graphov

I'd recommend Well-Typed's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@well-typed

Andres Loeh has recently released a pretty comprehensive introductory series there and in addition they have a fortnightly stream "The Haskell Unfolder" where they go over some more advanced subjects with examples.

Let's continue over voice/video if you prefer.

Speaking of socialists in NSDAP, Goebbels was sympathetic to socialism early in his career. That didn't last though.

Also, ask yourself - is this uberfeminist account an honest inquiry into who Weinstein is and what his position is? Or is it a propaganda operation that aims to mislead you and distort your perception of him where the conclusion is known from the outset and all the activity is to try to prove it by whatever means? For me the answer is obviously the latter.

To be precise, he says "there might be as many as three revolutionary nobel-quality ideas". And yes, their family indeed have a lot of brainpower, so I don't even see it as such a big exaggeration or boasting.

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.

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/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.

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.

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.

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?

This doesn't look all that surprising after Twitter blocked the account and all web links to Bret Weinstein's Articles of Unity initiative 1.5 months ago without any explanation, and it still remains blocked.

Yeah, I thought something was wrong with Scandinavian Airlines.