jordan peterson phenomena - Page 18

Doing the Lord's work, fighting dragons side by side with George W. Bush.



"PHP Agency is a multilevel marketing company, meaning that it makes money when people recruit lower-ranking members, who then funnel their sales commissions upwards. Agents move up through the ranks based on their recruitment rates, according to a 2016 PHP fact sheet on “compensations and promotional guidelines.”

But much of PHP’s income appears to come from fees paid by the recruits themselves, according to complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau. Its PHP page is littered with complaints. Multiple people complained that someone had persuaded them to join their insurance team and pay $150 for “training material,” plus a monthly recurring fee of $14.95. A Reddit forum devoted to discussions of multilevel marketing companies is filled with similar horror stories about the company, with tales of PHP agents pressuring friends and family members to pay initiation fees to join the company and savings squandered on PHP Agency trainings."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/george-...ltilevel-marketing-company-php-agency

I don't understand why MLMs are legal anywhere, they're all ponzi schemes.

Stay away from MLM schemes. I met this guy (Frank) who seemed legit in a corporate networking/training thing for corporate employees who were looking for jobs. My former employer had graciously set this up for me. Well, I was pretty desperate at this point and I get a call saying this guy is friends with Frank and wants to interview me for a job opportunity. He was pretty ambiguous about the whole thing but I figured, hell, Frank is a great guy I'll have coffee with this guy (Bill). The guy was a great salesman. Very soft selling the whole thing. He actually got me believing a little bit that I could be more successful than the average person. It was the first time I had encountered MLM. He gave me a book by Robert Kiyosaki and told me to read it and we'll meet again in a week. I went home researched it and promptly canceled Frank and Bill and threw the Kiyosaki in the trash. Oh, that last part is not true. I had to meet with him again to return the materials he loaned me. Luckily, there was no hard selling. I cordially handed him the materials and left.

Anyone, associated with MLM schemes is a sham and I'm not surprised JBP, Kobe, or George W. are associated with it (I don't know the others).

On May 31 2019 17:14 Loco wrote: Also I believe in community self-defense and people owning weapons, so according to you, you can no longer call me a generic leftist!

Do you mean in your anarchist utopia or currently? what I mean is, do you currently support people's right to own gun like the US 2nd amendment?

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.

That's indeed a common pitfall, but it can be avoided without much problem, I took some risks early in life to avoid that and I think I succeeded in avoiding this.

Also even if you are naive enough to believe erradicating 5 to 9 jobs would make people happy the real question is, can you do that without total economic collapse right now? no. (I know you think we can)

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.

I dont ever present myself as anon-anarchist, I concede than certain regulations etc seem to be better than an anarchy, that doesn't mean I just suddently become a statist, and I dont like individual anarchistm at all

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.

And your arguments overlap with the ideas of many mass murderers more than mine do with Molyneux, I guess I gotta bring the Stalin/Mao references back since you refuse to let this go.

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.

this sounds reasonable, you think I leave JBP off the hook easily? its not like im debating him, I would give him a lot of shit on his religious crap and many other things, I think you mistakenly believe I idolize him only because I enjoy his anti-left work.

On May 31 2019 18:33 Loco wrote: 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.

So if some crazy leftists think its justified and seriously harms me you are morally ok with that?

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.

Stalin should have been stopped before he was able to kill and starve millions.

That knife cuts both ways, and morally justify the right to push give your comrades "helicopter rides"

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.

So no revenge, just rightful violence and gulags.

ISIS have to be dealt with violence because they are literally carrying weapons attacking people, if Nazis do that then absolutely obliterate them.

Do you think we should attack muslims who believe in the caliphate because they might become ISIS warrios?, if not, what is the difference between that and white supremacists?

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.

yeah he should have more random hobos to balance the privilege scale -_-

Pretty sure that if people suggested him some badass kurd who fought in Syria he would absolutely have him in his show, don't you know Rogan at all?

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.

Its crazy to me how yo dont see that censorship, violence, theats and intimidation instead of debate have the opposite effect and simply pushes centrist to the right, ANTIFA swayed more votes in favor of Trump than a hundred thousand Richard Spencers could, but hey... you got glitter in his eye!

Forget principles for a second, It's weird that for somebody with an strategic mind can be so blind about this.

that conversation isn't going anywhere obviously so lets change it a bit.


When you fear fascism what you envision happening, you mention genocide often so you see an european leader like Marie LePenn winning an election and starting another world war in Europe? or do you see Trump or the GOP building gas chambers for minority and kill millions?

Could you explain what is a realistic scenario of what you fear happening and in what time-frame so that we can have a better sense of this fear?

On June 01 2019 02:42 Baalim wrote: Do you mean in your anarchist utopia or currently? what I mean is, do you currently support people's right to own gun like the US 2nd amendment?

It's a false dichotomy. There is no "future utopia", in that there aren't behaviors to shoot for in the future that are not applicable functional behaviors right now. The utopia is not a destination, it's created by every day acts (praxis) that simply become the norm in a functional classless society.

I don't support any rights given by a state, what I support is the principle that people can decide to arm themselves to defend themselves and their community, and it is their community that should regulate the cases of idiotic use and misuse of weapons.

Also even if you are naive enough to believe erradicating 5 to 9 jobs would make people happy the real question is, can you do that without total economic collapse right now? no. (I know you think we can)

Not if everyone, especially the 1%, want to keep the same standards of living, no. That is the problem, built on top of the artificial scarcity that is necessary to sustain capitalism. I also don't think it would make people happy. I think there would be huge identity crises because without work and family they have no sense of purpose or self.

I dont ever present myself as anon-anarchist, I concede than certain regulations etc seem to be better than an anarchy, that doesn't mean I just suddently become a statist, and I dont like individual anarchistm at all

That's effectively saying "I am an anarchist and not an anarchist at the same time." Just say you lean towards anti-statism instead. What's wrong with the various schools of individualist anarchism? What works have you read?

And your arguments overlap with the ideas of many mass murderers more than mine do with Molyneux, I guess I gotta bring the Stalin/Mao references back since you refuse to let this go.

Give me examples of my views overlapping with Stalin and Mao please. In doing so, please quote what I have said, don't just give me your paraphrasing of what you think I've said. Hopefully it's not going to be on the level of "Hitler was a vegetarian like you, checkmate."

this sounds reasonable, you think I leave JBP off the hook easily? its not like im debating him, I would give him a lot of shit on his religious crap and many other things, I think you mistakenly believe I idolize him only because I enjoy his anti-left work.

You leave him off the hook extremely easily on the issues that I bring up with his thinking and behaving. One of the ways that you do this is by mentioning the issues that are not being brought up, like religion here for instance. Either you don't address the concerns I bring up, or you'll say something brief (and usually mocking) as to why you don't think they are seriously worth addressing.

The whole point of his "anti-left" work, or anyone else's who is doing similar polemical work, is to appeal to the prejudices of the people who already hold those views. It's not to really debate or understand the issues. Its purpose is blatantly to monetarily exploit people and reinforce the tribal "common enemy" feelings that they hold. This reveals a deep irony about the right-wing individualist paradigm, because if you were the free thinking individualists you think you are, you wouldn't need such leaders and you wouldn't need to constantly reinforce each other's values, prejudices, and beliefs.

it's interesting because I can't think of anyone, unlike you, that I really like and simultaneously can say of them that they hold several ridiculous views. This seems to be a unique feature of right-wing/reactionary/"anti-SJW" psychology. The group identity that is formed by opposition comes first, and everything else is secondary, mostly trivial stuff.

Note that this was my initial concern when Peterson appeared on the radar and I said I was skeptical about him. I said that I feared that he would give the impression that he helps people think for themselves, but in reality he makes them complacent. I was definitely proven right.

btw

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.

It was predictable, but it was more-or-less unavoidable as the whole situation was much more complex than it seems. It wasn't in a sense where you'd think "were all Germans really evil and approved of his insane behaviour??" - the thing is their whole nation was pissed because of WW1. They felt that what happened was a complete injustice and the tension was not gone, but was building up for 20 years. Hitler was just the escalation, by all means, it seemed like a second war with Germany was inevitable at the time. Considering all social development, beliefs and so on.

It's extremely easy to say it was "predictable "and therefore imply it was possible to stop him, but the only way would've worked through an external hand, which wouldve sparked a war again. Maybe not one, which would turn into two different genocides. Maybe that was the best EV play at that time ...



And on the topic of 9 to 5 jobs - the market is moving towards an environment which gives more "freedom" to employees and focusing on the optimal value they give rather than squeezing people dry till death. Thats a reality in the IT and it's starting to spread in other industries. Then again maybe im just too naive

On June 01 2019 03:17 Baalim wrote: So if some crazy leftists think its justified and seriously harms me you are morally ok with that?

No, because the proportional response towards complacency/idle ignorance is not serious violence. What I meant by what I said was that it's a philosophical question one responds to and takes upon oneself. The individual motivates himself to act because they recognize that their complacency, according to their own moral compass, is harmful. A random example would be this guy:

These are the people we are supposed to rely on to prevent the rise of fascism:

You've made some interesting points I wannt to adress but before I do could you explain to me what difference you see between the danger of islamism and fascism?

Islamic fascism kills hundreds of more people than white supremacist fascism, so why don't you advocate for violence against Imam's talking about caliphate and spreading sharia in the world etc?

The reason I ask this is because if I see consistency in this then we can discuss the merits of the initiation of violence to prevent more future violence, but if you are not consistent there isn't really a reason to go there.

Dam, well the far right in Austria has a much stronger presence than where i live. Every protest i've been to the cops have been well mannered.

There is no good argument for violence in the realm of political ideals that i've seen, antifa's violence is mostly about feeling good, as it feels good to punch people you dislike.

The arguments made by Mark Bray do not work, he make's comparisons to 1930's, which can be dismissed quickly because it's not a real comparison at all, completely different scenario's.

Antifa has done reasonably well at defaming anarchism and serving fox news another source to reinforce stereotypes about left radicals. It's basically a truism for any intelligent anarchist that if your organization receives a lot of media coverage then it has a function to serving power.

Youtube just demonetized Steven Crowder's entire channel because he sells t-shirts that say "socialism is for f*gs" and the * is a little picutre of a fig.


This censorship is absolutely required to stop the fascists right Loco?

Steven Crowder is a piece of shit tbh, a college student completely demolished him with legitimate arguments of why his views are retarded and he started going after him with personal attacks, getting into his personal space and politely making him leave the "platform"

Can't really care much for the guy

Baalim come on. YouTube is a private company. You wouldn't want to tell a mom and pop shop what to do would you? You're anarcho-capitalist right? If someone wants to post videos they can go to one of the websites in the remaining 25% of the market. What do you care what YouTube does. So you hate freedom now I guess because it's called the FREE market so checkmate

Loco doesn't support punching Islamofascists because he doesn't want to get beheaded basically

the "x is a private company" argument doesn't really work when you reference companies that have a complete stranglehold on their given market.
not to mention it's a shit argument when discussing whether a course of action is right or wrong, anyways.

On June 06 2019 07:45 Spitfiree wrote: Steven Crowder is a piece of shit tbh, a college student completely demolished him with legitimate arguments of why his views are retarded and he started going after him with personal attacks, getting into his personal space and politely making him leave the "platform" Can't really care much for the guy

So you also don't care for freedom of speech if you disagree with the message or dont like the person speaking?

On June 06 2019 15:48 Santafairy wrote: Baalim come on. YouTube is a private company. You wouldn't want to tell a mom and pop shop what to do would you? You're anarcho-capitalist right? If someone wants to post videos they can go to one of the websites in the remaining 25% of the market. What do you care what YouTube does. So you hate freedom now I guess because it's called the FREE market so checkmate Loco doesn't support punching Islamofascists because he doesn't want to get beheaded basically

Thats like saying that since I believe anarcho-capitalism would be a better system then I shouldn't expect firemen to put out a fire.

We have a state, the state is supposed to break up monopolies and insure the constitution is upheld above corporate law, social media has became the new public space and it shoudl be its duty to protect it.

No they can't go to competing websites, I'm not sure if you know about GAB but they launched their site as a free-speech platform and it was quickly banned by all payment processors just like Patreon's alternative when Patreon started banning people, VISA, Mastercard, PayPal etc they all blocked these platforms they are strongarming any type of emerging competition.


Obviously Loco doesn't fear being beheaded he lives in Canada not Beirut, I'm still waiting for his reply.

that was sarcasm my fault I thought you would know where I stand about huge tech companies