guevara. Academics, mainly, have always had a soft spot for famous communists even though they've proven just as dangerous as the fascists that leftist claim to hate.

Most not-liberals seem to pretty evenly be as opposed to communism as to fascism, I'm not really sure what's so appealing about exchanging corporate democracy for corporate communism but I'm fairly confident it's going to just be even worse and even more unjust than the system it would replace.

 

[Jnowhere]

Sorry, but even Hitler can't even come close to the death toll Mao left. He killed over 60 million people. Mostly from his own stupidity and total lack of concern for his own people.
The other fascit dictators really don't compare with the socialist or communist dictators. Their deathtolls are much smaller compared to their even more evil, leftists.
Hell, Mao left more dead than Hitler, Imperial Japan and all of WW2.
Also, there is a disagreement, even among sources that are liberal friendly: Who killed more Hitler or Stalin? There are too many factors and things to consider to really know.
Pol Pot, wiped out about 25% of the population of Cambodia in less than 3 years.
When looking back at history; I would have rather been shot or gassed by Hitler, than starved to death by Mao or Stalin.
But then again, Hitler was the leader of The National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hmm, Socialist; that's right socialists and communists hate each other. But in the end, both political parties only lead to the most brutal dictatorships in history.
You wanna know what communism really looks like, North Korea and Kim Jong-Fat.

 

[Vastness]

I don't really pay attention to what Elon Musk (or anyone) says on Twitter, I just see the intrusion into Wikipedia of activist editors to be an extension of the "large march on the [educational] institutions" that the New Left movement has done to eliminate diversity of thought in higher education. Much has been written about that and about the conflicts between tenured professors and leftist administration clamping down on expression.

The climate at higher education in the liberal West is such now that 60% of students fear openly expressing controversial opinions

Recently NPR was also accused of such bias and creating a hostile work environment for those of different opinions, which is more or less in line with falling faith in newsmedia -

Americans' Trust In Media Remains Near Record Low

Americans' trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly remains near the historical low, with sharply differing views among partisans.

news.gallup.com

Notice how strong the ideological pull is there. Anyone who doesn't call themselves a liberal pretty much feels alienated from what the schools, newsmedia and governments preach in the West today.

It constitutes a bit of a crisis to think that trusted institutions are being hijacked by zealots. When most white collar jobs now require university education, how is an ideological outsider even supposed to reach positions of influence within these orgs? If reform is made impossible then revolt is the only option left.

I appreciate the considered response and can agree fairly easily that the current situation is not perfect. I look at it very much as an imperfect, ideally temporary but right now possibly somewhat necessary to counter the rise of ideas which I consider to be fundamentally dangerous to the future of humanity.

Those ideas are almost entirely found on the political right, and frankly - I think in a healthy society there should be some kind of soft social pressure which means most people will look down on you if you say certain things - because the alternative to this is overt criminalisation of certain ideas, which is, I hope, intuitively just horrific to most people.

There is nuance here of course because while I am generally in favour of free speech conceptually, I do think that hate speech laws (which do not exist everywhere) are reasonable efforts to moderate the flagrant abuse of this freedom - fought for desperately by our ancestors - to say things that are harmful to individuals and to society. Words matter, and exercising one's free speech is not a sufficient excuse to viciously insult someone, or encourage others to do so, based on their race, sexuality, or, of course, their political leanings and opinions. These things need to have consequences or civil society itself is a pointless concept that we should all forget about.

For that reason, essentially, I would be curious to know what the ideas are that some people are afraid of expressing, because while they should not be made to feel afraid for their lives for expressing them, if they're afraid to say they think that perhaps a little domestic violence or a little racial segregation or just a little police brutality now and then is not something to be overtly condemned - or, on the other hand, that perhaps we should consider that women should be forced to give birth no matter what, and maybe a Handmaid's Tale dystopia styled after the fictional Gilead would be preferable to the world as it exists today - well, I don't find it worrying that such people would fear expressing themselves, and think there are many solid arguments that they should. Perhaps there's an approach that doesn't include such heavy-handed suppression of such bad ideas, but historically it would appear that "soft tactics" have largely failed, because we live in a world where Donald Trump is running for president AGAIN, Marjorie Taylor Greene exists, conspiracies are rampant and critical thought and expertise are not considered things that matter by a large proportion of the first world.