Truth Discussion Time - Page 64

On February 01 2018 09:36 Loco wrote: What are you thoughts on this from an ancap perspective, Baal?

Well before going into details about the video, anarchy has many problems that work better in theory under a state, but in reality they don't for the most part, because what Shawn stupidly states in the video the drive of the government is not the good of society, but personal gain, only a child could be oblivious to this reality.

About this specific example of UK rails, first of all it appears as with everything "privatized" it really isnt and its a symbiotic relationship between state and private capital, but regardless of that I would need to see actual statistics of quailty of service and ticket price (subsidizes included) to see if its really better in the states hand, perhaps it is unlike other transportation like air-travel where privately owned companies do just fine despise heavy taxation, but if indeed rail does better under state control that is fine, amarchy has many faults and problems, it isnt a perfect system its just a better system than a state.

Also Shawn is taking a tiny example to push his own ideology, however I can show you dozens of cases where state handled companies do much worse than private ones, like Petrochem, telecom, healthcare, etc.


Frankly I dont know if anarcho capitalism is better than a tiny government handling very specific tasks, however the state always seeks more powe and continiously grows, and that is why I think none at all is better, because it will never stay little.

guys did you know ted kaczynski the unabomber didn't like feminism you don't want to be a unabomber do you? you like feminism right? good thanks for agreeing with me

the unabomber was also prominently quoted in breivik's manifesto iirc!!

On February 01 2018 21:55 Baalim wrote:

lol

On February 01 2018 09:49 Loco wrote: I was thinking about lebowski's post when I posted this, because he said Peterson is not that bad to follow blindly, but he was probably not considering how many people can be self-radicalizing right now partly due to his influence.

Loco if someone goes on a killing spree because of "cultural marxism" I think it'd be absurd to blame JP about it.

I haven't seen all of his videos but I don't really think it's necessary, the guy talks it out even vs people yelling at him, he has never hinted that violence is appropriate and his "clean your room" thing is obviously him trying to make people fix themselves instead of focusing on others. I said Peterson is not that bad to follow if people have to follow someone blindly because it seems to me that he tries to make people more individualistic and his whole demeanor appears to be the opposite of violent or extreme. It doesn't matter if he is wrong or not on political or philosophical issues tbh, because I've seen him call people to own their ideas, to be analytical etc. I'd rather have a Brian from "life of Brian" shouting "you are all individuals" to clueless morons than any random religious or populist figure, even if Brian was dead wrong about most stuff

I'm usually not a fan of discrediting people based on single statements but when the guy actually says stuff like 'feminists support the rights of muslims because of their unconscious wish for brutal male domination', that comes off as such a ridiculously DUMB statement that it becomes hard to think he can be right about other stuff without it just being mere coincidence.

I'd be very fine with him if he was just telling people to clean up their own lives and take individual responsibility or whatever, and I totally buy that he has a lot of genuine insight when it comes to psychology, but his political commentary and understanding of groups is shit-tier.

Its obviously a slap towards feminists for not saying/doing anything at all about womens poor rights (generally) in Islam. Most of the ideology/religion is not exactly formed around women rights. A good feminist cause should have been "no to compulsary hijab in Iran" fexample. Instead they focus on some silly thing like a woman in swimming suit in commercial or w/e bullshit that nobody else cares about. And yes, there is some good progress going on in Islam a lot of places. F.example Imam Tawhidi and his movement/supporters, but he is acctually attacked by the left/feminists lol

I decided to watch this JRE with Jordan Peterson and am pretty bored with it. I still don't think Peterson has actually read Derrida or Marx. Pareto distributions and Solsinitzen (definitely didn't spell that right) like a broken record.

woop, I thought he was about to tell the story of Cain and Abel again.

On February 02 2018 20:11 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm usually not a fan of discrediting people based on single statements but when the guy actually says stuff like 'feminists support the rights of muslims because of their unconscious wish for brutal male domination', that comes off as such a ridiculously DUMB statement that it becomes hard to think he can be right about other stuff without it just being mere coincidence. I'd be very fine with him if he was just telling people to clean up their own lives and take individual responsibility or whatever, and I totally buy that he has a lot of genuine insight when it comes to psychology, but his political commentary and understanding of groups is shit-tier.

I also disagree with that statement, nota as behemently as you but isnt it a much more serious fault in general of the feminist movement to not condemn Islam in how they treat women? you just disagree with their approach but you dont feel the outrage you feel when JBP said that thing.

RikD: It was from *ExMuslimBecause campaign. But I edited it away because I thought it was a bit beside the point after reconsidering it

On the point: Joe Rogan / JP discussing the interview (recorded 30th january)

Takes 1 interpretation from a 3 page list of interpretations he likes to explain "the meek shall inherent the earth" yet Derrida is downright murderous...

Future authoring plug! To be fair I have used this and there could be some value there. That might just be because I paid money for it and then spent a lot of time on it.

wha???? He's talking about connections and networks on a local and global level??? oh.... only to talk about cleaning your room....

Classic Peterson: Do a lecture series on the bible without having barely read all of it.

Joe egging him on about the shittyness of universities today. How the fuck would he know?

And now we are on the magic of paleo....

On February 02 2018 23:23 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 02 2018 20:11 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm usually not a fan of discrediting people based on single statements but when the guy actually says stuff like 'feminists support the rights of muslims because of their unconscious wish for brutal male domination', that comes off as such a ridiculously DUMB statement that it becomes hard to think he can be right about other stuff without it just being mere coincidence. I'd be very fine with him if he was just telling people to clean up their own lives and take individual responsibility or whatever, and I totally buy that he has a lot of genuine insight when it comes to psychology, but his political commentary and understanding of groups is shit-tier. I also disagree with that statement, nota as behemently as you but isnt it a much more serious fault in general of the feminist movement to not condemn Islam in how they treat women? you just disagree with their approach but you dont feel the outrage you feel when JBP said that thing.

It's not about how feminists feel about how Islam treats women. It stems from the belief that critique is only really worthwhile when it comes from within. It's like, actions don't just have one consequence. they have several. It is obvious that women in islamic countries, and muslim women in western countries, struggle more with 'the patriarchy' than western women do. Very few feminists would disagree with this.

At least to me, the issue is to what degree westerners criticizing Islam leads to more liberation of muslim women or whether it leads to Islamic communities becoming more insular - which can be assumed to lead to a slower liberation process. Like, I accept that harsh critique of Christianity was instrumental for the reform of Christianity - but this happened from within. It wouldn't work if it was a bunch of asian Buddhists explaining in what ways reform is needed.
So the idea is basically that inclusiveness must have priority over condemnation, because otherwise the condemnation loses any function (aside from being exclusionary - which I think is a goal for some people). Societal evolution has to happen step by step, or generation by generation - it's a long fight.

To be honest, I'm not saying all, or a majority of, feminists genuinely subscribe to this theory. I think the idea that Peterson responds to when making the idiotic statement - that muslims are higher on the victimhood hierarchy and that this makes many people who identify as feminists consider them a bad target - has some degree of truth to it. I don't care whether right wingers accept this or not, but feminists and leftists really are very genuine in their fight against injustice. Many will genuinely feel that with Muslims already being discriminated against in many ways, piling on to this is counter-productive, and adopt somewhat of a defensive position because they don't want to add to the derision, even if they actually agree with many points of critique. That said politics can also be a factor - I'm not discounting this, in the sense that feminists tend to be leftists who tend to be pro-immigration, immigrants are often muslims so attacking islam ends up being counter-productive to The Cause, but I think that's mostly just for a very small % who are actually involved in politics, not for most people who identify as pro-immigration feminists.

These niggas.....

Peterson is crazy. On the edge. Maybe over the edge. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.