jordan peterson phenomena

Jordan Peterson is a former Harvard professor and current professor of psychology at the University of Toronto in Canada. He has been giving speeches everywhere anybody will take him over the last year. What started his rise in the public's eye was that he uploaded on youtube his videos of himself. The initial momentum was from his opposition to a bill in Canada that required transgender people to be called whatever pronoun they want to be called, or face a fine. He was vehemently against it, saying he would go to jail and hunger strike. His main point was that it compromised free speech.

His main topics are mostly the dangers of the far left when it comes to identity politics in this important time in history, and the pc culture and fragility of free speech. You really just have to watch a youtube video of his to understand.

I find his messages to be simple and I mostly agree with them. Sometimes I do not, but he is a fun listen. Here is a youtube link to him being interviewed on the topic of feminism and the gender pay gap (people are obsessed with this subject obv).



He is mischaracterized as a far right supporter because many feel threatened by him and wish to tarnish his image. Basically calling someone far right is the new racist.

His youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos/videos

I'm super surprised nobody has made a thread about him yet. Oh well.

I think this criticism of him looks pretty fair; assuming the sources are correct and they look correct to me.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

So once we see he is a charlatan the more interesting question is why is he so popular?

Yeah.... Google searching him and reading articles you will find nothing but negativity. You have to have the time to listen to him uncut in videos and make up your mind for yourself.

Ok, i watched one of his videos. He made a claim that 'no attempt to reduce poverty has ever worked.' Pretty clearly this is false, and he seems like an imbecile to me for making a claim like that. Nathan Robinsons article all seems correct to me.

On May 11 2018 21:25 Big_Rob_isback wrote: I'm super surprised nobody has made a thread about him yet. Oh well.

There were many discussions about him throughout LP and the Truth Discussion thread.


While I value is insights in psychology and his views on free speech, much of his conservative ideas about philosophy and religion don't sit well with me (his ideas about God, morality and truth). Here's recent debate where Dillahunty dismantles much of those ideas while Peterson struggles to defend himself..

My bad, I didn't read the truth discussion thread. I had no idea he was mentioned already.

He's pretty spot on with some pretty basic but forgotten tenets of rational behavior I just feel that so many groups are pulling him in different directions, then being exposed as some charlatan. It's like a brain tournament vs the world on a whole myriad of tangents. He WAS made famous because of the first Rogan podcast appearance for god's sake. Now the dude is going after Sam Harris when he really doesn't have to.

The biggest problem with Peterson is that he indulges every group out there who are practical blackbelts at their respective beliefs - of course he's going to get "exposed". He should mostly stick to free speech and correctling this irrational progressive trend that's kicking people from their jobs just for being in a bad mood and tweeting shit.

Yeah Whammbot I totally agree, although I couldn't articulate it that effectively

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.

oh god... Loco is going to have an intense orgasm when he finds this thread

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.

On May 12 2018 03:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

Jordan Peterson misrepresented the law, there is nothing in it that criminalises the use of certain pronouns. And I agree that outlawing words is an illegitimate infringement on free speech. He got famous in part because of bad reading comprehension. He abandoned his socialist views from a reading comprehension error as well. (He thought George Orwell was anti-socialist). The guy has some reading comprehension issues apparently.

I don't think hate speech should be outlawed either. However there are some examples where one may want to restrict speech. For example should people be allowed to put pornographic imagery in public spaces? I don't think so, so i am not in favour of unlimited free speech, i think America is a model example of good freedom of speech laws though, and any civilised society would have at least the standards that america has.

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.

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

Cannot stand Jordan Peterson. He abstracts everything into meaningless jargon, bullshits about archetypes, and is basically a gateway drug for the alt-right. He often says something vague and then when someone claims it means something concrete, he backs away from the position. I'm probably being too reductive and harsh on him, but there aren't enough hours in a human life to devote it to fully understanding every important individual on the planet, and I think I've given enough time (~4 hours in 3 podcasts at 2x speed, and maybe 60 minutes reading other articles about him) to someone I already consider a hack.

I did find his first podcast with Sam Harris enthralling though. Basically they cannot come to an agreement about what is "true", and Jordan has a really interesting perspective on it. His second podcast with Sam and his Rogan podcast are insufferable, talking about dragons and other nonsense archetypes the entire time.

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 this again

JP is clearly very intelligent and great at phrasing himself. It's sad that he uses these abilities to come up with inflammatory trolly statements rather than present nuanced positions. He does have some valuable insight, some well phrased platitudes, but mixes in some truly stupid (and frankly, dangerous) generalizations that make me disregard him completely and feel like his net contribution to the world is negative.

On May 12 2018 03:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

No, but I see what it's like when you don't bother to learn what a slippery slope fallacy is: you keep repeating them.

I'm not in favor of banning specific words. It's never been my position. Hate speech isn't reducible to the banning of specific words. If I were to reduce it down, it's the non-acceptance of intolerant speech that has a high likelihood of inciting violence, where it exists to allow individuals to organize and gain power in order to oppress others on the grounds that they are inferior in some way or another.

And free speech isn't a cut and dry issue like most uninformed people take it to be. If it were as simple as allowing people to say what they want whenever they want, there wouldn't be such a long-standing philosophical debate surrounding it among the world's greatest thinkers. Free speech carries its own internal paradox, where your freedom to say something can actively undermine the freedom of another individual, and tolerating all speech would eventually undermine society as a whole. There are very few consensuses in philosophy but some degree of restriction on speech is one of them. The typical strawman or confusion that is perpetuated by unnuanced hacks like Peterson is that the worst that can happen is that you are offended by speech you don't like, which isn't true. It's a conflating of the harm principle and the offense principle, a distinction which people probably learn in undergrad. It's a favorite among edgelords and macho tryhards, "facts over feelings man!".

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.

Edit: I forgot about this video. It's a one hour video from one of the most popular white nationalists on YouTube about how Peterson helps fascists whether he's aware of it or not, basically.
.


>reasonable people

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.

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.

On May 13 2018 05:02 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

On May 13 2018 05:45 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 13 2018 05:02 Loco wrote:   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

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'').

On May 12 2018 05:22 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2018 04:06 deathstar wrote:   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. 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 05:22 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2018 04:06 deathstar wrote:   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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Earth citizenship!

Yeah!

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.

What if I want to say fuck strategy? Fuck plans?

The only certainty is uncertainty.

Think think think think, plan plan plan plan, think think think. Fuck that. Do. Feel. Go. The gut knows.

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.

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.

Wow so dark

"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.

I'm not sure if deathstar is trolling, but either way I'm looking forward to his next post

On May 15 2018 06:28 Loco wrote: + Show Spoiler +

I never understood the seemingly widely held claim that Marx led to millions of deaths. How do they go around saying that as if it were fact? The Russian and Chinese governments were responsible for millions of deaths. Poor leadership was responsible for millions of deaths. Guess what the Russian and Chinese government is still responsible for murder today. I don't even know the full history of it so maybe I shouldn't comment too much but how do they get away with this? There has to be actual intellects like philosophy professors willing to debate until the cows come home. Yeah, that was the other thing. How these guys are crowned these renegade intellectuals. Give me a fucking break. Maybe if you've never read a fucking book in your life.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b2gsct

Listening to this right now, it's a pretty good round table discussion. Peterson gets some push back on the most problematic parts of his book. The part about stereotypical masculinity leading to mental health issues, which I've brought up before, is infuriating, he claims there is not "one shred of evidence" for it. He didn't bother to look for it at all.

On May 15 2018 23:59 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On May 15 2018 06:28 Loco wrote: + Show Spoiler + I never understood the seemingly widely held claim that Marx led to millions of deaths. How do they go around saying that as if it were fact? The Russian and Chinese governments were responsible for millions of deaths. Poor leadership was responsible for millions of deaths. Guess what the Russian and Chinese government is still responsible for murder today. I don't even know the full history of it so maybe I shouldn't comment too much but how do they get away with this? There has to be actual intellects like philosophy professors willing to debate until the cows come home. Yeah, that was the other thing. How these guys are crowned these renegade intellectuals. Give me a fucking break. Maybe if you've never read a fucking book in your life.

On May 15 2018 18:37 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

The earth is not a small place now that we have the internet. It is also our only reasonable home at the moment. It is just so classic right to be like "oh, let me just make this million right quick. Climate change doesn't effect me therefore it is not real." It is like Michael Jordan in game 6 denying that he was seriously ill. Michael Jordan is an asshole. I reduced him to that because I don't have the time to write about all the heinous shit he's done. Nike is a gaudy god of horribleness which isn't as bad as the US govt. which isn't as bad as the Russian govt. which isn't as bad as the Chinese govt. which isn't as bad as the North Korean govt. It's overwhelming at times. Where do we even start?

It makes me think that focusing on our own little person, our personal achievements and our families makes sense but damn a lot of sentient beings are suffering and disasters are impending.

On May 16 2018 00:17 Loco wrote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b2gsct Listening to this right now, it's a pretty good round table discussion. Peterson gets some push back on the most problematic parts of his book. The part about stereotypical masculinity leading to mental health issues, which I've brought up before, is infuriating, he claims there is not "one shred of evidence" for it. He didn't bother to look for it at all.

"Take responsibility for everything in your control."

And what exactly is in our control?

It's such an important point that we never talk about.

Well, I think we talk about it on here some but go to Texas and it's all God, free-will, and bootstraps.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html

The 'dark web intellectuals' portraying themselves as persecuted when on the left:

norman finkelstein got refused a positon at every university for exposing a book on israel/palestine as a fraud. also got denied tenure and kicked from a university for exposing alan dershowitz as a plagiarist.
chris hedges got fired from new york times for criticizing the invasion of iraq in 2003.
noam chomsky's first volume on the political economy of human rights got suppressed from being published by pressure from parent companies to smaller publishers.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/the-real-dangerous-ideas

Nathan writes so much lol how did he put out a similar piece the day just before? https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/pretty-loud-for-being-so-silenced

His video on Ben Shapiro is really great too.

Nice articles guys. There is a lot there with all the links. Somewhat overwhelming.

I think I might pass on the Ben Shapiro vid. I have no idea who he is besides that atrocious snippet on Hegel in one of the videos here.

One of his first links, which you might not be clicking on due to the overwhelming nature of the piece, is: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/meat-and-the-h-word

It's extremely well written, and goes deep into the nature of the denialism and moral failings of our culture with regards to the way we treat most other animals. In it he argues that no matter how improper or even insulting it sounds, using the word "holocaust" to describe what we are systematically doing is an impossible-to-avoid conclusion, if we are being honest enough.

~7 million Jews
56 billion farmed animals per year not including fish and sea creatures

So, the badmouse capitalism video was talking about 8 million deaths per year due to capitalism. I am unsure if socialist anarchy would fix all of those deaths but it also doesn't include the sickness capitalism can cause. And, of course, with the topic at hand 56 billion farmed animals per year not including fish and sea creatures. So, the aggregate of the systems today are causing more people to die in 1 year than in the holocaust which was over years. Obviously, it is in a little bit different light. It is pretty plain to see that systematically capturing, torturing, and killing millions of Jewish people is evil. Our current culture is so fucked that it is really that easy to turn a blind eye on 56 billion farmed animals and 8 million of the most unfortunate humans to be born into this world.

Isn't there heavy research on lab-grown meat past few years, with some success? It might come to the point where we don't use animals for meat anymore but actually "grow" it. That would be pretty cool, after that we just need to find a new efficient way for energy and we've solved the incoming overpopulation crisis.

There are already multiple companies producing "clean meat" and some projections that it will be available in restaurants as early as 2020, but it won't be able to compete with the heavily subsidized meat products. It's not going to slow down the trends of more animal foods being consumed throughout the Western world. China's not waiting for that though, they have decided to cut meat consumption in half by 2030. (Of course, it has nothing to do with concern for those animals, though.)

And yeah, I find the entire focus on "how many people died" comparison problematic in the badmouse videos. It's not accounting for many things that impoverish life under capitalism and slowly kill you. Still, he's aware of those things and he does a pretty terrific job debunking the status quo idea that we shouldn't even be asking the question because of those black book numbers, which are very likely not even accurate. Two historians who worked on the book themselves are critical of it:

In the introduction, the editor, Stéphane Courtois, used a ‘rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates’ to come up with a figure that approached 100 million, a number far greater than the 25 million victims he attributes to Nazism (which does not, conveniently, include those killed as a result of the Second World War). Courtois equated communism with Nazism, and argued that the ‘single-minded focus on the Jewish genocide’ had impeded the accounting of communist crimes. Painting the communists as worse that the Nazis based on a questionable body count raises alarm bells The Black Book stoked controversy from its first publication in France. As soon as it hit the shelves, two of the prominent historians contributing to the volume, Jean-Louis Margolin and Nicolas Werth, attacked Courtois in the pages of Le Monde. Margolin and Werth distanced themselves from the volume, believing that Courtois’s obsession with reaching the number of 100 million led to careless scholarship.

I highly recommend reading the whole article here: https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-communism-stance

And this is why being a centrist gets you into trouble. The latest on Jordan Peterson's best buddy whom he's touring with. Bought and paid for by the world's richest men for one purpose only.





And here is some classic Thatcherism:

talk show host I don't like has sponsor

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.

On May 15 2018 17:11 RiKD wrote: "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?

Thanks. I approve of this message 100%.

practice hyper efficiency till exhaustion sounds like something a corporate butcher would say

"me and 10 other dudes with youtube channels are grilling the left, the democratic party, and the media"

https://youtu.be/Xfu1yBeP8O8

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.

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.

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.

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

fun article

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

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

I was shaking my head at that whole article.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

On May 19 2018 04:55 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2018 03:05 GoTuNk wrote:   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. 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?

On May 19 2018 05:02 GoTuNk wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2018 04:55 Stroggoz wrote:   On May 19 2018 03:05 GoTuNk wrote:   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. 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?

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.

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

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.

On May 17 2018 12:57 Santafairy wrote: talk show host I don't like has sponsor

Yep they're all the same. That MR show too are just people trying to avoid jobs by becoming youtubers podcasters. Appealing to the contrarian crowd has gone full circle since the "right" has effectively established itself and exposed a lot of bs the hardcore progressives have been peddling for so long - now it's the "rights" turn to get their opinions scrutinized by going after the IDW or something, since the whole "alt-right" nazi racists shit didn't fly, and the world hasnt collapsed since Trump won.

On May 19 2018 05:50 whammbot wrote: Show nested quote + On May 17 2018 12:57 Santafairy wrote: talk show host I don't like has sponsor Yep they're all the same. That MR show too are just people trying to avoid jobs by becoming youtubers podcasters. Appealing to the contrarian crowd has gone full circle since the "right" has effectively established itself and exposed a lot of bs the hardcore progressives have been peddling for so long - now it's the "rights" turn to get their opinions scrutinized by going after the IDW or something, since the whole "alt-right" nazi racists shit didn't fly, and the world hasnt collapsed since Trump won.

You're literally just making things up as you go along and don't even bother to argue anything, you just assert things constantly and run away when challenged, only to come back and assert more things. Sam Seder is just trying to avoid getting a job huh? It would have taken you 5 seconds if you wanted to not look like an idiot to look up the man's wikipedia. I mean shit, the guy has worked as an actor, director, writer, journalist, tv producer, talk show host, and he's getting shit from you? Liquidpoker's number one entertainment junkie? Mr. "what's so great about Shakespeare anyway, and why do people dislike Trump? Visit my shitty blog!" Let's just say that the accusations don't carry all that much weight. I just sincerely hope your kids are not home schooled.

On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote: "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?

yes unlike Dave Rubin Wikipedia is perfect, has no biases, and is never wrong. in fact why bother thinking when we have Wikipedia to do it for us?

On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote: 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.

>not open for debate
I wonder what side of the political spectrum you're on

"we're partnering with him to bring you issues on freedom, censorship and free speech, climate change, trans issues, black lives matter, religion, free will, capitalism, libertarianism, immigration, ayn rand, bernie sanders, feminism, war on drugs"
tinfoiler: THIS IS ABOUT CUTTING TAXES FOR THE RICH!

did you audit Dave Rubin? why don't you weigh this evil money from the far-right George Mason University against his $31k a month patreon and estimate his Youtube revenues and speaking fees

in fact can you even admit there's a right that isn't far?

On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

you're vulnerable to having a different opinion?

On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote: 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.

This business you're introducing about dodging debates is new and irrelevant gossip

Sam Seder seems obsessed with Dave Rubin so I assume you've picked it up from him



Over 90% of humanities professors are registered Democrats, are we to believe they all love capitalism and the patriarchy and Western civilization and colonialism and imperialism and all the rest of it? None of them explicitly broadcast their political goal of destroying society and go on to teach the next generations the same creed? So nobody exists in the category of "cultural marxism" but this intellectual dark web smear is trending so conveniently everyone I disagree with is alt-right? How have they moved the spectrum exactly? That seems important but you didn't include it

On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote: 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.

I read the predictable NYT hit piece already

Most probably didn't have to worry about monogamy in society because it was guaranteed externally from politics, by religion

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole of how to organize sexual relationships and you think there's a better, more stable, more efficient way to engineer society than monogamy when half of our children are men and half are women then speak up, don't keep it a secret

On May 18 2018 22:23 Loco wrote: 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.

Do you have any point here an adult would be interested in besides conservatives and Republicans are Hitler?

On May 18 2018 16:39 Santafairy wrote: Like this anarchist guy begging for rent before that you posted https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianSocialistRants

I forgot to reply to this earlier because of your huge garbled post. That you don't even understand what Patreon is is just hilarious. He doesn't need Patreon to cover his rent, he's saying if he doesn't have to work his main job he will be able to work more on his videos. That's literally what every small content creator does when they open a Patreon, it's not unique to anarchists.

Guess who else is "begging for rent" (and giving out terrible health advice) while her daddy is a millionaire. https://www.patreon.com/mikhailapeterson

Try doing some thinking once in a while instead of just reacting.

How is dodging debates irrelevant? It's central to their narrative that the left is trying to avoid them, silence them and ignore unpleasant facts. There's nothing gossipy about it, you can browse JBP's YouTube channel and Rubin's and count the number of guests that they've had on that are legitimately on the left. Someone has actually done it for Rubin and it was like 2 people out of hundreds of videos or something insane like that. So much for wanting to hear a diversity of opinions. It's as diverse as Joe Rogan's guests on nutrition.

I don't follow Sam Seder. I got the videos from /r/enoughpetersonspam. I think they used to be friends or whatever, his show is part of the TYT network. The right totally dominates YouTube so it's completely normal that he picks up these stories.

Stroggoz identifies (or identified) as a classical liberal, so he can best explain to you why someone who makes videos for PragerU and keeps complaining about "the regressive left" isn't one. Jordan Peterson calls himself one too and he uses Rubin as an example of a moderate leftist. It's completely absurd to think that's not moving the spectrum. I don't have the time to walk you through this and no matter what I say you'll twist it and turn it or just ignore it when it gets too inconvenient to deal with. Stroggoz has a better chance than I do, so if he wants to pick it up he can.

Peterson didn't even mean "enforced monogamy". He literally meant enforced redistribution of sex so that the unlucky guys get a break. In other words, you gotta go back to women being property. It's incel talk. The solution to ending hate-related murders is not to go backward in time and further limit people's freedoms. Sexual relationships don't need to be organized by anyone other than individuals themselves. It's the current socio-economic system that breeds the kind of mentally unstable people that commit these mass murders. The same one that Peterson insists is natural and must be maintained at all cost.

On May 19 2018 00:46 Loco wrote: 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?

Don't you think people should know you're HIV positive before you have sex w them? Under the new law, every person is basically free of guilt if they don't share that information with their partner, that's retardedly absurd

On May 19 2018 10:08 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2018 00:46 Loco wrote: 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? Don't you think people should know you're HIV positive before you have sex w them? Under the new law, every person is basically free of guilt if they don't share that information with their partner, that's retardedly absurd

Of course they should know. The article doesn't say they're free of guilt, it says the punishment for exposing someone to it has been diminished. You can spend a year in prison on a misdemeanor charge. Is it not severe enough? I'd say yeah, but I still fail to see how exactly this opens up people to "exploit the system." What exactly is there to be gained through the system?

On May 19 2018 09:42 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 18 2018 16:39 Santafairy wrote: Like this anarchist guy begging for rent before that you posted https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianSocialistRants I forgot to reply to this earlier because of your huge garbled post. That you don't even understand what Patreon is is just hilarious. He doesn't need Patreon to cover his rent, he's saying if he doesn't have to work his main job he will be able to work more on his videos. That's literally what every small content creator does when they open a Patreon, it's not unique to anarchists. Guess who else is "begging for rent" (and giving out terrible health advice) while her daddy is a millionaire. https://www.patreon.com/mikhailapeterson Try doing some thinking once in a while instead of just reacting.

I didn't say anything about anarchists, assbrain, he's an anarchist, it says so in big fucking letters, that's why you graced us with his content

I don't know who that is but if you posted a 20 minute video of her being a nobody like you're educating people with a well-curated source just because she shares your bonkers take on things while bragging how you can't stand people who are actually successful because they're all shills I'd have to make fun of both of you just the same

On May 19 2018 09:57 Loco wrote: How is dodging debates irrelevant? It's central to their narrative that the left is trying to avoid them, silence them and ignore unpleasant facts. There's nothing gossipy about it, you can browse JBP's YouTube channel and Rubin's and count the number of guests that they've had on that are legitimately on the left. Someone has actually done it for Rubin and it was like 2 people out of hundreds of videos or something insane like that. So much for wanting to hear a diversity of opinions. It's as diverse as Joe Rogan's guests on nutrition.

so you agree universities lack diversity of thought?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comm...als_who_have_appeared_on_rubinreport/

Lawerence Krauss Cara Santa Marie Maajid Nawaz Don Lemon Peter Boghossian Inna Schevchenko Dr. Michael Mann Jerry Coyne Stephen Fry David Silverman Michael Ian Black Mark Duplass Margaret Cho Thunderf00t Cathy Young Christina Hoff Summers Liana Kerzner Deidre McCloskey Trae Crowder Dan Carlin(?) Sky Williams (?) who else am I missing?

further who cares? they can have anyone they want on? why don't you show me the list of liberals they refused to have on and the reasons why? because if the tolerant liberals you think are missing from his broadcasts are anything like you they probably don't want to go on his evil gross problematic shill show to begin with

On May 19 2018 09:42 Loco wrote: I don't follow Sam Seder. I got the videos from /r/enoughpetersonspam. I think they used to be friends or whatever, his show is part of the TYT network. The right totally dominates YouTube so it's completely normal that he picks up these stories. Stroggoz identifies (or identified) as a classical liberal, so he can best explain to you why someone who makes videos for PragerU and keeps complaining about "the regressive left" isn't one. Jordan Peterson calls himself one too and he uses Rubin as an example of a moderate leftist. It's completely absurd to think that's not moving the spectrum. I don't have the time to walk you through this and no matter what I say you'll twist it and turn it or just ignore it when it gets too inconvenient to deal with. Stroggoz has a better chance than I do, so if he wants to pick it up he can. Peterson didn't even mean "enforced monogamy". He literally meant enforced redistribution of sex so that the unlucky guys get a break. In other words, you gotta go back to women being property. It's incel talk. <irrelevant Reddit snapshot>

(made a video)

explain to us in your own words what you believe Dave Rubin means when he says "the regressive left" please, I wonder if it's going to be different than the thousands of times Dave Rubin has gone on about it

let me see here do I want it from the horse's mouth or do I trust this internet radical that a famous professor and psychologist finally conveniently let it slip in an NYT profile that he wants women to be property... Why would I listen to you of all people telling me what Peterson literally meant, did you ask him? Or a snippet from an article? It's extraordinary naivete that you can't even realize what the subject is

You remember the exact same article where he claims hypergamous men make everyone unhappy? So he wants them to be property too, right?

Biologically we have various mating strategies but the only way to scale a solution to a societal level is monogamy because we're in perfect supply for each other, that's why it's enforced, it comes from society and cultural pressures and not biological necessity or genetic design

On May 19 2018 10:23 Loco wrote: Enjoy the comment section to this tweet. It's crazy that despite making it so obvious people like Santafairy still can't figure it out. 1. Rubin is the new standard for what is moderate 2. If you're to the left of Rubin, it's time to turn back, you've become an authoritarian 3. The head shot being used is Rubin making an anti-left video with none other than the most popular conservative YT outfit who only has conservative hosts make their videos and there has never been an exception 4. He publicly stated he would vote for Trump in 2020 if he's running against a progressive Not incriminating enough on its own? Ok, you just learned he gets money from the IHS, which is uncontroversially a right-libertarian think tank. I think it's maybe, just maybe time to reconsider that they are moving the spectrum.

Apparently you have no idea how fickle politics is and are operating from this end-of-history assumption that wherever political leanings were when you graduated university is how they'll be distributed forever

in 2008 Obama and Clinton were against gay marriage, now it's law and well-supported and normalized and Obama moved the frontier to putting transexuals in the military, it's the rapid change of people's positions that moves the spectrum, not people talking about how their beliefs haven't changed but everyone moved past them

It's like saying scientists are the ones who are changing the climate because they used a thermometer

4. so what? I've heard for almost 3 years how Trump isn't a conservative from the likes of shitposters

I have watched like two Rubin Report interviews, Lawrence Krauss and Larry Elder, and he very plainly says "Defending my liberal values has become a conservative position," now what is the controversy?

I don't care about "liberals" who appeared on his show. Being center-left isn't being a leftist. I'm talking about actual leftists -- people who would push back on the things he says. I'm talking about for instance Abby Martin who was on Rogan's podcast recently. Do you know there's a massive difference between someone like Abby Martin and Christina Hoff Sommers? To answer your question, I'm pretty sure there is a running joke about how Contrapoints has tried to get herself invited on to Rubin's podcast. That would be a good start, even JBP's fanbase appreciate her, but apparently that's not enough for Rubin. One of his guests even suggested it during the interview and he said "yes I've heard the name before" but nothing came of it.


"so you agree universities lack diversity of thought?"

Not in the sense that they need people who would want to teach phrenology, no. Any clue how much the economics departments who are dominated by conservatives value diversity of thought?


Ok, let's assume that Peterson really did literally mean "enforced monogamy". How does that make any sense? What does monogamy mean? You have to stay with one person. That's it. How does that help? You still have to find that one person who will be forced to remain in a monogamous relationship with you and they have to want to have sex with you. It literally doesn't solve the incel problem that he's answering. Unless the woman is your property, as they have historically been and Peterson has directly denied, and as Dennis Prager argued:


"Here are eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex."

On May 19 2018 10:53 Santafairy wrote: I have watched like two Rubin Report interviews, Lawrence Krauss and Larry Elder, and he very plainly says "Defending my liberal values has become a conservative position," now what is the controversy?

I would have to be familiar with them and watch those interviews. All I know is Krauss is a massive creep if not a rapist and he has a habit of making a fool of himself. Again, I don't care about confused liberals. Lindsay Shepherd is a great example. She called herself a leftist all her life and made a pathetic "why i'm leaving the left" video and explained why she in fact has always been a centrist. You can't always take people's statements at face value. You're not a leftist because you ride a bike for transportation and you think gay marriage is acceptable in 2018. You're not a leftist when you're inviting white nationalists to speak at your college. Basic common sense.

lol

On May 19 2018 11:12 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 19 2018 10:53 Santafairy wrote: I have watched like two Rubin Report interviews, Lawrence Krauss and Larry Elder, and he very plainly says "Defending my liberal values has become a conservative position," now what is the controversy? I would have to be familiar with them and watch those interviews. All I know is Krauss is a massive creep if not a rapist and he has a habit of making a fool of himself. Again, I don't care about confused liberals. Lindsay Shepherd is a great example. She called herself a leftist all her life and made a pathetic "why i'm leaving the left" video and explained why she in fact has always been a centrist. You can't always take people's statements at face value.

no you wouldn't, Dave Rubin says all the time that defending my liberal values has become a conservative position, why would you have to watch those interviews? what are you talking about? all I'm saying is I'm not some expert Dave Rubin fanboy, I've only watched two interviews, and... Lawrence Krauss is a rapist

my sides

On May 19 2018 11:12 Loco wrote: You're not a leftist because you ride a bike for transportation and you think gay marriage is acceptable in 2018.

wow you make a great point sounds like the political spectrum has moved

On May 19 2018 11:12 Loco wrote: You're not a leftist when you're inviting white nationalists to speak at your college. Basic common sense.

welp

who is the shill? someone who reasons himself to a set of beliefs and principles and maintains them, or the person who dedicates their life to a fleeting and constantly moving intangible idea of "leftishness" and holds that as the highest value in a perpetual game of political football?

how the fuck do you enforce monogamy? Will you no longer be allowed to be single? Put women out of the work force so they are forced to depend on a man for sustenance? And the notion that this guy is 'defending essential freedoms'? Like the idea that being allowed to call transpeople by their 'apparent birth-gender' is more of an essential freedom than being allowed to freely choose who you have sex with and when you have sex with them?

I get why incels support him because they are desperate to get laid and he's trying to help them out with that. But others trying to jump through hoops to justify this statement? It's laughable. I mean you could say 'okay this is clearly a retarded idea from his side, but overall he's still bringing about an important message', and I'd be fine with that. I personally disagree with him on mostly everything policy wise, but he's never exposed himself as retardedly hypocritical before. There are leftist thinkers that I overall support but where i'd still distance myself from individual statements that they make - everybody is going to be flat out wrong every now and then if they voice their opinion on every subject. You don't have to pretend that this is any different from that.

enforced monogamy is an academic term in biology/psychology

it doesn't mean "the government points a gun at women and forces them to have sex with neckbeards" but that's probably what the NYT author cleverly wants you to assume which is why the mention is so brief, and leaves so many people scratching their heads after the article going wait what is he talking about, without any elaboration, it's not fair to have a severe reaction to an incomplete idea, I wish we had his whole thought

https://www.google.com/search?q="enforced monogamy" site:.edu

it's also on Wikipedia in case anyone in this thread really loves and trusts Wikipedia no matter what, since well before this JP NYT article

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

Sorry but I don't really accept that he's just describing an academic term. He says in the interview 'The cure for that is enforced monogamy.' That clearly sounds like a political recommendation, not as a statement of fact of how some biological creatures procreate.

I mean JP himself seemingly agrees that this is inconsistent in terms of him generally being negative towards equality of outcome-ideologies but in this case being for an equality of outcome-ideology because 'preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.'

Also @Loco regarding my previous "how children will be raised" question, I probably didn't express myself correctly. I don't care if a third-type-gender people get to adopt a baby/ have children on their own and how they raise them as long as it doesn't hurt the child, indeed what they do in their home is their business. The question is - how do we stop insane people like these - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...ve-father-mother-raised-daughter.html


These scenarios should never occur. It's a slippery slope as potential laws that could protect such children could directly end up hurting the third-type-gender people though, so at what point do we set borders and balance the basic human rights?


Also under the new "law" about HIV it's HIGHLY unlikely that anyone would end up in jail in practice. Not to mention his argument of "people being more inclined to test themselves for HIV as that would reveal if they are HIV positive because of the new law" is a complete joke. I highly doubt there are people out there who wouldn't test themselves purely because they'd otherwise be able to abuse the previous law... what kind of a joke is that?