Getting your shit together starter pack - Page 7

Yeah, we've discussed this story in the Truth Discussion Thread instead. I think it's a perfect example as to why avoiding culture war shit is the right thing to do and it's what I should really get back to doing. I think you're playing into reactionary paranoia/propaganda and jumping to conclusions here. These were bad admins making terrible decisions, it's not evidence of a global Marxist conspiracy and "political correctness" ruining academia and the humanities being corrupt (this is the agreed upon narrative of those who talk about this leftist bias you're speaking of, if you are not aware). Speaking of bias, I think if you haven't been manipulated by the media, you can only jump to this conclusion if you had a bias in the first place. There is simply no strong data on this, no reason to jump to this conclusion. If I'm wrong, please show it to me. A subjective uni experience just doesn't cut it. You can extrapolate from this story that there are others like them who suck at doing their job and that's pretty much it. Admins who suck at their job, who would've thunk it! There's probably a dozen good reasons why the left is more prominent in academia but all of this doesn't get any discussion, it's just all attributed to some nebulous bias. Actually that's not entirely true, Baal and I have discussed it fairly recently.

Point being, the neutral, unbiased position here I believe is to say that people have their beliefs and they fuck up. Abuses of power are not exclusive to the left. It's not unbiased to say that this is a systemic problem that was exposed or that this is evidence that passing Bill C-16 was negative. This whole thing is tragic because it's not just incompetent people getting crucified for doing a bad job. If you have a look on the other side of the spectrum, the LGBTQ Death Squad is out for blood thanks to this story. Lindsay is fine now, they are the ones paying the price for this. As always, people will find things to justify their traditional views and this is just the latest thing.

As for the broader issue here that doesn't deal with incompetence, if you have an issue with the university policy and you're a centrist/classic liberal, then I don't think it should be obvious to you that this was just a matter of free speech. There should be a reasonable discussion on whether or not playing this type of material neutrally potentially violates the harm principle. I've not seen this discussion happen. I think if there's something I learned from this thread is that the kind of middle of the road position advocated on this site is really misguided and naive. Most importantly, it's vulnerable to manipulation, but also because it stands for nothing of any worth, it just tries to play it safe and claim that it's in everyone's best interest because it's "not biased". It reminds me of a lecture by Roderick talking about Nietzsche, where he said the following:

"So, you know, it’s hard if one wants to place simple moral blame upon a body of text to go “Well Nietzsche was responsible for Fascism, and damnit now he’s responsible for its opposite number, Anarchism. Why wasn’t he just a damn good Liberal like John Stuart Mill?” Well, he thought Mill was a blockhead. [crowd laughter] You know, “Why wasn’t he just a middle of the roader?”… you know, the current politics that seems to dominate today: a middle of the roader, mainstream.

Well to quote my friend Hightower from Texas, there’s nothing in the middle of the road where I come from except yellow lines and squashed armadillos [crowd laughter]. And so I am glad that Nietzsche’s text isn’t in the middle of the road and it does allow for multiple political uses."

Of course he foresaw that he was going to be responsible for post-modernism too and this is just one more thing that could be blamed on him and for which I'd just have to say fuck it, people can interpret things however they want (which is the point). Even though I don't like the chaos, confusion and harm that these interpretations cause, it's the only world worth something. Aspiring for orderliness, homogeneity and upholding the sacredness of "Western Values", what a joke. Fuck being a middle of the roader, it basically amounts to nothing more than being someone who refuses to learn. That's my rant.

nvm

On November 24 2017 13:30 Loco wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...htwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim Show nested quote + The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation. ... the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think.   The whole story is transparently barmy. If humanities faculties are really geared to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far-left ideology, the composition of western parliaments and presidencies and the roaring success of corporate capitalism suggests they’re doing an astoundingly bad job. Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an all-powerful left.   It allows those smarting from a loss of privilege to be offered the shroud of victimhood, by pointing to a shadowy, omnipresent, quasi-foreign elite who are attempting to destroy all that is good in the world. It offers an explanation for the decline of families, small towns, patriarchal authority, and unchallenged white power: a vast, century-long left wing conspiracy. And it distracts from the most important factor in these changes: capitalism, which demands mobility, whose crises have eroded living standards, and which thus, among other things, undermines the viability of conventional family structures and the traditional lifestyles that conservatives approve of. The story of cultural Marxism is also flexible and can be tailored to fit with the obsessions of a range of right-wing actors. As such, it’s one example of an idea from the extremes which has been mobilised by more mainstream figures and has dragged politics as a whole a little further right.

>cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory
>patriarchal authority and unchallenged white power
thanks 2015 australian guardian op ed

Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values.

this is exactly right, we tried to get power by scamming people into revolution against the bourgeoisie but every country that did that turned to dog shit

so we need something more relateable, and we need to repackage the ideas so people don't realize it's the same old nonsense... how about revolting against cishet white male oppressors instead

Loco, I'm pretty sure you've read the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb, yet your way of thought and arguments are exactly the ones he completely destroys. I mean, you almost always have pretty good arguments but not in this case, I don't think I can make you change your mind though, so don't wanna waste the time of either one of us on the matter

I've not read it but I'm familiar with some of the ideas as I've encountered them elsewhere. I don't think you're abandoning the discussion in the interest of saving time, I think you can't competently back up your claim. I also don't think you get to speak for Mr. Taleb. It's really bad form. Interestingly enough, from what I've read, I have a similar personality and writing style as him. Reviewers say he's arrogant and aggressive, but it doesn't mean he's wrong. If what you're saying is true then please give me a single example of how he destroys my "way of thinking". You don't have to engage me further than that.

Santafairy, if the guardian piece is not legitimate in your eyes, it takes a minute to google it and find out that it is in fact a conspiracy theory.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfu...ol#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

it's marxism that's cultural

rationalwiki always good for a laugh though

I'm certainly saving myself time. You're basing arguments the same way Pluto does in the Republic, quite poorly. The core concept is just assumed as right even though its highly discussable, then naturally everything that follows is simply w/e, that's why I don't even bother reading the full length of your posts in the past 3 pages.

lol Pluto

You're just repeating yourself, it's the third time you make this spiel now, so clearly you're not interested in saving your time. Making vague accusations is no replacement for argumentation.

great thread

Pluto in deep thought. What does philosopher king mean to me?

On November 23 2017 01:54 Loco wrote: If I recall correctly, she doesn't encourage deplatforming them, just not giving them a platform. Pretty big difference.

Lets simply ignore how you justify everything as "all cool" because there is a "big difference". True stuff bro, restrictions are much worse than lack of equal opportunity and both are simply terrible ideas regardless of the subject, regardless of whether you believe that to be true or not.

On November 23 2017 08:29 Loco wrote: The ridiculous ideas have already been exposed, but it doesn't matter, it's a cyclical thing, they always come back and the strategies change. You're saying that in an idiocracy like the one we have now, the best way to get rid of harmful idiots is to give them more air time, I don't think that makes sense. It only allows people who are "on the fence" an opportunity to be swayed. People are ridiculous and they fall for ridiculous things all the time, you have too much faith in "man as a rational animal". People go online and they find the things that will meet them at their level, they don't go online to challenge themselves and "find the truth". They obviously think they are doing that, but the way social media is structured feeds into this illusion and makes it very hard to escape the echo chamber people find themselves in.

Yeah, lets assume that you could have "too much faith" in "people thinking rationally" after all "they fall for ridiculous things all the time" (like the logical fallacy you seem to be falling in here actually- but I guess you are using that word so often that it can never relate to you can it?) and then continue all of our argument based on that, it will simply be so fucking productive.

I bet ridiculous ideas in the past were gotten rid of by ignoring them, not facing them with the pure reality e.g. leading people to knowledge and insight.

But hey, I made a typo so I'm a dumbass and you must be right... well you certainly made me go against my word of saving my time on this instance


P.S. No, I don't like the fact that idiots deserve the same exposure(if not more) either , but its actually a necessary "evil" for progress to even continue.

P.S2 Is it only when people go online that they basically look for stuff @ their level? Or they seek for enlightenment once in the real world? How does a person progress, where do his/her beliefs get challenged exactly? Where and HOW are healthy viewpoints established?

So, there will be a debate soon between Ira Wells and JBP because of this newly published article: https://thewalrus.ca/the-professor-of-piffle/

Should be interesting. First time JBP will have to defend his philosophical misconceptions live.

P.S2 Is it only when people go online that they basically look for stuff @ their level? Or they seek for enlightenment once in the real world? How does a person progress, where do his/her beliefs get challenged exactly? Where and HOW are healthy viewpoints established?

Not necessarily so, but the so-called real world has a tendency to challenge you (sooner or later), while the net (social media) panders to you because all they care about is getting your attention and it's very hard to challenge yourself because you can always just click away to something else. The second part is that due to various factors the net (used socially) is a more hostile environment, which triggers the backfire effect and makes it nearly impossible to learn from others.

As for how to progress intellectually, less browsing and social media use and more reading -- challenging reads -- is a safe bet. Not easy for those whose minds are sclerotic from long-term indulgence, always reduced to the saddest forms of argumentation possible (memes, sarcasm, etc). The last question you ask is extremely important and few people care to ask it. I think the only way is to be interested in the knowledge of knowledge. Not just in the strict epistemological sense, but as it relates to systems thinking, linking the biological, anthropological, noological and sociological spheres as well. In other words, I don't think philosophy on its own is sufficient, I think it's crucial to develop an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary approach. The books that I have recommended to Baal are essentially the most recent "cutting edge" developments which use this approach to try to answer this question.

lol Santafairy Thanks for the laugh

On November 28 2017 07:34 Loco wrote: As for how to progress intellectually, less browsing and social media use and more reading -- challenging reads -- is a safe bet. Not easy for those whose minds are sclerotic from long-term indulgence, always reduced to the saddest forms of argumentation possible (memes, sarcasm, etc)

lol nice. Sarcasm is too fun to completely let go of unfortunately -_-
Fuck memes as arguments though. They are essentially condensed populism and very rarely don't oversimplify to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Complaining about memes and sarcasm on a poker forum ? lolo

Edit: Reminds me of that clip "Dont post OOP on 2p2"

There was no complaining. Technically, this is a poker website, but we're posting in the General forums right now, which makes it irrelevant. Irrelevant like your vapid, tribalistic, "Boo, Loco!" contributions to this thread. Although, most knowledgeable people would agree that it is in the best interest of a poker player to become a critical thinker and that this capacity will be reflected on other areas of his life. So yes, you should expect to see, among successful poker players, a higher likelihood of being able to make substantive, rational arguments on a poker website than most other social places.

not at all lol

EDIT: -EV super acctually for any winning poker player to get into silly arguments on a forum. Memes and sarcasm is +EV. So more of that pls

Memes are mostly terrible these days, as 90% have been hijacked by political trolls, and sarcasm is just passive aggressiveness.

Would say both are -EV for anyone.

Anything that makes your mood worse in some way is -EV. If you think memes are childish and stupid + it offends you its -EV. Things that makes your mood better is +EV. Is the effect it has on me. If posting on a forum its very important to not be offended or get triggered/tilted in some way from it or from other peoples opinion / trolling etc. I made this mistake many many times btw