vasoline73 United States. Nov 19 2017 08:24. Posts 808
I wish I was smart enough to formulate complete thoughts about some of the topics here but I'm probably not, and I'm certainly not dedicated enough right now to make a full attempt.
I don't think there's anything too wrong with listening to a variety of speakers like those listed above as long as one attempts to critically weed through the good and bad. Can I see it being annoying if someone just parrots another's viewpoint as truth blindly? Sure! It's not something horrible either though.
For instance, Ben Shapiro is someone I will use to clue in on "what news story seems to matter now and why," ie. I find him valuable and honest as a gatekeeper of news (his bias is clear,) but the dude self-promotes and shills in a way that I feel is beneath his level of intelligence/potential. I don't agree with all of his opinions but I do believe he is mostly honest about the way he presents himself. Ben could probably do better for his world view/society if he dropped his entertainer persona... which I feel limits his potential. Who am I to judge (even if I do) when he says or does something I disagree with? I don't see him as the arbitrator of right and wrong. He is popular, makes decisions on how to maximize his brand, and seems to do a good job at whatever he's trying to do. (Probably much better than I do at whatever I'm trying to do.) It's infotainment.
Knowing that it's infotainment (or at least thinking that it is) makes me take people like Ben, Peterson, Harris, Rogan, Nate Silver, etc etc etc and people who seem to live and die by public figures like them with a grain of salt. They will have ideas to consider, occasionally worth thinking about and often ideas that annoy by seeming distasteful, boring, obnoxious, or totally off base (to me.)
The illusion that one person has all the right ideas and is worth following is just that. Plenty of people I respect/admire in some areas I see as having huge blind spots in others.
Overall it's probably a great thing that there are a multitude of voices that attempt to speak honestly on subjects that we can listen to and choose to contemplate (or not contemplate) imo. Even if we feel they, or many of them, are full of shit in certain areas/domains.
On November 19 2017 05:15 Baalim wrote:
argumentum ad verecundiam... lately you have done a lot of those.
And lately I've had to correct you guys' misunderstandings of an appeal to authority a whole lot. An appeal to consensus is not the same as an appeal to an authority. "My friend has a PhD therefore what I'm saying here is true if he agrees with it" is an appeal to authority. Second statement: "Everyone who works in this field and has studied the subject rigorously and whom I've come across thinks this person is wrong." The second is not a strong argument in itself, but it's not a fallacy. It serves the purpose of quickly letting people know that their confidence in their belief should be much lower than it is if there is a consensus against it.
I dont know how he regards himself, he has many interesting things to say, and his "bullying" is simple dissent to the leftist dogma that took a hold of academia and students and is precisely what we need.
And who has appointed himself arbiter of all things objective in order to know what is corrupt/dogma and what isn't? Has this anti-Post-Modern Neo-Marxist agenda been promoted by any reputable people? What actual academic work has been done on it and which would justify this kind of harassment?
It's funny because I found a clip by chance yesterday (unless it's Jungian synchronicity!) between two scientists/philosophers that have been very valuable to my studies and one of them (imo one of the world's greatest geniuses) was making fun of this whole agenda and the way people are so worried about the boogeymen postmodernists (14:40-15:00), and this is from 1998:
I thought wow, this is an old joke and it took two decades before it got so many believers to try and take action against "them".
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
“Jordan Peterson is the most important and influential Canadian thinker since Marshall McLuhan. His international fame and impact continue to grow exponentially. Peterson’s bold interdisciplinary synthesis of psychology, anthropology, science, politics and comparative religion is forming the template for the genuinely humanistic university of the future.” —Camille Paglia
This lady must have been hit in the head hard. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. This is in the "praised by:" section of his new book, "12 Rules for Living" (don't be fooled by the title tho, it's totally not a self-help book, he's totes not a guru...). It's kind of funny to read that quote since there are no praises by any other intellectuals following.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Nov 19 2017 12:57. Posts 5296
There really shouldnt be any respect for postmodernists, they are harmful to society because a lot of stupid people think they know what they are talking about. They are by and large people talking gibberish in the university. Experiments have been conducted by two physicists who showed this to be true, Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. Anyway, the basic experiment, which is known as the sokal affair, consisted of writing a fake journal article using made up words and getting it peer reviewed and published in a reputable post modern academic journal. It's pretty laughable to read the book on this, 'fashionable nonsense' is what it's called.
Here's a basic truism that largely holds true: if an academic/'intellecutal' is the media a lot, they are typically a hack/egotistical/clueless. If they work in their office 70 hours a week and are unknown to the outside world, they probably know a bit more. So we should be high skeptical of anyone in jordan petersons position, but i wont criticize him because i havnt read his work.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
I agree with Stroggoz's post. Not too aware of his works either, but tbh it just seems that he would like to not be censored by a law, which is pretty common sense. Take the law away and the whole argument becomes pointless.
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 19 2017 15:14. Posts 2226
On November 19 2017 03:00 RiKD wrote:
Peterson is pretty good when he sticks to psychology, self-improvement, Big 5 personality, clinical experiences and he has done enough close reading that he can reference Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche pretty well but I just realized we are in another Peterson discussion. I'll have to read that subreddit.
Cliffs on how he is a raging sexist?
I basically had a bad taste in my mouth when a lot of his Christian beliefs started coming to light.
He believes that traditional gender roles are entirely based in biology and contribute to the stability of a society. Recently he came out and tweeted that "“With all the accusations of sex assault emerging (eg Louis CK) we are going to soon remember why sex was traditionally enshrined in marriage.”
men and women are different, in free rich societies they diverge even more than usual
I don't know how people squeeze sexism out of that tweet as it's basically saying men should only fuck their wives and not roofy actresses in hotels
or is that part and parcel of sexual liberation
On November 19 2017 03:24 Loco wrote:
He said last month that the problem with "crazy" women is that you aren't allowed to beat them.
crazy women mistake the deference given to the fairer sex as dominance, and so delude themselves into thinking they're competent when really men are playing by different social rules because men and women not same
what he did not say is you should be allowed to beat women, but he does make interesting observations about society
the answer he gave to the problem, which you probably can't even say exists because no women are crazy right that's sexist, was that sane women should fix crazy women, and that they don't because they're busy doing things sane women do and the crazy women are busy being harpies, and that's as far as the clip got and it's an interesting issue because crazy women are civilization wrecking balls
but anyway that was a great video thanks I especially enjoy that the secretary interviewing him was so quiet and internalized misogynist so she kept herself from interrupting him when a man was spewing his sexist screed
On November 19 2017 03:24 Loco wrote:
He also said that "feminists don't criticize Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance."
do you think feminists not criticizing Islam is adequately explained only by other reasons, then? because he didn't say this to the exclusion of those it's just an interesting idea
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
I thought wow, this is an old joke and it took two decades before it got so many believers to try and take action against "them".
that's an interesting video but I struggled with Von Foerster's accent a lot while watching
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
Last edit: 19/11/2017 15:25
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 19 2017 18:56. Posts 3093
Firstly feminists do criticize islam so I don't agree with the premise that they don't. But to the degree where you can observe that they don't, it has absolutely nothing to do with an unconscious longing for masculine dominance, that's fucking absurd. Feminists not being that vocal about opposition to islam is easily explainable through one simple factor and logical deductions of that: feminists are almost always leftists. Leftists are almost always pro-immigration. A lot of immigrants are muslim and thus a pro-immigration and anti-muslim pov are difficult to combine. Focusing on how bad muslims are would essentially attack their own political agenda. Then there's the argument that focusing on external rather than internal problems is pointless; I have no problems accepting that Islam in the middle east is 'worse' than christianity in the west is, but being that I live in the west, criticizing Christianity in the West is still far more productive and likely to spur political change.
(note that while leftisism, feminism and pro-immigration are all independent thoughts, they are also stances that originate from a similar point of departure, wanting a more equitable society (because this corresponds to a more just society),so people who believe in one of these should usually also believe in the other two.)
Political beliefs influencing scientific belief happens all the time. (Though tbh this is not really what happens with feminists "not criticizing islam" (although they do), but it is related.)
The reason why right wingers are less likely to believe in climate change wasn't originally that they are more likely to be scientifically illiterate idiots, it's that all the political solutions to climate change require more regulation and government action. Like, if not for the linkages between various political attitudes, you could expect lack of scientific acceptance for X to be the same across party lines, but it's not. Leftists are more willing to reject scientific consensus on GMO, right wingers are more likely to reject scientific consensus on everything else.
On November 19 2017 11:57 Stroggoz wrote:
There really shouldnt be any respect for postmodernists, they are harmful to society because a lot of stupid people think they know what they are talking about. They are by and large people talking gibberish in the university. Experiments have been conducted by two physicists who showed this to be true, Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. Anyway, the basic experiment, which is known as the sokal affair, consisted of writing a fake journal article using made up words and getting it peer reviewed and published in a reputable post modern academic journal. It's pretty laughable to read the book on this, 'fashionable nonsense' is what it's called.
Here's a basic truism that largely holds true: if an academic/'intellecutal' is the media a lot, they are typically a hack/egotistical/clueless. If they work in their office 70 hours a week and are unknown to the outside world, they probably know a bit more. So we should be high skeptical of anyone in jordan petersons position, but i wont criticize him because i havnt read his work.
Sokal is brought up at the end of the video I posted above your post. You have a very simplistic understanding of postmodernism and what the Sokal affair actually meant which leads you into making an illegitimate generalization about "postmodernism". I'm not a fan of post-structuralists myself (with the exception of Barthes maybe) but this rhetoric that goes around and the people who spread it is troublesome. Every time I see someone being pushed on this they show an inability to mention specific authors and contextualize their ideas and they turn postmodernism into some strange boogeyman for everything they basically disagree with. Anyway, I posted a debate a while ago which goes into the nuances of the Sokal affair at some point. I recommend you watch it. The physicist in the debate brought it up in a similar fashion as you just did here but he recanted his position later on.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 19/11/2017 22:35
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Nov 19 2017 22:20. Posts 5296
On November 19 2017 11:57 Stroggoz wrote:
There really shouldnt be any respect for postmodernists, they are harmful to society because a lot of stupid people think they know what they are talking about. They are by and large people talking gibberish in the university. Experiments have been conducted by two physicists who showed this to be true, Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. Anyway, the basic experiment, which is known as the sokal affair, consisted of writing a fake journal article using made up words and getting it peer reviewed and published in a reputable post modern academic journal. It's pretty laughable to read the book on this, 'fashionable nonsense' is what it's called.
Here's a basic truism that largely holds true: if an academic/'intellecutal' is the media a lot, they are typically a hack/egotistical/clueless. If they work in their office 70 hours a week and are unknown to the outside world, they probably know a bit more. So we should be high skeptical of anyone in jordan petersons position, but i wont criticize him because i havnt read his work.
Sokal is brought up at the end of the video I posted above your post. You have a very simplistic understanding of postmodernism and what the Sokal affair actually meant. I posted a debate a while ago which goes into the nuances of it at some point. I recommend you watch it. The physicist in the debate brought it up in a similar fashion as you just did here but he recanted his position later on.
Can you actually explain what is wrong with my views other than saying it's 'simplistic.' I said by and large the people known as postmodernists are talking gibberish and basically have no clue what they are talking about, which i think is a correct and simplified attack on the postmodernist movement in academia, given the results of the sokal affair. Which, i know just focused on what was being said about physics and maths by postmodernists, but it generalizes. is that wrong?
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
I was editing my post to add some more detail while you were writing yours. Yes, you're wrong about extrapolating that much from the Sokal affair. My thoughts on it are echoed in the video you just quoted so you can just listen to that.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On November 19 2017 05:15 Baalim wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 19 2017 02:28 Loco wrote:
the idea of there having less harm and more fairness in the world? What liberal values do you think I hold and which I'm not aware of?[/b]
people pursuing fairness have burnt the world many times, and for example you are not aware of your sexism-pranoia, you called Peterson a raging sexist, that is just crazy
[quote]
How am I guru-like? I've been passionate about philosophy for many years and I pursued my interests autodidactically. I've also been disillusioned about how much philosophy can be of any help. My favorite thinkers are two people who were radical in their youth and became disillusioned and spent the rest of their lives exploring how to live with as few illusions as possible. "More than anyone else on this forum." Honestly, that's by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. And putting "guru" in quotes, rofl. Peterson is the epitome of a guru. Look at the amount of money he earns per month to tell people how to live their lives and tell them who is an enemy of his sacrosanct Western Values and who isn't. Please.
I didnt say you were guru-like, I said you like following gurus more than anybody else in here.
That's what I read at first and I wrote a reply to that, but then I reread your statement which says:
"yet you are probably like other "gurus" more than anybody else in this entire forum."
So I edited my post. Ok, so, which gurus do I like? I thought you said I was an independent thinker? If I like gurus more than anybody else on this entire forum, that says quite the opposite. Means I need people to tell me what to think, because that's what gurus are for.
Oh I typed wrong then.
I only framed gurus under your own terms, I mean, what makes you believe these people tell their minions what to believe and they do it so out of blind devoltion yet when you read Schopenhauer its you critically analizing what he says and rationally accepting or rejecting their ideas?
I wasn't aware that conservatism and sexism were mutually exclusive, good to know. Also lol if you think the only thing that tweet says is that he has a silly belief about sex and marriage. That's the least ridiculous part of the tweet. And you know as well as I do that I just picked one recent example to show to RiKD but his beliefs conform pretty much 100% with traditional sexist beliefs. He thinks women who don't have children miss out on their main purpose in life. His beliefs are so strong there that he even denies overpopulation.
They are not mutually exclusive, but they arent the same thing, yes he pushes idiotic traditional beliefs of procreation but I havent seen something specifically "raging sexist" because if saying that is raging sexism then I guess we have way difference ideas of what raging is.
"Extremists can be violent, therefore we should be able to beat women and what keeps a conversation civil is the threat of violence. I can show you more examples of extremists being violent while pacifists take it, if you don't believe such a thing exists." Yawn.
more dishoensty, Peterson never said we should be able to beat women, he said you cannot control CRAZY which means extremist feminists becaues they can be violent without recieving any violence back.
[Yep he sure is, and that's an instance of him making a sweeping generalization that he can't back up with any solid evidence. Or am I just not aware of the many replicated studies that show this is true? Help me out if that's the case.
But I thought that the opinions of professionals were far more important than the one of random people in the internet who get into heated political arguments?... see? I can make stupid argumentum ad verecundiam too!
to what do you attribute feminists supporting Islam?
Well, first of all, where did you learn that feminists support Islam? I'm not informed on the matter, but it sounds like one of those things that gets repeated within an echo chamber and is assumed to be self-evident as a result. I'm pretty sure there are feminists that criticize islam, but let's assume there aren't many. Seems like a complex answer is required there, certainly one that's a lot more complex than jumping to a conclusion and pandering to an audience that pays me $100k+ per month. I don't know, maybe because progressives defend minorities regardless of their views?[/QUOTE]
For some self destructive reason I somewhat follow the subject so yes I've learned that the feminist standard is to defend Islam, for example, the womens march symbol was a a woman in a hijab, which is obviously a misoginistic islamic garment, I can post you endless articles, posts etc about feminists aligning with Islam, I believe mainly because their enemy is the patriarchy which is mostly western civilization and Islam is also at odds against that, and no its not because they just protect minorities, they dont protect jews, Linda Sarsour one of the most prominent if not the most prominent feminist in the past years is quite openly anti-semitic.
But for the record yeah its pretty retarded to make a claim about being subconsciously attrackted to muslim opression, I was just fishing to see what you thought about the feminist/islam thing
On November 19 2017 17:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Firstly feminists do criticize islam so I don't agree with the premise that they don't. But to the degree where you can observe that they don't, it has absolutely nothing to do with an unconscious longing for masculine dominance, that's fucking absurd. Feminists not being that vocal about opposition to islam is easily explainable through one simple factor and logical deductions of that: feminists are almost always leftists. Leftists are almost always pro-immigration. A lot of immigrants are muslim and thus a pro-immigration and anti-muslim pov are difficult to combine. Focusing on how bad muslims are would essentially attack their own political agenda. Then there's the argument that focusing on external rather than internal problems is pointless; I have no problems accepting that Islam in the middle east is 'worse' than christianity in the west is, but being that I live in the west, criticizing Christianity in the West is still far more productive and likely to spur political change.
(note that while leftisism, feminism and pro-immigration are all independent thoughts, they are also stances that originate from a similar point of departure, wanting a more equitable society (because this corresponds to a more just society),so people who believe in one of these should usually also believe in the other two.)
Political beliefs influencing scientific belief happens all the time. (Though tbh this is not really what happens with feminists "not criticizing islam" (although they do), but it is related.)
The reason why right wingers are less likely to believe in climate change wasn't originally that they are more likely to be scientifically illiterate idiots, it's that all the political solutions to climate change require more regulation and government action. Like, if not for the linkages between various political attitudes, you could expect lack of scientific acceptance for X to be the same across party lines, but it's not. Leftists are more willing to reject scientific consensus on GMO, right wingers are more likely to reject scientific consensus on everything else.
I agree with almost every word, its ridiculous to think its longing for dominance, they align with it because they align with the left and people support/oppose science based on their political agenda.
The only thing I disagree with is that feminist criticize Islam, some tiny amount do and they are ostracized by the community mainly because as you say politics, the right pushes against Islam, use of veils etc, so feminists take a pro-hijab stance without realizing the huge contradiction.
Besides that we agree totally, I'm thinking I give the impression to be way more right wing than I am to people who align with the left like you and the opposite happens with conservatives like wobbly who recently called me a SJW
On November 19 2017 05:15 Baalim wrote:
argumentum ad verecundiam... lately you have done a lot of those.
And lately I've had to correct you guys' misunderstandings of an appeal to authority a whole lot. An appeal to consensus is not the same as an appeal to an authority. "My friend has a PhD therefore what I'm saying here is true if he agrees with it" is an appeal to authority. Second statement: "Everyone who works in this field and has studied the subject rigorously and whom I've come across thinks this person is wrong." The second is not a strong argument in itself, but it's not a fallacy. It serves the purpose of quickly letting people know that their confidence in their belief should be much lower than it is if there is a consensus against it.
And the consensus is your profesional philosopher friends? all right, totally not argumentum ad verecundiam lol.
Even in the case of concensus in a field, while that obviously holds a lot of weight if the idea itself is being questioned the argument of consensus is not enough because you either acknowledge ignorance on the subject and withdraw from the discussion or you elaborate on the actual evidence or rational argument
They're not exactly my friends, they are the academics who run the /askphilosophy subreddit. If I am totally not credible to you, you can start here to explore their criticisms. The actual evidence is that there is no evidence of that conspiracy to be found, and that the people who have read Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Barthes, etc, are constantly responding that he's misrepresenting them and giving their reasoning. What has been his response? Oh yeah, nothing at all, he only goes on podcasts that agree with him and think he's an intellectual giant because that's what rakes in the views and the Patreon bucks. Are we really going to go back to our previous argument where you thought the burden of proof was on me to discredit his ideas, when those ideas have never been legitimized in the first place? The whole shtick is traced back to a book by Stephen Hicks, an objectivist, is that good enough evidence to you that it's credible? I know you were naive enough to fall for Molyneux's own objectivism but surely you've grown out of that by now since you've said many years ago you had been disillusioned. I'm not sure what it is you're defending here.
I knew you would mention Schopenhauer since you literally know nothing about my intellectual interests and he's someone I've quoted often in the past. It's pretty clear that Schopenhauer was a legitimate philosopher and not a guru. You have to be pretty desperate to think someone who preceded the self-help movement and who wrote that life was a mistake could be considered some kind of guru. But let's assume that you're right, that still doesn't say anything about me being attracted to gurus more than anyone else on this site. It's also pretty easy to know that I'm not a German Idealist and a sexist like Schopenhauer was. If you could point me to any post that suggests that I have assimilated Schopenhauer's philosophy uncritically then maybe you'd have a point, but I doubt you can do that, since I don't even subscribe to his philosophy as a whole (it's pretty outdated).
I initially wrote that JBP is transphobic and sexist and I edited out transphobic because I didn't want to repeat the same tired argument I've already had with LP transphobes. So I felt like I needed to replace the word with something and raging was the first thing that came to my mind for whatever reason. I was using it informally to mean "tremendous", but fine, I'll take it back, whatever. Little did I know you guys are so easily fooled you don't even think he's sexist at all. I think his "raging" sexism is simply inhibited (and in the instances of his transphobia, which is a form of sexism, that inhibition faltered a few times). This is someone who relies on society to tell him what's acceptable and what isn't. Put him back 200 years ago and this is someone who would have happily defended slave-owning. The idea that he's not sexist, i.e. he doesn't discriminate based on gender, is laughable and can only be entertained by the people within his own echo chamber and the people who have had the wool pulled over their eyes by his rhetorical tricks.
what makes you believe these people tell their minions what to believe and they do it so out of blind devoltion yet when you read Schopenhauer its you critically analizing what he says and rationally accepting or rejecting their ideas?
I've seen the YouTube comment sections, I've seen his subreddit, I've seen people argue with his followers (on this, this comment thread is very accurate in my experience), I've even argued with a few myself. One of my main interests deals with the possessive nature of ideas (noology), the inherent fanaticism of human beings, their desire for certainty (see Cartesian anxiety) and it's easy to see that his followers are largely ignorant of those drives within themselves. I guess the main difference between my approach to knowledge and theirs is that I'm interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake, unlike them. If you're interested in knowledge you'll develop your critical thinking skills and think in a complex manner, something you won't be doing when you're constantly involved in self-serving endeavors or trivial debates over culture wars topics.
Here's a question along the lines of the one you've asked me. How do you know to which degree I'm engaging in intellectual snobbism and to which degree it is you who is engaging in anti-intellectualism (or being intellectually lazy)?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
So, I have heard Psychology has pretty horrible scientific standards.
What is sexist?
Based on the Big 5 Personality test women score high on neuroticism and agreeableness. (How reliable is this test?)
Since women score high on neuroticism and agreeableness they should be something like a nurse or a secretary where they can help people and they don't have to be in high stress situations like negotiating.
Also, Loco has a point. That is another big thing with Peterson. He'll go off on a rabid tangent on how bad Pomo is and how they are all lepers and we should all stay very far and very against them. He does not really express why and just attacks them. Off course none of his YouTube videos include discussion with bright Pomo thinkers. He does this with Pomo, anti-natalism, nihilism, atheism, etc. I am surprised he even went on Sam Harris's podcast to discuss Truth but I guess Sam has a lot of listeners. Boy, that was a shit show. If Peterson was really in it for good as the motive like he says he is he would engage true intellectuals on these topics not just pander to 18-40 year old men looking to self-radicalize. In the ladder area he gets a lot right but that does not mean he does not get some stuff very very wrong.
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 20 2017 06:21. Posts 3093
On November 19 2017 17:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Firstly feminists do criticize islam so I don't agree with the premise that they don't. But to the degree where you can observe that they don't, it has absolutely nothing to do with an unconscious longing for masculine dominance, that's fucking absurd. Feminists not being that vocal about opposition to islam is easily explainable through one simple factor and logical deductions of that: feminists are almost always leftists. Leftists are almost always pro-immigration. A lot of immigrants are muslim and thus a pro-immigration and anti-muslim pov are difficult to combine. Focusing on how bad muslims are would essentially attack their own political agenda. Then there's the argument that focusing on external rather than internal problems is pointless; I have no problems accepting that Islam in the middle east is 'worse' than christianity in the west is, but being that I live in the west, criticizing Christianity in the West is still far more productive and likely to spur political change.
(note that while leftisism, feminism and pro-immigration are all independent thoughts, they are also stances that originate from a similar point of departure, wanting a more equitable society (because this corresponds to a more just society),so people who believe in one of these should usually also believe in the other two.)
Political beliefs influencing scientific belief happens all the time. (Though tbh this is not really what happens with feminists "not criticizing islam" (although they do), but it is related.)
The reason why right wingers are less likely to believe in climate change wasn't originally that they are more likely to be scientifically illiterate idiots, it's that all the political solutions to climate change require more regulation and government action. Like, if not for the linkages between various political attitudes, you could expect lack of scientific acceptance for X to be the same across party lines, but it's not. Leftists are more willing to reject scientific consensus on GMO, right wingers are more likely to reject scientific consensus on everything else.
I agree with almost every word, its ridiculous to think its longing for dominance, they align with it because they align with the left and people support/oppose science based on their political agenda.
The only thing I disagree with is that feminist criticize Islam, some tiny amount do and they are ostracized by the community mainly because as you say politics, the right pushes against Islam, use of veils etc, so feminists take a pro-hijab stance without realizing the huge contradiction.
Besides that we agree totally, I'm thinking I give the impression to be way more right wing than I am to people who align with the left like you and the opposite happens with conservatives like wobbly who recently called me a SJW
I'm not doing a precise count here, but that looks like a list over 200 or so currently living artists or writers or activists or intellectuals who have by some metric been influential members of 'the feminist movement'. Linda Sarsour doesn't make the cut. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani both do. I grant you that most feminists don't really relate themselves to Islam (it's not relevant for them; because a) criticizing a society from the outside doesn't yield positive results, b) in the west, male muslims are discriminated against as well and the same mechanisms that made those girls feminists make them opposed to anti-muslim discrimination, too, c) politics.
On November 19 2017 17:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Firstly feminists do criticize islam so I don't agree with the premise that they don't. But to the degree where you can observe that they don't, it has absolutely nothing to do with an unconscious longing for masculine dominance, that's fucking absurd. Feminists not being that vocal about opposition to islam is easily explainable through one simple factor and logical deductions of that: feminists are almost always leftists. Leftists are almost always pro-immigration. A lot of immigrants are muslim and thus a pro-immigration and anti-muslim pov are difficult to combine. Focusing on how bad muslims are would essentially attack their own political agenda. Then there's the argument that focusing on external rather than internal problems is pointless; I have no problems accepting that Islam in the middle east is 'worse' than christianity in the west is, but being that I live in the west, criticizing Christianity in the West is still far more productive and likely to spur political change.
(note that while leftisism, feminism and pro-immigration are all independent thoughts, they are also stances that originate from a similar point of departure, wanting a more equitable society (because this corresponds to a more just society),so people who believe in one of these should usually also believe in the other two.)
Political beliefs influencing scientific belief happens all the time. (Though tbh this is not really what happens with feminists "not criticizing islam" (although they do), but it is related.)
The reason why right wingers are less likely to believe in climate change wasn't originally that they are more likely to be scientifically illiterate idiots, it's that all the political solutions to climate change require more regulation and government action. Like, if not for the linkages between various political attitudes, you could expect lack of scientific acceptance for X to be the same across party lines, but it's not. Leftists are more willing to reject scientific consensus on GMO, right wingers are more likely to reject scientific consensus on everything else.
I agree with almost every word, its ridiculous to think its longing for dominance, they align with it because they align with the left and people support/oppose science based on their political agenda.
The only thing I disagree with is that feminist criticize Islam, some tiny amount do and they are ostracized by the community mainly because as you say politics, the right pushes against Islam, use of veils etc, so feminists take a pro-hijab stance without realizing the huge contradiction.
Besides that we agree totally, I'm thinking I give the impression to be way more right wing than I am to people who align with the left like you and the opposite happens with conservatives like wobbly who recently called me a SJW
I'm not doing a precise count here, but that looks like a list over 200 or so currently living artists or writers or activists or intellectuals who have by some metric been influential members of 'the feminist movement'. Linda Sarsour doesn't make the cut. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani both do. I grant you that most feminists don't really relate themselves to Islam (it's not relevant for them; because a) criticizing a society from the outside doesn't yield positive results, b) in the west, male muslims are discriminated against as well and the same mechanisms that made those girls feminists make them opposed to anti-muslim discrimination, too, c) politics.
She has 250k followers, perhaps she doesnt have alot of academic weight but she is very famous, she is also one of the leader organizers of the Women's March.
On November 20 2017 02:27 Loco wrote:
They're not exactly my friends, they are the academics who run the /askphilosophy subreddit. If I am totally not credible to you, you can start here to explore their criticisms. The actual evidence is that there is no evidence of that conspiracy to be found, and that the people who have read Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Barthes, etc, are constantly responding that he's misrepresenting them and giving their reasoning. What has been his response? Oh yeah, nothing at all, he only goes on podcasts that agree with him and think he's an intellectual giant because that's what rakes in the views and the Patreon bucks. Are we really going to go back to our previous argument where you thought the burden of proof was on me to discredit his ideas, when those ideas have never been legitimized in the first place? The whole shtick is traced back to a book by Stephen Hicks, an objectivist, is that good enough evidence to you that it's credible? I know you were naive enough to fall for Molyneux's own objectivism but surely you've grown out of that by now since you've said many years ago you had been disillusioned. I'm not sure what it is you're defending here.
Its still an argument appealing to authority when your claim is that these people in reddit agree that JBP is a hoax.
Its not a conspiracy obviously, its simply people taking postmodernist ideas and pursue their own agendas and biases with them, it wasnt a Nietzschenian conspiracy to fuel nazism, but they took some of their ideas and pursued their own twisted view of the world, about direct criticism about postmodernist philosophers you can read what Noam Chomsky said, I think he does a better job than JBP.
I wasnt "fooled" by Molyneux I agreed with his anarchocapitalist views, then later on I discovered he believed in a lot of stupid shit, but I still agree with most of his anarchic views, the same happens with JBP, I think he has very good insights particuarly in the psychological and pragmatic advice area, but I too see his huge blind spots and wrong ideas.
I knew you would mention Schopenhauer since you literally know nothing about my intellectual interests and he's someone I've quoted often in the past. It's pretty clear that Schopenhauer was a legitimate philosopher and not a guru. You have to be pretty desperate to think someone who preceded the self-help movement and who wrote that life was a mistake could be considered some kind of guru. But let's assume that you're right, that still doesn't say anything about me being attracted to gurus more than anyone else on this site. It's also pretty easy to know that I'm not a German Idealist and a sexist like Schopenhauer was. If you could point me to any post that suggests that I have assimilated Schopenhauer's philosophy uncritically then maybe you'd have a point, but I doubt you can do that, since I don't even subscribe to his philosophy as a whole (it's pretty outdated).
I mentioned Shopenhauer because I know we both like his stuff, but as you said you can learn from him without having to also take his sexist ideas, the same can happen with JBP (obv im not implying they are on the same lvl), but you dont grant the people who listen to him this possibility.
I initially wrote that JBP is transphobic and sexist and I edited out transphobic because I didn't want to repeat the same tired argument I've already had with LP transphobes. So I felt like I needed to replace the word with something and raging was the first thing that came to my mind for whatever reason. I was using it informally to mean "tremendous", but fine, I'll take it back, whatever. Little did I know you guys are so easily fooled you don't even think he's sexist at all. I think his "raging" sexism is simply inhibited (and in the instances of his transphobia, which is a form of sexism, that inhibition faltered a few times). This is someone who relies on society to tell him what's acceptable and what isn't. Put him back 200 years ago and this is someone who would have happily defended slave-owning. The idea that he's not sexist, i.e. he doesn't discriminate based on gender, is laughable and can only be entertained by the people within his own echo chamber and the people who have had the wool pulled over their eyes by his rhetorical tricks.
Agreed he is very conservative thus can't see past the social paradigm, his conservative views make him fall in a sexist category, (thinking having children is essential to women as you said for example), but he isnt raging sexist, and why is he transphobic, all I've seen him do is refuse to adress people with their own pronoun, I think he said that if someone looks certain gender he will call that person that gender, like if a trans-girl who looks like a girl he wont call her "he", he simply dont want to be forced to call some attention whore in black lipstick "XER".
I've seen the YouTube comment sections, I've seen his subreddit, I've seen people argue with his followers (on this, this comment thread is very accurate in my experience), I've even argued with a few myself.
Well I've also read the youtube comments, I havent argued against these people perhaps is where this difference of opinions come from, you have dealt with the minions and thats why you dislike the whole thing
Here's a question along the lines of the one you've asked me. How do you know to which degree I'm engaging in intellectual snobbism and to which degree it is you who is engaging in anti-intellectualism (or being intellectually lazy)?
Well I do know that I fall for these petty discussions/topics for some reason I've always enjoyed them knowingly knowing its intellectually lazy, and I also feel intellectual snobbism from you, but to which degree that is only something you can know.
United States. Nov 20 2017 04:09. Posts 8535
