jordan peterson phenomena - Page 2

I liked JP when he was just telling people to clean their rooms and stand up straight. He really should've just stopped there.

He's been extensively battling these arguments simultaneously:

*wage gap and gender equality
*gender pronouns and free speech
*workplace ethics
*existence and importance of god


And these are just the couple of youtube videos he "destroys" at, I can only image how many more issues he's been invited to and expected to crush opposing opinions - usually vs likewise, very competent people. Poor guy must be constantly thinking of ways to present his postions better which is why I've also noticed that his arguments are getting more esoteric and bordering on bullshit. By and large I still think he's brilliant and I doubt that any other thought leader could hold up the way he does given the ridiculous amount of talks he's been in.

I find that even the reasoning behind that is specious. It's not even just "clean your room, bucko", he has phrased it as such: "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world." I'm not aware of any revolutionaries/human rights activists who were that conscientious. Are we to believe that the world's greatest thinkers were all super conscientious? I don't think this is a real Einstein quote, but the point still stands:




It sounds mild and useful, but in practice, it's simply a plea to accept the status quo. I'd rather tell young student activists to be very cautious and vigilant because they have a lot to learn rather than give them such a simplistic and vacuous formula for success. It's obvious though that in the case of someone paralyzed by anxiety or something, then starting small like cleaning your room daily is a good strategy to start feeling more in control of your life (even though it's quite short-sighted to see that from a hard-nosed individualist perspective since anxiety is very much a psychosomatic illness, but that's a whole other can of worms).

I can only image how many more issues he's been invited to and expected to crush opposing opinions - usually vs likewise, very competent people. Poor guy must be constantly thinking of ways to present his postions better which is why I've also noticed that his arguments are getting more esoteric and bordering on bullshit.

I don't know what you're talking about, Peterson has made the rounds on podcasts and mainstream shows that are favorable towards him, he's even become a pretty big figure for Fox News. He has avoided having debates with people who strongly disagree with him, unless they are fairly incompetent (or quite unprepared, like the journalist in the OP video that went viral). There have been a few exceptions, and even the OP one is basically accidental because it caught him by surprise as part of a self-promotional book tour, but others prior to his book were simply very well calculated ones (like with Sam Harris) where he knew he could pull a lot of viewers to his side since the vast majority of the audience are centrists. With the exception of the pronoun debates where he actually faced some real challenge from his colleagues at UofT, he has done an excellent job avoiding debating challenging individuals.

He has explicitly stated on the Joe Rogan podcasts and elsewhere that Marxists and post-modernists won't debate him, but I know for a fact this isn't true. Doug from Zero Books contacted his team multiple times to set up an interview or debate with him. He was initially scheduled to do it with him, but Peterson backed out at the very last minute. It's also public knowledge that Zizek has agreed to have a debate with Peterson, and Peterson has remained quiet since then. Peterson rakes in probably around $100,000 per month from Patreon alone now, he has a lot more to lose by battling genuine intellectuals so he strategically avoids doing so. I mean, his whole "atheists are all religious because they act it out" spiel is his bread and butter and he even managed to lose a lot of support from the Dillahunty debate, and Dillahunty isn't exactly an intellectual heavy-weight. He basically just drones on about skepticism 101.

The thing is, unless you've done your fair share of reading throughout your life, you probably can't tell that Peterson has more in common with performance artists than intellectuals. He puts on a show. His academic background is in psychometric research, yet this is what he speaks the least about. He's really more of a Tony Robbins than a Robert Sapolsky. He's someone charismatic whom a lot of people claim has helped them, but he's not a rigorous thinker who has original (or even just substantial) arguments to bring to the table. It's a false narrative that gets a lot of clicks.

I also don't buy your explanation that it is because he's tired or overworked that he's now "veering into more bullshit arguments". He has been arguing the exact same script from the very start, it's just that he has made some things a bit more explicit with time. In fact, there is even an article that goes back to his very early days as a student and academic, and you can see the exact same concerns there. Peterson's worldview and his arguments for it seems to have crystallized in his 20s. He isn't intellectually evolving (or devolving?) in real-time before our eyes; he's been pretty consistent with his inconsistencies, quite the opposite type of person than you're describing.

I mean, think about it, your argument really makes no logical sense. You don't think a pro gamer becomes worse over time, putting aside any physical limitation or injury (or lack of interest in the game), so why would you think intellectuals exhaust themselves over time? It's like any craft, you just become more knowledgeable over time, you don't devolve into obscurantism. My favorite thinker, Edgar Morin, is almost 97 years old and I think he's almost as active as Peterson is. His thinking is still perfectly clear, he's still teaching, writing books (he released 5 books last year alone) and he takes part in public talks and debates all the time still.

Just controlled opposition like the rest of them.

On May 12 2018 04:06 deathstar wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2018 03:42 Baalim wrote:   On May 12 2018 02:55 deathstar wrote: idk. I'm transgender woman. Getting misgendered hurts. Its a honest mistake though. There are some evil people out there who purposely misgender transgender people. Intending to harm. I think there should be a law against the F word, N word, and purposely misgendering transgender people. Because these words harm people, and its hate speech. Its not love speech, that's for sure. Its hate speech. only somebody profoundly stupid would advocate for outlawing words. Do you see now Loco what happens with the idiotic hate speech laws you support? one day a maniac like this might wield the power of censorship you want to craft, fool. I'm not a maniac. Hate speech laws protect minorities. My friend is African american father of a few daughters. He posted a video on facebook of the Ku-Klux-Klan setting fire to a cross. The klan people were saying they were regrouping. And things. Should it be legal for groups to form to hate minorities? Because my friend is afraid, for himself and his children. you think its okay for these maniacs to go around using the N-word? It should be against the law. People on the airways, talking about eliminating queer people from society. Credential doctors, who are telling parents transgender women mentally ill men, who are rapists of children and women. and its then that I need Jesus. Cause I need to forgive people who call me a child rapist when a child's well being is more important to me than my own. The doctor is going to cause unacceptance of gay and trans people in schools, churches, workplaces, families. Which is hostile to LGBT lives. Also going to be an influencing factor in transgender child suicide, transgender adolescent suicide and transgender adult suicide. The doctor wants to kill transgender people. She wants to eliminate all the queer people from society. Slanderous as hell to call all transwomen child and women rapists. There should be a law in place, that makes this doctor call transgender people by their correct pronouns because that law will protect human life. And human life is more important than freedom of speech.

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you realize the difference between actions and words? The law should be of the doctor not being able to turn down any human being that requires medical help or he would lose his license, not tell him how to speak. Why is this concept so hard to grasp by people

I dont feel like living in a society where everyone tells me how to speak just because I might hurt someone's feelings. That's the gate speech-restrictive laws open. Fuck. That. Shit.

And this passively opens the gate for idiotic mothers stuffing their children with hormones till mid-teenage giving them the "choice" to choose their gender, which should be punishable by life in prison.

And if you think that forcing people to call transgenders in a certain way will make the same people that hate them, love them is simply naive. You can't teach the retard facts, he'll still hate on the things that he doesn't understand

Just punish anyone that takes LITERAL actions against transgenders and in a generation or two things will be just fine. It has been like that with any change in society from political to social issues, major changes in a single generation occur very rarely, especially against social beliefs humanity has had for ages.

other people might not feel like living in a society where others are free to hurt their feelings, though. I don't see why your feelings on this matter are more important than their feelings on this matter?

I mean I think the idea of making certain words illegal is a very faulty way of attempting to tackle the free speech dilemma (free speech is not necessarily maximized by being completely unlimited), but I feel like you just did like a feelings-appeal to oppose a feelings-appeal.

edit I started that reply before you made your edit :D I do think there is an issue with people having unrealistic expectations of how fast societal change can be implemented. But I also feel the idea that a 'societal progress cannot come this fast'-mentality can make progress come by slowlier than what would have been possible with a different attitude, and I think that being a highly privileged individual and telling genuinely oppressed people to 'just wait it out, it'll be alright around the time when you are dead' is kinda assholy behavior, even though I also think there's some truth to the sentiment. But there's also truth to the idea that a defeatist attitude ensures defeat, and that if you aim for the stars at least you'll still get pretty high even if you miss.

If you think the issue is "calling transgenders in a certain way" you've really missed the boat and it's high time that you get out of your internet bubble and connect these thoughts with the real world. You actually have to flip that on its head, it is the not calling transgenders certain things, e.g. freaks, mentally ill, subhuman, etc., that is being asked of you. Trans people have not been asking for special privileges. And it's not being asked with totalitarian force, it's being asked in the exact same way as everyone else asks (whether implicitly or explicitly) to be addressed in society. With basic human decency. And there are basic human rights laws that prevent you from inciting hatred against everyone, not just transgender folks.

The laws right now have only extended the rights that everybody had to be protected from violence and hatred to include transgender people. The force of the law only comes into play in the extreme case where you have seriously harmed someone or incited people to harm someone and they've taken action against you. (I include the denial of a service based on discrimination as "harm" here.) If you have a problem with these laws, fine, state your case by all means, but don't distract from the real topic by singling out transgender people, imagining that they are a special case, that they are asking too much and trampling on your freedom of speech.

There's an infinitesimal number of people who prefer pronouns like "zhe" or "zher" or whatever. It's odd and sounds like people can just fuck with you, but in practice this doesn't happen. You have one Lauren Southern in a few hundred million people who will change their gender on some government paper to try to fuck with people, but it doesn't affect you and it doesn't harm anyone. And it's a non-issue if you don't want to use the extremely rare and odd pronouns, since you'll never be friends with the people who use them and you'll never have to speak about them in the third person to some of their friends. When exactly did "live and let live" become such a radical idea I don't know, but I know right-wing pundits dominating social media websites (read: filter bubbles) has had a lot to do with it.

I had a friend who was transgender woman. She had to worry every time she got on the bus, walked down the street, even walking into an AA meeting how was she going to be harassed that day or even if people were going to get violent.

It's hard to relate because I almost never get harassed. The only time in recent memory I was walking down the street with an attractive woman and had a glorious beard. Someone drove by in a car and yelled out "nice beard faggot!" I think he was just drunk and jealous.

I obviously only told that story to brag that I had a glorious beard and walk down streets with attractive women.

Also, I am late to the party but obvs Peterson is a charlatan and a hack. He misreads Orwell, he misreads Nietzsche, Derrida, the Bible, he'll misinterpret anything if it suits his agenda. He's about that paper. Let me get that paper and keep order. No different than most conservative hacks I can think of. Let me just get about $10 milly and some acres and NOT CHANGE A DAMN THING! It's very selfish and hedonistic.

JP has a lot of trigger warnings and is very sensitive; he called a journalist a sanctimonius prick when he got upset over a criticism. He also uses obscurantist language mixed with simple truisms, a trait that the extreme postmodernists had! He doesn't like talking to people who disagree with him, keeping to his safe space with the other 'intellectuals'.

maybe JP is secretly one of these postmodern social justice warriors? lol

On May 12 2018 13:02 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2018 08:06 MezmerizePLZ wrote: I think JP has some good insights and also ramblings that are not great and don't really seem rooted in anything. I don't even know what alt-right means anymore, basically gets plastered onto so many reasonable people that it has lost all meaning. Listening to JP is gateway to white supremacy?? or does alt-right just mean conservatism now? Not really. If you spend any amount of time browsing the JP subreddit, you'll find a fair amount of anti-Semitism there. And it's not just buried either, it frequently gets upvotes. I can provide dozens of links if you don't think this is true. This shouldn't surprise anyone who knows his stance on "the Jewish question" (which he is frequently asked about even at his public talks, which some white nationalists attend). There are a few pictures circulating around of him taking pictures with well known white nationalists, and the main alt-right subreddit lists Jordan Peterson's videos on his version of Cultural Marxism as "recommended propaganda". I don't think he has any Neo-Nazi sympathies (and it hurt him not to have done his due diligence with the pictures) but it's easy to see why the link is made. And let's not forget who raised money for him when he was denied federal funding: it was Lauren Southern and the Rebel Media. That's as alt-right as it gets short of being Richard Spencer himself. There is also the little known fact that his greatest literary influences were fascists or had fascist sympathies themselves. I think I have a good idea of who you think this reasonable group of people are (the so-called "intellectual dark web'') and I would say that in the case of Peterson, there is very little that is reasonable about him. It's pretty easy to see once you start doing some digging. He has some tradcon views that are bolstered by Jungian mysticism. He dabbles into historical revisionism (e.g. Hitler didn't really want to win the war, he just wanted to cause a ruckus and kill as many people as possible) and believes some pretty weird things like ancient peoples knew about the double helix structure of DNA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

On May 12 2018 17:23 Loco wrote: If you think the issue is "calling transgenders in a certain way" you've really missed the boat and it's high time that you get out of your internet bubble and connect these thoughts with the real world. You actually have to flip that on its head, it is the not calling transgenders certain things, e.g. freaks, mentally ill, subhuman, etc., that is being asked of you. Trans people have not been asking for special privileges. And it's not being asked with totalitarian force, it's being asked in the exact same way as everyone else asks (whether implicitly or explicitly) to be addressed in society. With basic human decency. And there are basic human rights laws that prevent you from inciting hatred against everyone, not just transgender folks. The laws right now have only extended the rights that everybody had to be protected from violence and hatred to include transgender people. The force of the law only comes into play in the extreme case where you have seriously harmed someone or incited people to harm someone and they've taken action against you. (I include the denial of a service based on discrimination as "harm" here.) If you have a problem with these laws, fine, state your case by all means, but don't distract from the real topic by singling out transgender people, imagining that they are a special case, that they are asking too much and trampling on your freedom of speech. There's an infinitesimal number of people who prefer pronouns like "zhe" or "zher" or whatever. It's odd and sounds like people can just fuck with you, but in practice this doesn't happen. You have one Lauren Southern in a few hundred million people who will change their gender on some government paper to try to fuck with people, but it doesn't affect you and it doesn't harm anyone. And it's a non-issue if you don't want to use the extremely rare and odd pronouns, since you'll never be friends with the people who use them and you'll never have to speak about them in the third person to some of their friends. When exactly did "live and let live" become such a radical idea I don't know, but I know right-wing pundits dominating social media websites (read: filter bubbles) has had a lot to do with it.

If you can't see how these simple laws affect the whole system on tons of different levels then I don't think I'm the one that should be exiting my bubble. The whole change is done upside down. It's not just a matter of words. I don't care if I have to call someone "he" or "supreme overlord" thats not the point.

On May 12 2018 22:56 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2018 17:23 Loco wrote: If you think the issue is "calling transgenders in a certain way" you've really missed the boat and it's high time that you get out of your internet bubble and connect these thoughts with the real world. You actually have to flip that on its head, it is the not calling transgenders certain things, e.g. freaks, mentally ill, subhuman, etc., that is being asked of you. Trans people have not been asking for special privileges. And it's not being asked with totalitarian force, it's being asked in the exact same way as everyone else asks (whether implicitly or explicitly) to be addressed in society. With basic human decency. And there are basic human rights laws that prevent you from inciting hatred against everyone, not just transgender folks. The laws right now have only extended the rights that everybody had to be protected from violence and hatred to include transgender people. The force of the law only comes into play in the extreme case where you have seriously harmed someone or incited people to harm someone and they've taken action against you. (I include the denial of a service based on discrimination as "harm" here.) If you have a problem with these laws, fine, state your case by all means, but don't distract from the real topic by singling out transgender people, imagining that they are a special case, that they are asking too much and trampling on your freedom of speech. There's an infinitesimal number of people who prefer pronouns like "zhe" or "zher" or whatever. It's odd and sounds like people can just fuck with you, but in practice this doesn't happen. You have one Lauren Southern in a few hundred million people who will change their gender on some government paper to try to fuck with people, but it doesn't affect you and it doesn't harm anyone. And it's a non-issue if you don't want to use the extremely rare and odd pronouns, since you'll never be friends with the people who use them and you'll never have to speak about them in the third person to some of their friends. When exactly did "live and let live" become such a radical idea I don't know, but I know right-wing pundits dominating social media websites (read: filter bubbles) has had a lot to do with it. If you can't see how these simple laws affect the whole system on tons of different levels then I don't think I'm the one that should be exiting my bubble. The whole change is done upside down. It's not just a matter of words. I don't care if I have to call someone "he" or "supreme overlord" thats not the point.

Explain to me how the laws affect the whole system on tons of different levels, since i can't really see that.

Easiest examples on top of my head. How do the "new" genders fit into responsibility for military service? Obviously, most of the Europe/West only has a professional army, so in for specifics - in case of war? What stops me from saying I identify as a woman to not be taken by the military machine?

As much as any rational guy would wish, even men and women are largely not equal in neither social, legal or financial status anywhere. Would there be any special laws to be protected by men and female, just as females have special laws to be protected by males? If so, on what grounds? How are custody and the responsibilities of a child going to be split between non-binary gender parents?

Furthermore, how are we defining the "new" genders? Can anyone just think of a new one? Is it just a state of mind? What is the problem with a third "non-binary" gender ONLY instead of inventing 95 other ones? Intersex, for example, is a very measurable definition from the very birth of a child, how are others measurable? Should we have new pronouns every time a new "gender" is invented? If it's just a state of mind then why do "woman" and "man" even exist as genders - nobody is 100% of either, if you're not on the extreme of a spectrum then you're never truly either of them.

I'm not even gonna dwell on the changes that would impose on the matter of raising a child and how it could potentially threaten the mental health of children for the sake of a very small minority of people. And you're gonna say "but hey wait what are you talking about, it's not gonna come to that" - It always comes down to exploiting the most out of the system, doesn't matter what your gender is, you're gonna do it. It surely sux to even have to discuss this topic since it might be very hurtful towards the trans community, but a child's mind is much more exploitable

Oh yeah, by the way, none of the Cyrillic languages I could think of even have a word for "gender". It's just "sex" with no social status implications, so good luck changing the laws in basically a third of Europe any time soon on that.

If you want the shift in society's perception to work, you'd have to start by setting borders to everything and start explaining it to the masses in an understandable way, otherwise you do what Ontario did and you get people like JP in the media which get tons of followers and actually hurt the community rather than help it. E.g. doing the changes upside down, unorganically. And I don't mean unoriganically like JP means it, every organic change comes after a soft push and nurture, but will almost always fail after a shove up the throat.

You have to realize this is a topic which literally meddles with the social system built by humans since ancient times. You are NOT going to change shit if things are not done extremely carefully. In fact, you might just spike a massive wave of hatred towards the same people that are trying to be protected.

On May 12 2018 22:31 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2018 13:02 Loco wrote:   On May 12 2018 08:06 MezmerizePLZ wrote: I think JP has some good insights and also ramblings that are not great and don't really seem rooted in anything. I don't even know what alt-right means anymore, basically gets plastered onto so many reasonable people that it has lost all meaning. Listening to JP is gateway to white supremacy?? or does alt-right just mean conservatism now? Not really. If you spend any amount of time browsing the JP subreddit, you'll find a fair amount of anti-Semitism there. And it's not just buried either, it frequently gets upvotes. I can provide dozens of links if you don't think this is true. This shouldn't surprise anyone who knows his stance on "the Jewish question" (which he is frequently asked about even at his public talks, which some white nationalists attend). There are a few pictures circulating around of him taking pictures with well known white nationalists, and the main alt-right subreddit lists Jordan Peterson's videos on his version of Cultural Marxism as "recommended propaganda". I don't think he has any Neo-Nazi sympathies (and it hurt him not to have done his due diligence with the pictures) but it's easy to see why the link is made. And let's not forget who raised money for him when he was denied federal funding: it was Lauren Southern and the Rebel Media. That's as alt-right as it gets short of being Richard Spencer himself. There is also the little known fact that his greatest literary influences were fascists or had fascist sympathies themselves. I think I have a good idea of who you think this reasonable group of people are (the so-called "intellectual dark web'') and I would say that in the case of Peterson, there is very little that is reasonable about him. It's pretty easy to see once you start doing some digging. He has some tradcon views that are bolstered by Jungian mysticism. He dabbles into historical revisionism (e.g. Hitler didn't really want to win the war, he just wanted to cause a ruckus and kill as many people as possible) and believes some pretty weird things like ancient peoples knew about the double helix structure of DNA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Pretty lazy response, no? Did you have nothing to say about how reasonable those claims are? Would you like other examples? Also, I'm assuming you're accusing me of this fallacy, but did you even bother to read what an association fallacy is? It's just a few sentences, you should read it before you post it as a "gotcha". I specifically said that I didn't believe he had Neo-Nazis sympathies. But if you insist that I have committed an association fallacy after reading about it, I'd like you to offer logical proof. Take the form of the fallacy provided by your link and reconstruct the fallacious argument that I supposedly made.

I saw u make something like an association fallacy. It may not fit the logical form but the meaning of the sentences seemed that way, u basically associated baals definition of anarchism with steffan molyneux and his bad critical thinking skills. The implication being if you use a definition that steffan molyneux uses, then its wrong. You do it quite often, there was another time i pointed out richard dawkins believed something and you basically pointed out dawkins being wrong on something else-the implication being that i shouldn't accept his opinion.

On May 13 2018 01:34 Spitfiree wrote: Easiest examples on top of my head. How do the "new" genders fit into responsibility for military service? Obviously, most of the Europe/West only has a professional army, so in for specifics - in case of war? What stops me from saying I identify as a woman to not be taken by the military machine? As much as any rational guy would wish, even men and women are largely not equal in neither social, legal or financial status anywhere. Would there be any special laws to be protected by men and female, just as females have special laws to be protected by males? If so, on what grounds? How are custody and the responsibilities of a child going to be split between non-binary gender parents? Furthermore, how are we defining the "new" genders? Can anyone just think of a new one? Is it just a state of mind? What is the problem with a third "non-binary" gender ONLY instead of inventing 95 other ones? Intersex, for example, is a very measurable definition from the very birth of a child, how are others measurable? Should we have new pronouns every time a new "gender" is invented? If it's just a state of mind then why do "woman" and "man" even exist as genders - nobody is 100% of either, if you're not on the extreme of a spectrum then you're never truly either of them. I'm not even gonna dwell on the changes that would impose on the matter of raising a child and how it could potentially threaten the mental health of children for the sake of a very small minority of people. And you're gonna say "but hey wait what are you talking about, it's not gonna come to that" - It always comes down to exploiting the most out of the system, doesn't matter what your gender is, you're gonna do it. It surely sux to even have to discuss this topic since it might be very hurtful towards the trans community, but a child's mind is much more exploitable Oh yeah, by the way, none of the Cyrillic languages I could think of even have a word for "gender". It's just "sex" with no social status implications, so good luck changing the laws in basically a third of Europe any time soon on that. If you want the shift in society's perception to work, you'd have to start by setting borders to everything and start explaining it to the masses in an understandable way, otherwise you do what Ontario did and you get people like JP in the media which get tons of followers and actually hurt the community rather than help it. E.g. doing the changes upside down, unorganically. And I don't mean unoriganically like JP means it, every organic change comes after a soft push and nurture, but will almost always fail after a shove up the throat. You have to realize this is a topic which literally meddles with the social system built by humans since ancient times. You are NOT going to change shit if things are not done extremely carefully. In fact, you might just spike a massive wave of hatred towards the same people that are trying to be protected.

Long (and pretty confusing, IMO) post so I'll try to give some brief answers. Already spent too much time on here today.

1. I don't have the exact specifics, but what stops you is probably the same thing as what stops you from competing in sports as another gender than the one you were assigned at birth. It requires proof. Say, you need to have told a doctor you identify as such and have begun hormone therapy a year ago before you can apply. Trump has issued a trans military ban btw, so trans people who wanted to "serve their country" aren't even able to do so. The idea that someone would completely alter their life and the way they present themselves purely to be able to avoid military service is so disconnected from reality that I just can't help but state it. That you think these are the types of scenarios that we really ought to think about at the moment blows my mind really.

2. I don't understand the question/problem, maybe someone else does and can comment. Can't see how there needs to be "special" custody laws.

3. Pretty straight-forward, there are no new genders, no additions. There are two genders, alongside with gender non-conformity. It's a little bit like how a very small percentage of the population are asexual -- they didn't invent a new sexual orientation. It's not a "state of mind", more like a "state of being", i.e. pretty much what an identity is. Surely you could have figured that out with some basic research if you really wanted to. No one is "inventing" 95 genders, you're confusing a list of possible alternative pronouns with gender, I don't know how you can make such a basic error without not caring about rational discourse, to be honest.

4. Worry about your own problems and the innumerable ways you could fuck your kid up if you want one, you have absolutely no reason to be concerned about the private life of others who are planning to raise children with love. You hardly have a basis for comparison in the first place. You are working off the assumption that what is optimal for a child is a traditional upbringing and you have no data to back that up, do you?

5. This is the part of your post that bothers me the most. This is just pure postcolonial trash talk. "People are always doing whatever they can to exploit the system" -- this is neoliberal brainwash at work. The only people who are exploiting the system are the people at the top who are exploiting the labor of others. They are responsible for ruining everyone else's lives, and the amount of suffering that they will cause to the next generation with their imperialist mindset and their climate science denial (if nothing changes) is going to be unparalleled in human history and it is predictable that it will be the end of our species as a result. These are the real, most uncontroversial problems we face, and you're worried that someone whose life has been controlled by corporate, totalitarian forces throughout all their lives is exploiting the very system that has limited their humanity, degraded them and enslaved them. It's totally backward reasoning.

6. If I'm understanding this one properly, it's many convoluted words just to say "change takes time". Agreed, it takes time. But you're not helping by arrogantly telling other people you don't know how unambitious they should be on matters like recognizing their identities as valid. You're still acting like trans/genderqueer people are asking for special privileges, which they are not.

7. "meddles with a social system built by humans since ancient times" Everyone realizes that. Literally no one thinks that change is a unchaotic breeze. But change is also what characterizes civilization, you're talking as if change had just begun happening and we're somehow not adapted to it, but it has always been happening. The rest of this paragraph IMO is borderline concern trolling, like you really care about those people and you want them to succeed in changing conservative opinions... eh. If you know how to do activism better, then lead by example, patronizing unsolicited advice is the least possibly effective option. It also reminds me of this MLK quote:

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Edit: Forgot to answer your point about most of Europe. I don't speak any of those languages but from a wikipedia search it appears to be true that there are more obstacles there. I don't profess to have the solutions that will make everyone happy. But it looks to me like you're making a mockery of those efforts not because they are likely to be time poorly spent but for entirely other reasons. You're also stating again your misconception that this involves changing laws and something akin to totalitarian force to control speech, rather than what it really has been promoting so far: evolving customs that are supported by basic, extended human rights to a minority group. You also argue as if identifying as gender non-binary is a relatively new thing and gender neutral speech has no historical precedent. Both of these positions are empirically false.

On May 13 2018 04:40 Stroggoz wrote: I saw u make something like an association fallacy. It may not fit the logical form but the meaning of the sentences seemed that way, u basically associated baals definition of anarchism with steffan molyneux and his bad critical thinking skills. The implication being if you use a definition that steffan molyneux uses, then its wrong. You do it quite often, there was another time i pointed out richard dawkins believed something and you basically pointed out dawkins being wrong on something else-the implication being that i shouldn't accept his opinion.

If it doesn't fit the form, then it's not a fallacy. How complicated can that be? There are no degrees or "gray areas" in logical fallacies. If it doesn't fit the form, then it's just rhetoric that you dislike. In the case of an-capism, I associated Baal's definition with Molyneux because, in all likelihood, this is where Baal actually learned about an-cap to begin with. (I have never asked him this, but I know he liked his videos many years ago, and he never cited any authors.) I didn't use the connection between the ideology and Molyneux as one of my main arguments against an-capism if you recall, I added it as a "rhetorical closer", if that makes sense. Context really matters here.

Now that you bring this up, I think you're also trivializing the association (or associations in general). The fact that you can share an identical political ideology (at least the core of it) with someone who is visibly so deeply ignorant and disturbed does have some meaning. Do you not believe that the personal is political? We're not talking about completly unconnected things like what flavors of ice cream you like and your sexual orientation here. If you disagree, I'd like to know why. I think that at some point it's fair to look at the actions of the people who espouse the same views (broadly speaking) and make some connections. Doing so doesn't mean that you're creating association fallacies in the process. If you recall, I didn't accuse Baal of being any of the things that I have accused Molyneux to be. I have merely stated that he was (is) in bad company. How much weight a person attributes to a connection like that is up to them, but I know that whom I associate with (intellectually speaking) really matters to me.

its curious how popular JP is despite how little he reveals about his actual views. you have to sift through so much story telling to try and figure out what he actually believes. he's comes across so disingenuous, instead of using the cathy newman interview as an opportunity to spread w.e meaningful message/value adding beliefs he was annoyingly and disingenuously being obtuse. i actually empathize with cathy in the sense that it is her job to bring about jp's beliefs to light yet i can't find very much in the interview where he willingly reveals anything meaningful.

instead it's

JP: some ambiguous general statement
CN: are you trying to say X? so you are saying X?
JP: no that isn't what i am saying
CN: so are you trying to say Y? do you mean Y?

but JP never actually says Z is what i believe for a, b and c reasons

also reddit/internet culture really loves it/relishes when a woman "gets her ass handed" or is "put in her place". so i get why the cathy newman interview exploded, but i still cant figure out why JP is so god damn popular.

The problem I find with that interview is that it also showcases how media nowadays have a weird way of framing one's views quite maliciously just to sell a good show. JP just talks that way simply because he's part trolling media people. I think it's quite clear that he believes that gender equality does not mean women should have the advantage just because they're women, equality should mean equality ,not some reparational payment for historical offense.

I do however find that JP is overreaching with the "religion" thing, I find it very hard to believe that he actually believes what his position is which is kind of obvious because his arguments seem very lazy and lacking. Him going after Sam Harris with nothing but "i've read all his works but" as his argument feels really weak but he keeps going on about it. Like I said, he's like rickson gracie in some of his positions but also like those bogus martial arts kung fu masters in some.