https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland latinoamerica Iceland    Contact            Users: 84 Active, 10 Logged in - Time: 22:09

jordan peterson phenomena - Page 5

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > General
  First 
  < 
  1 
  2 
  3 
  4 
 5 
  6 
  7 
  8 
  9 
  10 
  17 
  > 
  Last 
  All 
Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 18 2018 11:10. Posts 4217

I read the whole anti-anti communism article.

-----

"The defender of capitalism might protest that the historical point is not true: nobody should think that a belief in free markets naturally entails that internment camps or slavery are okay; such things are a perversion of the ideals of any reasonable capitalism.

Fair enough. We will grant for the sake of argument that slavery and the rest do not follow from the principles of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. But the historical point in the anti-communism argument is equally dubious. Where, for example, in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels does one find that leaders should deliberately induce mass starvation or purges."

-----


it's worth noting that political economists around the time of Ricardo advocating things far worse than slavery and mass starvation, imo. Malthus for example advocated housing the poor in crowded areas, and then bringing back the bubonic plague to wipe out the poor and to curb population growth. It sounds ridiculous but I got that from scholarship done by economic historians such as Douglas Dowd.

We should also note that under true capitalism there would be no laws against child labour. The political economists in ricardo's time, him being one, argued against child labour laws because it was an intervention in the free market; and we could see many other things being an intervention in the market as well. Limited liability corporations for example, which are the main economic institution today, were created by the government. They would also be seen as an intervention by ricardo, i think, and no true capitalist society would tolerate them.

a capitalist society as ricardo intended would also have no environmental regulation-no limit on how much pollution you can contribute to the world. We can forgive ricardo since he didn't exactly know about climate change, but there isn't really any excuse for nozick and the anarcho capitalists who have followed him-it's one of the rational conclusions of anarcho capitalisism that many people die from climate change.

As for adam smith, he is closer to karl marx than ricardo from my reading. He is wildly misrepresented by the chicago school of economics, and the textbooks on political economy or neoclassical economic theory that you get at university basically copy all the parts that the chicago school focused on.

Aside from that the article doesn't really point out the fact that Russia was never communist from the point where lenin consilidated power to the fall of the berlin wall. It's an elementary truth and one that has been lied about by both lenin/stalin/pravda, ect and america for different reasons. America/the west wanted to call russia communist because it wanted to point at how bad it was. lenin/stalin wanted to call it communist because it appealed to just political ideals. That's the lie and its hard to escape from it when every political system agrees on the same lie. Still, if one really want's to understand russia and communism you really have to point this out first or you are not going to understand much.

i like how the article points to east european attitudes/opinions. I rarely see that mentioned anywhere and it is pretty interesting. It is easy to see why most east europeans look fondly back on their lesser evil yoke of 'communism'-when their economy was a complete disaster under the privatizations in the 90's, another time where millions starved to death. This is when joseph stiglitz started to become seriously critical of what he was doing at the world bank.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

RiKD    United States. May 18 2018 16:16. Posts 5418

After reading that article:

Won't there always be some ruthless, murderous psychopath that rises to power?

Wouldn't Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Trump still come to power and use that power selfishly? (I didn't include Obama in there because I don't think he is as bas as the others but maybe I am fooled)

Another thing. Fuck baby boomers. They got us all into this mess. There are too many of them and they aren't dying fast enough.

I don't know I'm just throwing around ideas. My only other ideas are to wait for a Bernie 2.0 or move to France.


RiKD    United States. May 18 2018 16:57. Posts 5418

I actually think a stupid high number of people associate 100 million deaths to communism and Marx. Certainly it's an idea virus that the capitalists spread around. I don't know the answer to how does one prevent the Lenins, Stalins, Maos? How does one prevent the Reagans, Bushs, Clintons, Trumps? God, fucking hideous creatures. How do you change the mind of a baby boomer? You MURDER them all!!!! Then you're no better than all the people I have listed in this post. I could just see a young kid Billy coming home from school learning about Marx... "Billy... do you want to be free? or do you want to die of starvation?" The thing is I don't have the answers. I can't tell someone why we wouldn't starve or end up in gulags. I really just want to move to France and live on welfare and be a wino and get seduced by femme fatales. What a life...... France is the highest % of atheists in Europe and have a history of anarchy and socialism and bad ass revolutions. I don't know if they would accept me. What am I even talking about here? I am just killing time before I go train. The point is communism needs a re-branding. The capitalists here are shitting on it. You've got poor, disenfranchised folks shitting on it. It's a mess. It's all a mess and Steve Bezos and Donald Trump and all the cronies are laughing on the way to the bank.


Santafairy   Korea (South). May 18 2018 17:39. Posts 1429


  On May 17 2018 18:29 Loco wrote:
The full story is that Dave Rubin left TYT (fyi, I don't like/support TYT) based on personal disagreements with Cenk, mostly over the Harris/Islam stuff. He then went on to brand himself as this free thinker who is just exploring topics that were deemed "dangerous" by Cenk, and he said that freedom was granted to him by "us" -- by his Patreons. That's what it was when I followed him: he was free to be an unbiased show host. There was nothing to dislike about it, so I listened to him until I realized he did in fact have a clear agenda. Now it turns out we have proof he's a shill, but it's understandable that you'd want to defend him since he's a shill on your side of things. You have to admit it is pretty funny that the "regressive left" narrative only comes out after this same left has helped him secure his gay marriage rights and the Koch brothers started placing checks in his pockets.


I can't place whether you're a character or have mental problems

1) I don't care too much about Dave Rubin, I find him also slightly insufferable and the interviews a little shallow, but he gets good guests and people obviously have total latitude to talk about anything, the difference is I don't need the hipster introduction of I liked Dave Rubin before it was cool to justify myself

Of course he has an agenda, literally everything and everyone has an agenda, books have agendas, algorithms have agendas, your mistake was convincing yourself in the first place someone didn't have beliefs and biases, don't project that onto being Dave Rubin's fault

2) The attempt at using some vague connection to Koch to besmirch someone, people outside your sphere like me won't understand why his name is such a boogeyman so we won't give a shit, what's the problem, he's a rich person? He's Republican? Before I can emotionally get tricked for the first time by another petty guilt by association tactic I have to at least know, let alone care, what the point is

3) The actual smear itself is not rooted in fact deserving of these puerile titles like "sugar daddies," which by the way is probably not a phrase you would eat up so readily if it were in the context of a far-left publicly gay person, or even if it were about who pays Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon's bills

The IHS was founded in 1961, moved to George Mason University in 1985, Koch is a mere one of 11 directors on the board, one project of theirs has ads on

Is it surprising someone in politics is more likely to have a financial relationship with someone with similar interests or goals? People they agree with on something?

Who isn't a shill on this planet? How do you pass the bar? I mean even granting for the sake of argument that all your worst contentions are true. Milo would have to be funded by Soros in order to get your approval? I mean what the fuck are you talking about

4) You got this specious argument from one of another long videos of fringe Youtube trash

Like this anarchist guy begging for rent before that you posted https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianSocialistRants

Yet keep bragging about how you would refuse to watch Stefan Molyneux or Peterson or Harris and so on, what's with this?

5) We all get and understand how your mind works with association already, look at how far you're reaching just to throw a tomato at Peterson, in fact have you forgotten this was the goal?

-I hate Peterson
-Peterson has been recently working together with someone else I don't like
-They're best friends
-He runs a TV show
-The TV show had some commercials for a project by a think tank connected to a well-respected university
-That think tank has a board of directors, one of whom is named Koch
AHA! Centrists are alt-right shills, there is no new center, there are no libertarians

You're so woke

6) "Regressive left" doesn't mean "the left is regressive"

"Illegal immigrant" doesn't mean "immigrants are illegal"

"Religious right" doesn't mean "the right is religious"

Or these would all be redundant

"Regressive left" means there is a part of the left which is regressive, I don't know why anyone but an idiot would refuse to admit that regardless of its size there is at least some nonzero group of people in the entire left (which is one of only two huge political directions we have between left and right) who are moving backwards

How can a supposedly well-read adult make such a basic mistake except intentionally? With all the esoteric philosophical gibberish you post, how can adjectives be your kryptonite?

I'm sure Dave Rubin likes that he can enjoy all the privileges of marriage which not 10 years ago Obama was against

Now do we want to teach schoolchildren they have no gender and no identity and feed them hormones? Is that "the same left?"

You've totally blocked out the obvious explanation of Rubin's central thesis which is that the spectrum itself has moved around him and the rug been pulled out from under him and substituted this other pile of... well, I won't stoop to asking you the melting point of steel

It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen 

NMcNasty    United States. May 18 2018 17:58. Posts 1982

fun article

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html


RiKD    United States. May 18 2018 20:46. Posts 5418

The cure for an incel killing 10 people is enforced monogamy??????

I was shaking my head at that whole article.


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 18 2018 23:16. Posts 8710


  On May 18 2018 16:39 Santafairy wrote:
Now do we want to teach schoolchildren they have no gender and no identity and feed them hormones? Is that "the same left?"



This is exactly what I meant by people exploiting the system in my previous posts. Especially in a place like the USA were absurd things happen e.g. - http://www.latimes.com/politics/essen...m-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html

I mean I'm left myself, but this is just absurd and it's just one of many practical examples. Can't change facts so someone wont feel "hurt". Another fact is that people like Jordan Peterson are thriving exactly because of the former reasons. Sure he has pretty reasonable arguments on a bunch of stuff, but he would be nowhere even close to being that famous if it weren't for the brainfarts of the what is supposed to be the "left" currently.

I believe a large amount of people can't recognize themselves with the left anymore with those types of ideologies but we feel the need to identify with something which opens doors for potential horrors.

 Last edit: 18/05/2018 23:22

Loco   Canada. May 18 2018 23:23. Posts 19730

"It's clear how your mind works" ... coming from a guy who believes in Cultural Marxism and cites Breitbart as a credible source over Wikipedia. Why do I find it hard to believe you have such clear insights into my mind?

This really is as simple as it gets. There's no debate to be had about any minutiae. It's called "integrity" and it's a basic journalistic principle. You don't get to pretend that you're a moderate who has complete freedom to explore ideas when you're funded by the far-right who just want tax cuts.


  You've totally blocked out the obvious explanation of Rubin's central thesis which is that the spectrum itself has moved around him and the rug been pulled out from under him and substituted this other pile of... well, I won't stoop to asking you the melting point of steel



There's no "thesis". It's just asserted. And that's exactly why I said that being a centrist is a problem. You're vulnerable to the tactics employed by the likes of Rubin and Peterson. Rubin is not a moderate nor a "classical liberal" to anyone who is slightly educated about these things. Neither is Jordan Peterson, despite him claiming that he is. They (the "intellectual dark web'') are the ones who have moved the spectrum and that's why they never have guests or debates with people who would call them out on their bullshit. Instead, they choose to lie about the left not wanting to debate them. The evidence is there in plain sight for anyone to see, but you're the last person here I expect to be able to see it in spite of that. You've shown multiple times before that you're not really interested in evidence. I mean, ffs, read the article linked by McNasty. Tell me in which texts notable classical liberals argued for enforced monogamy being a solution to anything, please.

Oh and, here's one more of my meaningless associations, too. Dave Rubin has a video up on PragerU with over 6 million views. They are a conservative digital media organization. They have never had anyone on the left make videos for their channel. But yeah, sure, associations are meaningless and where there is smoke there is almost never any fire.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 19/05/2018 00:07

Loco   Canada. May 18 2018 23:53. Posts 19730


  On May 18 2018 22:16 Spitfiree wrote:
Show nested quote +



This is exactly what I meant by people exploiting the system in my previous posts. Especially in a place like the USA were absurd things happen e.g. - http://www.latimes.com/politics/essen...m-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html

I mean I'm left myself, but this is just absurd and it's just one of many practical examples. Can't change facts so someone wont feel "hurt". Another fact is that people like Jordan Peterson are thriving exactly because of the former reasons. Sure he has pretty reasonable arguments on a bunch of stuff, but he would be nowhere even close to being that famous if it weren't for the brainfarts of the what is supposed to be the "left" currently.

I believe a large amount of people can't recognize themselves with the left anymore with those types of ideologies but we feel the need to identify with something which opens doors for potential horrors.


Your link doesn't lead anywhere, it's just a feed with a bunch of articles. What facts? Can you outline some of Jordan Peterson's reasonable arguments?

The main reason he's famous is not because of mistakes done by people on the left, though there have been some. He's famous because he misrepresented the law and convinced people that his alarmism was warranted. Also because the bar has been set so low for what constitutes a noteworthy public intellectual. Canada's most influential public intellectual used to be Marshall McLuhan and now we have this "everybody is religious" tradcon hack of an intellectual. Moreover, we have actual noteworthy people like Noam Chomsky telling us that Peterson and co merit no attention but it makes no difference. It comes down to the simple fact that people are easily fooled and manipulable when you give them a story that they like to hear. Peterson excels at doing that.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 19/05/2018 00:09

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 19 2018 01:23. Posts 8710


  On May 18 2018 22:53 Loco wrote:
It comes down to the simple fact that people are easily fooled and manipulable when you give them a story that they like to hear. Peterson excels at doing that.



People would like to hear different stories under different times, thus exactly what I mean. Also the link leads exactly to the article I wanted to post, but you have to click "read more" and their site is pretty poorly made - the HIV one


Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 01:46. Posts 19730

Or they would like the hear the same story they've always told themselves but coming from someone with a PhD. That's an option too. I read the article and I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying people will exploit the fact that this law is not severe enough, and expose people to HIV for like revenge purposes or something?

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken) 

GoTuNk   Chile. May 19 2018 03:28. Posts 2797


  On May 18 2018 10:10 Stroggoz wrote:
I read the whole anti-anti communism article.

-----

"The defender of capitalism might protest that the historical point is not true: nobody should think that a belief in free markets naturally entails that internment camps or slavery are okay; such things are a perversion of the ideals of any reasonable capitalism.

Fair enough. We will grant for the sake of argument that slavery and the rest do not follow from the principles of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. But the historical point in the anti-communism argument is equally dubious. Where, for example, in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels does one find that leaders should deliberately induce mass starvation or purges."

-----


it's worth noting that political economists around the time of Ricardo advocating things far worse than slavery and mass starvation, imo. Malthus for example advocated housing the poor in crowded areas, and then bringing back the bubonic plague to wipe out the poor and to curb population growth. It sounds ridiculous but I got that from scholarship done by economic historians such as Douglas Dowd.

We should also note that under true capitalism there would be no laws against child labour. The political economists in ricardo's time, him being one, argued against child labour laws because it was an intervention in the free market; and we could see many other things being an intervention in the market as well. Limited liability corporations for example, which are the main economic institution today, were created by the government. They would also be seen as an intervention by ricardo, i think, and no true capitalist society would tolerate them.

a capitalist society as ricardo intended would also have no environmental regulation-no limit on how much pollution you can contribute to the world. We can forgive ricardo since he didn't exactly know about climate change, but there isn't really any excuse for nozick and the anarcho capitalists who have followed him-it's one of the rational conclusions of anarcho capitalisism that many people die from climate change.

As for adam smith, he is closer to karl marx than ricardo from my reading. He is wildly misrepresented by the chicago school of economics, and the textbooks on political economy or neoclassical economic theory that you get at university basically copy all the parts that the chicago school focused on.

Aside from that the article doesn't really point out the fact that Russia was never communist from the point where lenin consilidated power to the fall of the berlin wall. It's an elementary truth and one that has been lied about by both lenin/stalin/pravda, ect and america for different reasons. America/the west wanted to call russia communist because it wanted to point at how bad it was. lenin/stalin wanted to call it communist because it appealed to just political ideals. That's the lie and its hard to escape from it when every political system agrees on the same lie. Still, if one really want's to understand russia and communism you really have to point this out first or you are not going to understand much.

i like how the article points to east european attitudes/opinions. I rarely see that mentioned anywhere and it is pretty interesting. It is easy to see why most east europeans look fondly back on their lesser evil yoke of 'communism'-when their economy was a complete disaster under the privatizations in the 90's, another time where millions starved to death. This is when joseph stiglitz started to become seriously critical of what he was doing at the world bank.




Do you think communism is a good idea?
Do you think we should try to implement it again?


Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 19 2018 03:47. Posts 4217

Gotunk based on my values i would support libertarian communism over the current system. it is a democratic form of communism, where workplaces are run democratically. You cannot really have democracy without socialism

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 19/05/2018 03:48

GoTuNk   Chile. May 19 2018 04:05. Posts 2797


  On May 19 2018 02:47 Stroggoz wrote:
Gotunk based on my values i would support libertarian communism over the current system. it is a democratic form of communism, where workplaces are run democratically. You cannot really have democracy without socialism



What the fuck does that mean. I mean, in practice.


Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 04:05. Posts 19730

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken) 

GoTuNk   Chile. May 19 2018 05:25. Posts 2797


  On May 19 2018 03:05 Loco wrote:



Who gives a shit on the wealth differences in freely married couples? I mean aside from nutjob leftist obsessed with inequality.

Jordan Peterson talks about pretty much every subject on earth and has a gazillion of hours on youtube, surely you can take out of context something he said somewhere and disprove it. So what.

Tried to think on some of the cliffs on most of what he says:

-Kids on average do better with a mother and a father figure
-People have different intelects and personalities, you can't force them to be equal unless you take every right away from them.
-Property rights and freedom of speech are good ideas (focuses more on freedom of speech)
-Given whenever marxism/communism (or whatever new name you want to give to totalitarian governments) is tried the countries are ruined and they murdered tens of millions of people, maybe we should not try it anymore
-People find meaning in taking responsabilites and accomplishing stuff, being an hedonistic idiot gets you so far.
-Kids (college students) should grow up, and maybe sort their own stuff out before trying to make the world to their image, because they could found out later that their current ideas are wrong. People get wiser with age.

With some nuances is some pretty uncontroversial stuff. Unless you are hell bent on hating him because he belongs to your opposite political camp.


Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 19 2018 05:55. Posts 4217


  On May 19 2018 03:05 GoTuNk wrote:
Show nested quote +



What the fuck does that mean. I mean, in practice.


it means in practice, workers elect administrators and control them-instead of having ceo's and administrators giving workers orders. It can get more complicated than that obviously, but that's the basic gist of libertarian communism/socialism.

What lenin advocated was that the state gives orders to workers-something which is entirely opposite to what i advocate.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 19/05/2018 06:03

GoTuNk   Chile. May 19 2018 06:02. Posts 2797


  On May 19 2018 04:55 Stroggoz wrote:
Show nested quote +



it means in practice, workers elect administrators and control them-instead of having ceo's and administrators giving workers orders. It can get more complicated than that obviously, but that's the basic gist of libertarian communism/socialism.



How do you implement that? Do you take away companies from the current owners? What if they don't want to give them away?
How do you deal with the instant stop of incoming capital?
Is there a price system? A monetary system?
Don't you think most companies have CEOs making the decisions because they are more qualified to do that than the workers?

 Last edit: 19/05/2018 06:03

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 19 2018 06:24. Posts 4217


  On May 19 2018 05:02 GoTuNk wrote:
Show nested quote +



How do you implement that? Do you take away companies from the current owners? What if they don't want to give them away?
How do you deal with the instant stop of incoming capital?
Is there a price system? A monetary system?
Don't you think most companies have CEOs making the decisions because they are more qualified to do that than the workers?



It could be implemented in many ways-i would prefer non violent disobedience and general strikes. Obviously not enough people are actively supporting libertarian communism right now, but if there were enough-they could engage in disobedience and the capitalists would realise that they can't run their factories without the help of workers. So long as workers did nothing, the capitalists would eventually have to hand over their factories to them because they couldn't do anything without any workers.

whether there is a profit system or not depends on the choices of the society-economic policy is voted on; scholars, experts inform the public because the media and academia is run democratically as well, it doesn't have a corporate structure. IMO Some capital would be needed to give the economy some fluidity, and markets are fine so long as they don't lead to concentration of capital. My opinion is there would be a limit on any sort of ownership of capital.

I don't think any society should purely get rid of all capital, it can have its uses. For example amartya sen did research that shows the quickest way to get rid of a famine is to give a small amount of money to everyone that is starving-faster than distribution of food from some sort of organisation.

A CEO may be qualified or they may not be, on certain areas. But the point is the profit motive drives corporations to do things that are against the interests of the population. An example would be that Exxon mobil ceo's weren't qualified on climatology, but they had some workers who were-a team of scientists-and they were well informed and decided to do what corporations are legally obliged to do, which is maximise profit-and they had to ignore the workers in their corporation and look for more fossil fuels as a result.



I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 19/05/2018 06:28

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 06:41. Posts 19730


  On May 19 2018 04:25 GoTuNk wrote:
Show nested quote +



Who gives a shit on the wealth differences in freely married couples? I mean aside from nutjob leftist obsessed with inequality.





It's a direct refutation of Peterson's incel claim that women tend to go only for high-status men... did you even read the quote he's referring to? Speaking of "nutjob ideas of people obsessed with inequality", how about forced monogamy? Isn't he proposing this as a solution to rectify inequality? How do you justify Peterson proposing this if he's all about the freedom of individuals and the opposition to "equality of outcome"?


  Jordan Peterson talks about pretty much every subject on earth and has a gazillion of hours on youtube, surely you can take out of context something he said somewhere and disprove it. So what.



Jesus. You fit the lobster stereotype perfectly. "Someone criticized Jordan Peterson and showed data, AH!!! NOT AN ARGUMENT, OUT OF CONTEXT, AISDIUHASD!"

Yeah, he has thousands of hours of videos in which he rants and says a lot of very banal things, misinterprets law, literature and science, calls himself a "neuroscientist," and makes a bunch of outrageous claims all over the place. Jordan Peterson knows a lot about Jungian psychology, mythology and his own subfield of personality psychology. That's it. Once he strays from those fields he makes blatant errors constantly and engages in demagoguery. Your internet daddy's not Leonardo da Vinci dude. He was an obscure psychology professor before he started ranting about "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" infiltrating academia and he would have stayed obscure because he's not some genius, he's an opportunist who found a very profitable niche for reactionary ideas.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 19/05/2018 07:33

 
  First 
  < 
  1 
  2 
  3 
  4 
 5 
  6 
  7 
  8 
  9 
  10 
  17 
  > 
  Last 
  All 



Copyright © 2019. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap