jordan peterson phenomena - Page 17

On May 29 2019 21:12 Spitfiree wrote: I don't know what you mean by that. Its not like you have a container of processing power for your entire life, sleep resets it.

Of course you do
you read kahneman no?
not for your life but in short term for sure your rational brain is limited and gets tired very fast


And you could use that to directly impact lives (like your one) instead of reading heavy books

speaking of pseudo intellectuals.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/05/the-worlds-most-annoying-man

Sheesh Stroggoz, don't you know that Pinker and Peterson have definitively refuted our 'blank slatism'? They're both experts on gender and biology and you should never question their authority. Ask Baal and he can dig up a study. The study's authors themselves don't even agree with the conclusion he presents, but pay no heed to that!

On May 30 2019 01:03 Baalim wrote: How can someone who shares virtually every belief with SJWs accuses other's of being tribalistic and dogmatic, you keep abscribing me of things I dont think or say over and over and over, I suppose this is why, you can't think of people as individuals, I must belong to a group and I must share their opinions.

Anyone who uses the term SJW unironically discredits himself from rational conversation. 'Tribalism', or in-group/out-group dynamics are a fact of human nature. People have always had group interests. You're not post-human; you've been indoctrinated into an ideology of individualism that has no scientific basis and its roots are easy to retrace. It should be pretty obvious to you that if you had no interest in groups and didn't belong to one you'd have exactly 0 interest in any culture war debate, yet you care so much about it you'll insult me and call me a moron for disagreeing with your claims.

/r/libertarian? lol thats how self absorbed you are, you think everybody goes to Reddit or something, most people even internet people have never gone to reddit, that must be shocking to you lol.

Who gives a shit where you personally got it from? It's a complete red herring. The point is that all those memes you like and share can be found on reddit, which is obviously a "tribe space". Memes are tribalistic and propagandistic in nature, that's why we like them. All of these people who post on that subreddit think exactly the same as you that they are free individuals with no collective identity and they have the best brains on the planet and they reinforce those beliefs among themselves.

In what way are you not 'generic' exactly? The only thing that's not generic about your political views is how confused they are. You can't seem to decide whether you are a libertarian or a confused anti-state capitalist. Your trajectory was surely generic as fuck. I mean, Stefan Molyneux? How many smooth brains has he influenced and exploited? By contrast I was moved apoliticalism to structuralist anarchism by a French neurobiologist who made massive contributions to medicine (he came up with the first antipsychotic) and complexity theory. Yeah, I'm a real generic leftist, just look at that typical entry! lmao. University campus leftists don't even know who this guy is.

Do you know how many American Libertarian think-tanks exist to influence Latin American worldviews and policy (and how successful they have been)? I'll let you find out and I'll even post it in Spanish for you: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/11/e...ventando-a-politica-latino-americana/

Now, how many think-tanks have influenced my views? Where my George Soros funded Laborit-Sapolsky think-tanks at!?

Can you give me an example of a "non-generic leftist"? Someone other than the only leftist you apparently know of (Zizek)?

Psychologically vulnerable is a key phrase, just like kids or mentally ill/retarded people have extra protections, but should adults be responsible for their own choices? of course not, because you know what is good for them and what isnt. So you are going to protect them from their own bad choices, they can't eat what they want, they can't do with their money what their want, they can't hear ideas that you dont like.

Straw man. Other than your complete failure at defending your unscientific voluntarist free will model of human behavior, isn't it interesting how one minute you'll bash me for being an evil collectivist and the next you'll be treating me like an individualist? If I'm a collectivist then it means that I want things to happen democratically, not because I personally want them to because "I hold the truth". But now because you want to save face and you have no counter-argument to what I said, you act as if I have an individual thirst for control over others and I want to exist in a society where I hold this kind of power over others who disagree with me. Maybe this tactic works well with your hippie friends, but it's transparent as hell to a critical thinker.

Also in your ideal society, kids and mentally ill/handicapped people are not granted any protections, you hypocrite.

Is your mom mentally ill or something? if not, damn you must be quite a son lol.

Yes, it's called bourgeois alienation and poverty of spirit. There is an epidemic of it and you suffer from it too. Predatory capitalism capitalizes on it a lot. These games are specifically designed to find "whales" -- vulnerable people with a lot of money to waste on an illusory sense of progress and fulfillment driven by dopamine feedback mechanisms. And unlike with gambling websites, you can't set a maximum amount of money to protect yourself from over-spending. My mom is physically disabled too so she is limited in the types of hobbies (and addictions) that she can have. My father was by contrast a workaholic and exercise addict.

Yeah and the alt-right make people believe that they are also fighting against the white genocide, and you just said that stopping that warrants violence. But theirs is a conspiracy theory, but you are not wrong, they are, so your violence is good, theirs is bad because you are the truth bearer.

This but unironically.

There aren't many things more dangerous in this world that self righteous truth bearers who think violence is a valid method to pursue their noble goals.

Sure there is. There's people who think that ignorance and apathy is a virtue. You for instance don't have to put in any hard work and grow as a person, you've already stumbled upon the correct beliefs 12 years ago or whatever.

I don't side with anybody, I dont belong to any group and these people do not represent my ideas, I disagree with many of their ideas. 2 of them are religious and and all of them are statis who support many wars, you really think you exposed them to me? As if I didnt know we had different ideas? I see your ego is as big as always and you probalby you still don't see it.

You're changing the subject. I said I exposed them to you on their hypocrisy on free speech. Now you're avoiding the issue by saying "I don't agree with all their beliefs" instead.

He built is fame and fortune as an anti-SJW/left figure, a big point free speech in campuses that was under attack from leftist like yourself. You didn't force my hand lol, Peterson is a statist (just like Harris and Shapiro) so they think state intelligence requires secrecy and support those laws, I dont. Wikileaks doesn't publish ideas, they publish secret information and while I support them 100% there is a difference with what those 3 are pursuing if you show to me instances where they have tried to censor leftists or political opponents then you will have indeed exposed their hypocricy to me.

Again, changing the subject. Freedom of speech encompasses freedom of the press. If they don't support freedom of the press, they don't support free speech. You're in denial.

And absolutely I like JBP, he is a force against leftism and I like that.

"Forces against leftism" are good, but you don't have group interests. Funny how that works.

I hold everyone accountable equally regardless or their power I dont share your leftist view of these things you should know that by now, and I dont know what you want, do you think I should despise him because we disagree on some things?

Wait, so you don't think people who have more power have more reason to be extra careful and socially we should expect more of them?

Ok so the values are: Tradition: I hate tradition and culture, just a few posts ago I was discussin this with Spitfire, that hard left and right cling to tradition and culture and that hinders human progress, I dont believe in heritage, culture or race

Of course you believe in culture and heritage. That's why you side with the "The West is great because we figured out individualism is great" ideologues and you use Western exceptionalism/colonialist language like "shithole countries". Gender traditions are also extremely important to you.

human imperfection: Yeah I belive humans are imperfect and make wrong choices, so do you, so I guess we share this conservative value lol

No I don't, because I don't believe this imperfection warrants the existence of capitalism. (I think capitalism was a normal and necessary evolution of society but it no longer is.)

What does God have to do with the free market lol.... "replacing the myth of God with the myth of communism is a common evolution for leftist though. See? I can do that too.

Yes, you can do that and be wrong. "Free markets" have not organically emerged, that is a myth, and so is the following assumption that if the government was out of the way human relationships/society would spontaneously improve because of the "invisible hand". Communism in its expansive sense on the other hand has evolved organically. The kind of social organization that has existed for most of human history was a form of primitive communism.

On May 30 2019 08:34 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On May 29 2019 21:12 Spitfiree wrote: I don't know what you mean by that. Its not like you have a container of processing power for your entire life, sleep resets it. Of course you do you read kahneman no? not for your life but in short term for sure your rational brain is limited and gets tired very fast And you could use that to directly impact lives (like your one) instead of reading heavy books

I mean sure, but I think in terms of EV mostly. Obviously, it's much harder to think in terms of EV in real life, cause we actually get much less data compared to poker so you don't really know how much value you would get out of doing something. You gotta progress as an individual to impact others positively, otherwise you're just the annoying dude that is suffering the Dunning-Kruger effect, no?

On May 30 2019 15:49 Loco wrote: Sheesh Stroggoz, don't you know that Pinker and Peterson have definitively refuted our 'blank slatism'? They're both experts on gender and biology and you should never question their authority. Ask Baal and he can dig up a study. The study's authors themselves don't even agree with the conclusion he presents, but pay no heed to that!

blank slatism has been refuted a million times when it's been presented as a coherent thesis. His work in psychology seems ok for the most part, but his work in politics is some of the most intellectually lazy crap i've read coming from an academic

Oh yeah, as for evidence of the IDW censoring leftists... here's an instance of Sam doing it.

On May 30 2019 18:08 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2019 15:49 Loco wrote: Sheesh Stroggoz, don't you know that Pinker and Peterson have definitively refuted our 'blank slatism'? They're both experts on gender and biology and you should never question their authority. Ask Baal and he can dig up a study. The study's authors themselves don't even agree with the conclusion he presents, but pay no heed to that! blank slatism has been refuted a million times when it's been presented as a coherent thesis. His work in psychology seems ok for the most part, but his work in politics is some of the most intellectually lazy crap i've read coming from an academic

No it's not, 'blank slatism' is a straw-man used to defend biological essentialism and conservatism; no one actually defends the position that genes are irrelevant or almost entirely irrelevant to the way we behave in the social sciences. But maybe you can point me to those books you think offer the best refutation of this supposed thing that is the biology deniers in the social sciences. The only ones that I know of like Pinker's or Wilson's don't even attempt to hide that they are polemics against Marxism.

On May 30 2019 18:15 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2019 18:08 Stroggoz wrote:   On May 30 2019 15:49 Loco wrote: Sheesh Stroggoz, don't you know that Pinker and Peterson have definitively refuted our 'blank slatism'? They're both experts on gender and biology and you should never question their authority. Ask Baal and he can dig up a study. The study's authors themselves don't even agree with the conclusion he presents, but pay no heed to that! blank slatism has been refuted a million times when it's been presented as a coherent thesis. His work in psychology seems ok for the most part, but his work in politics is some of the most intellectually lazy crap i've read coming from an academic No it's not, 'blank slatism' is a straw-man used to defend biological essentialism and conservatism; no one actually defends the position that genes are irrelevant or almost entirely irrelevant to the way we behave in the social sciences. But maybe you can point me to those books you think offer the best refutation of this supposed thing that is the biology deniers in the social sciences. The only ones that I know of like Pinker's or Wilson's don't even attempt to hide that they are polemics against Marxism.

Sounds like you're the one straw manning pinker to be honest, unless ur refering to some statements of his that i havn't seen. When pinker refer's to blank slatism, at least in the work of his that 'ive read; he is refering to a lot of different ideas: from john locke's views up through to behaviorism up and assossiationist theories in neuroscience. Some of them were developed before biology was really around so we can understand john locke's faults, some amusingly did deny biology having a role in the shaping of the mind, like the mid 20th century behaviorists that tried to teach the english language to chimpanzees (doable because biology doesn't play a role in learning langauges, the mind is just a black box). The connectionist neuroscientists david rumelhart, james mcClelland tried to present human knowledge as gained entirely from learning network algorithms, and the only thing that differentiated human minds from rat minds is that we have more braincells than them, with different strategic locations. This denyes genes as having a role in genetically preprogramming abstract thought, and language for example but it doesn't deny genes entirely, and pinker doesn't say that anywhere.

It irks me particularly as someone that is interested in this that so many people think languages are learn't instead of grown. People grow languages, they don't learn them.

But yes i think peterson grossly misuses biology to make transphobic statements, for one, biology doesn't actually have anything to say about gender at all, how we interpret gender will always be a social construction.

He didn't write the book to critique 20th and pre-20th century thought, even though he mentions it... he is making the case in his book that it is currently relevant -- it is supposedly the dominant model in the social sciences as of right now. Do the people that you have mentioned have any significant influence in the social sciences currently? If not, who are the people who advance the tabula rasa model that Pinker is supposedly crusading against? Pinker himself cites people who do not hold that position or they aren't particularly relevant anymore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_social_science_model

Read the criticisms section of this or Pinker's book. The SSSM was constructed to maintain a false dichotomy between it and the evo psych dogma peddled by people like Pinker and Peterson. It's not a real debate in the social sciences and there's pretty much a consensus about it being a straw man. There is however a debate between computationalism (Pinker's model) and connectionism or enactivism. I haven't read on connectionist theories but I believe strongly that enactivism effectively debunks computationalism.

On May 30 2019 17:27 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2019 08:34 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On May 29 2019 21:12 Spitfiree wrote: I don't know what you mean by that. Its not like you have a container of processing power for your entire life, sleep resets it. Of course you do you read kahneman no? not for your life but in short term for sure your rational brain is limited and gets tired very fast And you could use that to directly impact lives (like your one) instead of reading heavy books I mean sure, but I think in terms of EV mostly. Obviously, it's much harder to think in terms of EV in real life, cause we actually get much less data compared to poker so you don't really know how much value you would get out of doing something. You gotta progress as an individual to impact others positively, otherwise you're just the annoying dude that is suffering the Dunning-Kruger effect, no?

Depends on what you read
I doubt stumbling on happiness or The Black Swan from Thaleb made me impact others positively in any way
I gained a lot of knowledge and understanding
Did that make me a better person or help me in what I do day to day? Well maybe Black Swan a little bit in terms of humility that there's things outside of my understanding but largely, not at all .
I gained pleasure from gaining knowledge
Just like I gained pleasure from watching porn of a loving dutch couple fucking the other day

And I'd argue that the latter helped me build my values and impact people around me positively more than the entire Black Swan.


Just look at the stuff these guys are reading and arguing about - how does that impact people around them positively in any way, and how does discussing it on internet forum, or trying to convince the other person of your world view bring higher value than if they actually went out there and talked to actual people instead of reading and discussing this stuff?

Long story short, it doesn't it's entertainment for them and it's them being children trying to figure out things that directly don't impact them and convince others of their incomplete views.
Doesn't make ya better or worse than other people.


And there's not much wrong with people incorrectly judging their own competence in relation to others either, that's just called being human and your brain protecting you.
Heck that's how I can make a living playing fucking cards :D

Btw Robert Greene's "The Laws of Human Nature" is the kind of well researched modern self-help book I expected 12 rules to be so far.
Definitely replacing Paterson on my tram rides

Starts off with history lesson about Pericles and continues by shitting on individual people's natures and them blaming it on bankers and regulators and such in the housing bubble, I was fucking grinning ear to ear listening to that.
Even fucking gave me lessons on dealing with downswings, I'm deeply impressed right after being dissapointed it is a self help book at first, now hope it keeps up.

It started with the smug sensational introduction chapter Paterson style, but actually has substance.


That's what Paterson does btw - says shit that he knows will stir controversy so he makes MONEY and gains FAME, I like how you guys are helping him do that

A lot of the way the Black Swan portrays a person's thought-logic flow is how I function, so it really related to me. On top of that it made me realize of shittons of mistakes in my thought-proccess even though it was close to what the book is describing. With that I'd say I bring much more value to others.

I'm not really trying to convince Loco of anything, we're just clashing logic flows based on knowledge leading to something positive. He's not doing it out of ego, nor am I.

I don't view positivity on happiness and entertainment, that would be very unrealistic to sustain. The positive impact is usually done through a mindset, which has the weigh of ego diminished as further as possible.

Also your last sentence implies the dogmatic belief that "There is no bad advertisement" which is quite untrue. E.g. I would NEVER bring JP in a conversation, nor recommend him to anyone and I'm guessing any sane person would do the same. The same way I wouldn't click links of shitty media, even if its in the midst of an online argument and that article is supposedly a strong-point of some sort. I don't even have a different view of JP compared to Loco, I just believe that the "victim" in mind in that situation deserves his result as it is self-caused and sure there are other factors too, but so are there in all parts of life

There aren't many things more dangerous in this world that self righteous truth bearers who think violence is a valid method to pursue their noble goals.

I am quoting this again because I have to further highlight the complete absurdity and arrogance of this statement in the context of our discussions on this forum. Just think about this for a moment. Baal regards himself as not only the most moral but also the most logical person here. And this statement, to him, is logically rock solid. It's a foundational belief of his. He uses it to position himself as a truly noble and careful thinker over misguided leftists who are too emotional, envious and illogical.

Now think about what he's challenging here: the idea that violence can be justified. Aristotle, who was arguably the most knowledgeable thinker humanity had ever seen for some 2000 years and the founder of formal logic itself, and just war theory, said the following: "We make war so that we may live in peace." So, using violence in order to prevent violence, right? And this is Baal's response to it: "reeeeeeeeeeeeee! That's a contradiction! Hypocrite! That's wrong! That's the logic of misguided leftists who are just as bad as Nazis if not worse!" Over and over again.

Baal and his magnificient, humongous brain, can just dismiss the entire history of philosophical debate on this topic because, with his unshakable logic, he's one of the rare people who has figured out that human beings are too corrupt to use violence for good reasons. Aristotle couldn't figure it out, but Baal has. Not only has he figured it out, but he has figured it out with such ease! How exceptional. Why haven't we begun calling him My Lord?

Baal's position is essentially this: "Fuck thinking. There's no way anyone can figure out when violence is justifiable, unless it's to protect a person's private property rights, of course. I can't explain why, you have to believe this is written in the law of nature: we simply have to respect private property rights and defend them with violence. Other than that, though, there is no debate people can have because it's too dangerous: people are always going to be violent for the wrong reasons and make things worse. I don't care to hear any contrary opinion, and don't fucking challenge me on private property rights because just so you know, 99% of people believe they're good, and that settles it."

Can you get more lazy and ignorant than that? Baal's thinking days have been over some time ago. I think he has enough talking points to throw around to seem knowledgeable and that is sufficient to him. A minute of silence to mourn for Baal's thinking days please.

On May 30 2019 16:41 Loco wrote: Anyone who uses the term SJW unironically discredits himself from rational conversation.

Says the man who uses the term "Free speech warriors"in a mocking manner, being a hypocrite as usual.

'Tribalism', or in-group/out-group dynamics are a fact of human nature. People have always had group interests. You're not post-human; you've been indoctrinated into an ideology of individualism that has no scientific basis and its roots are easy to retrace. It should be pretty obvious to you that if you had no interest in groups and didn't belong to one you'd have exactly 0 interest in any culture war debate, yet you care so much about it you'll insult me and call me a moron for disagreeing with your claims.

I'm obviously not claiming that im transhuman beyond human traits, all I'm saying is that I'm not an identatarian like the left and right are, I dont care about ethnicity, culture, heritage and don't see the world throught he lense of the struggle between those things as you do.

In what way are you not 'generic' exactly? The only thing that's not generic about your political views is how confused they are. You can't seem to decide whether you are a libertarian or a confused anti-state capitalist. Your trajectory was surely generic as fuck. I mean, Stefan Molyneux? How many smooth brains has he influenced and exploited? By contrast I was moved apoliticalism to structuralist anarchism by a French neurobiologist who made massive contributions to medicine (he came up with the first antipsychotic) and complexity theory. Yeah, I'm a real generic leftist, just look at that typical entry! lmao. University campus leftists don't even know who this guy is.

Indeed I have doubts to what extent a tiny government could function better to no government at all and I weight the risk of no size of government being able to contain its own size, I doubt many other things related too, before you complained that I was certain of everything and now that I have doubts or I am confused.

Jesus christ Molyneux again? I saw his videos on anarchism 15 years ago and I liked them, now am I married to him or something?

So the campus leftists dont know who that guy is yet they have the exact same ideas you have, so are you agreeing with JBP that they are being brainwashed by their professors? LOL

Do you know how many American Libertarian think-tanks exist to influence Latin American worldviews and policy (and how successful they have been)? I'll let you find out and I'll even post it in Spanish for you: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/11/e...ventando-a-politica-latino-americana/

Thats not spanish, thats Portuguese you dumbass.

And in Mexico there are like 12 political parties, about half are leftists (labor/sinidicalists), not a single one is libertarian, there is virtually no libertarianism in México, but I guess you will tell me more about my country that you seem to know much better than me lol.

Can you give me an example of a "non-generic leftist"?

Supporting the abolition of private property and supporting free speech or thinking a hard cap on wealth is a neccesity but believing people should own firearms etc.

Having beliefs that go against the left's cannon, you hold all of their values, you even speak like them, "this but unironically", "POC", "voices" etc, anybody could guess your position in any subject just by knowing you are a leftist.

Straw-man. Also in your ideal society, kids and mentally ill/handicapped people are not granted any protections, you hypocrite.

there would be, just different than how they are now.

This but unironically.

all hail the truthbearer!

Sure there is. There's people who think that ignorance and apathy is a virtue. You for instance don't have to put in any hard work and grow as a person, you've already stumbled upon the correct beliefs 12 years ago or whatever.

Yes, you are the only being capable to innervision and growth, I just stumble upon things oh and I'm also an unwashed lightskin.

Again, changing the subject. Freedom of speech encompasses freedom of the press. If they don't support freedom of the press, they don't support free speech. You're in denial.

they talk about the exchanges of ideas, not about state secrets, I'm not in denial if they were censoring other ideas then I would gladly call them hypocrites.

"Forces against leftism" are good, but you don't have group interests. Funny how that works.

I dont want groups which I think will cause a lot of harm to take power.

Wait, so you don't think people who have more power have more reason to be extra careful and socially we should expect more of them?

I guess it depends what you mean, give me an example.

Of course you believe in culture and heritage. That's why you side with the "The West is great because we figured out individualism is great" ideologues and you use Western exceptionalism/colonialist language like "shithole countries". Gender traditions are also extremely important to you.

I broadly believe in individualism it has nothing to do with the fucking west or heritage why is that so hard to understand that you keep insisting on it?

LOL gender traditions? I don't care about them at all, I only acknowledge scientific evidence that the sexes have certain natural predispositions to different interests, if that is proved then to be false I dont care, why do you percieve I care about traditional gender roles?

I think not allowing biological males to dominate on female sports is common sense, nothing to do with traditional gender roles.

I think you dont just straw man my arguments but you have built an entire strawman of me in your head and don't even know what I believe in anymore.

On May 30 2019 22:25 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + There aren't many things more dangerous in this world that self righteous truth bearers who think violence is a valid method to pursue their noble goals. I am quoting this again because I have to further highlight the complete absurdity and arrogance of this statement in the context of our discussions on this forum. Just think about this for a moment. Baal regards himself as not only the most moral but also the most logical person here. And this statement, to him, is logically rock solid. It's a foundational belief of his. He uses it to position himself as a truly noble and careful thinker over misguided leftists who are too emotional, envious and illogical. Now think about what he's challenging here: the idea that violence can be justified. Aristotle, who was arguably the most knowledgeable thinker humanity had ever seen for some 2000 years and the founder of formal logic itself, and just war theory, said the following: "We make war so that we may live in peace." So, using violence in order to prevent violence, right? And this is Baal's response to it: "reeeeeeeeeeeeee! That's a contradiction! Hypocrite! That's wrong! That's the logic of misguided leftists who are just as bad as Nazis if not worse!" Over and over again. Baal and his magnificient, humongous brain, can just dismiss the entire history of philosophical debate on this topic because, with his unshakable logic, he's one of the rare people who has figured out that human beings are too corrupt to use violence for good reasons. Aristotle couldn't figure it out, but Baal has. Not only has he figured it out, but he has figured it out with such ease! How exceptional. Why haven't we begun calling him My Lord? Baal's position is essentially this: "Fuck thinking. There's no way anyone can figure out when violence is justifiable, unless it's to protect a person's private property rights, of course. I can't explain why, you have to believe this is written in the law of nature: we simply have to respect private property rights and defend them with violence. Other than that, though, there is no debate people can have because it's too dangerous: people are always going to be violent for the wrong reasons and make things worse. I don't care to hear any contrary opinion, and don't fucking challenge me on private property rights because just so you know, 99% of people believe they're good, and that settles it." Can you get more lazy and ignorant than that? Baal's thinking days have been over some time ago. I think he has enough talking points to throw around to seem knowledgeable and that is sufficient to him. A minute of silence to mourn for Baal's thinking days please.

Of course I think violence can be justified, Hitler had to be stopped and millions had to die, and millions more will have to die, but we should use violence only in the most extreme cases and only when we have exhausted all other options, we should resist the urge to use it lightly and never use violence against somebody who is expressing his ideas.

You believing in using violence against "wrongthink" and you believe Richard Spencer deserves violence and ANTIFA believes he deserves death, who decides who's words are so heinos they deserve violence, you? the mob? does JBP deserve violence since he is hurting so much people according to you, what about me, you called me a fascist enabler, do fascist enablers get the bullet too? or what kind of harm do you think the mob should dish out to me?

I dont think you should be harmed, nor Zizek or anybody else because I think their ideas are dangerous, no matter how close to power, no matter how close oblivion is, if that makes me Ghandi in your eyes then well... thank you I guess.

On May 30 2019 01:03 Baalim wrote: Is your mom mentally ill or something?

Loco wrote: Yes, it's called bourgeois alienation and poverty of spirit. There is an epidemic of it and you suffer from it too.

You think your own mother is mentally ill with a disease made up by Marx, you see me as somebody who aids genocide. You'r mind has always liked to wander in dark places and I'm sad to see you there,

I swear I'm not trying to insult you, quite the contrary its just a moment of empathy as a fellow traveler in this strange life.

So the campus leftists dont know who that guy is yet they have the exact same ideas you have, so are you agreeing with JBP that they are being brainwashed by their professors? LOL

They don't have the same ideas as me. Literally the only other structuralist I have encountered is Peter Joseph. And you don't even know what structuralism is, so you're not in a position to judge my ideas. Laborit synthesised the work of Freud and Marx with his pioneering work in biology and his understanding of information theory, systems theory and second-order cybernetics. This is not taught in university and it's not influencing leftist circles.

You think that anyone who has integrated Marx's critique of capitalism and takes class analysis seriously is suddenly a "generic leftie" because it's a quick mental shortcut to feel better about your own incapacity and laziness. You have no clue about any of this and you have been taught to remain deliberately ignorant about it.

Also I believe in community self-defense and people owning weapons, so according to you, you can no longer call me a generic leftist!

On May 31 2019 06:40 Baalim wrote: You think your own mother is mentally ill with a disease made up by Marx, you see me as somebody who aids genocide. You'r mind has always liked to wander in dark places and I'm sad to see you there, I swear I'm not trying to insult you, quite the contrary its just a moment of empathy as a fellow traveler in this strange life.

There's no disease made up by Marx. I'm not even using the word alienation in the most common Marxian sense in that sentence. Marx's central concern with alienation was working-class alienation: alienation from the product of one's labor. My mother worked a good job for the government with troubled kids and their families, it doesn't apply to her. I'm using it here broadly to mean the social isolation that comes from living a typical suburban life and the lack of meaning that comes from living in a society where everything is commodified. That is a profoundly unnatural state of things for a human being who is a social animal and defines himself through his social relationships.

She lived her entire life within the framework of the status quo's values: work, family, entertainment, consumerism. Accumulation. Working for a retirement plan, so essentially living for the future, hoping that once you've finished playing your role as a "productive member of society", you'll be able to enjoy your life on your own terms. But when you're exhausted by work and family, you have no time for yourself -- you have no time to develop a self. For most people, there is no energy to be devoted to creative endeavors or intellectual pursuits. Then when you hit retirement, you find out it's not really enjoyable. Your body is wrecked, your mind is underdeveloped, your life has no purpose anymore. You have no way of making yourself feel useful if your family's gone. Social isolation and not feeling useful are preconditions for addiction. And if you have money, well, you'll throw it at anything that numbs the pain for a little while.

Indeed I have doubts to what extent a tiny government could function better to no government at all and I weight the risk of no size of government being able to contain its own size, I doubt many other things related too, before you complained that I was certain of everything and now that I have doubts or I am confused. Jesus christ Molyneux again? I saw his videos on anarchism 15 years ago and I liked them, now am I married to him or something?

I don't have any problem with you having doubts about the place of the state in your ideology. I have a problem with how you present yourself inconsistently in arguments, calling yourself an anarchist when it's convenient, and not being one when it isn't. I also have a problem with you being confused about two intrinsically confused ideologies instead of broadening your field of inquiry. For instance, individualist anarchism is a thing you could have explored a long time ago.

You're the one who insists on my lack of originality of beliefs at every occasion. Might want to drop that line if you don't want me to remind people that you came into political awareness from a brainwashing right-wing pseudo-cult and you're still mostly there ideologically. It's not my fault that your beliefs and arguments almost always consistently overlap with Molyneux still. Just because you didn't "evolve" into a white nationalist like him doesn't mean the association is spurious.

I guess it depends what you mean, give me an example.

People should expect more of a leader who has access to nuke buttons than they should expect of some low wage fast food worker, yes? With the fast food worker, at worst you have an ugly looking sandwich, or it doesn't taste as good; hardly worth fretting about. An incompetent leader with access to nuke buttons on the other hand could do something that affects literally everyone on earth negatively. The more power someone has, the more they can affect others negatively, and the more they should be scrutinized and held to account for what they do and what they don't do. I don't understand why this isn't immediately evident to you.

On May 31 2019 06:29 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2019 22:25 Loco wrote:   There aren't many things more dangerous in this world that self righteous truth bearers who think violence is a valid method to pursue their noble goals. I am quoting this again because I have to further highlight the complete absurdity and arrogance of this statement in the context of our discussions on this forum. Just think about this for a moment. Baal regards himself as not only the most moral but also the most logical person here. And this statement, to him, is logically rock solid. It's a foundational belief of his. He uses it to position himself as a truly noble and careful thinker over misguided leftists who are too emotional, envious and illogical. Now think about what he's challenging here: the idea that violence can be justified. Aristotle, who was arguably the most knowledgeable thinker humanity had ever seen for some 2000 years and the founder of formal logic itself, and just war theory, said the following: "We make war so that we may live in peace." So, using violence in order to prevent violence, right? And this is Baal's response to it: "reeeeeeeeeeeeee! That's a contradiction! Hypocrite! That's wrong! That's the logic of misguided leftists who are just as bad as Nazis if not worse!" Over and over again. Baal and his magnificient, humongous brain, can just dismiss the entire history of philosophical debate on this topic because, with his unshakable logic, he's one of the rare people who has figured out that human beings are too corrupt to use violence for good reasons. Aristotle couldn't figure it out, but Baal has. Not only has he figured it out, but he has figured it out with such ease! How exceptional. Why haven't we begun calling him My Lord? Baal's position is essentially this: "Fuck thinking. There's no way anyone can figure out when violence is justifiable, unless it's to protect a person's private property rights, of course. I can't explain why, you have to believe this is written in the law of nature: we simply have to respect private property rights and defend them with violence. Other than that, though, there is no debate people can have because it's too dangerous: people are always going to be violent for the wrong reasons and make things worse. I don't care to hear any contrary opinion, and don't fucking challenge me on private property rights because just so you know, 99% of people believe they're good, and that settles it." Can you get more lazy and ignorant than that? Baal's thinking days have been over some time ago. I think he has enough talking points to throw around to seem knowledgeable and that is sufficient to him. A minute of silence to mourn for Baal's thinking days please. Of course I think violence can be justified, Hitler had to be stopped and millions had to die, and millions more will have to die, but we should use violence only in the most extreme cases and only when we have exhausted all other options, we should resist the urge to use it lightly and never use violence against somebody who is expressing his ideas. You believing in using violence against "wrongthink" and you believe Richard Spencer deserves violence and ANTIFA believes he deserves death, who decides who's words are so heinos they deserve violence, you? the mob? does JBP deserve violence since he is hurting so much people according to you, what about me, you called me a fascist enabler, do fascist enablers get the bullet too? or what kind of harm do you think the mob should dish out to me? I dont think you should be harmed, nor Zizek or anybody else because I think their ideas are dangerous, no matter how close to power, no matter how close oblivion is, if that makes me Ghandi in your eyes then well... thank you I guess.

For the most part I think your beliefs are harmful, but you are harmless, because you have no power or influence to enact your beliefs to the degree that they are a threat to others. But a case can be made that doing nothing in the face of evil, enabling it to grow, is harmful on its own. That's for people to decide according to their own moral compass. There's nothing I've said that suggested you should be harmed.

Hitler should have been stopped before he was able to kill-- and most importantly torture--millions. I think that it was predictable enough that he would do what he did, based on the ideas he espoused, and waiting for it to happen in order to justify opposing him is a monstrous error. The difference between us is that you don't mind repeating this error. I don't view his ideas as "just another set of ideas in the marketplace of ideas which people can choose from". That's a privilege of the ignorant and the safe (those who are targetted by genocidal intolerance are unlikely to view it this way). We have an enormous amount of literature that helps us understand the workings of fascism now, from which we can build strategies in order to prevent the next Hitler. But it doesn't have to be the next Hitler. It doesn't have to be people who will want to commit brutal medical experimentation on Jews. It just has to be people who think they can threaten the livelihood and existence of people who have done nothing wrong. People whose crime is supposedly simply their existence within a geographical space.

What differentiates you from an anti-fascist is this logic of "never again". "Never again" means everything should be done to prevent these monstruous crimes from ever happening again. It doesn't matter to you and you will not recognize this, but I've said several times it should be done in the most humane way; and certainly not as a revenge against "wrongthink". If you look at the people who are the closest to me ideologically, the Syrian Kurds, they have members of ISIS imprisoned right now. They are not torturing them for the crimes they committed, or for wrongthink. They're educating them, teaching them science, and trying to reform them. But first they had to fight them because fascism always has to be fought and undermined. And they'll fight them again if the threat manifests itself again.

This is the antifa that you don't care to learn about because you've been indoctrinated by know-nothing privileged hypocrites like Joe Rogan to oppose the very idea of anti-fascist activism. It sure is easy to criticize others from your high horse when you do nothing productive to help anyone but yourself and your privileged friends. When's the last time Joe Rogan got a non-wealthy, marginalized person on his podcast? And for all his talk about the value of freedom and democracy, he sure is quiet about the work of genuine freedom fighters around the world. He could have interviewed an internationalist from Syria, many of them are back in the states now. Instead he gets "anarchists" who are always right-wing.

It doesn't make you Gandhi to preach this screed of non-violence, because Gandhi was a scholar and he was involved in acts of resistance; you are not. He could test his ideas and adapt them to the reality he faced, they weren't just abstract. You don't care about testing ideas, you don't care about material and structural analysis, you only care about first principles and imagining that everything that flows from your first principles will lead to optimal outcomes. And these principles, let me remind you again, are essentially covert fascism. And this is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the 'non-generic leftists' you supposedly have respect for.

Non-violence has its place in political activism. The Syrian Kurds for instance have just finished a hunger strike, Imam Sys fasted for 161 days until the Turkish government gave the strikers what they wanted and ended the isolation of Ocalan. This was the right strategy for this goal, but it wouldn't have defeated ISIS in Syria. Different goals require different strategies, and I am all for adapting to what is likely to be the most successful strategy to combat oppression. Violence should be proportionally used to the threat, as I have said before. Fascism is the biggest threat as the world grows more unstable by the day due to the contradictions of capitalism, and that's when it's in the cards.

I'm not out for blood, you just like to portray me as such. If glitterbombing Richard Spencer makes him run for a safe space just as well as a punch, then I'd say go for that. I'm just not going to feel bad when he does get punched, let alone be outraged about it. The idea that "antifa wants Richard Spencer dead" is so hilarious I don't even know what to respond. It's cute that you still think antifa is some centrally organized group of people who all have the same ideas and feelings.

Here's a perfect example of how easy it is to manipulate people and shape public opinion for a fascist. This thread has evidence that goes back 10+ years of Milo being a Neo-Nazi.