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 if you recall, I added it as a "rhetorical closer", if that makes sense.
I think you're also trivializing the association. 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 what flavors of ice cream you prefer 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.
It doesn't bother me at all to agree with anyone i view as a bad person. I'm guessing you share the belief with Adolf Hitler that animals deserve some sort of welfare/rights, presumably. How does that matter? It's a reasonable thing to agree with Hitler so long as he is right. i personally give zero fucks if i have similar views with someone i despise.
logical forms are just a way of formalizing logical fallacies, what is really important here is the meaning/content behind what your saying, I think that can be easily seen and that's why the field of non classical logic exists. I'm not sure if you've done modal logic or not, but there are a lot of problems with logical forms as they sometimes intuitively dont make sense: How can anything be inferred from a contradiction for example, that's a rule of classical first order logic but it makes no sense intuitively and philosophers try to invent new logics to circumvent that. the specific sentence you wrote that i am referring to was this:
'I'm not the one with the dogma, you are the one in the incredible minority to use the word in a narrow, ahistorical fashion to mean stateless. The most famous person to hold this same definition is a pseudo cult leader who wouldn't pass a Logic 101 class and who is telling people to prepare for a race war... You are not in good company here.'
It does actually fit one of the forms of the association fallacies on the wiki page
Source S makes claim C.
Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
So source S(Baal) makes claim C(that the definition is lack of government)
Group G(stefan molyneux), which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient (you say that 'you are not in good company here') also makes claim C.
Therefore S(Baal) is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G (stefan molyneux) and inherents how negatively viewed it is.
And now i have spent way too much time arguing on the internet.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
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 if you recall, I added it as a "rhetorical closer", if that makes sense.
I think you're also trivializing the association. 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 what flavors of ice cream you prefer 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.
It doesn't bother me at all to agree with anyone i view as a bad person. you share the belief with Adolf Hitler that animals deserve some sort of welfare/rights, presumably. How does that matter? It's a reasonable thing to agree with Hitler so long as he is right. i personally give zero fucks if i have similar views to hitler, trump or whoever. I think it is bad reasoning to think like that whether it fits a logical form or not. I just know it intuitively.
logical forms are just a way of formalizing logical fallacies, what is really important here is the meaning/content behind what your saying, I think that can be easily seen and that's why the field of non classical logic exists. I'm not sure if you've done modal logic or not, but there are a lot of problems with logical forms as they intuitively dont make sense: How can anything be inferred from a contradiction for example, that's a rule of classical first order logic but it makes no sense intuitively and philosophers try to invent new logics to circumvent that. the specific sentence you wrote that i am referring to was this:
'I'm not the one with the dogma, you are the one in the incredible minority to use the word in a narrow, ahistorical fashion to mean stateless. The most famous person to hold this same definition is a pseudo cult leader who wouldn't pass a Logic 101 class and who is telling people to prepare for a race war... You are not in good company here.'
It does actually fit one of the forms of the association fallacies on the wiki page
Source S makes claim C.
Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
So source S(Baal) makes claim C(that the definition is lack of government)
Group G(stefan molyneux), which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient (you say that 'you are not in good company here') also makes claim C.
Therefore S(Baal) is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G (stefan molyneux) and inherents how negatively viewed it is.
And now i have spent way too much time arguing on the internet.
I don't have the same views on animals or dietary practices as Hitler. He was not a vegan/abolitionist. It's unclear exactly what his views were, but let's say that we shared a concern for animal welfare, this has no relevance to the discussion. The possible disagreement between us here is not at all about the possibility of agreeing on something with "bad people" on any one thing, as I said, it is about the substance of the agreement and the degree of its meaningfulness once placed into context. I spoke of core ideology, within the context of being in a ahistorical minority that is basically an online phenomenon led by a maniac, and attributed some meaning to that phenomena as a whole (while I had just been accused of being dogmatic). You by contrast give as example disconnected dietary preferences or animal welfare sympathies, such as antivivisection revulsions which Hitler supposedly had and which is not rational/ideological but a fully visceral experience -- we have evolved to feel strongly when seeing violence done to defenseless animals. It's also separate from any possible context for comparison. It's about as relevant as ascribing meaning to the fact that I and Jeffrey Dahmers share the same taste in classical music.
Yes, it would fit the guilt by association ad hominem fallacy form if arguments had been compared, rather than definitions -- which let me remind you, you have agreed was empirically verifiable. If it's empirical, it's not an argument, it's a fact. If it had been about the validity of an argument, and I had implied that it was because Molyneux believes it that it should be seen negatively (or as invalid), then it would be fallacious. But instead I ended with this remark to highlight that it is much likely that it is Baal who is being dogmatic, and it was my goal to make that definition the least appealing as possible beyond the fact that the matter was already settled for anyone who cared to look it up.
I believe like Molyneux that we shouldn't hit children to discipline them, so I believe in peaceful parenting, which has been a big thing of his over the years. It's a non-issue because it's disconnected from any meaningful context, unlike my remark. If we bring some context to this fact, we soon realize that both I and Molyneux are in pretty good company there. A "bad company" remark on its own is not the same thing as an association fallacy, which would be formed like this argument:
Baal believes anarchy and upholding hierarchies of power can be reconciled.
Stefan Molyneux also believes this (and he is assumed to be a bad person by the recipient)
Therefore, Baal should be seen as a bad person
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Loco, I dont want to make a longass post again so - Just because a precedent in history exists doesn't mean that people are aware of it without specifically looking for it. What you're saying looks all rational and good until you put it in actual practice ... and also lol @ neoliberalism brainwash. People have been exploiting the system they live in long before anyone even defined neoliberalism and will be doing so long after it's been forgotten. You always try to connect human nature to something that is a result of the human nature and present the result as the source of the cause....
On May 13 2018 11:26 Spitfiree wrote:
Loco, I dont want to make a longass post again so - Just because a precedent in history exists doesn't mean that people are aware of it without specifically looking for it. What you're saying looks all rational and good until you put it in actual practice ... and also lol @ neoliberalism brainwash. People have been exploiting the system they live in long before anyone even defined neoliberalism and will be doing so long after it's been forgotten. You always try to connect human nature to something that is a result of the human nature and present the result as the source of the cause....
Well, they can educate themselves about it and see that many cultures have had gender non-conformity and genderless or gender neutral language without it having been a threat to them. The narrative put forth by Peterson is not that it will be difficult to put into practice, it's that this is a relatively new phenomenon, and if "SJWs" are successful in normalizing it in the West, it will be the beginning of its undoing, because it's backed by le evil Cultural Marxists. The First Nation tribe that Peterson falsely claims to have been inducted in uses gender neutral pronouns, which is... the apex of irony.
It depends on the context under which you discuss exploitation. A farmer exploits his land, for instance. There is no negative connotation here. The trope of "exploiting the system" is entirely different. The implication here is that if you do something that doesn't benefit the economy and the hierarchies of power maintained by those who control society, but something that serves your own best interests instead, while being at the very bottom of society, you are "exploiting the system", which is viewed negatively. That idea is precisely how a brainwashed person thinks once they have been reduced to being a cog in the machine -- a machine that has shaped their lives and which they have been excluded from being able to build. The working man who carries this belief with him believes himself to be noble, contributing to the good of society, failing to see that this unexamined belief is one of the most important ways in which capitalists manufacture consent and auto-exploitation to materially benefit them.
In your example it was pretty clear that you viewed someone who would bail out of military duty as negative. You don't offer any rationale or context for why we should share your value judgment. It's also implied that you think human nature is quite fixed and self-regarding, where people are always looking to maximize their own advantages. That view of human nature is a myth. It's not backed up by any rigorous study of humankind. It has its roots in outdated psychological theories (largely Laing's), game theory (Nash's work) and neoliberal economics and ideology (Hayek, Rand, Thatcher). This is explored in Adam Curtis' documentary, "The Trap", which I've posted here before (I also posted his documentary on the influence of the ideas of the Freuds and Bernays, "The Century of the Self'').
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 13/05/2018 22:41
1
deathstar United States. May 14 2018 15:43. Posts 111
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.
You want to ban faggot and nigger, what about spic, wetback, cracker, chink, gook, dago, kike?. What if i change 1 letter, is fagget allowed?, niggar?. What about context? should I go to jail for just uttering to type those words?
If you call somebody dumb you lower their self steem, low self steem is the number one reason for suicide, so when you call somebody dumb you want to kill that people, so banning people from calling others dumb will protect human life and human life is more imoprtant than freedom of speech.
It's funny, I've argued with Loco and Eri before about how even what seems reasonable hate speech laws are dangerous because one day a maniac(s) will missuse this power and cause great harm, and out of nowhere you came and proved my point lol thanks
None of what we are talking about is funny. Hate speech laws would prevent great harm that is being done right now in society. I agree that hate speech laws are dangerous. I do not study hate speech laws so I do not know. I just know freedom of hate speech causes fear, terror, and sometimes even death of people.
Do you really say those words in life? Would you say to an african american person, I have the right to say the N the word? or to a gay person, I have the right to say the F word? Please don't do that. These are hate words, don't use hate words. That's really disgusting that you would change a letter in a word to a say a hate word a different way, that's been banned because its harmful. On these forums, abusive language, racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia is all outlawed. Its wrong. Someone who is using all these words is ignorant. Of themselves and others. Always.
dumb 1.temporarily unable or unwilling to speak.
People who are unable or unwilling to speak are killing themselves because they are called dumb? No they don't. They look for people who they trust and feel safe with before speaking.
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.
It's funny, I've argued with Loco and Eri before about how even what seems reasonable hate speech laws are dangerous because one day a maniac(s) will missuse this power and cause great harm, and out of nowhere you came and proved my point lol thanks
Stop arguing on the internet
My most +EV tip for you my friend. It will cause less tilt and more time to grind
Best regards, long time internet arguing addict that went sober.
:D
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. May 14 2018 19:48. Posts 3093
if you do a good job arguing and find good people to argue with, you'll usually come out of it a smarter person. If you're not able to argue without getting angry or tilted, it's probably good that you don't.
On May 13 2018 20:38 Loco wrote:
It depends on the context under which you discuss exploitation. A farmer exploits his land, for instance. There is no negative connotation here. The trope of "exploiting the system" is entirely different. The implication here is that if you do something that doesn't benefit the economy and the hierarchies of power maintained by those who control society, but something that serves your own best interests instead, while being at the very bottom of society, you are "exploiting the system", which is viewed negatively. That idea is precisely how a brainwashed person thinks once they have been reduced to being a cog in the machine -- a machine that has shaped their lives and which they have been excluded from being able to build. The working man who carries this belief with him believes himself to be noble, contributing to the good of society, failing to see that this unexamined belief is one of the most important ways in which capitalists manufacture consent and auto-exploitation to materially benefit them.
In your example it was pretty clear that you viewed someone who would bail out of military duty as negative. You don't offer any rationale or context for why we should share your value judgment. It's also implied that you think human nature is quite fixed and self-regarding, where people are always looking to maximize their own advantages. That view of human nature is a myth. It's not backed up by any rigorous study of humankind. It has its roots in outdated psychological theories (largely Laing's), game theory (Nash's work) and neoliberal economics and ideology (Hayek, Rand, Thatcher). This is explored in Adam Curtis' documentary, "The Trap", which I've posted here before (I also posted his documentary on the influence of the ideas of the Freuds and Bernays, "The Century of the Self'').
You're absolutely right about the part of me thinking that it's in the human nature to always maximize your own advantages. That is absolutely true for 99% of the human beings otherwise laws wouldn't exist. Obviously, we're talking about a wide spectrum of how a system would be exploited, the majority of cases is exactly for one's own advantage, unlike the "hacker ideology" where you exploit the system to expose its flaws so it could improve. I don't see how Game Theory backs up the antithesis to that? Game Theory is the best argument for my thesis - well in theory it isn't but in practice it is as reaching the Nash Equillibrium isn't exactly something that happens. I also don't see how its outdated or how it will ever be as the second that part of our nature becomes outdated is the second where we reach utopia.
I'm not looking the whole discussion from the point of view of ideologies and how things should be, but rather try to theoretically apply the ideas in reality and see what would beneficially stick. I'm very aware of most things you're trying to explain to me, I just don't see those beliefs in the everyday life. The military example was the easiest, most shallow one to give. In my belief the whole military recruitment even during the times of war should be done only on the basis of volunteering as I generally don't see how there could ever be a war which would provoke me to participate. In reality, however, that is indeed viewed negatively by society so im applying the majority's point of view, as my sole belief system is not that of the masses.
P.S. Dont have to watch those 2 videos, but will bookmark them and check them out at some point, would be very interested in seeing how my point of view of human's nature is wrong.
Last edit: 14/05/2018 20:57
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. May 14 2018 22:41. Posts 5296
Human nature could be defined as genetic endowment and it's possible manifestations; there's a wide range values that human's can manifest depending on what culture they are exposed to;
There is no evidence to suggest that humans are inherently selfish or altruistic. Game theory can show how a lot of things can happen; and some evolutionary psychologists have shown that self sacrificing behaviour can be beneficial to population growth of a species-using game theory; but it doesn't necessarily apply to any species in particular. biology on the other hand can tell us some precise aspects of human nature, and then other fields like psychology/linguistics/anthropology can give us a reasonable although very contentious idea of what it is outside of biological reprogramming and function. But when it comes to human normative or moral values, there is zero clue about what is fixed in human nature. If it was discovered and had scientific consensus you would probably hear about it in the news. IMO human values arise in a similar way to language acquisition; there are some modules that are genetically preprogrammed to deal with this, and they pick up certain characteristics based on what culture the modules are exposed to, just like language. This is my guess based on recent scientific research done at MIT/Harvard on moral psychology.
Game theory doesn't say much about human nature though, it's a useful tool for modelling the behaviour of a species under certain conditions. And it can be seen how self interest or altruistic behaviour can benefit certain individuals/groups/populations. Nothing more. But notice how fields that know the most about what human nature- like biology- never ask what 'human nature' is? It's such a broad question that it doesn't fall under scientific inquiry. If you ask a biologist that, they will laugh at you or stare in bewilderment. The question gets left to philosophers; the only remaining group that still takes impossible/pseudo questions seriously. Outside of philosophy and science people make claims on human nature that are ideologically motivated; either by them or someone else. imo the people loco mentioned are ideologically motivated in their claims about selfishness and human nature. People like milton friedman arn't drawing on economic theory either when they make claims about human nature, there certainly isn't anything in economics that claims humans are selfish; they are probably stretching the concept of a self interested rational agent a bit too far. It is only recently that the field of economics has even crossed over into psychology and started to try and understand what humans are like, in behavioural economics, and the results are quite different from what Friedman would have claimed. The left has been seriously ideological about their claims on human nature as well; a lot of marxism has a history of denying its existence.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Most people in any historical period other than our own capitalist one would have volunteered to go to war if they felt that it was a just and necessary war and they had to defend themselves and everything they care about. It's not the same when it's systems of power that coerce people into fighting a war that isn't their own (and motivated only by personal gain). If this is the situation (which we know it almost always is now), then the idea that they are exploiting the system by not participating in it reveals itself to be backward and untenable.
The false belief that you are operating under when it comes to human nature is the same that gave rise to neoliberal economics and all the manipulation techniques that have devastated human lives. It's based on a reductionist view of human beings as nothing but homo economicus. It's not taken seriously by scientists anymore. The only philosophers who believe in this model of human nature are the Objectivists -- the least popular, least represented, and least rigorous philosophers in academia. Many people don't even consider Ayn Rand a philosopher (including Jordan Peterson). Nash himself called it his "enlightenment" when he realized that this model wasn't true. Like Stroggoz said, it is only true of some people under certain circumstances. In reality, most people alternate on a constant basis between being self-regarding and other-regarding. About 8%-10% of people are very tilted towards being altruistic, they really have no interest in personal gain and accumulation. Moreover, the belief acts as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy: the more you believe it, the truer it becomes in the way you act in the world. It is also always true for the psychopaths, of course.
This is the most relevant clip on this topic from the documentary that you really should watch in its entirety. That you have carried this belief with you for all this time is a tragedy in itself. It's still very much a deep-rooted belief in American culture today but it has no empirical basis whatsoever. In the social sciences now there is a lot of debate about past research, what many people thought was solid research which allowed us to make broad claims about human nature has been debunked by many scholars, most notably by the "WEIRD" researchers and their 2010 meta-analysis.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Edgar Morin, in all of his works, notably this short and amazing book, explores the complexity of homo sapiens beyond the narrow scope of homo economicus. This video is a brief overview:
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I really have to read more of that guys stuff but On Complexity came with these really tiny letters and words and it's just a pain. Yeah, if I could wave a magic wand and speak French of course I fucking would but C'est la vie.
We should make a pact in this thread to post the video above in any and every Peterson thread on the internet.
It's a shame, but I have to encourage you to power through it. I really considered studying translation to help translate his books. They are that good. I'm still amazed that so few of them have been translated into English. He is pretty much the antithesis to Peterson when it comes to politics but he does share some common ground with him, mostly on the mythological aspects of human life, but he does a much better job at explaining it. Peterson's ideas are often confused, but his writing is also particularly bad. And I'm not talking about the obscurantist language in his first book, look at this sentence for instance (it won an award for most atrocious first line in a book or something):
"Our eyes are always pointing at things we are interested in approaching, or investigating, or looking at, or having." - 12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson
Btw, I just learned that JP has also apparently transitioned to a meat-only diet last month. The reason? He gets anxiety attacks and a feeling of dread in the morning. He seems to have convinced himself that it must be caused by the few vegetables he was still allowing himself to eat. He has also openly recommended people avoid all carbohydrates because they are "basically poisonous". Pretty reasonable guy.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. May 15 2018 10:49. Posts 5296
So is there enough value in paying attention to Jordan Peterson to justfiy doing it?; he is highly influential but i feel the more important issues need to be focused on.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
"carbohydrates are basically poisonous" "The most good in the most efficient way possible"
Peterson could shut up and meditate. That would probably be best for the world. Like anxiety attacks and dread every morning is really an indicator that one is living their life well. Yeah, I want THAT. Work until exhaustion so I can find my MAX efficiency. Yeah.... ok. So, I can get a "pay raise" hopefully somewhat inline with inflation. Fucking joke. "Oh yeah, we got a 3% pay raise".... "Inflation 4%."
My last job my boss was all proud in giving me a "raise." Well, he fucking took tip share away so even with a raise to my base pay I was being paid less. The fact that he called it a raise and to act as if he was doing me a solid fucking infuriated me. It was enough pay that I wasn't going to leave over it though so mission accomplished on his part. That's all it fucking is.
At my other job same fucking thing. I was hourly banking on overtime because we were over fucking worked of course but I was getting them impossible business. Still, they were doing everything they could to get me on salary. This was like all the way up the chain to the VP of Sales. Finally, I was like fuck this I'll go on salary and just cruise because fuck this. So, I did. My alcoholism worsened and since I was salary I got short term and long term disability. Suckas. Not really though because that was the most anguish and suffering I have went through in my life thus far. Oh yeah, they promised me a new company car which didn't materialize and I couldn't really leave because they manipulated me into signing a confidentiality agreement. The thing is I am not a fucking lawyer but corporations are lawyered the fuck up. Making me wait for an hour in the waiting room and then giving me a 10+ page contract to read and pressuring me every 10 min. if I am done reading it yet. It's all bullshit negotiations and manipulations. Yeah, maybe I should be better at negotiating but all these guys are like in there 50s and have been doing it there whole life. I am not a fucking contract lawyer. What the fuck am I supposed to make of all of this?
So, practice hyper efficiency until exhaustion???
Yeah, if you want anxiety attacks, dread, high blood pressure, and sickness in return for a raise somewhat in line with inflation. It's a fucking horrible message. Everything a corporation does is to get more return on sales, more profit. Hyper efficiency will move someone up the chain eventually depending on factors. Until someone finds themselves in a job above their heads. All for what? So, they can buy a new couch or send Billy to the private university? Well, maybe I want to dress up in a dress shirt, nice pants, and a pair of expensive shoes and go to that place where I can buy $50 fried chicken and brag to my friends about it. Everyone will be dressed the same. Then we will go into the office the next day and everyone will be dressed the same. What did you do yesterday Thomas? Oh man, I went to Tusk and had $50 fried chicken. It was the best fried chicken ever. Then me and Louise went home drank wine and melded into that lovely, expensive couch we could barely afford but something about it made me feel like I could travel to a 4th dimension while being hit with mind anesthesia in the form of reality tv shows.
I just pictured the Peterson family going grocery shopping. They just go right to the butcher and ask for 9 lbs. of ground beef. "MAKE SURE IT'S GRASS FED!!!" Do they even plate it or just throw it all in a big sauté pan and eat it with their hands?
On May 15 2018 09:49 Stroggoz wrote:
So is there enough value in paying attention to Jordan Peterson to justfiy doing it?; he is highly influential but i feel the more important issues need to be focused on.
That's anybody's guess. If I'm honest, I just keep up with it out of habit now. It's not just him though, he's just one of the big players who have a role in the current significant cultural shift towards right-wing ideology, largely because they dominate social media platforms and the algorithms reinforce people's narrow perceptions of what is actually happening in the world.
I think you can make a strong argument that they are a major obstacle in the way of allowing people to focus on the important issues, because they actively oppose the very idea that they are important. Peterson himself is a "climate skeptic" so he's not just a distraction but an actual enemy. His whole MO is that we should focus on our own little person, our personal achievements and our families, we shouldn't concern ourselves with global/societal problems. If this narrative gets no push back at all, it's pretty clear that we are screwed. It is at the moment in fact getting a lot of push back though, so it's fair enough to ignore him entirely if you want to.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
United States. May 15 2018 02:34. Posts 8522
