https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland latinoamerica Iceland    Contact            Users: 222 Active, 4 Logged in - Time: 13:41

jordan peterson phenomena

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > General
Big_Rob_isback   United States. May 11 2018 22:25. Posts 196

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.

Facebook Twitter
just playing live poker for fun 

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 12 2018 00:43. Posts 4217

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?

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 12/05/2018 00:46

Big_Rob_isback   United States. May 12 2018 00:47. Posts 196

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.

just playing live poker for funLast edit: 12/05/2018 00:50

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 12 2018 00:57. Posts 4217

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.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

k4ir0s   Canada. May 12 2018 01:03. Posts 3446


  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..



I dont know what a dt drop is. Is it a wrestling move? -Oly 

Big_Rob_isback   United States. May 12 2018 01:27. Posts 196

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

just playing live poker for fun 

whammbot   Belarus. May 12 2018 02:31. Posts 314

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.

visit my personal entertainment blog https://foundaz.comLast edit: 12/05/2018 02:32

Big_Rob_isback   United States. May 12 2018 03:17. Posts 196

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

just playing live poker for fun 

deathstar   United States. May 12 2018 03:55. Posts 103

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.

 Last edit: 12/05/2018 04:01

Baalim   Mexico. May 12 2018 04:40. Posts 32676

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

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 12 2018 04:42. Posts 32676


  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.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

deathstar   United States. May 12 2018 05:06. Posts 103


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




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.


Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 12 2018 05:32. Posts 4217

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.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

Baalim   Mexico. May 12 2018 06:22. Posts 32676


  On May 12 2018 04:06 deathstar wrote:
Show nested quote +



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

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Daut    United States. May 12 2018 07:07. Posts 8872

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.

NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, DautLast edit: 12/05/2018 07:12

MezmerizePLZ    United States. May 12 2018 09:06. Posts 2589

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?


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 12 2018 09:34. Posts 8712

not this again


Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 12 2018 13:22. Posts 2779

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.

lol POKER 

Loco   Canada. May 12 2018 13:45. Posts 19733


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




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!".

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 12/05/2018 13:46

Loco   Canada. May 12 2018 14:02. Posts 19733


  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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 13/05/2018 04:25

whammbot   Belarus. May 12 2018 14:54. Posts 314

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.

visit my personal entertainment blog https://foundaz.comLast edit: 12/05/2018 15:12

Loco   Canada. May 12 2018 15:28. Posts 19733

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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 12/05/2018 16:41

Mortensen8   Chad. May 12 2018 15:59. Posts 1761

Just controlled opposition like the rest of them.

Rear naked woke 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 12 2018 16:56. Posts 8712


  On May 12 2018 04:06 deathstar wrote:
Show nested quote +



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.

 Last edit: 12/05/2018 17:06

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 12 2018 17:11. Posts 2779

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.

lol POKERLast edit: 12/05/2018 17:15

lebowski   Greece. May 12 2018 17:45. Posts 9032


new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

Loco   Canada. May 12 2018 18:23. Posts 19733

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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 12/05/2018 19:14

RiKD    United States. May 12 2018 18:42. Posts 5418

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.


RiKD    United States. May 12 2018 18:53. Posts 5418

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.


Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 12 2018 23:31. Posts 4217

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

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

MezmerizePLZ    United States. May 12 2018 23:31. Posts 2589


  On May 12 2018 13:02 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



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


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 12 2018 23:56. Posts 8712


  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.


Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 13 2018 01:41. Posts 4217


  On May 12 2018 22:56 Spitfiree wrote:
Show nested quote +



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.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 13 2018 02:34. Posts 8712

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.

 Last edit: 13/05/2018 02:38

Loco   Canada. May 13 2018 04:31. Posts 19733


  On May 12 2018 22:31 MezmerizePLZ wrote:
Show nested quote +



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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 13/05/2018 04:34

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 13 2018 05:40. Posts 4217

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.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

Loco   Canada. May 13 2018 05:40. Posts 19733


  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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 13/05/2018 08:43

Loco   Canada. May 13 2018 06:02. Posts 19733


  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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 13/05/2018 06:37

qwe5408   . May 13 2018 06:08. Posts 16

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.


whammbot   Belarus. May 13 2018 06:41. Posts 314

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.

visit my personal entertainment blog https://foundaz.com 

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 13 2018 06:45. Posts 4217


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



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.






I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 13/05/2018 08:53

Loco   Canada. May 13 2018 09:31. Posts 19733


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



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

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 13/05/2018 20:45

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 13 2018 12:26. Posts 8712

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....


Loco   Canada. May 13 2018 21:38. Posts 19733


  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'').

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 13/05/2018 22:41

deathstar   United States. May 14 2018 15:43. Posts 103


  On May 12 2018 05:22 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



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.


VanDerMeyde   Norway. May 14 2018 17:46. Posts 4931


  On May 12 2018 05:22 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +


It's funny, I've argued with Loco and Eri before about how even what seems reasonable hate speech laws are dangerous because one day a maniac(s) will missuse this power and cause great harm, and out of nowhere you came and proved my point lol thanks



Stop arguing on the internet

My most +EV tip for you my friend. It will cause less tilt and more time to grind

Best regards, long time internet arguing addict that went sober.

:D 

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 14 2018 19:48. Posts 2779

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.

lol POKER 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 14 2018 20:55. Posts 8712


  On May 13 2018 20:38 Loco wrote:
It depends on the context under which you discuss exploitation. A farmer exploits his land, for instance. There is no negative connotation here. The trope of "exploiting the system" is entirely different. The implication here is that if you do something that doesn't benefit the economy and the hierarchies of power maintained by those who control society, but something that serves your own best interests instead, while being at the very bottom of society, you are "exploiting the system", which is viewed negatively. That idea is precisely how a brainwashed person thinks once they have been reduced to being a cog in the machine -- a machine that has shaped their lives and which they have been excluded from being able to build. The working man who carries this belief with him believes himself to be noble, contributing to the good of society, failing to see that this unexamined belief is one of the most important ways in which capitalists manufacture consent and auto-exploitation to materially benefit them.

In your example it was pretty clear that you viewed someone who would bail out of military duty as negative. You don't offer any rationale or context for why we should share your value judgment. It's also implied that you think human nature is quite fixed and self-regarding, where people are always looking to maximize their own advantages. That view of human nature is a myth. It's not backed up by any rigorous study of humankind. It has its roots in outdated psychological theories (largely Laing's), game theory (Nash's work) and neoliberal economics and ideology (Hayek, Rand, Thatcher). This is explored in Adam Curtis' documentary, "The Trap", which I've posted here before (I also posted his documentary on the influence of the ideas of the Freuds and Bernays, "The Century of the Self'').



You're absolutely right about the part of me thinking that it's in the human nature to always maximize your own advantages. That is absolutely true for 99% of the human beings otherwise laws wouldn't exist. Obviously, we're talking about a wide spectrum of how a system would be exploited, the majority of cases is exactly for one's own advantage, unlike the "hacker ideology" where you exploit the system to expose its flaws so it could improve. I don't see how Game Theory backs up the antithesis to that? Game Theory is the best argument for my thesis - well in theory it isn't but in practice it is as reaching the Nash Equillibrium isn't exactly something that happens. I also don't see how its outdated or how it will ever be as the second that part of our nature becomes outdated is the second where we reach utopia.

I'm not looking the whole discussion from the point of view of ideologies and how things should be, but rather try to theoretically apply the ideas in reality and see what would beneficially stick. I'm very aware of most things you're trying to explain to me, I just don't see those beliefs in the everyday life. The military example was the easiest, most shallow one to give. In my belief the whole military recruitment even during the times of war should be done only on the basis of volunteering as I generally don't see how there could ever be a war which would provoke me to participate. In reality, however, that is indeed viewed negatively by society so im applying the majority's point of view, as my sole belief system is not that of the masses.

P.S. Dont have to watch those 2 videos, but will bookmark them and check them out at some point, would be very interested in seeing how my point of view of human's nature is wrong.

 Last edit: 14/05/2018 20:57

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 14 2018 22:41. Posts 4217

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.



I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 14/05/2018 23:27

Loco   Canada. May 15 2018 01:21. Posts 19733

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.



For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 15/05/2018 01:50

Loco   Canada. May 15 2018 01:57. Posts 19733

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:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 15/05/2018 01:58

RiKD    United States. May 15 2018 02:34. Posts 5418

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.


RiKD    United States. May 15 2018 02:52. Posts 5418

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.


Loco   Canada. May 15 2018 05:48. Posts 19733

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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 15/05/2018 07:09

Loco   Canada. May 15 2018 07:28. Posts 19733

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

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 15 2018 10:49. Posts 4217

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.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 15/05/2018 10:49

whammbot   Belarus. May 15 2018 15:19. Posts 314

Wow so dark

visit my personal entertainment blog https://foundaz.com 

RiKD    United States. May 15 2018 18:11. Posts 5418

"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?

 Last edit: 15/05/2018 20:19

Loco   Canada. May 15 2018 19:37. Posts 19733


  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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 15/05/2018 19:39

SleepyHead   . May 15 2018 20:54. Posts 872

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

Dude you some social darwinist ideas that they are giving hitlers ghost a boner - Baal 

RiKD    United States. May 16 2018 00:59. Posts 5418


  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.

 Last edit: 16/05/2018 01:00

Loco   Canada. May 16 2018 01:17. Posts 19733

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.

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

Loco   Canada. May 16 2018 01:21. Posts 19733


  On May 15 2018 23:59 RiKD wrote:
Show nested quote +



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.




For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 16/05/2018 01:31

RiKD    United States. May 16 2018 01:28. Posts 5418


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



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.


RiKD    United States. May 16 2018 01:37. Posts 5418


  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.


RiKD    United States. May 16 2018 01:41. Posts 5418

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


Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 16 2018 04:43. Posts 4217

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

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 16/05/2018 04:43

Loco   Canada. May 16 2018 07:23. Posts 19733

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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 16/05/2018 07:31

RiKD    United States. May 16 2018 16:58. Posts 5418

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


RiKD    United States. May 16 2018 19:42. Posts 5418

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.


Loco   Canada. May 16 2018 20:02. Posts 19733

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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 16/05/2018 20:03

RiKD    United States. May 16 2018 20:19. Posts 5418

~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.


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 16 2018 23:10. Posts 8712

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.

 Last edit: 16/05/2018 23:11

Loco   Canada. May 17 2018 05:10. Posts 19733

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

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 17/05/2018 05:16

Loco   Canada. May 17 2018 10:16. Posts 19733

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:

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

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 17 2018 13:57. Posts 1429

talk show host I don't like has sponsor

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

Loco   Canada. May 17 2018 19:29. Posts 19733

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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 17/05/2018 19:32

cariadon   Estonia. May 17 2018 20:19. Posts 4008


  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%.


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 17 2018 22:10. Posts 8712

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


GoTuNk   Chile. May 18 2018 04:39. Posts 2797

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

https://youtu.be/Xfu1yBeP8O8

 Last edit: 18/05/2018 04:40

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 18 2018 11:10. Posts 4217

I read the whole anti-anti communism article.

-----

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

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

-----


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

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

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

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

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

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

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

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

After reading that article:

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're so woke

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

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

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

Or these would all be redundant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fun article

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


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

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

I was shaking my head at that whole article.


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 18 2018 23:16. Posts 8712


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



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

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

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

 Last edit: 18/05/2018 23:22

Loco   Canada. May 18 2018 23:23. Posts 19733

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

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


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



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

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

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

Loco   Canada. May 18 2018 23:53. Posts 19733


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



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

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

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


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

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

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

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 19 2018 01:23. Posts 8712


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



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


Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 01:46. Posts 19733

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

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

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


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

-----

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

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

-----


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

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

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

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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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


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



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


Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 04:05. Posts 19733

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

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


  On May 19 2018 03:05 Loco wrote:



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

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

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

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

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


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


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



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


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

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

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

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


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



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



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

 Last edit: 19/05/2018 06:03

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


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



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



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

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

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

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



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

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 06:41. Posts 19733


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



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





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


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



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

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

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

whammbot   Belarus. May 19 2018 06:50. Posts 314


  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.

visit my personal entertainment blog https://foundaz.comLast edit: 19/05/2018 06:53

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 07:22. Posts 19733


  On May 19 2018 05:50 whammbot wrote:
Show nested quote +



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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 19/05/2018 07:25

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 19 2018 08:14. Posts 1429


  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 +



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?

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

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 10:42. Posts 19733


  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.

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

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 10:57. Posts 19733

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.


For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 19/05/2018 11:13

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 19 2018 11:08. Posts 8712


  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


Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 11:19. Posts 19733


  On May 19 2018 10:08 Spitfiree wrote:
Show nested quote +



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?

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

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 11:23. Posts 19733




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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 19/05/2018 11:42

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 19 2018 11:41. Posts 1429


  On May 19 2018 09:42 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



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

It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus HansenLast edit: 19/05/2018 11:42

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 19 2018 11:49. Posts 1429


  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

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

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 19 2018 11:53. Posts 1429

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?

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

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 12:00. Posts 19733

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."

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 19/05/2018 12:16

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 12:12. Posts 19733


  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.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 19/05/2018 12:14

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 19 2018 12:21. Posts 1429

lol

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

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 19 2018 12:28. Posts 1429


  On May 19 2018 11:12 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



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

It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus HansenLast edit: 19/05/2018 12:30

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 19 2018 12:36. Posts 1429

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?

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

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 19 2018 12:45. Posts 2779

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.

lol POKERLast edit: 19/05/2018 12:46

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 19 2018 13:05. Posts 1429

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

It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus HansenLast edit: 19/05/2018 13:14

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 19 2018 13:16. Posts 2779

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.'

lol POKER 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 19 2018 14:26. Posts 8712

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?


GoTuNk   Chile. May 19 2018 15:15. Posts 2797


  On May 19 2018 05:41 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



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.



I had to actually google what an "incel" is. I've never seen Jordan Peterson use that word.
I'm not sure how you would group Peterson with them, as he would call them a bunch of losers who need to improve their life, and tell them to get their shit together. Unlike socialist shills who would call them victims of the capitalist system if they thought they could get some electoral advantage out of it.

I'm not a leftist nutjob like you are, doing all sort of ad hominem attacks and assosiation fallacies like "X said Y, Y is friend of Z, Z said something wrong, X is a horrible human being" type of thing. I accept people I like can be wrong. This subject on particular is the most fringe stuff I've read about.
Trump is the BEST PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. IN THE 20th CENTURY. By a mile.
That doesn't change that sleeping with tens of prostitutes is disgusting, people have flaws, we take the good and the bad and filter what's relevant.
I'm not a jew aswell, but I like Shapiro most of the time.
I'm not gay, but I've ground fond of Dave Rubin thanks to people like you

 Last edit: 19/05/2018 15:16

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 19 2018 15:29. Posts 2779

GoTunk that isn't what he said to them at all. In the interview linked on page 5 on this thread, he said the cure for incels is enforced monogamy.

lol POKER 

NMcNasty    United States. May 19 2018 15:37. Posts 1982


  On May 19 2018 14:15 GoTuNk wrote:
Trump is the BEST PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. IN THE 20th CENTURY. By a mile.



Perfect Trumpkin statement.


GoTuNk   Chile. May 19 2018 19:38. Posts 2797


  On May 19 2018 14:37 NMcNasty wrote:
Show nested quote +



Perfect Trumpkin statement.


Typical no facts ad hominem attack.

Here are some facts: Lowering taxes, booming economy, booming stock market, lowest black and latin unemployment in U.S. history, U.S. political prisoners in korea are back safe, korean peace talks and support of U.S. international allies.

On the other hand, democrats defended Hamas and MS-13 this week. Great people.

Unless something unexpected happens, Trump is gonna win by a landslide on 2020.

 Last edit: 19/05/2018 19:40

GoTuNk   Chile. May 19 2018 19:45. Posts 2797


  On May 19 2018 14:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
GoTunk that isn't what he said to them at all. In the interview linked on page 5 on this thread, he said the cure for incels is enforced monogamy.



Can't find it could you link me to it? Like the actual Peterson saying it.

I actually googled "enforced monogamy" and all I can find is NYT hit pieces.

Also, wtf is enforced monogamy. Arranged marriages?

 Last edit: 19/05/2018 20:08

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 19 2018 20:22. Posts 2779

interviews don't normally release transcripts. And I dunno. I think it's fair enough to interpret him in a way where he is not advocating for legal enforcement of monogamy, but rather for social coercion discouraging having multiple sexual partners, but I still think that's significantly more anti-freedom than asking people to call people who change genders by the gender they now identify as, which I don't really see as a significant infringement of any kind.

lol POKER 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 19 2018 21:26. Posts 8712


  On May 19 2018 18:38 GoTuNk wrote:
Show nested quote +



Typical no facts ad hominem attack.

Here are some facts: Lowering taxes, booming economy, booming stock market, lowest black and latin unemployment in U.S. history, U.S. political prisoners in korea are back safe, korean peace talks and support of U.S. international allies.

On the other hand, democrats defended Hamas and MS-13 this week. Great people.

Unless something unexpected happens, Trump is gonna win by a landslide on 2020.



Here are some other facts, the taxes lowering only helps the corporations and there was previously a similiar attempt to allow corporations to bring their foreign capital into the country by Bush, he managed to do it, only to have all of the new money income spread between shareholders instead of the money being used to create jobs, improve working environments and etc. So on that note he basically didn't do shit.

Booming economy and stock market? Are you serious? :D

Lowest black and latin unemployment? Yes, congrats on bearing the fruits of Obama's work

U.S. political prisoners and peace talks? Yes, you can thank the presidents of China for that. The only reason that came to be is because they finally decided to impose the sanctions on NK, which every other UN country did previously including the USA. Trump literally did nothing new other than appear in the media spreading false propaganda, in fact the only different thing he did was spread fear throughout the people of potentially starting a nuke war with a mad dictator that has nothing to lose. What a great politician


I mean I don't care that Trump is a shallow bigot that likes to fuck pornstars and uses racist slurs, but he hasn't done anything. He's trying to enforce policies which will hurt the environment, is slowly but surely alienating all of his meaningful allies and has the potential of starting another war in the Middle East while surrounding himself with fucktard neoliberalists who TRULY believe democracy can be brought by force e.g. Bolton. What a successful president.

It's not like I expect him to ban guns or anything radical like that, americans are too dumb of a society to abandone "their right to protect themselves from the government" ( what a hilarious statement, its so funny and tragic on so many levels - Its not like that same government has sent its young men to die in meaningless wars, but hurr durr government is evil - we need guns ). I expect him to just have common sense and not fall for the policies which the pities of corporate giants need. The ones that will be extinct in 50 years as the businesses they run will have nothing to run on e.g. coal.

 Last edit: 19/05/2018 21:30

GoTuNk   Chile. May 19 2018 21:31. Posts 2797


  On May 19 2018 19:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:
interviews don't normally release transcripts. And I dunno. I think it's fair enough to interpret him in a way where he is not advocating for legal enforcement of monogamy, but rather for social coercion discouraging having multiple sexual partners, but I still think that's significantly more anti-freedom than asking people to call people who change genders by the gender they now identify as, which I don't really see as a significant infringement of any kind.



He has stated repeteadly it is ok to for people to requested to be called by a certain gender, and that he actually does. What he opposes is GOVERNMENT COMPELLED SPEECH. You seem to have him completely backwards. Willing to review your premise? Found you a 5 min clip of someone trying to misrepresent him, and him actually saying what he believes.

"It's purely simply this: there has never been a time in english common law, where the government compelled speech"

https://youtu.be/Ddzf9Mm4hdY?t=3m6s

He is not forcing anyone on the mongamy thing, there are very good reasons to discourage sexual promiscuity and ultimately It's just an opinon. You can call him an infringer of liberty when he starts advocating for GOVERNMENT COMPELLED MONOGAMY. It is a black and white difference.

 Last edit: 19/05/2018 21:33

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 19 2018 21:35. Posts 4217

completely off topic but it's good to see Meghan Markle going around recommending chomsky to people, haha . That is actually the best media exposure the left has ever got.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 19/05/2018 21:38

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 21:37. Posts 19733


  On May 19 2018 13:26 Spitfiree wrote:
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?



I don't read tabloids. No serious argument should involve having to link to a tabloid newspaper. Anyway, I read a few paragraphs to get the gist of what you're concerned with. You seem to be arguing that normalizing transgenderism will inevitably lead to scenarios where a parent consciously imposes a gender on a child that is different than their biological sex. I see no evidence of that. If anything, the sooner it becomes normalized, the less likely there will be insane people who pull off stunts like that to supposedly "support transgender equity". We're dealing with mental health issues here. As a society we should look at why we breed such a high rate of mentally ill people instead of focusing on exactly how this mental illness ends up manifesting itself.

The HIV quote makes sense to me. Think about it, about half of pregnancies are unplanned in the US. What does that tell us? That people are terrible at doing this sex-with-protection thing. Imagine if the consequence of actually knowing that you have HIV and ending up exposing someone to it is spending your life in prison, it does seem a lot less likely that someone will want to officially know about it, especially if their livelihood depends on sex that is sometimes unprotected by request of the client (or forced). It's not so much "abusing the system" as it is having not knowing as your only defense in order not to have your entire life ruined in the event that you expose someone. I think what informs one's decision here comes down to your view of human nature and the penal system. Are there a lot more people who make mistakes than people who are legitimately malicious? Is the penal system the ideal solution for both the perpetrator of this crime and society? Is your view of the ideal penal system based on retributive justice rather than deterrence? (You don't have to answer these questions, I'm just saying that they're relevant.)

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

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 21:46. Posts 19733


  On May 19 2018 20:35 Stroggoz wrote:
completely off topic but it's good to see Meghan Markle going around recommending chomsky to people, haha . That is actually the best media exposure the left has ever got.



That is hilarious. I'm completely uninformed about this... how the hell did a girl like this end up being in a position to marry the prince? And why would she? Lol.

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

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 19 2018 22:30. Posts 4217

She prob just read his work and liked what he had to say. It's not like the royal family filters out people with radical ideas, harry can marry whoever he wants, and possibly he chose to marry someone who was a lefty radical.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 19 2018 22:52. Posts 2779


  On May 19 2018 20:31 GoTuNk wrote:
Show nested quote +



He has stated repeteadly it is ok to for people to requested to be called by a certain gender, and that he actually does. What he opposes is GOVERNMENT COMPELLED SPEECH. You seem to have him completely backwards. Willing to review your premise? Found you a 5 min clip of someone trying to misrepresent him, and him actually saying what he believes.

"It's purely simply this: there has never been a time in english common law, where the government compelled speech"

https://youtu.be/Ddzf9Mm4hdY?t=3m6s

He is not forcing anyone on the mongamy thing, there are very good reasons to discourage sexual promiscuity and ultimately It's just an opinon. You can call him an infringer of liberty when he starts advocating for GOVERNMENT COMPELLED MONOGAMY. It is a black and white difference.


That basically means he's in line with the C16 bill that he hates though. It doesn't cause the penal system to target people for 'misgendering'. And I don't think the statement that there's 'never been a time in english common law where the government compelled speech' is true anyway. Verbal threats and harassment can certainly be illegal, and should be, too. It's just a matter of finding where the line should go, which is always gonna be arbitrarily defined.

I don't really have problems accepting that the interview to some degree misrepresents him, the interviewer seemed to have a negative impression before entering the interview and that's not a great point of departure. I also think it's somewhat likely that he gave a vague answer that was up for interpretation - this is fairly common for people who have an as broad of a following as peterson does. But Peterson is just as guilty of misrepresenting the C16-bill, so I don't really feel too badly for him.

lol POKER 

Loco   Canada. May 19 2018 23:12. Posts 19733

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

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 20 2018 01:33. Posts 8712


  On May 19 2018 20:37 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



I don't read tabloids. No serious argument should involve having to link to a tabloid newspaper. Anyway, I read a few paragraphs to get the gist of what you're concerned with. You seem to be arguing that normalizing transgenderism will inevitably lead to scenarios where a parent consciously imposes a gender on a child that is different than their biological sex. I see no evidence of that. If anything, the sooner it becomes normalized, the less likely there will be insane people who pull off stunts like that to supposedly "support transgender equity". We're dealing with mental health issues here. As a society we should look at why we breed such a high rate of mentally ill people instead of focusing on exactly how this mental illness ends up manifesting itself.

The HIV quote makes sense to me. Think about it, about half of pregnancies are unplanned in the US. What does that tell us? That people are terrible at doing this sex-with-protection thing. Imagine if the consequence of actually knowing that you have HIV and ending up exposing someone to it is spending your life in prison, it does seem a lot less likely that someone will want to officially know about it, especially if their livelihood depends on sex that is sometimes unprotected by request of the client (or forced). It's not so much "abusing the system" as it is having not knowing as your only defense in order not to have your entire life ruined in the event that you expose someone. I think what informs one's decision here comes down to your view of human nature and the penal system. Are there a lot more people who make mistakes than people who are legitimately malicious? Is the penal system the ideal solution for both the perpetrator of this crime and society? Is your view of the ideal penal system based on retributive justice rather than deterrence? (You don't have to answer these questions, I'm just saying that they're relevant.)


@Part 1 - Okay, yeah I could see how your proposal would be the natural way things would go, does make a lot of sense.

@Part 2 - Its not about abusing the system or anything. I could hardly imagine what it could feel like living with HIV, but it seems absurd that you shouldn't be required to share that information before having sex with someone. It's not comparable to sex without protection. You should bear the responsibility of affecting someone else's life with an incurable disease and I'm a strong believer for deterrence and could see how the current western justice system in most countries isn't exactly focused on that.

The possibility of having the disease is an incentive big enough to get tested, otherwise you wont get threatment and the next time you catch a cold, chances are you'll die as you won't have an immune system. Anyway seems to me that I just can't understand the deterrence which comes with the new law here. It seems to me that it just grants a carte blanche to spread the disease as one pleases without having consequences or an incentive not to.


  On May 19 2018 20:35 Stroggoz wrote:
completely off topic but it's good to see Meghan Markle going around recommending chomsky to people, haha . That is actually the best media exposure the left has ever got.



You were kinda the last person I'd expect to follow anything related to that wedding :D I don't think she realizes that her choice of husband kind of contradicts Chomsky's views though as he seems like a social anarchist.... also doesn't Chomsky have like 7 books

 Last edit: 20/05/2018 01:39

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 20 2018 02:28. Posts 4217

chomsky has over a 100 books, but he has only written probably 1/5 of them, most of them are collections of interviews and lectures and he repeats a lot of stuff.

I don't see how her choice of husband contradicts chomsky's views. Harry is part of the elite, sure-although the royal family is a ceremonial role basically, it's removed from policy decision making. Chomsky is from an elite environment as well, MIT is about as establishment as it gets; its easier to criticise power from the centre of it; Chomsky advocates that those with special privileges and power have a responsibility, and they ought to be critical of power. This is outlined in one of his first essays he wrote on politics; 'the responsibility of intellectuals'. Although later he said it can apply to anyone with privilege-not just intellectuals. I know chomsky well and he would accept that within the capitalist system people are compromised, he isn't judgemental of those who have to pursue a career out of self interest. In fact he warned me in an email specifically that if I pursued a life of serious scholarly dissidence that it would probably not be good for my life.

and yeah i don't follow the wedding but hard not to pick up this kind of stuff, it was reported in the guardian and a lot of people from various leftist media that i read took interest in it as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...d-shake-up-monarchy-says-noam-chomsky

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 20/05/2018 02:31

RiKD    United States. May 20 2018 04:09. Posts 5418

This is like new level socialist anarchist stunting:

"In fact he warned me in an email specifically that if I pursued a life of serious scholarly dissidence that it would probably not be good for my life"

Even more stunting would be to tell Noam Chomsky "Fuck you! I'm doing it anyway you big pussy!"

Edit: I am kind of over the slang stuntin'

Still, imagine a world where the brag is correspondence with Chomsky? Not the new Nikes.

 Last edit: 20/05/2018 12:34

TimDawg    United States. May 20 2018 09:09. Posts 10185

there's a lot of stuff i disagree with on jordan peterson about ,but i can really appreciate the way he presents his ideas and thoughts. i feel like we're living in a day and age where presenting ideas that are against the norm generally leads to extreme argumentative and demonstrative thoughts. no one is willing to listen to the other side

if we could come to a place where both sides present their arguments and then have a civilized discussion right after, that would be a major step in the future of our civilization

online bob is actually a pretty smart person, not at all like the creepy fucker that sits in the sofa telling me he does nasty shit to me when im asleep - pinball 

GoTuNk   Chile. May 20 2018 10:19. Posts 2797


  On May 20 2018 08:09 TimDawg wrote:
there's a lot of stuff i disagree with on jordan peterson about ,but i can really appreciate the way he presents his ideas and thoughts. i feel like we're living in a day and age where presenting ideas that are against the norm generally leads to extreme argumentative and demonstrative thoughts. no one is willing to listen to the other side

if we could come to a place where both sides present their arguments and then have a civilized discussion right after, that would be a major step in the future of our civilization



Calm down, Mr. Dave Rubin


whammbot   Belarus. May 20 2018 17:28. Posts 314

This guy even plugs his book while trying to roast JP. I like Ben Dyson being the guest of Bryan Callen's podcast a number of times but the guy is way too crazy it's hard to take him seriously. This is him saying Kobe is the greatest player of all time lmao

visit my personal entertainment blog https://foundaz.comLast edit: 20/05/2018 17:29

lebowski   Greece. May 20 2018 17:54. Posts 9032


  On May 20 2018 01:28 Stroggoz wrote:
In fact he warned me in an email specifically that if I pursued a life of serious scholarly dissidence that it would probably not be good for my life.


you got an email from Chomsky? And I thought it was cool that I saw him irl -_-

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

Loco   Canada. May 20 2018 23:06. Posts 19733

It's pretty widely known that Chomsky responds to pretty much everyone who writes to him. I assume he sees it as a moral duty.

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

Baalim   Mexico. May 21 2018 21:58. Posts 32676


  On May 12 2018 13:02 Loco wrote:
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).



I remember in one of his videos he said that when Hitler realized defeat was coming his way he increased the lethality of the death camps to destroy as much as possible which isn't what you are saying, but perhaps he did, theres so much hours of content from him.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 21 2018 22:06. Posts 32676


  On May 12 2018 14:28 Loco wrote:
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:





I saw a vid where he was pressed againt this "clean your room" thing and he tells an anecdote about I believe a student of his that was concerned about climate change and envornment, but instead of protesting government or something like that he went and engeneered some plastic collector for the ocean and the project is getting some traction.


So he is telling you people that instead of going and bitch to daddy government about the workings of very complex systems which you believe you understand, how about you actually work to solve the problem in any way you can.


I dont see the "clean your room" thing as a be organized but to actually work in things you can control to make a better you and world, pretty alike the stoic ideals you have "evolved" from.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 21 2018 22:22. Posts 32676

interesting Munk Debate, finally they put an elocuent man infront of JBP, he made solid points and JBP looked angry and that part about "I'm not a hurt, I'm appauled I'm not a victim!" looked pretty pathetic.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 21 2018 22:52. Posts 32676


  On May 14 2018 14:43 deathstar wrote:

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.



Indeed hatespeech is bad and I wouldnt like people to say hateful things against groups, but if the alternative is to give the authority the power to censor speech, to dictate what people can think and speak about then I'll pick the hate groups 100 times over because their potential for harm to mankind pales in comparison to the weapon you want to craft to smite them.

I would use those words within a reasonable context just as I did, I wasnt insulting anyone, it baffles me that society has adopted literally saying "the N word" in a context when it isn't meant as an insult, its the biggest mistake in language society has made in the last century.

If I dont play diccionary with Loco I wont do it with you either, but pathetic attempt to dodge the argument I made about outlawing the word "dumb".

somehow I think this will all fly over your head, I'm not sure if its just some kind of language barrier or you are just a bit dim tbh.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 21 2018 23:10. Posts 32676


  On May 13 2018 04:40 Loco wrote:

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.



Living in one of the most civilized countries in the world has left a huge gap in your world vision, I guess its your white privilege


Come live a bit in the 3rd world and you will see how people will indeed exploit from bottom up, for example:

Those things where you pay and get a newspaper and leave the rest can't work in mexico because they would get snap emptied by an asshat, because culture and the utilitarian value for a newspaper in Canada is 0, but a honour system in Canada that would dispense cars would fail too.

You would need to live a few years in a shithole to realize that people will exploit in any way they can from the bottom up too, because frankly you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.



To quote the beloved and well known philosopher, the Joker, "They are only as good as the world allows them to be, ill show you, when the chips are down, these... these civilized people, will eat each other"

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 21 2018 23:11. Posts 32676


  On May 14 2018 16:46 VanDerMeyde wrote:

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.




I stopped smoking after 10 years, easy as fuck, but this... this is the most insidious and desctructive vice I have lol

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 22 2018 00:03. Posts 2779


  On May 21 2018 21:52 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



Indeed hatespeech is bad and I wouldnt like people to say hateful things against groups, but if the alternative is to give the authority the power to censor speech, to dictate what people can think and speak about then I'll pick the hate groups 100 times over because their potential for harm to mankind pales in comparison to the weapon you want to craft to smite them.

I would use those words within a reasonable context just as I did, I wasnt insulting anyone, it baffles me that society has adopted literally saying "the N word" in a context when it isn't meant as an insult, its the biggest mistake in language society has made in the last century.




haha yeah it is ridiculous how nigger is treated like voldemort. It's like, obviously you don't say it to people. Using nigger as an insult is a quick and easy way to make your own idiocy apparent tot he rest of the world. But if the context is 'using nigger as an insult is racist and if you're a white guy, don't assume that your black friend will think it's funny if you call him that' then you don't have to say 'using the n-word as an insult is racist' etc. There's a legit argument to be made for avoiding using 'rape' metaphorically because rape victims can genuinely get a panic attack type of reaction from simply seeing the word, but that's clearly not the case with 'nigger'.

faggot is much the same, except there it's even more confusing as 'the f word' wouldn't even have any obvious meaning.

lol POKER 

Loco   Canada. May 22 2018 00:40. Posts 19733


  On May 21 2018 22:10 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



Living in one of the most civilized countries in the world has left a huge gap in your world vision, I guess its your white privilege


Come live a bit in the 3rd world and you will see how people will indeed exploit from bottom up, for example:

Those things where you pay and get a newspaper and leave the rest can't work in mexico because they would get snap emptied by an asshat, because culture and the utilitarian value for a newspaper in Canada is 0, but a honour system in Canada that would dispense cars would fail too.

You would need to live a few years in a shithole to realize that people will exploit in any way they can from the bottom up too, because frankly you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.



To quote the beloved and well known philosopher, the Joker, "They are only as good as the world allows them to be, ill show you, when the chips are down, these... these civilized people, will eat each other"



Notice how you just side-stepped my entire point just to remind me how people act in the world that you defend as the best possible one, and which they didn't get a vote in engineering. Your analysis stops at the action that is committed (stealing) instead of doing any competent global analysis. My entire point was to say that this isn't some fixed human nature and you've done nothing to refute it here. How much petty theft was there under revolutionary Catalonia?

You don't know anything about the abject poverty in my area. The best you have as an argument really is nothing more than a fallacy of relative privation: "if you knew how bad it is elsewhere, you wouldn't complain!" Let alone the fact that these parts of the world don't exist in a vacuum, they affect each other constantly.

It's my vision of the world that's narrow while you are the one relying on quotes from Hollywood movies to make your deep points... ok. Here's a more relevant quote by Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” I think it's fair to say that you've confined your view of human nature precisely because it eased your mind and helped you make a living through competition while placing no moral burdens upon you. You can't get any farther than your own self-interested projections as a result. But even though neoliberal capitalism works to produce people like you, it is inarguable that despite its powerfully destructive force, many people aren't like you at all.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 22/05/2018 01:35

Baalim   Mexico. May 22 2018 01:40. Posts 32676

1 - I said its the best possible system for the flawed people that live in it, not that its the best possible way these people can be.

2 - I said it multiple times, I dont think that beheavior is fixed, stop putting words in my mouth, you are making an habit out of that.

3 - my argument isnt "if you knew better you wouldnt comlain", my argument is if you knew better you wouldnt make cliché marxist arguments like the exploitation comes from top to bottom and you would realize the exploitation comes from bottom up and all sides


please keep telling me about canadian poverty and how bad my tongue-in-cheek hollywood quotes aren't deep

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 22 2018 01:42. Posts 32676


  On May 21 2018 23:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Show nested quote +



haha yeah it is ridiculous how nigger is treated like voldemort. It's like, obviously you don't say it to people. Using nigger as an insult is a quick and easy way to make your own idiocy apparent tot he rest of the world. But if the context is 'using nigger as an insult is racist and if you're a white guy, don't assume that your black friend will think it's funny if you call him that' then you don't have to say 'using the n-word as an insult is racist' etc. There's a legit argument to be made for avoiding using 'rape' metaphorically because rape victims can genuinely get a panic attack type of reaction from simply seeing the word, but that's clearly not the case with 'nigger'.

faggot is much the same, except there it's even more confusing as 'the f word' wouldn't even have any obvious meaning.



I feel someday we are going to burn at the stake when screenshots of us using those words are shown in court

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 22 2018 02:12. Posts 19733


  On May 21 2018 20:58 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



I remember in one of his videos he said that when Hitler realized defeat was coming his way he increased the lethality of the death camps to destroy as much as possible which isn't what you are saying, but perhaps he did, theres so much hours of content from him.




That was the part and clearly his entire counterhistorical framing is wrong. Here it is being debunked by actual historians (you have to click on the tweet to read the twitter thread).

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 22/05/2018 02:19

Baalim   Mexico. May 22 2018 02:48. Posts 32676

yeah thats the video I saw, and I agree it sounds way more difficult to keep them alive than to kill them, productive slavery requires a stable status-quo when the slaves arent a threat to rebell at all times and obviously its hard to stablish that social dynamic quickly and in the middle of a world war.

But why is this an issue for you? He is claiming Hitler was worse than what people think yet also align him closely with white supremacist

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 22 2018 05:44. Posts 19733

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

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 22 2018 05:51. Posts 4217

I just read a journalistic book called scattered sand. I had no idea those below subsistence level migrants from rural china were exploiting the factory owners, no idea at all!!! Thanks for refuting everything that i thought was completely obvious Baal.


I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 22 2018 05:55. Posts 4217

you can only be free in china if you sell yourself to the factory owner: True freedom, man these anarcho capitalists are truly in touch with reality. Why do they only seem to exist on the internet??

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

Baalim   Mexico. May 22 2018 07:06. Posts 32676


  On May 22 2018 02:01 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



The flawed people are not born flawed -- at least not to the degree that you think they are in order to posit capitalism as the best system. You point to their behavior under capitalism as an indictment of their nature, rather than their nature under capitalism. Under capitalism they are not given the chance to be less flawed since they are deprived of the environment necessary to be able to develop their full humanity. They are born to serve the economic interests of the powerful or starve. That is the extent of our freedom under this system. It's the best system for the few who do not care about others or the future, that's evident to anyone who doesn't have blinders on.

You were quoting me responding to the fixed human nature claim made by Spitfiree. It's not putting words into your mouth to re-introduce the context from my words which you quoted. And even if you don't believe it is fixed you still behave and indirectly argue as if it was, so you paying lip service to it is irrelevant.

The people at the bottom are not responsible for the hierarchy, they aren't voluntarily signing up to be at the bottom, so it makes no sense to call them exploiters whenever they make a self-interested decision, unless you believe they would act the same given that they have their basic needs met, and that the hierarchy is merit based. Your argument boils down to saying that everyone needs to exploit everyone under capitalism, which is a truism, not a refutation of anti-capitalist arguments.

The only tongue-and-cheek part of it is the way you presented the joker, it's not the substance of the quote, which you 100% stand behind and believe to be deep. Except it's once again not an indictment of human beings, but of human beings under neoliberal capitalism. The quote doesn't make a broader claim than that.


Yes we are born flawed it has been a constant in our species and almost all animals since we crawled out of the slime and neoliberal capitalism has nothing to do with it lol, you believe this is a trait developed in the last few decades? lol

They exploit whatever they can from the system, and it has nothing to do with "basic needs met", you idea of the economy is some kind of feudal charicature, at least you can see why Marx would make such a mistake in the way the industrial revolution happened, but for people to still have such a wrong concept is crazy, and I'm not saying everyone needs to exploit everyone in capitalism, I'm saying is a system that works under the assumption that humans seek self-interest.

I do not believe that saying people would eat eachother to be deep, I think its obvious no idea how that isn't for people like you, as I theorized earlier perhaps its your sheltered life and made up problems with your neo-emo circle

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 22 2018 07:17. Posts 32676


  On May 22 2018 04:51 Stroggoz wrote:
I just read a journalistic book called scattered sand. I had no idea those below subsistence level migrants from rural china were exploiting the factory owners, no idea at all!!! Thanks for refuting everything that i thought was completely obvious Baal.





the same argument as above? I'm beggining to think you both are purpousedly trying to engage I'm what im saying in an effort to strawman my argument.

I'm not saying workers exploit the boss, I specifially said that exploitation didnt come from top the bottom but from everywhere, workers will exploit who they can, people above, below and at the same level of the hierarchy.



Naturally we can rise above this and choose integrity, kindness, filantropy etc, but building a system that depends everyone does is a terrible idea proven by history over and over again

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 22 2018 09:01. Posts 19733


  On May 21 2018 21:06 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +




I saw a vid where he was pressed againt this "clean your room" thing and he tells an anecdote about I believe a student of his that was concerned about climate change and envornment, but instead of protesting government or something like that he went and engeneered some plastic collector for the ocean and the project is getting some traction.


So he is telling you people that instead of going and bitch to daddy government about the workings of very complex systems which you believe you understand, how about you actually work to solve the problem in any way you can.


I dont see the "clean your room" thing as a be organized but to actually work in things you can control to make a better you and world, pretty alike the stoic ideals you have "evolved" from.


Yeah, everyone loves the good ol' bootstraps success story. It's convenient that we receive this story from Peterson instead of the actual student. I don't have any reason to believe that this student believes that individuals should take no action to raise social awareness or work within the system and should just turn themselves into entrepreneurs. It's also a ridiculous example because it happens to be about the one thing that arguably everyone who isn't a conservative cares about but which he doesn't oppose, while what he rants against are social justice issues that have nothing to do with environmentalism but that threaten his position of power in society.

The Stoics didn't believe in a simplistic individual [can control]/social systems [can't control] dichotomy. The foundational tenet of Stoicism is that humans are social animals endowed with reason, and we should use this reasoning faculty to become more virtuous and serve mankind. Even though it is fundamentally a personal philosophy, it held justice as a fundamental virtue, which means it is intrinsically linked to the social and the political. Here is what the philosopher, biologist and notable Neo-Stoic Massimo Puglicci concludes with in his piece on Stoicism and social justice:

"In the end, Stoicism is absolutely compatible with concepts such as social justice, and it is compatible with social activism as well. The Stoics were teachers out to change things for the better, and justice is one of the four cardinal virtues. But they also taught us to be resilient, to behave like rocks when others insult us, because we are trying to be wise." Foolishness we can leave to them."

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 22/05/2018 09:02

Loco   Canada. May 22 2018 09:28. Posts 19733


  On May 22 2018 06:06 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



Yes we are born flawed it has been a constant in our species and almost all animals since we crawled out of the slime and neoliberal capitalism has nothing to do with it lol, you believe this is a trait developed in the last few decades? lol

They exploit whatever they can from the system, and it has nothing to do with "basic needs met", you idea of the economy is some kind of feudal charicature, at least you can see why Marx would make such a mistake in the way the industrial revolution happened, but for people to still have such a wrong concept is crazy, and I'm not saying everyone needs to exploit everyone in capitalism, I'm saying is a system that works under the assumption that humans seek self-interest.

I do not believe that saying people would eat eachother to be deep, I think its obvious no idea how that isn't for people like you, as I theorized earlier perhaps its your sheltered life and made up problems with your neo-emo circle



Yes, I suppose you would make the same brilliant critique towards Chomsky. He was just a bored emo who had to rebel against something. There are no significant enough problems with capitalism so he just had to go and make up a bunch of them. He never knew what it was like to drink unclean water so who he is to complain about shit anyway? When he marched to protest against the Vietnam War, it was just virtue signaling to get laid, every biologist (ahem, evolutionary psychologist) knows it. Muhammad Ali also opposed the war and refused to go. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison for draft evasion and he was stripped of his title and banned from professional boxing for more than three years. Served him right for being a fucking selfish, unpatriotic exploiter of the system, right?

All anarchists/socialists/communists must be naive and delusional people who have never opened a biology book, we all know about the trait, that trait that makes human beings selfish exploiters no matter whether they are in an environment of scarcity and competition or not. There must be such a trait, I couldn't possibly be ignorant enough to have opposed them for all my life uncritically!

No one has ever denied that humans seek self-interest. As I've repeated multiple times and asked you, the question is to what extent are we self-regarding and how much of that is inborn and to what extent it changes in different environments. I've even provided you with research over a week ago that seeks to answer this question and it's been ignored completely. So we're back to square one: you assert things and I should be taking them on faith, because you are an authority on these matters. You don't need to provide evidence and you are justified in ignoring the evidence I present because it doesn't fit with your neoliberal dogma, which is really just a radical defense of the status quo. Except now it comes with the petty insults added.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 22/05/2018 10:08

lebowski   Greece. May 22 2018 11:31. Posts 9032

"How will it work" & "how do we get there" are questions that anarchists seem to be answering with faith. Communists less so, because at least they have specific methods effectively used in the past to seize power and maintain a functioning society over long periods of time. They just have to figure out how not to turn into a terrible dictatorship, sounds tough but it's easier than what anarchists are supposed to achieve. Their biggest historical success didn't actually last long at all, they were crashed by opposition and Spain ended up in a worse place at the hands of fascists for decades later. It's a situation also fairly impossible to replicate in a world where war isn't fought by barricading roads or digging trenches. Perhaps in the future some sort of revolutionary tech could make it more viable, until then it just seems like good intentions paving the road to shitty situations.

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

Loco   Canada. May 22 2018 13:01. Posts 19733

I'd say it's the communists who rely on faith that authoritarianism will not prevail after the revolution, while anarchists are more cynical and uncompromising and embodying a way of life. Of course one gets shit done more easily than the other, but we have little reason to think it can do better than it did historically. It does indeed seem impossible for an anarchist society to exist among barbaric societies that can overpower them, but I think it's hard to imagine the human species having a future without having evolved into it.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 22/05/2018 13:14

Loco   Canada. May 22 2018 14:25. Posts 19733

A typical exchange goes something like this:

Skeptic: Well, I might take this whole anarchism idea more seriously if you could give me some reason to think it would work. Can you name me a single viable example of a society which has existed without a government?

Anarchist: Sure. There have been thousands. I could name a dozen just off the top of my head: the Bororo, the Baining, the Onondaga, the Wintu, the Ema, the Tallensi, the Vezo… All without violence or hierarchy.

Skeptic: But those are all a bunch of primitives! I’m talking about anarchism in a modern, technological society.

Anarchist: Okay, then. There have been all sorts of successful experiments: experiments with worker’s self-management, like Mondragon; economic projects based on the idea of the gift economy, like Linux; all sorts of political organizations based on consensus and direct democracy…

Skeptic: Sure, sure, but these are small, isolated examples. I’m talking about whole societies.

Anarchist: Well, it’s not like people haven’t tried. Look at the Paris Commune, the free states in Ukraine and Manchuria, the 1936 revolution in Spain…

Skeptic: Yeah, and look what happened to those guys! They all got killed!

The dice are loaded. You can’t win. Because when the skeptic says “society,” what he really means is “state,” even “nation-state.” Since no one is going to produce an example of an anarchist state—that would be a contradiction in terms—what we're really being asked for is an example of a modern nation-state with the government somehow plucked away: a situation in which the government of Canada, to take a random example, has been overthrown, or for some reason abolished itself, and no new one has taken its place but instead all former Canadian citizens begin to organize themselves into libertarian collectives. Obviously this would never be allowed to happen. In the past, whenever it even looked like it might—here, the Paris commune and Spanish civil war are excellent examples—the politicians running pretty much every state in the vicinity have been willing to put their differences on hold until those trying to bring such a situation about had been rounded up and shot.

There is a way out, which is to accept that anarchist forms of organization would not look anything like a state. That they would involve an endless variety of communities, associations, networks, projects, on every conceivable scale, overlapping and intersecting in any way we could imagine, and possibly many that we can’t. Some would be quite local, others global. Perhaps all they would have in common is that none would involve anyone showing up with weapons and telling everyone else to shut up and do what they were told. And that, since anarchists are not actually trying to seize power within any national territory, the process of one system replacing the other will not take the form of some sudden revolutionary cataclysm—the storming of a Bastille, the seizing of a Winter Palace—but will necessarily be gradual, the creation of alternative forms of organization on a world scale, new forms of communication, new, less alienated ways of organizing life, which will, eventually, make currently existing forms of power seem stupid and beside the point. That in turn would mean that there are endless examples of viable anarchism: pretty much any form of organization would count as one, so long as it was not imposed by some higher authority, from a klezmer band to the international postal service.

- David Graeber

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

RiKD    United States. May 22 2018 14:55. Posts 5418


  On May 22 2018 04:51 Stroggoz wrote:
I just read a journalistic book called scattered sand. I had no idea those below subsistence level migrants from rural china were exploiting the factory owners, no idea at all!!! Thanks for refuting everything that i thought was completely obvious Baal.





The rule is they are only allowed to have 2 cups of coffee but some of them have 3 cups of coffee!

Jokes on them it makes one more productive!


RiKD    United States. May 22 2018 15:28. Posts 5418

AA is an anarchist organization. It is kind of unified under a "God of your understanding" which is bullshit but also not true because myself and many of my friends have no god whatsoever. Although, it's also basically a charity. All positions are service positions that are expected to be rotated. AA does not govern or have any outside opinions or endorsements. There are very few occasions where there can be paid outside help but that is voted on democratically. All the funds come from members of AA. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking.

As far as their goal to carry their message to the alcoholic who still suffers I would say they are rather successful even though the message is mostly bullshit. The message being you are powerless, you need a power, get God, the inventory is actually pretty worthwhile, speaking to someone about it is pretty worthwhile, praying is stupid, praying to remove defects of character is stupid, making amends to people can be worthwhile, keeping tabs on how you are doing can be worthwhile, praying is stupid, carrying this message is basically impossible for me because I didn't do it. I can just share my experience or tell atheists why I think I am sober and how I did it.

I think a stat on AA's effectiveness is 5% (Dodes in "The Sober Truth" but I don't know how they get that number and it was criticized.

AA as a "successful" anarchic organization? You be the judge.


Baalim   Mexico. May 22 2018 22:01. Posts 32676


  On May 22 2018 08:28 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



Yes, I suppose you would make the same brilliant critique towards Chomsky. He was just a bored emo who had to rebel against something. There are no significant enough problems with capitalism so he just had to go and make up a bunch of them. He never knew what it was like to drink unclean water so who he is to complain about shit anyway? When he marched to protest against the Vietnam War, it was just virtue signaling to get laid, every biologist (ahem, evolutionary psychologist) knows it. Muhammad Ali also opposed the war and refused to go. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison for draft evasion and he was stripped of his title and banned from professional boxing for more than three years. Served him right for being a fucking selfish, unpatriotic exploiter of the system, right?

All anarchists/socialists/communists must be naive and delusional people who have never opened a biology book, we all know about the trait, that trait that makes human beings selfish exploiters no matter whether they are in an environment of scarcity and competition or not. There must be such a trait, I couldn't possibly be ignorant enough to have opposed them for all my life uncritically!

No one has ever denied that humans seek self-interest. As I've repeated multiple times and asked you, the question is to what extent are we self-regarding and how much of that is inborn and to what extent it changes in different environments. I've even provided you with research over a week ago that seeks to answer this question and it's been ignored completely. So we're back to square one: you assert things and I should be taking them on faith, because you are an authority on these matters. You don't need to provide evidence and you are justified in ignoring the evidence I present because it doesn't fit with your neoliberal dogma, which is really just a radical defense of the status quo. Except now it comes with the petty insults added.



Again misconstruing my arguments and ignoring all I said, you claim that I ignore the hour-long youtube videos you post yet you ignore the couple of lines I write constantly.

I've never criticized you for being a "rebel", I'm an anarchist myself, and I've said many times that capitalism has many flaws (no need for Chomsky to make them up), I already explained to you that I didnt say that since you didnt suffer you didnt have a righ to bitch, I said that your world view is skewed and see the free market as a charicature of feudalism, but again you repeat this stupid argument ffs.

The only way one can stop a war is by directly protesting a government, that is not the case for fhe thing SJW complain about but I find it funny that you put your bullshit right along the likes of Chomsky and Ali lol.

Now you think im a dogmatic neoliberal when I'm an anarchocapitalist, your arguments are getting progressivly worse to the point is getting hard to reply to them, and btw the stuff you have shared about the source and malleability of human traits were not ignored, it is you the one who dogmatically dismisses anything that goes against your world view not me, you are projecting your flaws.


I'm curious, I've said many times that it doesnt matter if humans are genetically self centered or not, but you think its fundamental, so if some research found a "selfish gene" (no reference to dawkins lol) that showed a strong natural drive for selfishness kind of like the one we have for sex, would you swap your anarcho communist views to neoliberalism or something?

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 22 2018 22:44. Posts 8712

Every time I start thinking about how anarchy would work I hit a brick wall in the face of hierarchy. Our whole world is based on hierarchic models on every single level, regardless whether you're in a government institution, in your workplace, or viewed through the perspective of gender or social status. All of these hierarchies are not something the common person thinks about and are deemed as something very natural, although they're all manmade.

People would need to start relating to the lack of authority and thus lack of pyramid hierarchical structure through practical examples which they find value in. That's the biggest reason I'm such a fan of decentralized cryptocurrencies and blockchain as they could be the first massive step towards anarchy. That being said I still don't see how most of the hierarchical structures would be demolished even if FIAT and banks seize to exist in their current form and crypto becomes the main financial resource for payments.

Anyway if someone has some good materials to read @ hierarchy in anarchy that d be awesome as I feel like I don't fully grasp the idea. Even if hierarchy doesn't exist in the pure definition of the word, there'd still be need for organisation on all of those levels.

 Last edit: 22/05/2018 22:47

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 23 2018 00:04. Posts 2779

I think the most effective, least hierarchical organization of any decent size you can find is probably Wikipedia/the Wikimedia foundation. It's structured in a way that largely corresponds with actual marxists ideals. But even there, you do have a small segment of the user base with more power and influence than others - these are democratically elected and can also lose their positions if people are unhappy with the job they are doing. And with very few exceptions, it doesn't pay at all.

http://sk.sagepub.com/books/social-media-a-critical-introduction , chapter 10 onward, for those with access. (Kinda sad to publish a book on wikipedia behind a paywall but oh well. )

lol POKER 

Baalim   Mexico. May 23 2018 00:22. Posts 32676

wikipedia is a fascinating phenomenon

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro OnlineLast edit: 23/05/2018 05:10

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 23 2018 05:35. Posts 4217

It's ironic that the creater of wikipedia is an ayn rand libertarian and he created a socialist institution.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

wobbly_au   Australia. May 23 2018 12:14. Posts 6540

As usual Loco makes NO sense to me.. Great discussion from most other people though.

The Last Laugh. 

wobbly_au   Australia. May 23 2018 12:30. Posts 6540

Personally I think Jordan Peterson has some great common sense points and I think the way he speaks and his character (timid, reserved intellectual) resonates with a lot of conservative/libertarian people that feel like political correctness has gone too far.

I think he doesnt offer too many new or modern "insights" but is a great father type figure for kids to look up to..

The Last Laugh. 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 24 2018 00:49. Posts 8712


  but is a great father type figure for kids to look up to..



And that doesn't scare you @ wobbly? It's actually my main concern and it shows how even modern societies like Canada have failed. If there s a large amount of people that actually NEED that and respond positively to it, there is something fundamentally wrong. It shows how many people fail to grasp common things even though they have the complete freedom to do it. It also hints that these same people were "suppressed" (very loosely said) in some kind of way to end up like that in their 20s.


Otherwise i agree with the rest

Also Loco always argues that he avoids discussions with other reputable scholars, which doesn't really change much, cause those scholars didn't manage to make the impact he did, so even though they might be absolutely correct, that doesn't really mean shit if its not of practical use. So these people should be asking themselves "what can I do to make the same kind of impact?" and if that's not their goal, then its all cool, but even if they face JP and demolish him in a verbal confrontation that wouldn't change shit.

 Last edit: 24/05/2018 00:54

Loco   Canada. May 24 2018 04:14. Posts 19733

I didn't make that statement in a vacuum. I made it because it reveals his hypocrisy: he's not in the public eye to ask important questions or make attempts at "getting at the truth", which is this narrative that we are sold in every fawning piece that's written on him. You're not interested in exploring anything when you're selling out entire theaters where you're the only person on stage preaching about old conservative ideas wrapped in Jungian mysticism.

He partly admits this himself in a Joe Rogan podcast where he says "I have found a way to monetize social justice activists". One of his twelve rules is assuming that other people have something to say and which you could learn from. Clearly, he doesn't really believe that rule applies when the person is on the left of Dave Rubin, who is himself not even anywhere on the left. Peterson has fully discredited anyone whom he can slap the label "collectivist" on. The real debate has ended before it could even begin. It cannot take place because he calls leftists "pathological" and he claims they are the ones who won't engage in a discussion because they don't believe in reasoned discussion.

It's much easier to have a big impact when it's a negative one. I can go shoot up a school tomorrow and I will impact people more than if I do anything else with my life. The glorification of "making an impact" is just neoliberal brainwashing at work: it's this narrative that in our world we should brand ourselves and focus on growing our brand to make an impact. In truth, people who make an impact are almost never the ones who make a positive contribution to the world. The real benefactors of humanity are ignored by the masses. They are often leaving nothing behind them except the positive experiences that are left in the memories of those who have known them. A few of them are in academia and their works are venerated there, but they cannot get widespread attention, for the same reason that you don't see ads anywhere about the benefits of eating vegetables. What sells isn't what's good. The world has been engineered for distraction and self-destruction for the short term material benefit of the few. Getting the interest or the approval of the masses really means nothing good, quite the opposite.

"Men follow only those who give them illusions. There have never been gatherings around a disillusioned." — Emil Cioran

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 24/05/2018 04:29

wobbly_au   Australia. May 24 2018 04:38. Posts 6540


  On May 23 2018 23:49 Spitfiree wrote:
Show nested quote +



And that doesn't scare you @ wobbly? It's actually my main concern and it shows how even modern societies like Canada have failed. If there s a large amount of people that actually NEED that and respond positively to it, there is something fundamentally wrong. It shows how many people fail to grasp common things even though they have the complete freedom to do it. It also hints that these same people were "suppressed" (very loosely said) in some kind of way to end up like that in their 20s.


Otherwise i agree with the rest

Also Loco always argues that he avoids discussions with other reputable scholars, which doesn't really change much, cause those scholars didn't manage to make the impact he did, so even though they might be absolutely correct, that doesn't really mean shit if its not of practical use. So these people should be asking themselves "what can I do to make the same kind of impact?" and if that's not their goal, then its all cool, but even if they face JP and demolish him in a verbal confrontation that wouldn't change shit.


nope doesnt scare me, I grew up without a dad. I wish I had one like Jordan, I think he is a great role model. What is the negative implication of looking up to someone like him..

Tidy your room, have a sense a purpose, freedom of speech, family unit. All great traits..

The Last Laugh. 

Loco   Canada. May 24 2018 04:44. Posts 19733

With that said, there have been multiple instances of him being challenged lately. Not quite at the stage where he faces his real adversaries, but this is still an improvement.

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

Baalim   Mexico. May 24 2018 05:56. Posts 32676

it makes it sooooo much harder to watch when its just an image instead of actual people talking for some reason

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

GoTuNk   Chile. May 24 2018 06:00. Posts 2797


  On May 24 2018 03:38 wobbly_au wrote:
Show nested quote +



nope doesnt scare me, I grew up without a dad. I wish I had one like Jordan, I think he is a great role model. What is the negative implication of looking up to someone like him..

Tidy your room, have a sense a purpose, freedom of speech, family unit. All great traits..



Some leftists on this forum don't like those traits


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 24 2018 10:49. Posts 8712


  On May 24 2018 03:14 Loco wrote:

It's much easier to have a big impact when it's a negative one. I can go shoot up a school tomorrow and I will impact people more than if I do anything else with my life. The glorification of "making an impact" is just neoliberal brainwashing at work: it's this narrative that in our world we should brand ourselves and focus on growing our brand to make an impact. In truth, people who make an impact are almost never the ones who make a positive contribution to the world. The real benefactors of humanity are ignored by the masses. They are often leaving nothing behind them except the positive experiences that are left in the memories of those who have known them. A few of them are in academia and their works are venerated there, but they cannot get widespread attention, for the same reason that you don't see ads anywhere about the benefits of eating vegetables. What sells isn't what's good. The world has been engineered for distraction and self-destruction for the short term material benefit of the few. Getting the interest or the approval of the masses really means nothing good, quite the opposite.



True about the glorification and brainwashing, but it doesn't really change the practical aspect of things and it's also why I said "whether its their goal or not" as indeed many of these individuals just don't give a crap if they make an impact as their "audience" is people who've gone through the same "barriers"as them to gain knowledge.

However, this does not the painful truth - you either make an impact and your thoughts and work is memorable and has changed people's lives, or you didn't.

Also you're essentially saying that most of the stuff happening on a global scale are of negative impact, but previously argued that people are not looking to exploit the system and to gain an edge for themselves, which is basically what shoving negative information down one's throat's is. Or are we going into the semantics of those same people's belief system is that they're doing a good deed ?


@GoTunk what a poor post again, too bad you didn't bother to answer to my post to your Trump blabber so you could humiliate yourself further.

 Last edit: 24/05/2018 10:50

Loco   Canada. May 24 2018 13:00. Posts 19733

I don't disagree with you, being able to reach people is important, I'm just saying that it's impossible to compete with someone who is selling something nasty that people are hungry for. Junk food for the mind is popular because that's what our current individualist/consumerist society makes people crave/susceptible to liking. To further the analogy: you can't force feed healthy food to people, even if it's easily accessible, they have to be the ones who come to the realization that they would prefer it and look for it. The solution is not to compromise on the healthfulness of the food so we can compete with the Jordan Petersons of the world. What is needed is to abandon the very idea that everything is ruled by markets and competition and just share with each other without financial motivations. Because we're curious and we want to understand and improve things.

I thought I was pretty clear that it was the capitalists who are doing the exploiting, in any meaningful sense of the word. They are the ones who are in control of the global misinformation channels and also the ones who rise to popularity through opportunism like JBP did. "Gaining an edge" is for capitalists concerned with growth, it's not for people at the bottom who are concerned with survival and basic moral duties, like with your draft example. It comes down to this simple concept that you don't seem to grasp yet: bodily and moral integrity does not need justification, it's a biological imperative that we all share, while being in a position of dominance over others always requires a justification because it's not intrinsically needed for social living and it's not shared.

And of course, I have no doubt that most if not all exploiters think that they are good people, or at least better than average. They do have to sleep at night after all. Their behavior has been normalized by their culture so why wouldn't they? Even the people who are fully conscious that they are spreading misinformation/propaganda almost always do it because they think the means justify the end (and the end is good). I've also made it clear that while you may have the impression that most people are looking to gain advantages over others under all circumstances, it is in fact not the case globally. And where it is the case, it isn't a trait that's fixed about human nature, it's very much the product of this particular environment (and a particular brain, in the case of psychopathy). No one's born a capitalist and plenty of societies existed without them.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 24/05/2018 13:46

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 24 2018 14:29. Posts 1429


  On May 24 2018 03:44 Loco wrote:
With that said, there have been multiple instances of him being challenged lately. Not quite at the stage where he faces his real adversaries, but this is still an improvement.



why did the real adversaries not show up to the munk debate? instead he got called old and white by a baptist preacher

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

Loco   Canada. May 24 2018 14:51. Posts 19733


  On May 22 2018 21:01 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



Now you think im a dogmatic neoliberal when I'm an anarchocapitalist, your arguments are getting progressivly worse to the point is getting hard to reply to them, and btw the stuff you have shared about the source and malleability of human traits were not ignored, it is you the one who dogmatically dismisses anything that goes against your world view not me, you are projecting your flaws.


I'm curious, I've said many times that it doesnt matter if humans are genetically self centered or not, but you think its fundamental, so if some research found a "selfish gene" (no reference to dawkins lol) that showed a strong natural drive for selfishness kind of like the one we have for sex, would you swap your anarcho communist views to neoliberalism or something?



No one calls themselves a neoliberal. It just denotes a hard belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. I have no clue why you think calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist adds something meaningful to what is in fact the same Austerian economics. I haven't landed on anarcho-communism as a political ideology, I don't know why you keep labeling me as such. My views are currently aligned with libertarian socialism/anarcho-syndicalism/veganarchism.

You're asking me an hypothetical question which doesn't even make sense to ask when taking into account the evolution of views (and my deep skepticism about everything, which amazingly hasn't led you to call me a postmodernist). It's clear that you don't know me at all. The inverse happened: I believed in a Darwinistic, "selfish gene" model for many years. I abandoned the view because I couldn't find support for it and I found compelling evidence to the contrary. It was reading on the biology first (Margulis, Laborit, Maturana) that opened me up to the possibility and necessity of socialism/anarchism, not the opposite.

My mind has never worked to prove itself things that it wished were true, it has always sought challenges and the destruction of illusions, hence why I have led a life so unlike most people and filled with anxiety, depression and world-weariness. So yes, if I somehow found out that the empirical evidence for my views was somehow wrong, as I have found out multiple times in the past, I would change my mind again.... duh. And yes, it would influence my politics and probably make me apolitical again. "As strong as sex" is a good criterion... if you do find the capitalist gene, be sure to let me know. I don't know how this couldn't be fundamental to you... I wouldn't dare to believe in the possibility of a better world if everyone needed the self-denial and concentration of a Zen master to make it happen.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 24/05/2018 15:27

Baalim   Mexico. May 25 2018 02:46. Posts 32676

So the authoritarian/liberal political axis doesnt count today?

So I'm not an anacho capitalist, I'm a neoliberal and my political views align with Obama, Bush, Clinton et al... thanks for letting me know

So since you lean left then you are an authoritarian communist, you want a strong state that redistributes wealth like Mao Jedong, Lennin, Castro et al.



I belive in a better world, but one that will happen gradually and so slowly that its impercetible to our brief and impatient lives, I foudn this not only to be true but It brought tranquility and peace of mind to my life in a time that thirst for change and to corrects all the wrongs in the world was burning too hot in me as I suppose happens to a lot of young people and as it happens to you.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 25 2018 07:46. Posts 19733

I don't understand your first question or what it refers to in relationship to what I said. You'll have to elaborate.

I was pointing out that your views are rooted in a neoliberal dogma. I've even specified exactly what I meant by neoliberalism to avoid further confusion: a strong belief in free market economic liberalism. Objectivism and Right-Libertarianism also share this dogma, that doesn't mean that they all collapse into the exact same ideology. They are simply ideologies that have sprung from the same schools of thought in economics in the neoliberal era. I've never implied that your broad political views align with every politician who also embraced neoliberal policies.

I have also often made the claim that secular humanism is rooted in Christian dogma, following the ideas of Cioran and John N. Gray. Does that mean that I would be saying that they are the exact same thing? Is that too nuanced of a discussion to be having here? It shouldn't be. It's not difficult to understand that ideologies don't originate in a vacuum.

Why are you under the impression that I'm not advocating for gradual change? What have I said that revealed juvenile impatience? I've stated that I don't have faith in a communist revolution and that the road towards a better world is to be built with small scale efforts and associations that would thrive and eventually render the current authoritarian system obsolete. Protests are useful insofar as they help people organize, solidarize, build bonds and come across ideas that they didn't know about.

The problem is, it's easy to see we don't have that much time once we take to heart the warnings of nuclear scientists and climate scientists. There is also the threat of Superintelligence which is why we have Elon Musk trying to colonize Mars as soon as possible. We are en route towards global catastrophe and it's not slowing down, it's only speeding up. The world is run by right-wingers who are science deniers but you think the biggest threats are campus activists and feminists. Peace of mind is a luxury that is not afforded to most people under the current socio-economic circumstances.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 25/05/2018 07:52

Loco   Canada. May 25 2018 08:01. Posts 19733

How dumb is Richard Spencer? (0:55)

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

Baalim   Mexico. May 25 2018 19:47. Posts 32676


  On May 25 2018 06:46 Loco wrote:
I don't understand your first question or what it refers to in relationship to what I said. You'll have to elaborate.

I was pointing out that your views are rooted in a neoliberal dogma. I've even specified exactly what I meant by neoliberalism to avoid further confusion: a strong belief in free market economic liberalism. Objectivism and Right-Libertarianism also share this dogma, that doesn't mean that they all collapse into the exact same ideology. They are simply ideologies that have sprung from the same schools of thought in economics in the neoliberal era. I've never implied that your broad political views align with every politician who also embraced neoliberal policies.

I have also often made the claim that secular humanism is rooted in Christian dogma, following the ideas of Cioran and John N. Gray. Does that mean that I would be saying that they are the exact same thing? Is that too nuanced of a discussion to be having here? It shouldn't be. It's not difficult to understand that ideologies don't originate in a vacuum.

Why are you under the impression that I'm not advocating for gradual change? What have I said that revealed juvenile impatience? I've stated that I don't have faith in a communist revolution and that the road towards a better world is to be built with small scale efforts and associations that would thrive and eventually render the current authoritarian system obsolete. Protests are useful insofar as they help people organize, solidarize, build bonds and come across ideas that they didn't know about.

The problem is, it's easy to see we don't have that much time once we take to heart the warnings of nuclear scientists and climate scientists. There is also the threat of Superintelligence which is why we have Elon Musk trying to colonize Mars as soon as possible. We are en route towards global catastrophe and it's not slowing down, it's only speeding up. The world is run by right-wingers who are science deniers but you think the biggest threats are campus activists and feminists.



playing dictionary once again... neoliberalism isnt a synonym for free market for fucks sake.

I think your apocalyptic fears are silly to say the least.

Who are these right-wing science deniers who run the world, Trump runs the world? is Europe right wing now? please expand on this lol.


  Peace of mind is a luxury that is not afforded to most people under the current socio-economic circumstances.



Theres suffering in this world? oh thanks for letting me know, I was not aware.



I'm also curious how do you reconcile playing poker for a living with your political views? I cant think of many activities more predatory capitalistic than poker, a zero-sum game meritocracy thats like the anthithesis of your beliefs, so what kind mental gymnastics you do to justify it or do you think of yourself as a former evil now reformed man?



Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

RiKD    United States. May 25 2018 20:08. Posts 5418

"Who are these right-wing science deniers who run the world, Trump runs the world? is Europe right wing now? please expand on this lol."

KOCH BROTHERS AND THEIR CABAL! That's a pretty obvious one. Rupert Murdoch and that cabal. That's pretty major just listing those two.


Baalim   Mexico. May 25 2018 20:55. Posts 32676


  On May 25 2018 19:08 RiKD wrote:


KOCH BROTHERS AND THEIR CABAL!



GEORGE SOROS AND THEIR CABAL!

Doesn't Jeff Bezos also has pretty much an open war with Trump?

Yes powerful people have political ideologies shocker... none of them individually nor collectively run the world, or are we going full Rothschild & Bohemian groves now?


Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

RiKD    United States. May 25 2018 22:56. Posts 5418

The right is winning the climate change debate right now in the USA. Which pretty much means anywhere that was globalized in the USA's vision are climate change deniers too. Do you know how stupid and arrogant it is to be a climate change denier in 2018? Well, not stupid and arrogant if your profit and power depends on it.

Rupert Murdoch takes it to the next level by denying climate change in all his media outlets yet buying up land that will be prime real estate in the future.

When I said cabal I meant it. These guys literally have strategy sessions on how they are going to manipulate and exploit anything for the increase in their profits and power. George Soros may have his own cabal as well. I don't really know. Looking into it he has donated relatively little to democrats through the years. Maybe he has donated more not publicly. I don't know. After skimming his Wikipedia page it looks like he has done a lot of good for the world. Maybe there are profit, power, prestige motivations there. Maybe not. It's more than can be said for the Koch brothers. I don't really care what Fox News or Breitbart has to say about him just as I wouldn't care what CNN or MSNBC has to say about the Koch brothers.

I realize there are also people who stand to gain a lot from climate change. I know for a fact Al Gore was all-in a long time ago on climate change. He is bound to make a fortune off of it but there are also real, serious repercussions coming our way.


Baalim   Mexico. May 26 2018 00:17. Posts 32676


  On May 25 2018 21:56 RiKD wrote:
anywhere that was globalized in the USA's vision are climate change deniers too




What in the fuck does that even mean?


The US has a climage-change-denying president, he has no control over the house nor support from even his own party, so far he has pulled out from a meaningless agreement.


Meanwhile the supposedly pro-science left leaning leader of Geramny, Angela Merkel stopped all nuclear energy research and funding after the Fukushima event, because naturally that was going to be a popular opinion despide the fact that the cleanest and more logical option as a transitional energy source is nuclear power. Angela Merkel has been far more damaging for the environment than Trump has by far.


This is why protesting like Loco likes is retarded, going to the streets chanting how you want more fucking windmills or solar panels is idiotic, do you want to help? Then go and study a few years and help build and run thorium reactors, go clean your room before you try to change the world.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 26 2018 00:26. Posts 32676

A right-wing reporter (Tommy Robbinson) was arrested, tried, found guilty and senteced to 13 months in jail in less than 12hours because he was livestreaming outside of the courthouse where a grooming, gang-rape gang were in trial.

The judge also forbid any news reporting on this incident.





Yeah loco, the world is run by righwingers and I'm concerned about feminist schoolgirls.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

RiKD    United States. May 26 2018 01:08. Posts 5418


  On May 25 2018 23:17 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



What in the fuck does that even mean?


The US has a climage-change-denying president, he has no control over the house nor support from even his own party, so far he has pulled out from a meaningless agreement.


Meanwhile the supposedly pro-science left leaning leader of Geramny, Angela Merkel stopped all nuclear energy research and funding after the Fukushima event, because naturally that was going to be a popular opinion despide the fact that the cleanest and more logical option as a transitional energy source is nuclear power. Angela Merkel has been far more damaging for the environment than Trump has by far.


This is why protesting like Loco likes is retarded, going to the streets chanting how you want more fucking windmills or solar panels is idiotic, do you want to help? Then go and study a few years and help build and run thorium reactors, go clean your room before you try to change the world.


You think Guatemala can do anything about the U.S. corporations there? Actually, we can make the conversation closer to home. You think Mexico can do anything about the U.S. corporations there?

It's not Trump that is damaging. Well, it is partially but the damage is caused by the power the corporations have. If someone is a coal exec. for example they are fucked but they are still going to grab as much cash as they can. They have a warchest of bilIions to keep the profits and power flowing for hopefully the remainder of their life. The Koch brothers are in this category. I was looking up Arcelormittal which is a company I am most familiar with. They are big on bragging about their sustainability changes but the only reason they are so compliant is that they know it is inevitable and will only help their profitability and power in the future. They only change just as much to comply and then run big marketing campaigns about how great they are.

I don't like Merkle. Actually, I don't know that much about her to be honest but I think you have brought up the nuclear power thing before which caused me to have a discussion with my brother about it. He has a PhD in nuclear physics and concluded that in his scientific opinion the rewards outweigh the risks. So, then I reduced Merkle to that one position and haven't like her since.

Oh, come on. How cool would a million man march be for the reduction of class inequality? A march against profit over people? Connection and collaboration are very powerful. With that said I've never been to a protest. I've barely even voted. I wish I could say I've never voted but I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 when I was younger and more stupid.

There was a story about protests in Berlin over rent increases in the book ... shit, I can't even remember the book and I can't find any articles detailing it. Cliff notes would be it brought the whole community together and they eventually got what they wanted. Surely protest can be a tool for positive change.


Loco   Canada. May 26 2018 01:37. Posts 19733

I meant the most powerful country in the world, though it's clear that the influence and repercussions of US neoliberalism has spread throughout most of the world. On environmental matters, the rest of the Global North is not doing enough either, but they are doing something.

Trump is not getting support from his party? Can you name even a single Republican Party member who has acknowledged that climate change is real and something should be done about it? Myron Ebell is a proud climate change denier and he was put in charge of the EPA transition. Scott Pruitt has been made head of the EPA and he doesn't understand basic climate science. Today we've learned that the EPA has spent $3.5M for his own personal security. Trump's top adviser on energy is the billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm who works to dismantle regulations and give tax cuts for the industry (the wealthy and corporate sector generally), more fossil fuel production, and he lifted Obama's temporary block on the Dakota Access pipeline. Trump’s NASA nominee Jim Bridenstine is a climate denier who wants to end the agency’s climate research. Should I go on? Ok, here's something more, released today as well:

"Newly released emails show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials working closely with a conservative group that dismisses climate change to rally like-minded people for public hearings on science and global warming, counter negative news coverage and tout Administrator Scott Pruitt’s stewardship of the agency." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-show-collaboration-among-epa-climate-change-deniers/2018/05/25/16c056d4-605e-11e8-b656-236c6214ef01_story.html?utm_term=.d968340899cd)

Angela Merkel is not "left leaning". The CDU is a center-right party. Though her party isn't entirely up to blame, the junior partner in the current grand coalition government, the SPD, has also resisted calls for a deadline to give up cheap, carbon-heavy coal. This shouldn't surprise anyone, politics serves corporate interests, and regulations do not serve corporations. Blaming individual politicians instead of the inherent flaws in neoliberal capitalism is very misguided. If we want to play the pointless rank-ordering game, then Merkel seems to be the most destructive currently, but Trump is definitely set to cause more damage.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 26/05/2018 01:56

Baalim   Mexico. May 26 2018 01:42. Posts 32676

what US corporations here? wtf are you talking about?


We had a million man march in Mexico city against violence all dressed in white, guess what happened? nothing.

If you want people over profit and class equailty then live a frugal life and donate the rest instead of bitching to the government that they should take it from others by force.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 26 2018 02:12. Posts 19733


  I'm also curious how do you reconcile playing poker for a living with your political views? I cant think of many activities more predatory capitalistic than poker, a zero-sum game meritocracy thats like the anthithesis of your beliefs, so what kind mental gymnastics you do to justify it or do you think of yourself as a former evil now reformed man?



I don't play poker for a living. I haven't done so since 2010. And even when I did, and you could ask Fayth to confirm this, I didn't do any "mental gymnastics," I found it very depressing. I played poker because I had no other options to allow me to earn enough money to escape a bad living situation. I was a product of my environment and quite uneducated, no need to place a strong value judgment on it.


  I think your apocalyptic fears are silly to say the least.



Or I'm simply aware of things that you won't let yourself care about because you value your peace of mind more. The scientists are certainly not in agreement with you at the moment. Two minutes to midnight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 26/05/2018 02:17

Baalim   Mexico. May 26 2018 02:42. Posts 32676


  On May 26 2018 00:37 Loco wrote:
I meant the most powerful country in the world, though it's clear that the influence and repercussions of US neoliberalism has spread throughout most of the world. On environmental matters, the rest of the Global North is not doing enough either, but they are doing something.

Trump is not getting support from his party? Can you name even a single Republican Party member who has acknowledged that climate change is real and something should be done about it? Myron Ebell is a proud climate change denier and he was put in charge of the EPA transition. Scott Pruitt has been made head of the EPA and he doesn't understand basic climate science. Today we've learned that the EPA has spent $3.5M for his own personal security. Trump's top adviser on energy is the billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm who works to dismantle regulations and give tax cuts for the industry (the wealthy and corporate sector generally), more fossil fuel production, and he lifted Obama's temporary block on the Dakota Access pipeline. Trump’s NASA nominee Jim Bridenstine is a climate denier who wants to end the agency’s climate research. Should I go on? Ok, here's something more, released today as well:

"Newly released emails show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials working closely with a conservative group that dismisses climate change to rally like-minded people for public hearings on science and global warming, counter negative news coverage and tout Administrator Scott Pruitt’s stewardship of the agency." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-show-collaboration-among-epa-climate-change-deniers/2018/05/25/16c056d4-605e-11e8-b656-236c6214ef01_story.html?utm_term=.d968340899cd)

Angela Merkel is not "left leaning". The CDU is a center-right party. Though her party isn't entirely up to blame, the junior partner in the current grand coalition government, the SPD, has also resisted calls for a deadline to give up cheap, carbon-heavy coal. This shouldn't surprise anyone, politics serves corporate interests, and regulations do not serve corporations. Blaming individual politicians instead of the inherent flaws in neoliberal capitalism is very misguided. If we want to play the pointless rank-ordering game, then Merkel seems to be the most destructive currently, but Trump is definitely set to cause more damage.



Republicans have always been against carbon-tax/regulation, that doesnt mean they support Trump, the party was fractured by McCain and I cant think of any president with less support in the senate and the house than Trump, democrat or republican.

Well I guess if you consider Merkel right leaning then I can see why you believe the world is controlled by right wing people.

I believe the the whole "political compass" is absurd not only we superimpose the right/left wing labels for economic and societal beliefs which should have little correlation but also it fails to quantify some things like, what if you are anti-gun but anti-abortoin, are you left or right or does that make you a centrist? I suppose many people can be described with right/left since groupthink is a strong phenomenon in people but those tags are simply lacking in complexity to describe free-thinking people.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 26 2018 02:52. Posts 19733

Back on the topic of JBP, just read this article from an old friend of his: "I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous"

Starts off pretty oddly:


  "Several years ago, Jordan Peterson told me he wanted to buy a church. This was long before he became known as “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world,” as he was described in the pages of the New York Times a few months ago. It was before he was fancied to be a truth-telling sage who inspired legions, and the author of one of the bestselling books in the world this year. He was just my colleague and friend.

I assumed that it was for a new home — there was a trend in Toronto of converting religious spaces, vacant because of their dwindling congregations, into stylish lofts — but he corrected me. He wanted to establish a church, he said, in which he would deliver sermons every Sunday."



This part is scary, especially considering that we are at two minutes to midnight, in part thanks to the distracting influence of misguided people like him:


  Shortly after Jordan’s rise to notoriety back in 2016, I emailed him to express my upset with his dishonesty and lack of intellectual and social integrity. He called in a conciliatory voice the next morning. I was reiterating my disappointment and upset when he interrupted me, saying more or less the following:

“You don’t understand. I am willing to lose everything, my home, my job etc., because I believe in this.” And then he said, with the intensity he is now famous for, “Bernie. Tammy had a dream, and sometimes her dreams are prophetic. She dreamed that it was five minutes to midnight.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 26/05/2018 02:52

Loco   Canada. May 26 2018 03:19. Posts 19733


  On May 26 2018 01:42 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



Republicans have always been against carbon-tax/regulation, that doesnt mean they support Trump, the party was fractured by McCain and I cant think of any president with less support in the senate and the house than Trump, democrat or republican.

Well I guess if you consider Merkel right leaning then I can see why you believe the world is controlled by right wing people.

I believe the the whole "political compass" is absurd not only we superimpose the right/left wing labels for economic and societal beliefs which should have little correlation but also it fails to quantify some things like, what if you are anti-gun but anti-abortoin, are you left or right or does that make you a centrist? I suppose many people can be described with right/left since groupthink is a strong phenomenon in people but those tags are simply lacking in complexity to describe free-thinking people.


His overall support is irrelevant, we were talking of his party, leading the most powerful country in the world being science deniers. And they are.

I don't just "think" that she's right leaning. She's a "liberal conservative", i.e. center right, which in the US just means you're a conservative. The word liberal no longer means left-leaning. It's like when Jordan Peterson calls himself a classical liberal, you have to be silly to take that at face value and assume it means he's sympathetic to the left.

Excluding to some degree the Nordic countries where there is a high percentage of workers belonging to labour unions, in the big so-called democratic countries, I don't see the left having power. I see the illusion of choice between a left and a right, while it is effectively the corporate right and the theological right that you're choosing from. To answer your question, if most of your socio-economic views don't align with either the left or the right, yes, that makes you a centrist. I think where the left/right distinction fails is when individuals are treated as being part of two monoliths. There's never been "a left" and "a right". There's a lot of space for disagreement between leftists and though maybe it's more limited, for right wingers as well.

I couldn't possibly disagree more, fiscal issues and social issues are fundamentally interlinked. The popular libertarian slogan of being "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" is a joke, no such thing can exist. A picture is worth a thousand words.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 26/05/2018 07:14

Baalim   Mexico. May 26 2018 03:52. Posts 32676


  On May 26 2018 02:19 Loco wrote:


I couldn't possibly disagree more, fiscal issues and social issues are fundamentally interlinked. The popular libertarian slogan of being "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" is a joke, no such thing can exist




So if you are fiscally conservative you must also hold traditional conservative ideals like nationalism, pro-life, anti gay marriage etc?

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

RiKD    United States. May 26 2018 05:05. Posts 5418


  On May 26 2018 00:42 Baalim wrote:
what US corporations here? wtf are you talking about?


We had a million man march in Mexico city against violence all dressed in white, guess what happened? nothing.

If you want people over profit and class equailty then live a frugal life and donate the rest instead of bitching to the government that they should take it from others by force.



Koch brothers have a presence in Mexico. 6,000 employees across Monterrey, Guadalajara, and Mexico City among these entities: Georgia-Pacific, INVISTA, Koch Chemical Technology Group, Molex (All Koch brother/U.S. corporations). Mexico has no fucking power over any of those entities. The people of Mexico have no power over any of those entities. We were talking about climate change. If Mexico or the people of Mexico or the scientists deemed it wise to sanction some of those entities well now we have NAFTA here. The Koch brothers and the U.S. government can tell Mexico to basically fuck off or bad things will happen and then Mexico will fuck off because it has to. Because they don't have any other options.

Re: Coercion

What's worse getting coerced by the government or coerced by corporations? Getting coerced by both! Here's the thing. If we are going to be coerced by government which is going to happen as long as it exists we might as well make it more fair. People are getting coerced at a much larger rate relative to the corporations and they are getting coerced by the corporations on top of that. So, I am a guy working at a corporation. I'm giving them my time, my effort, my mental health, my sanity. They'll run me until I break if they can. It is an at will contract. So, I can leave whenever I want but they made me sign a non-compete clause. They can fire me whenever they want and the non-compete clause still holds. Getting fired can be devastating. Hiring someone new is more or less a blip on the radar at a large multinational. Say I make $80k and get taxed at 25%. Honestly, there isn't much difference utility wise between $60k and $80k but still that is pretty massive. Now, a corporation pulls in $20 billion and pays 25%. They make $15 billion. Bro, it's basically freeroll life at $10 milly. $100 milly is richer than god. $15 billy???? I mean come on. Of course, the natural inclination for most self-centered selfish perhaps even a little bit psychopathic fucks is to re-invest in the business so they can make even more BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. I remember our CEO had the nerve to sell off a business and give us a raise less than inflation while he took a $1 million salary and $10 million bonus straight to the mo fucking bank. He was swindling the board and the executives and everyone around him. I remember I would get these company wide emails from him. Just a fucking manicured mannequin with a devilish smile. I was just like you fucker. I know what you are doing and I can't do anything the fuck about it. That's what I feel about all these fucks. The business owners the politicians. All manicured fucking mannequins with a devilish smile. Fleecing and exploiting wherever they fucking can. So, I am fighting off manipulation on all fronts. So, I just hunker down in my room reading and posting on LP, reading manifestos for the new millennium... You know, reading all this socialism and anarchy stuff gives me hope but I wonder if it is false hope. If it's all an illusion.

Sometimes I feel like this guy:



You can't win a negotiation with money. The unblinking stare will get you every time.

I felt the same with that CEO picture. That unblinking ghoul staring back at me. Fuck you and your corporation you fuckers can't control me! But they can and they did (to a point) until I drank my way out of that situation. Alcoholism and psychosis just in the knick of time!

I bombed out of rehab. Fuck that place and their God. Actually I was so miserable sober I ended up in a psych ward for being suicidal.

Then I went on vacation. Charleston, SC, Hampton Beach, NH, the lake district in England, and Paris, France. That is how this drunk stayed sober early on and I was doing it on the corporation's dime. They were still paying me. Short term disability suckahs!!! Fuck 'em, they can't control me. I don't think I had any intentions of going back but I did enjoy just about a year's salary. I guess the bottom can exploit the top but it wasn't really like that. I was fucked up. So, signing that contract with the no compete clause and the salary not being where it should have been and all of that ended up working in my favor. I honestly think that was in the back of my mind when my manager's manager was trying to persuade me with short and long term disability. So, you are saying I can self destruct and get paid for a year? Interesting. Very interesting. Maybe it was my plan all along. Boy, did I self destruct. But, I was psychotic for fucking months. I remember thinking I was Jesus and that I at least had some time to live. My whole apartment was covered with 8'' by 11'' piece of paper with artwork, marketing, poems, raps, journals. I remember absolutely hating my dad for throwing it all away. Actually, I put together an entire collection of marketing for the environment. I still have some of it. It was mostly spearheaded by Kate Upton who I had a fascination with at the time.

This is what a capitalist society produces.

I hope a socialist anarchic society is not an illusion. It is one of the things holding myself together. There doesn't seem to be a future otherwise. For me or for anyone. I am sick of the manipulation. I just want to go to the mountains and observe some streams, flowers, and butterflies under a canopy of wildlife. Bath in a forest for a while. I have visions of owning a modern log cabin at the base of a mountain range. I could go on hikes and write poetry and journals. Not be bothered by anyone. I could call friends on the phone. I could spend time with Edgar Morin. I can spend time with Edgar Morin. Au revoir.

Sheesh. I really can't help myself can I. Oh well. Fuck Jordan Peterson! There it relates to the topic...


Loco   Canada. May 26 2018 05:46. Posts 19733


  On May 26 2018 02:52 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



So if you are fiscally conservative you must also hold traditional conservative ideals like nationalism, pro-life, anti gay marriage etc?


No... It just means that you can't be "socially liberal", since that would mean, by definition, addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education. "Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual." Fiscal conservativism, which is synonymous with neoliberalism/Reaganomics, does not care for the "good of the community," it prioritizes private interests/economic growth, which actively harms the community. Of course, in American usage, this ideology is perverted and it is unrecognizable from its origins, just like Libertarianism. Only in America can you call yourself a progressive while being a conservative and claim there is no contradiction.

Here's a short rundown of some examples of why it's not "pro-people" to be fiscally conservative:


  We’ve all met the 20-year-old College Republican who says, “Yeah I’m a Republican, but I’m pro-choice and pro-gay. You know, I’m socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.”

Here’s the thing: that doesn’t exist. The whole concept of being “socially liberal, but fiscally conservative” is a false pretense created to accommodate younger people with gay friends who are less comfortable outright saying they don’t support gay marriage. One cannot claim to be socially liberal and stand for marginalized people, then turn around and support policies that marginalize them more.

Socially liberal policies are aimed at using the government to take action, like a regulation (the EPAs regulations on coal pollution for example) in order to produce outcomes they believe to be desirable for people. For example, the government passing a law to make it illegal for a business to not serve gay couples. Liberal policies in general tend to be more focused on marginalized people—like people of color, LGBTQ people, disabled people, and poor people.

Fiscally conservative policies, to people that employ the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” mindset, are completely separate. Fiscally conservative people tend to be anti-welfare (many want to cut programs like Medicaid and SNAP), anti-government spending, pro-business, and advocate for a smaller government in general.

Conservative policies encourage less government intervention on businesses and instead advocate using the free market to decide policy. For example, if a company refuses to serve gay couples, fiscal conservatives claim that the company will have to answer to the market, and that will be more organic and natural than having to answer to the government. Conservative policy tends to be more focused on empowering businesses and instituting policies that are more focused on the middle section of Americans, like middle income families and people.

It is in these explanations that we can already start to see a divide. You cannot separate fiscal and economic issues from social issues, and you cannot reconcile the conservative point of view for making policy with the liberal view.

There are no issues that one can claim are purely fiscal or purely social. Even the most “social” of issues have a complete economic side to them. Abortion, for example, cannot be considered entirely social, due to its long and tumultuous history with Medicaid and government spending. Aside from that, the decision of abortion is in itself an economic one. 74% of women say they get abortions because a baby would interfere with their work or school, and 73% of women say that they could not afford a baby.

Poverty, in itself, is a social issue, but is caused by economic problems and remedied by fiscal policies. Fiscal policies have been enacted to improve quality of life and reduce poverty like Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, and disability payments. The cycle of poverty disproportionately affects people of color, queer people, trans people, and disabled people.

But again, issues like health insurance, public education, and union laws cannot be considered in a vacuum. They all exist to protect people that are already marginalized, and messing with these policies is messing with the people that you claim to support.

It would be at this point that fiscal conservatives would say, “Well wait, I’m not opposed to government spending, I’m just opposed to wasteful government spending.” But here’s the thing: wasteful government spending in terms of these programs does not exist. Programs like Medicaid and food stamps exist to try to reduce poverty (or at least try to mitigate its effects), and improve the quality of life for poor people.

Democrats aren’t advocating for a program that would reward every newborn baby with a golden cradle, or funding an initiative that would give every 18-year-old a trip around the world, because that would be wasteful spending. But Medicaid provides a necessary service for poor people, as do food stamps, job training programs in Appalachia, and fishing subsidies in Alaska.

Now, no one is advocating that “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people suddenly become blatantly homophobic, racist, and anti-choice. That would certainly would not be helpful. But if someone consider themselves to be “socially liberal, fiscally conservative,” they should think long and hard about why they believe what they believe. If someone truly wants to be an advocate for the LGBTQ community, disabled people, poor people, and people of color, then they should be consistent in the policies that they advocate for.

No issue exists in a vacuum, and “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people need to recognize that.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 26/05/2018 05:58

Loco   Canada. May 26 2018 06:13. Posts 19733


  On May 26 2018 04:05 RiKD wrote:
Show nested quote +




Sheesh. I really can't help myself can I. Oh well. Fuck Jordan Peterson! There it relates to the topic...


Honestly bro, you just haven't given capitalism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 26/05/2018 06:14

Baalim   Mexico. May 26 2018 07:03. Posts 32676


  On May 26 2018 04:46 Loco wrote:



No... It just means that you can't be &amp;quot;socially liberal&amp;quot;, since that would mean, by definition.




Oh so we are playing diccionary for the 100th time... great.

Now lets get to the bullshit you quoted:




  The whole concept of being “socially liberal, but fiscally conservative” is a false pretense created to accommodate younger people with gay friends who are less comfortable outright saying they don’t support gay marriage.



So basically you are claiming that anyone who isnt a leftist is a closet homophobe lol.




  Poverty, in itself, is a social issue, but is caused by economic problems and remedied by fiscal policies.



Poverty isnt solved by fiscal policies, poverty is solved by a strong economy driven by the free market, the less policies that hinder it, the less poverty.


This is pretty much the rift of the difference in beliefs, and you fail to recognize this making stupid coments like people who believe in the free market just dont care about people or the environment.





 
It would be at this point that fiscal conservatives would say, “Well wait, I’m not opposed to government spending, I’m just opposed to wasteful government spending.” But here’s the thing: wasteful government spending in terms of these programs does not exist



This is one of the most stupid things I've see you post.

A childbirth bill in the US costs about 40k, all government spending is wasteful, that is the main reason why it should be the smallest as possible.



You think this isnt wasteful? a 2300% increase in spending that goes basically to bureacracy?

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 26 2018 07:09. Posts 32676


  On May 26 2018 05:13 Loco wrote:


Honestly bro, you just haven't given capitalism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party.




Honestly bro, you just haven't given communism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 26 2018 07:20. Posts 19733

I don't know if the Red Scare irony is worse than the fact that you bolded every sentence in your post. Wtf is the point of that? To show how important and truthful it is? It loses all effect if it's applied to the entire post...

So apparently I'm a pro-bureaucracy guy now. Ok. Anyway, where are the graphs showing that cutting Medicaid and food stamps for the poor actually helps them because of le magix of trickle-down? That's what she was referring to when she said "these programs" which you cut off, not the salaries of hospital admins.

"
  This is pretty much the rift of the difference in beliefs, and you fail to recognize this making stupid coments like people who believe in the free market just dont care about people or the environment.



I know that it is, that's why I mentioned it a dozen times. You believe in neoliberal dogma, I do not. I don't think it's empirically based, I think it's crypto-religious. I also never said that it's about evil people who have no care at all for others, I'm saying it's inherent to the system that it won't serve the people, as you claim that it will if the free market is not meddled with. People don't have to intend to cause damage to support short sighted destructive policies, they only need to be ignorant. And well, it certainly has never served to protect the environment and other species... lol. Even you would never dare argue that wildlife has thrived since the advent of neoliberalism.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 26/05/2018 07:49

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 26 2018 07:46. Posts 1429

bold every one of your 500 sentences loco, give him a taste of his own medicine

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

Loco   Canada. May 26 2018 08:43. Posts 19733

Jordan Peterson had an AMA on Reddit recently. He did something that I've never seen any other AMAer do, he included Amazon affiliate links in his posts. He does not disclose that they are affiliate links either. What do you guys think of that?

Also, my favorite response from his AMA:

"Look: it's up to those who claim no relationship between atheism and Nazism/Marxism to deal with the fact that both were explicitly anti-religious movements."

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 26/05/2018 08:53

Baalim   Mexico. May 26 2018 09:05. Posts 32676


  On May 26 2018 06:20 Loco wrote:
the fact that you bolded every sentence in your post. Wtf is the point of that? To show how important and truthful it is? It loses all effect if it's applied to the entire post...[quote]

Readability, the same reason why I try to keep my posts as short as possible not for you but because of anyone who might be reading. (guess i'll stop since it might get misinterpreted)

[quote]So apparently I'm a pro-bureaucracy guy now.



No, you are simply a guy who doesn't grasp the impact of the vast difference in efficiency between the private and the public sector.


 
Ok. Anyway, where are the graphs showing that cutting Medicaid and food stamps for the poor actually helps them because of le magix of trickle-down?



What this neoliberal dogma you despise has done to the world:





First of all hospital admins aren't the main problem with subsidized healthcare its the vices in the freemarket it creates, thats the reason why childbirth costs 40k

Second, the salaries are part of the program, government programs are run like that, not just in the US but thats overall how it works since there isn't a strong incentive for efficiency like the freemarket has.



 

I know that it is, that's why I mentioned it a dozen times. You believe in neoliberal dogma, I do not.





could you stop using such a muddied term when a "free market dogma" would work much better?



  I also never said that it's about evil people who have no care at all for others



yes you literally said: "It's the best system for the few who do not care about others or the future"

(had to delete the post cuz I missclicked and edited your post instead of quoting it)




  People don't have to intend to cause damage to support short sighted destructive policies, they only need to be ignorant.



totally agree, the raod to hell is paved with good intentions


  Even you would never dare argue that wildlife has thrived since the advent of neoliberalism.





the 1st world is growing its forests back and protecting wildlife way better than they did many decades ago, there are still many problems but most of them are done in a particular growing stage that China is going through right now for example.

But as I said before the envronment problems are caused by overpopulation, no matter what system you chose population is the main problem.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 26 2018 10:34. Posts 19733


  What this neoliberal dogma you despise has done to the world:



Do you think this is a slap in the face for me? Everyone who cares to discuss these matters with even just an ounce of seriousness is familiar with the World Bank data and Your World In Data. It's deeply flawed and one-dimensional and you just take it at face value, "free markets are saving the poor, case closed!". No, they aren't. Or at the very least there is no clear evidence that they are. I don't want to run you through why this is flawed, it's more effort than it's worth. You can choose to see a different story if you care to. You should be more skeptical of the data that you come across. Here are some starting points:

Exposing the great poverty reduction lie
Seeing like a neoliberal blinded by the data - Part 1 and Part 2
Aid in reverse

Also, you should have said "to poverty" because that graph doesn't show at all what it has done to the world at large. What it has done is why the Doomsday clock has been moved to two minutes to midnight. What it has done is why slavery is still pervasive, what it has done is cause a mind-boggling animal holocaust and why chronic illness and mental illness continues to skyrocket in the West, which you can all see from the same website.



  yes you literally said: "It's the best system for the few who do not care about others or the future



That wasn't in one of the posts I just made today, it was in a post from days ago. In that post I was talking about those in the 1%, not middle class people who are on the right-libertarian side. (Your comment said I made the stupid comment that "those who believe in the free market just dont care about people.)


Your gif is just the EU and Switzerland but we were talking about the world. They happen to have a high demand for timber, so they are regrowing the forests. It's not being done because they are concerned with how much forest they had previously removed for carbon sink reasons or whatever. In fact, what's ironic is that forests in Europe have expanded due in part to the burning of fossil fuels which replaced the burning of wood.

Where is your data on the claim that we are protecting wildlife way better now starting from the advent of neoliberalism (early 70s)? We are living through the Holocene extinction currently -- the sixth mass extinction of species. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. There is "widespread consensus in the scientific community that human activity is accelerating the extinction. It is now (since 2000) posited by some that a new geological epoch has begun, characterised by the most abrupt and widespread extinction of species since the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago."

Environmental problems are not caused by overpopulation. It's like if I pushed you off of a bridge and said your death was caused by water. It's myopic Neo-Malthusianism. The problem is growth, more precisely unsustainable growth. It has everything to do with the economic system. The people who reproduce the most in the Global South have a fraction of the average Westerner's carbon footprint and they don't have the power required to massively destroy and poison the environment. We currently massively overproduce food also yet a significant percentage of the population suffers from undernourishment and large numbers of people die of hunger. We don't say the problem is overpopulation in that case either, we say the problem is distribution.

But the most damning part of it all is that, even if we were to take it for granted that overpopulation causes these problems, capitalism itself is a system based on continual growth, which absolutely relies on a continually growing population to maintain itself. Its unsustainability is built-in. In places like Japan and Germany they are seeing negative population growth which leads to economic problems. You have an aging population that needs services and young people aren't there to work to fill those needs. This is why Western countries with low birth rates need to bring in immigrants, contrary to the popular red neck belief that immigrants are there to steal people's jobs.

Speaking of the inability to grasp basic concepts, you should read up on externalities instead of just asserting that the more unregulated markets are, the more desirable and efficient they are.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 26/05/2018 13:00

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 26 2018 16:09. Posts 2779


  On May 25 2018 23:17 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



What in the fuck does that even mean?


The US has a climage-change-denying president, he has no control over the house nor support from even his own party, so far he has pulled out from a meaningless agreement.


Meanwhile the supposedly pro-science left leaning leader of Geramny, Angela Merkel stopped all nuclear energy research and funding after the Fukushima event, because naturally that was going to be a popular opinion despide the fact that the cleanest and more logical option as a transitional energy source is nuclear power. Angela Merkel has been far more damaging for the environment than Trump has by far.


This is why protesting like Loco likes is retarded, going to the streets chanting how you want more fucking windmills or solar panels is idiotic, do you want to help? Then go and study a few years and help build and run thorium reactors, go clean your room before you try to change the world.


You're being kinda silly here.

It's fine that you disagree with Merkel on nuclear power, but it seems like your level of disagreement is completely blinding yourself to the wider efforts.. Germany has reduced their emissions by almost 30% compared to 1990 levels, even without a nuclear focus. American emission levels are virtually unchanged during the same period. (Granted there was very significant reduction between 2008 and 2012).

I mean, to me, there are legit reasons why you want to be skeptical towards nuclear power. Nuclear accidents are one type of accidents that we can't fix. (Although, seeing how the area around Chernobyl looks, part of me also thinks that maybe it's good if more areas are unlivable to humans - apparently humans are worse for animal life than radiation poisoning is). If you look at it from a probabilistic, 50 year time line, then nuclear power is absolutely amazing. But the longer the time period you're dealing with, the more likely it is that you get accidents that take thousands of years to clean up. I also don't really think we have a good way of handling waste from nuclear plants. At the same time, there's the potential for filling all energy needs in a way that most of the time causes very little direct pollution which makes transitioning away from fossil fuels - which is obviously important - much easier. Like, I'm not negative towards nuclear - but I think solar, wind, hydro and tidal-wave are all preferable. Either way I'm not really interested in having a debate about nuclear vs other renewables, whether nuclear is completely flawless isn't actually central to the argument I'm about to make. Both are vastly, vastly superior to fossil fuels in terms of environmental impact on a long term basis. Some renewables like solar at least used to have significant negative initial impact due to production costs, but the more time that passes, the better they end up looking.

Anyway my problem with this reoccurring argument of yours is that you're basically arguing that someone who doesn't care about reducing emissions because he doesn't accept climate change as a real problem of significance is better than someone who actually succeeds in significantly reducing emissions by transitioning over to more renewables because you're offended by the latter person's insistence on not using nuclear power. I don't think that's a sensible approach. Even with her opposition to nuclear, Merkel is still obviously preferable to the republican party on this issue. That's plainly obvious by comparing a) stated goals regarding emissions cutting and b) degree of success at attaining those goals.

lol POKER 

RiKD    United States. May 26 2018 16:36. Posts 5418


  On May 26 2018 05:13 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



Honestly bro, you just haven't given capitalism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party.



Oh god... "Open a pizza parlor".........

I saw how that can fucking go. ROFL. Come join the party.... Open a pizza parlor.... It worked for me and a couple of my friends..... Don't quit before you start.......... Fucking ridiculous.


RiKD    United States. May 26 2018 16:55. Posts 5418


  On May 26 2018 06:09 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +




Honestly bro, you just haven't given communism a good enough try. Always remember that you're invited to the party


Why am I not surprised that you predictably reduce communism to this. It's a Jordan Peterson play. A Fox News play. A Donald Trump play. I guess because it works. Humans don't understand complexity. Just to add a little bit to the picture there were ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved. Now, I realize that in today's world there will still likely be ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved that's why you start small. You start with groups and syndicates. There are no leaders only trusted servants. There is rotation of service. The syndicate should have no outside opinion nor should endorse or oppose anything outside of the syndicate's common interest.

AA gets a lot wrong but it gets the 12 Traditions right:

The 12 Traditions

Disregard the "God" stuff. It is really just about an important common interest.

The fact the syndicate gets any alcoholic sober is a miracle. The fact that a bunch of selfish, self-centered fucks can work together for a common interest and it runs pretty smoothly is another miracle. It's been around since 1939. It brings me hope that similar anarchic syndicates can form around other common interests.

 Last edit: 26/05/2018 17:58

Baalim   Mexico. May 26 2018 20:01. Posts 32676


  On May 26 2018 15:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Show nested quote +



You're being kinda silly here.

It's fine that you disagree with Merkel on nuclear power, but it seems like your level of disagreement is completely blinding yourself to the wider efforts.. Germany has reduced their emissions by almost 30% compared to 1990 levels, even without a nuclear focus. American emission levels are virtually unchanged during the same period. (Granted there was very significant reduction between 2008 and 2012).

I mean, to me, there are legit reasons why you want to be skeptical towards nuclear power. Nuclear accidents are one type of accidents that we can't fix. (Although, seeing how the area around Chernobyl looks, part of me also thinks that maybe it's good if more areas are unlivable to humans - apparently humans are worse for animal life than radiation poisoning is). If you look at it from a probabilistic, 50 year time line, then nuclear power is absolutely amazing. But the longer the time period you're dealing with, the more likely it is that you get accidents that take thousands of years to clean up. I also don't really think we have a good way of handling waste from nuclear plants. At the same time, there's the potential for filling all energy needs in a way that most of the time causes very little direct pollution which makes transitioning away from fossil fuels - which is obviously important - much easier. Like, I'm not negative towards nuclear - but I think solar, wind, hydro and tidal-wave are all preferable. Either way I'm not really interested in having a debate about nuclear vs other renewables, whether nuclear is completely flawless isn't actually central to the argument I'm about to make. Both are vastly, vastly superior to fossil fuels in terms of environmental impact on a long term basis. Some renewables like solar at least used to have significant negative initial impact due to production costs, but the more time that passes, the better they end up looking.

Anyway my problem with this reoccurring argument of yours is that you're basically arguing that someone who doesn't care about reducing emissions because he doesn't accept climate change as a real problem of significance is better than someone who actually succeeds in significantly reducing emissions by transitioning over to more renewables because you're offended by the latter person's insistence on not using nuclear power. I don't think that's a sensible approach. Even with her opposition to nuclear, Merkel is still obviously preferable to the republican party on this issue. That's plainly obvious by comparing a) stated goals regarding emissions cutting and b) degree of success at attaining those goals.




She did it because it was popular, she took the opporunity to increase her popularity making a choice perhaps perfectly knowing that what she would do would impact negatively the environment, Trump did the same but popularity among their carbon-friends, but hurting nuclear power is far more damaging than getting out of symbolic agreements.


You are misinformed about nuclear power, read up on thorium reactors, they are perfectly safe even in the event of a meltdown, it runs on fuel much more available than Uranium, enough to power the world hundreds of years and the waste is perfectly managable.

Chernobyl could never happen again, that was caused by a ridiculously poor design, they used graphite which is flammable in the reactor and the smoke spread the radiation, using Chernobyl as a reason not to pursue nuclear power is like saying blimps are unsafe because of hindenburg... no we dont fill blimps with hydrogen anymore, thats crazy.

Germany is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, ofcourse it can afford to reduse emissions in a very costly way, but thats not the situation for most of the world, the reason why carbon-based fuel power plants are used in most of the world is because they have the best $/megawatt of all energy sources, Nuclear gives far better returns for the investment than other sources of clean energy.

If you believe India and China should go and try to live from solar you are delusional and ironically part of the problem, the world needs to hop on nuclear as a transitional energy source until we can master cold fusion or we discover another new source.


Also as a comment you mentioned all the negative parts of nuclear plants but you didn't mention or seem aware of the problems with other energy sources:

- Solar requires rare materials that are mined mostly from Africa, this mining is devastating for the environment there.
- Wind power not only has the worst $/W of all sources, but I've read about the impact it has on local bird populations to the pont of unbalancing the ecosystem
- HydroElectric is arguably as bad as fossil fuels since it destroys the ecosystem of the entire lenght of a river, even if the dam allows constant water flow slowing down rivers destroys the ecosystem, it creates swamps etc.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 26 2018 20:05. Posts 32676


  On May 26 2018 15:55 RiKD wrote:
Show nested quote +



Why am I not surprised that you predictably reduce communism to this. It's a Jordan Peterson play. A Fox News play. A Donald Trump play. I guess because it works. Humans don't understand complexity. Just to add a little bit to the picture there were ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved. Now, I realize that in today's world there will still likely be ruthless psychopathic leaders and bureaucracy involved that's why you start small. You start with groups and syndicates. There are no leaders only trusted servants. There is rotation of service. The syndicate should have no outside opinion nor should endorse or oppose anything outside of the syndicate's common interest.

AA gets a lot wrong but it gets the 12 Traditions right:

The 12 Traditions

Disregard the "God" stuff. It is really just about an important common interest.

The fact the syndicate gets any alcoholic sober is a miracle. The fact that a bunch of selfish, self-centered fucks can work together for a common interest and it runs pretty smoothly is another miracle. It's been around since 1939. It brings me hope that similar anarchic syndicates can form around other common interests.



I reduced communism the same way capitalism was reduced, I just returned the favor with the exact same words.

AA is garbage in every possible way ffs.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

RiKD    United States. May 26 2018 22:30. Posts 5418


  On May 26 2018 19:05 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



I reduced communism the same way capitalism was reduced, I just returned the favor with the exact same words.

AA is garbage in every possible way ffs.



Quite a difference in rhetoric. Stalinism does not equal Marxism.

$50 billion could end world hunger and homelessness in the United States. How come nobody has done it? The billionaires can even start their own charities so they don't have to give to the state.

Did you even read the 12 traditions?

I made a link between AA and protests. There is the opportunity for great connection, solidarity, and fellowship.


RiKD    United States. May 26 2018 22:32. Posts 5418

Connection, solidarity, and fellowship. This is true of any syndicate.


RiKD    United States. May 26 2018 22:47. Posts 5418

It's even true of multinational corporations but in this case the means of coercing people for labor certainly does not justify profit. Putting up with laboring under coercion so one can have a chance at survival is no end in itself.


VanDerMeyde   Norway. May 26 2018 23:39. Posts 4931


  On May 26 2018 08:05 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



No, you are simply a guy who doesn't grasp the impact of the vast difference in efficiency between the private and the public sector.


 
Ok. Anyway, where are the graphs showing that cutting Medicaid and food stamps for the poor actually helps them because of le magix of trickle-down?



What this neoliberal dogma you despise has done to the world:





First of all hospital admins aren't the main problem with subsidized healthcare its the vices in the freemarket it creates, thats the reason why childbirth costs 40k

Second, the salaries are part of the program, government programs are run like that, not just in the US but thats overall how it works since there isn't a strong incentive for efficiency like the freemarket has.



 

I know that it is, that's why I mentioned it a dozen times. You believe in neoliberal dogma, I do not.





could you stop using such a muddied term when a "free market dogma" would work much better?



  I also never said that it's about evil people who have no care at all for others



yes you literally said: "It's the best system for the few who do not care about others or the future"

(had to delete the post cuz I missclicked and edited your post instead of quoting it)




  People don't have to intend to cause damage to support short sighted destructive policies, they only need to be ignorant.



totally agree, the raod to hell is paved with good intentions


  Even you would never dare argue that wildlife has thrived since the advent of neoliberalism.





the 1st world is growing its forests back and protecting wildlife way better than they did many decades ago, there are still many problems but most of them are done in a particular growing stage that China is going through right now for example.

But as I said before the envronment problems are caused by overpopulation, no matter what system you chose population is the main problem.


Really interesting info, thanks a lot.

:D 

Baalim   Mexico. May 27 2018 01:16. Posts 32676


  On May 26 2018 21:30 RiKD wrote:
Show nested quote +



Quite a difference in rhetoric. Stalinism does not equal Marxism.

$50 billion could end world hunger and homelessness in the United States. How come nobody has done it? The billionaires can even start their own charities so they don't have to give to the state.

Did you even read the 12 traditions?

I made a link between AA and protests. There is the opportunity for great connection, solidarity, and fellowship.



The US budget on foreign aid is 42billion, obviously 50 billion wouldn't do shit for world poverty whoever came up with that is delusional.


Syndicates where I came from mean corruption, violence and political power

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

RiKD    United States. May 27 2018 03:41. Posts 5418


  On May 27 2018 00:16 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



The US budget on foreign aid is 42billion, obviously 50 billion wouldn't do shit for world poverty whoever came up with that is delusional.


Syndicates where I came from mean corruption, violence and political power



What do you do with the masses of exploited people in an unregulated free market? What do you do with the disabled? The inequality would just increase. It would go back to industrial revolution times except in the future all those jobs will be automated. I remember at one of my accounts if it weren't for the unions we would have had a robot in there in a heartbeat to replace those jobs. But, if it weren't for those unions those guys would be in there 80 hrs a week at sub sustenance wages, no safety, etc. Robot goes in. My multinational makes more of a profit, the multinational steel mill makes more of a profit, bricklayers are left scrounging for outside red brick work, I get a pat on the back and a harder job. Trickle down isn't a thing bro.

Re: Syndicates

I know you don't like the dictionary game but:

Syndicate

a group of individuals or organizations combined to promote some common interest.

I should really make the distinction anarchist syndicate.

Yes, syndicates will form for the common interests of crime and exploiting people. I would imagine it is organized by fierce dominance hierarchies.

That's not what I am talking about. I am talking about anarcho-syndicalism.


Baalim   Mexico. May 27 2018 04:58. Posts 32676

Those masses would be much smaller in a free-market.

What do you mean with what would I do with the disabled? the economy provides them a job, probalby from a humanitarian enterprise like many do and employ disabled people.

In my utopia philangrophy would be encouraged as a social idel, Gates and Buffett have donated about 50billion combined, in the face of a society where there is no government to take (bad) care of people ironically the rich that loco sees as evil opressors will take care of it, money has no utilitarian value after a couple hundred million, and sure some asshats will horde but a true free market is very fluid, these empires will falll like Blockbuster did, like GM did, like Bank of America did etc, sadly the state saved those two and many many more which robs society of its class fluidity, meaning it keeps the rich rich isntead of allowing the natural cycle of wealth.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 27 2018 07:42. Posts 19733


  On May 27 2018 00:16 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



The US budget on foreign aid is 42billion, obviously 50 billion wouldn't do shit for world poverty whoever came up with that is delusional.


Syndicates where I came from mean corruption, violence and political power



You have to look at the reverse flows (read the article I linked, "aid in reverse'') to understand why this foreign aid budget is not some net amount of money that's simply coming in to help the poor as most people believe. The UN figure to solve world hunger is actually $30 billion USD. But even if we assume that it's somehow not enough (and we should), twice that amount would almost certainly be. But it wouldn't do anything about the rest of the structural injustices that have made hunger a problem in the first place. And it's not like billionaires would really have to spend any money since 40% of the food we produce already goes to waste. But that's how the system works, you have to put a lock on your food supplies and let it rot while people starve otherwise it would collapse.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 27/05/2018 07:56

Loco   Canada. May 27 2018 08:23. Posts 19733


  On May 27 2018 03:58 Baalim wrote:
Those masses would be much smaller in a free-market.

What do you mean with what would I do with the disabled? the economy provides them a job, probalby from a humanitarian enterprise like many do and employ disabled people.

In my utopia philangrophy would be encouraged as a social idel, Gates and Buffett have donated about 50billion combined, in the face of a society where there is no government to take (bad) care of people ironically the rich that loco sees as evil opressors will take care of it, money has no utilitarian value after a couple hundred million, and sure some asshats will horde but a true free market is very fluid, these empires will falll like Blockbuster did, like GM did, like Bank of America did etc, sadly the state saved those two and many many more which robs society of its class fluidity, meaning it keeps the rich rich isntead of allowing the natural cycle of wealth.



Yeah, the state saved them, we agree that this is not good, but it also saved the lives of the people who are on the other end of such drastic inequality. That's the thing with the state, it can only be gotten rid of for the good of the community if there aren't massive inequalities of power which are inherent to capitalism. You can't blame the state for the atomization of the individual who is merely a laborer/consumer either, but this is precisely what erodes social solidarity and feelings of fraternity with your kind. It's only when the values and the labor is shared among the community that people do not turn on one another, and we can see this historically, while your utopia has truly no historic precedent. We have to assume everything given from theoretical constructs alone. And I think when we look around the world to support the anarcho-capitalist assumptions, we cannot find the data to support them. If state interference is always bad and should be minimized as much as possible-- if the state is truly the enemy-- why are the Nordic countries doing so much better than the US from a public health and sustainability standpoint?

Speaking of which, there are studies that show that the more wealthy you become, the less empathy you have for others. It's pretty hard data to ignore. How do you combat that and incentivize empathy? Or are people just some sort of utilitarian robots in your utopia? It seems to me like the main (if not the only) reason the Buffets and the Gates would give up some of their money is so that the system doesn't collapse and they remain on top for as long as possible. It's only a deep narcissism that drives them to "help" others. It is in effect having control over others, even down to who lives and who dies. It's like being a doctor. A high percentage of doctors are psychopaths, this has been well studied. Should it surprise us? As a surgeon you feel like a God by having the life of someone in your hands.

But the main difference is that the doctor is legitimately skilled to perform surgery on you or whatever, while the rich capitalist isn't some wise man who understands what's best for everyone, yet he can't help but act like he is. When you do philanthropy, you are saying that you know better than others how to use money for good. What are the psychological effects of being on the receiving end of such "help"? The literature is pretty clear as well: it's bad. We want to feel in control of our lives and we want to have an impact on things, we don't want people to rule the world for us.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 27/05/2018 11:23

Baalim   Mexico. May 27 2018 08:23. Posts 32676


  On May 27 2018 06:42 Loco wrote:

You have to look at the reverse flows (read the article I linked, "aid in reverse'') to understand why this foreign aid budget is not some net amount of money that's simply coming in to help the poor as most people believe. The UN figure to solve world hunger is actually $30 billion USD. But even if we assume that it's somehow not enough (and we should), twice that amount would almost certainly be. But it wouldn't do anything about the rest of the structural injustices that have made hunger a problem in the first place. And it's not like billionaires would really have to spend any money since 40% of the food we produce already goes to waste. But that's how the system works, you have to put a lock on your food supplies and let it rot while people starve otherwise it would collapse.



Oh im sure its shit and ineffective as I said government programs are a 99% friction.

Hunger is not the result of structural injustices, its the result of an environment with limited resources, (but we create more and more resources every day and eventually it will be a phantom of the past), yes there is a ridiculous amount of food wasted but as advocate of "complexity" you are simplifying this issue.

You said that food is wasted and we only need distribution, but the excess crops in lets say the US have no way to reach africa, the costs of moving that food far exceeds the ones required for that food to be produced in africa, the "distribution challenges" are not trivial and in fact we return to the initial problem since distribution usually is more expensive than local production

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 27 2018 08:42. Posts 19733

What? The poorer countries are continually exporting their food to the richer ones. Over half of the fruit in the US is imported for example. That's twice as much as it was in 1975. We have a global food system, hunger is no longer about living in an environment with limited resources. It's not a difficult problem to solve, it's just that we don't care to do it because there's apparently no profit to it.

My point on food waste was more general so as to say that it's inherently wasteful. There are also plenty of people going hungry locally in rich Western countries but they can't have access to the food that's locked up. It is literally locked up in dumpsters while it is still good to eat while the homeless and poor people on food stamps go hungry. In my area there are people who do public food dumps and they run the risk of being arrested when they are taking the food from the stores they work at and which they were supposed to throw out.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 27/05/2018 08:44

Loco   Canada. May 27 2018 14:20. Posts 19733

He held it for as long as he could. I assume there won't be a discussion/debate part 2.

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

Baalim   Mexico. May 28 2018 03:39. Posts 32676

did he say that in their debate? is there a highlight or something? Can't be bothered to watch 2 hours of Peterson stupid beliefs on faith

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 28 2018 05:20. Posts 19733

No, this is a recent Tweet referring to Peterson's answer to a question in the recent reddit AMA where someone called him out on his claim that, essentially, Marxism and Nazism were murderous because they were atheistic. But they spent a long period of time in their first discussion on Peterson's claim that atheists are not true atheists if they don't murder/rape etc.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 28/05/2018 05:22

sniderstyle   United States. May 31 2018 10:17. Posts 2045

he says a lot of words without saying anything. His vagueness, passion, confidence, and good vocabulary suckers people into his cultish philosophy. Got news for you, Jordan Peterson is just as lost as you or me. He's just smart enough to fool smart people into his cocoon. But if his self help style turns you into a more insightful person with good self reflection ability, then I'm all for it. But don't let him think for you.

Genginho: lose today 100 dollar only because of fishs they called and had luck on river 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 31 2018 14:22. Posts 8712

So JP is basically one of those people that believe religion = moral compass, atheism = lack of moral compass? :D


lebowski   Greece. May 31 2018 21:07. Posts 9032

I'm truly interested in what a brand new culture with morals reinvented in the light of a non existing god would look like. Peterson is at least right (borrowing from Nietzsche) on atheists having christian morals as the products of the times they where brought up in. Even if you reject god it's not like you can magically erase your upbringing. Obv I'm not convinced at all that it'd lead to a murderous Nazi-like society like JP claims, but it's not certain that it would lead to a stable and better society either

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...Last edit: 31/05/2018 21:19

lebowski   Greece. May 31 2018 21:18. Posts 9032


  On May 31 2018 09:17 sniderstyle wrote:
he says a lot of words without saying anything. His vagueness, passion, confidence, and good vocabulary suckers people into his cultish philosophy. Got news for you, Jordan Peterson is just as lost as you or me. He's just smart enough to fool smart people into his cocoon. But if his self help style turns you into a more insightful person with good self reflection ability, then I'm all for it. But don't let him think for you.


I don't think he's that vague on most stuff; more like dangerously generalizing and over simplifying over certain matters. I also strongly doubt that he doesn't believe in what he's saying

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 31 2018 21:40. Posts 8712


  On May 31 2018 20:07 lebowski wrote:
I'm truly interested in what a brand new culture with morals reinvented in the light of a non existing god would look like. Peterson is at least right (borrowing from Nietzsche) on atheists having christian morals as the products of the times they where brought up in. Even if you reject god it's not like you can magically erase your upbringing. Obv I'm not convinced at all that it'd lead to a murderous Nazi-like society like JP claims, but it's not certain that it would lead to a stable and better society either



How can you really believe this. What about non-christian societies? What about tribes with no gods? What about kids that were brought in an atheistic environment like China, where 60% of ppl are atheists meaning there are millions of kids that probably have no clue about christian values? I wouldn't say my compassion or any other moral value is triggered by religion on any level, even though it would be hard to prove considering I was raised in a christian nation and it had an impact on my upbringing whether I like it or not.

 Last edit: 31/05/2018 21:41

lebowski   Greece. May 31 2018 21:59. Posts 9032


  On May 31 2018 20:40 Spitfiree wrote:
Show nested quote +



How can you really believe this. What about non-christian societies? What about tribes with no gods? What about kids that were brought in an atheistic environment like China, where 60% of ppl are atheists meaning there are millions of kids that probably have no clue about christian values? I wouldn't say my compassion or any other moral value is triggered by religion on any level, even though it would be hard to prove considering I was raised in a christian nation and it had an impact on my upbringing whether I like it or not.

I'm only referring to christianity because it's on the latest stages of humanity's religious evolution and more relevant to people brought up in the western civilization, people like you me and the atheists mentioned. Human morality has changed a lot throughout the centuries and religion played a big part in that. If morality was to be completely reinvented through let's say a scientific lens (if that's even possible), how can you be certain of the outcome?

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...Last edit: 31/05/2018 22:01

Baalim   Mexico. May 31 2018 22:29. Posts 32676


  On May 31 2018 20:07 lebowski wrote:
I'm truly interested in what a brand new culture with morals reinvented in the light of a non existing god would look like. Peterson is at least right (borrowing from Nietzsche) on atheists having christian morals as the products of the times they where brought up in. Even if you reject god it's not like you can magically erase your upbringing. Obv I'm not convinced at all that it'd lead to a murderous Nazi-like society like JP claims, but it's not certain that it would lead to a stable and better society either



thats stupid, we dont have christian morals, in fact Christian morality is idiotic and it quickly gets worse as you go back in time.


most if not all of the good parts of christian morality are derived from simple golden rule morals which actually preceeds it

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 31 2018 22:45. Posts 2779

ye, golden rule predates christianity. I think the turn the other cheek part is revolutionary - but that tenet has been more of a buddhist than christian thing anyway.

lol POKER 

lebowski   Greece. May 31 2018 23:05. Posts 9032

Sure, christianity has changed a lot and it was obviously initially based on what came before it, no such thing as parthenogenesis.
I don't see how this contradicts what I wrote, we are heavily morally influenced by the stage of religious evolution we were brought up in

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 31 2018 23:18. Posts 2779

as a norwegian I feel like humanism describes leading social morals (and certainly the ones I've been raised in accordance with) more than christian morals do. If I'm gonna say that 'christian morals' have dictated morality of my society then I must be extremely selective in which christian morals I refer to. (however I'm basically in agreement with all aspects of humanist morality). As of 2016, more Norwegians identify as non-religious than religious anyway.

Southern Europe might well be different in this regard.

lol POKER 

RiKD    United States. May 31 2018 23:28. Posts 5418

The golden rule was written in big letters on the wall in my elementary school. We talked about it a lot. I never went to church. Then, later, I spend all this time reading Kant and The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and his categorical imperative and getting into John Rawls and his theory of justice. Yeah, it was mentally stimulating but it all goes back to the golden rule. Turn the other cheek is revolutionary but like much of Christianity is misunderstood or ignored. Christianity for me is just too meek and pious. We would be a lot better off if students studied Nietzsche and Kant.


Loco   Canada. Jun 01 2018 03:39. Posts 19733


  On May 31 2018 22:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
as a norwegian I feel like humanism describes leading social morals (and certainly the ones I've been raised in accordance with) more than christian morals do. If I'm gonna say that 'christian morals' have dictated morality of my society then I must be extremely selective in which christian morals I refer to. (however I'm basically in agreement with all aspects of humanist morality). As of 2016, more Norwegians identify as non-religious than religious anyway.

Southern Europe might well be different in this regard.



secular humanism is an extension of Christian doctrine.

"As commonly practiced, philosophy is the attempt to find good reasons for conventional beliefs. In Kant's time the creed of conventional people was Christian, now it is humanist. Nor are these two faiths so different from one another. [...] There is an inheritance of anthropocentrism, the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share. There is the claim of religious authorities, also made by atheist regimes, to decide how people can express their sexuality, control their fertility and end their lives, which should be rejected categorically. Nobody should be allowed to curtail freedom in these ways, and no religion has the right to break the peace."

"The evidence of science and history is that humans are only ever partly and intermittently rational, but for modern humanists the solution is simple: human beings must in future be more reasonable. These enthusiasts for reason have not noticed that the idea that humans may one day be more rational requires a greater leap of faith than anything in religion. Since it requires a miraculous breach in the order of things, the idea that Jesus returned from the dead is not as contrary to reason as the notion that human beings will in future be different from how they have always been. "

(John N. Gray)

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

Liquid`Drone   Norway. Jun 01 2018 12:42. Posts 2779

as for the anthropocentrism, my impression is that most secular humanists would agree with Kurtz; "The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species, also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings and the planet as a whole." I don't think your Gray quote is a good representation of what secular humanism is about, tbh, especially not when following a claim that it's an extension of Christian doctrine. I've yet to see a secular humanist want to decide how people express their sexuality or control their fertility (these are key aspects where it so clearly distances itself from Christianity) - I will however grant that euthanasia is a more divisive topic.

As for the second paragraph, humanists typically concern themselves with education and educational practices, wanting to alter them to be more in line with Habermasian ideals - geared towards critically examining dominant patterns of thought to increase rationality. Future humans being more rational than past humans is certainly less of a leap of faith than the implementation of anarchy..? I mean, there are ways in which we have hardly improved as a species, but I do not at all accept all human societies have always been equally irrational (which would be the logical extension of 'future humans cannot be more rational than today's humans').

lol POKER 

Loco   Canada. Jun 01 2018 14:50. Posts 19733

That quote still exemplifies the kind of anthropocentrism Gray speaks of. By and large if you look at the way we have ravaged this planet and killed each other en masse for thousands of years, we don't appear to be the most conscious species; and the ultimate goal being human flourishing means that other conscious animals do not share the same basic equal rights as us, even if we are "concerned" with them (and that concern seems to be a lot more often related to how best to use/kill conscious beings rather than whether you should use/kill them or not).

Anarchism begins with the understanding that hierarchies of dominance are the precondition whence the greatest amount of the least desirable behaviors in society actualize. It doesn't seek to abolish irrationality, obviously, as that wouldn't be anarchistic, but to minimize its potential destructive manifestations through free associations. It doesn't require a leap of faith, let alone a faith in a grand narrative leading to universal emanticipation like that of humanism. It doesn't have faith that science can solve ethical problems like many humanists argue. It doesn't believe in that which there is no evidence for and it doesn't project itself into the future any more than it has to. It's only with TZM and The Venus Project that you get something like a leap of faith but they aren't anarchists even though in theory they share some core ideas.

I admittedly am not familiar with Habermas' writings, and I don't know to what extent Gray's critique of humanism extends to his philosophy. I think Gray is writing about the first face of humanism, where humans are the measure of all things, the source of all values, the masters of nature and where progress is a law of history. He is not concerned with its second face as it developed with Montaigne and Montesquieu, which boils down to fraternity.

Personally, I am pro-bias research and I think understanding biases can make a difference in human behavior, but I feel like the limitations of this work and human rationality in general are radically understated by most humanists/rationalists. The humanism I can stand behind is not the simplistic technocentric/data driven one, it's a planetary humanism that recognizes the concrete interdependence between human beings which was brought about by globalization. Edgar Morin calls it a "communauté de destin" (literally, a community with a shared destiny). Globalization means we all share some of the same existential risks, which means it's no longer about moral precepts, arbitrary rights and values, its become a primary imperative that everyone learns to cooperate. But this is not going to happen under capitalism, so... yeah, Socialism or Barbarism!

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 04/06/2018 09:31

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Jun 03 2018 22:46. Posts 8712

Isn't there some academic research on primal instincts connection to moral compass? We either collaborate and treat each other nicely or we perish as species ... it's basic common sense and quite logical.. if that type of research doesn't exist someone should do it


Loco   Canada. Jun 04 2018 09:27. Posts 19733

There is research done on the evolutionary roots of morality, most notably the work performed by Frans de Wall (there's a good TED talk on it). And yes, there is plenty of research showing how essential cooperation is to the survival of species. In fact, life would have never evolved if it wasn't for cooperation (endosymbiotic theory of evolution) and we also know that human cognition and the acquiring of language was fundamentally reliant upon it (Santiago theory of cognition). It's not that top scientists don't know this, it's that people can't be taught these things widely because they don't benefit the current mainstream economic ideology that's based on competition and infinite growth. Facts will never get in the way of power. "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 04/06/2018 09:29

Loco   Canada. Apr 13 2019 08:01. Posts 19733

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

balakubak   . Apr 13 2019 11:28. Posts 29


  On April 13 2019 07:01 Loco wrote:



Where did the Satanists get the concept of Satanism? From Christians?


RiKD    United States. Apr 13 2019 17:39. Posts 5418

I always thought the idea of Sisyphus smiling as he pushed the rock up the hill sort of unbelievable. I mean some days he might smile at the absurd, smile at the task of doing his best but there have got to be days where Sisyphus is just not really feeling it and surely it is hard work. In a flow state he would not be smiling he would be in the zone exerting the most efficient effort. But, if the rock stays the same size it would surely become somewhat painstaking and/or boring. If the rock is too heavy burnout and anxiety would take hold.

Clearly Peterson gets a lot wrong but somethings sort of right.

It is nice to see someone else coming to this "whole life hedonism" conclusion but it feels like there is more to it than just that. Hence, why he brings up Camus. La vie est absurde. It would be nice to meet young, attractive women on the beach and spend the day together (The Stranger) but there is a reason I don't mess around with firearms. It's like the Sartre idea of why are we afraid of heights? Are we afraid of falling or of jumping?

I could eat $10 worth of Wendy's Fast Food and have a wank to Jenna Jameson and it will be pleasurable in some grotesque way....

Or, I could venture out into the forest for some shinrin-yoku and have some lasting peace and well-being.

Pussy worship is only good when a woman is already moist and one is eating her out. I don't think it's good as a blanket principle but of course we all should respect women.


Baalim   Mexico. Apr 13 2019 21:35. Posts 32676

He got all the theatricality of Contrapoints but instead of funny he is obnoxious and boring and somehow even gayer lol

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. Apr 20 2019 08:08. Posts 19733

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

RiKD    United States. Apr 22 2019 00:28. Posts 5418

I'll really have to find some time to watch this but Peterson can be so annoying and the way Zizek talks can be hard to deal with for me. Oh, I don't have shit to do until GoT? May as well check it out RIGHT NOW.


RiKD    United States. Apr 22 2019 00:30. Posts 5418

Phew... 37 minutes already knocked off. It's not really 3 hours guys let's all watch and discuss.


RiKD    United States. Apr 22 2019 00:32. Posts 5418

This moderator is a douche.


Stroggoz   New Zealand. Apr 22 2019 06:35. Posts 4217

a debate between 2 ego driven charlatans. Meanwhile real academics work in their offices, mark papers, publish a few articles a year, and no one knows about them.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

Santafairy   Korea (South). Apr 22 2019 16:52. Posts 1429

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284505512_Black_Anality

the true heroes

unknown authors who publish things like these

NOT clinical psychologists who help people improve their lives

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

lebowski   Greece. Apr 22 2019 19:30. Posts 9032


  On April 22 2019 05:35 Stroggoz wrote:
a debate between 2 ego driven charlatans.


not familiar with zizek, why do you think he's a charlatan?

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

Baalim   Mexico. Apr 22 2019 22:29. Posts 32676


  On April 22 2019 05:35 Stroggoz wrote:
a debate between 2 ego driven charlatans. Meanwhile real academics work in their offices, mark papers, publish a few articles a year, and no one knows about them.



so are you saying Daniel Negreanu isn't the best poker player in the world?

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Stroggoz   New Zealand. Apr 22 2019 23:10. Posts 4217


  On April 22 2019 18:30 lebowski wrote:
Show nested quote +


not familiar with zizek, why do you think he's a charlatan?


There's nothing complicated about it, try reading the literary theory-it's largely nonsensical and pretty terrible scholarship. Arguments are supposed to be simple, and rigorous, and made easy to understand as possible. That's the standard in science as it should be. In the postmodern tradition which he seems to come from it's the opposite. This has been a good strategy, because 99% of what academics write about in journals is incomprehensible to the public or even other academics, at first glance.
He got called out by chomsky when someone asked chomsky about him once, and responded: 'I don't know anyone who has been so empirically wrong', and proceeded to use some lie he probably found on the internet to defame him. So he doesn't take academic scholarship seriously and he accuses people without evidence.

Also, while character doesn't mean anything when it comes to scholarship, someone who marries models and pictures of stalin on their office door really does say something about them. He is putting a picture of stalin on his door because he want's to appear edgy, imo. Someone who valued morality over appearing edgy would never do this.

Good academics are usually socially akward nerds who have substantive things to write and talk about, and those are the ppl we should listen to.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_au 

Stroggoz   New Zealand. Apr 22 2019 23:22. Posts 4217


  On April 22 2019 15:52 Santafairy wrote:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284505512_Black_Anality

the true heroes

unknown authors who publish things like these

NOT clinical psychologists who help people improve their lives



you could just as easily pick an article on computation complexity theory. There are topics written on basically everything in university 99% of them will appear to be completely meaningless to someone unfamiliar with the topic. I've only ever seen 30 seconds of peterson in video but he said the most outrageous lie; "attempts to reduce inequality have never worked in history", ok, so i assumed he was a charlatan after that because he knows nothing of history and speaks so confidently about it. It's really easy to spot some charlatans. If they make factual claims, then u ask yourself if that's true or not.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 22/04/2019 23:23

Loco   Canada. Apr 23 2019 01:43. Posts 19733


  On April 22 2019 18:30 lebowski wrote:
Show nested quote +


not familiar with zizek, why do you think he's a charlatan?


He is a controversial figure with some reactionary views but he is certainly not a charlatan (just looking at his google scholar citations page should give you an idea of that). His scholarship on Hegel and Lacan, ideology and cinema is especially well respected by academics. Peterson on the other hand is not a cited scholar in the humanities outside of a niche area of personality psychology.

Stroggoz oversimplifies Zizek's work due to his strong analytical bias and whatever feud he might have had with Chomsky. As far as I know Stroggoz has never found value in a single continental philosopher including Nietzsche, so keep that in mind. The idea that philosophy should be nothing but making simple arguments that the average Joe could understand is ironically the most anti-philosophy thing someone could say imo. Why impose those constraints on human curiosity and creativity? Especially when you consider the fact that there are people who can write introductions to them and make them more accessible (popularizers).

The same is true in scientific works. Most people read the popularizers, but that doesn't mean the scientists are just jerking themselves off in academia. You can explain things in simple terms, sometimes use analogies or metaphors that carry a lot of weight, but it's not necessarily possible to get a deep understanding of a subject in this way. Arguments themselves are pretty limited. You certainly don't push the envelope of human understanding by constraining yourself in this way, but of course there are always risks of being seduced by obscurantist language, both as a reader and as a writer. There's a process by which you might become disillusioned with a person's philosophy for this reason; Cioran talked about that with relationship to Heidegger who is notoriously difficult to follow.

Sometimes a philosopher can do both. They have a body of work that's more inaccessible and another destined for a larger public. Zizek's "Perverts guide to cinema" and "Perverts guide to ideology" work in this manner, they're both accessible and entertaining. Think of Schopenhauer who is known for his absolute disdain for Hegel's obscurantism (but mostly his popularity), he himself had "The World as Will and Representation" and "The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" that is mostly impenetrable and it was the accessible "Parerga and Paralipomena" that finally got him widespread attention.

Stroggoz's attack on "postmodernism" (post-structuralist thinkers/critical theory) is reminiscent of Baal's idea that there is absolutely nothing of value in gender studies, or Peterson's idea that there is no value in Marx's writings. They're all dismissals that stem from ignorance, and in Peterson's case, the debate served to perfectly illustrate that when he exposed himself as someone who has only read a fucking pamphlet written by Marx (which he completely mangled).

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 23/04/2019 02:16

Stroggoz   New Zealand. Apr 23 2019 04:14. Posts 4217

I would hope there is as little bias as possible from my pov, and none from the analytic tradition, which i dislike most of. Again, like i've said before i don't understand the point of much of analytic philosophy, the way they approach 'theories' just seems pointless to me. I really don't like much of analytic or continental but there is valuable work in both of course. My problem is just with the profession as a whole and their approaches.

Whatever value that may be gained reading zizek, and i have gained very little, it doesn't stop his scholarship from lacking standards and coherency, and his overall behavior being like a charlatan. He is a very avid lier as well. Here is an example in the 'whatever fued', he had:

Someone asked Chomsky about him so he casually called him out on what he was; how did Zizek respond? As any pseudo intellectual would, he simply used the lies made up about chomsky and the cambodian 'genocide denial', then called him out as a genocide denier, and saying 'judgement from the facts he had at the time', didn't matter, and he 'never knew anyone so empirically wrong'. Really? This should indicate how much of a serious scholar Zizek is, not serious at all, and not a serious commentator on politics either, with his vote for trump recommendations and edgy stalin posters.

Peterson's knowledge of marx appears to be 0, and not much better can be said by those i've read in the post modern tradition. I've read all of mar'xs major works except for grundrisse, i think. It's sociology and economics, and should be interpreted that way. Lacan and zizek seem to have made a fruedian/literary analysis of marx, that is based on complete bs. Like, making these wide-ranging psychological interpretations of simple terminology marx used. It's very similar to the stuff in fashionable nonsense and how they were misinterpreting mathematics terminology, or reading a bunch of bs into the terms there. If your going to read capital, it's an analysis of capitalism, so interpret it as such.

I didn't watch the debate but read some of the commentary on currentaffairs.org. It really sounds like it was exactly what i would have expected it to be.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 23/04/2019 06:31

Baalim   Mexico. Apr 23 2019 08:29. Posts 32676

actually I like both, obviously they are both quite flawed but I wouldn't call them charlatans, but I do appreciate the boldness and "fuck your couch" attitude


FYI when I said I dont see value in gender studies I meant it as career branch of the humanities (and other majors of alike leaning) which are not scientific and are just indoctrination camps in the identity politics machine, I do value actual scientific study of gender from a psychological or anthropological perspective.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Big_Rob_isback   United States. Apr 23 2019 09:40. Posts 196

I know I made this thread, but it wasn't anywhere near what I expected. I live in a super liberal city, Seattle. I listened to a few Jordan Peterson videos for normal common sense ideas like differences between genders for example. Things have gone a bit batshit crazy with the pc culture, i fucking hate it.

Anyway, this wasn't supposed to be a thread about him being some giant intellectual, I never saw him as that. I just saw him as a buzzsaw to PC culture that I can't stand to listen to anymore. I think if you are looking for an intellectual, than Peterson definitely isn't a place to go. I just like that people like him are standing up for something like: Inequity does not mean inequality. I guess if you don't live in a super liberal city you might not understand the need for someone like Peterson to be famous???

just playing live poker for fun 

RiKD    United States. Apr 23 2019 17:22. Posts 5418

This was probably the highlight for me so far.

"What is a post-modern neo-Marxist?"

"It's not a rhetorical question for politely saying you are an idiot who doesn't know what you are talking about."

https://youtu.be/WGRC5AA1wF0?t=8598


lebowski   Greece. Apr 23 2019 21:48. Posts 9032

You may have your own personal idea of Hell. Mine is an eternity trapped in a room with Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek. I do not like these men. I consider Peterson a toxic charlatan and Žižek a humiliating embarrassment to the left. I believe they both show how far you can get in public life without having anything of value to say, if you’re a white man with a PhD who speaks confidently and incomprehensibly. In fact, this is not really a debate at all, because these men are nearly identical as far as I am concerned. I sincerely believe that history will look back on this moment as a dark human low point.


I found this in currentaffairs.org stroggos mentioned, written by the guy who commented live on the debate. I really didn't expect the race card here lol
A confident white man with a PhD is all it takes? Zizek and Peterson are the same? He should be thoroughly investigating why masses of people are gathering around figures he despises instead of doing whatever this sort of oversimplification is

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...Last edit: 23/04/2019 21:48

Loco   Canada. Apr 24 2019 02:25. Posts 19733

I read Nathan and Mexie's live tweets on the debate and of course they aren't wrong, it was a shitshow and there's no reason to watch it other than for entertainment value. You can't get to the bottom of anything from this kind of event so it was entirely predictable that there would be little substance. I think it was funny to see how much respect Peterson seems to have for this Marxist in person while he was vitriolic with a Zizek quote bot on the internet when this all started. Maybe he was just in a particularly good mood. He's certainly happy that he had to do almost zero work for this big pay day (he read the Manifesto and produced his talk in one day right before the debate).

The thing is, it's not the only gear that Zizek has, he's done some original work so I can't consider him a charlatan because a charlatan is someone with zero original thought who sells snakeoil. Nathan dislikes him as a political figure and I mostly agree with him here, but that says nothing about his philosophical and psychoanalytical ability which is what he has degrees for (while Nathan is a sociology grad student). I also agree with Stroggoz that there are major issues with academia as it is, but I'm not quite going as far in thinking that my opinions of what has value and what doesn't should be the gold standard or the implication that academic consensus has little meaning. I prefer assuming that I don't know enough to judge most things and that the people who have spent a lot of time studying them can have something to teach me.


  A confident white man with a PhD is all it takes? Zizek and Peterson are the same? He should be thoroughly investigating why masses of people are gathering around figures he despises instead of doing whatever this sort of oversimplification is



People have always been attracted to spectacles. I think a sociology grad who writes for a good leftist publication has a very good idea as to why, but he's also writing this sort of thing to entertain people. Apparently some people paid upward of $1500 to attend this live. It's easy to see that this is ridiculous. When the monetary value of something and the actual value of what was produced differ so drastically, I think it's fair to call a spade a spade, but it is indeed very telling that these are the specific voices that are getting amplified on a topic like the binary opposition of capitalism versus communism and its relationship to personal happiness.

When I watch debates and lectures that are happening in France, it's like a completely different world. People are much less interested in spectacle and even the YouTube comment sections are much less antagonistic. People are a lot more worried about solving problems and deepening their understanding of things from what I've noticed. Privilege plays a big role in what we do and how much time we can put towards being entertained/having insubstantial discussions. I guess that's what Nathan meant by the "race card" you brought up.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 24/04/2019 02:58

RiKD    United States. Apr 24 2019 03:11. Posts 5418

I watched the whole debate. First night I fell asleep about half way through Zizek's opening statements literally drooling on myself. I eventually soldiered on. It was not worth it. Peterson and Zizek are not the same but they almost amounted to being the same in this debate. This spectacle. That's what it was. A spectacle or a debacle. I actually thought Zizek had some good things to say. I loved it when he challenged Peterson on what exactly is a PoMo neo-Marxist? The debate needed more than that. Not just agreeing with all of Peterson's bullshit. And, boy, was there a lot of bullshit. But, just the same bullshit he's been peddling since Maps of Meaning as far as I can tell.


RiKD    United States. Apr 24 2019 03:17. Posts 5418

Now, it's time for a step up! It's time to watch the Joe Rogan Experience with Russell Brand!... (at least it will probably be funny?)


Stroggoz   New Zealand. Apr 24 2019 04:06. Posts 4217

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/0...ould-have-replied-to-jordan-peterson, this seemed like the more substantive commentary. So the jist of it was peterson has only ever read the manifesto out of marx's works, and zizek basically rambled about various topics and didn't respond to him. And that's a good question lebowski, why do people gather around figures like peterson and zizek? He has written an article on that too, concerning peterson. I linked it at the start of this thread. But the major factor i think is there is simply little else provided to the public in terms of intellectuals. The other is that is indeed a spectacle that draws in more people, at least initially, than a well reasoned and long argument. It took a long time for real activists like howard zinn or chomsky to get any support, rather than the instant success peterson has had.

I think race does matter, to a large extent, actually, coupled with class interests. There are a lot of black men, and women who comment on politics with important things to say, but are given little media attention. I'd much rather hear a debate by any of the many black acitivists who comment on the incarceration system for example. There are a few that have broken through and had success, like cornel west, so there has been improvement.

I was GTO in 2007 -wobbly_auLast edit: 24/04/2019 04:13

Santafairy   Korea (South). Apr 24 2019 13:32. Posts 1429


  On April 22 2019 22:22 Stroggoz wrote:
Show nested quote +



you could just as easily pick an article on computation complexity theory. There are topics written on basically everything in university 99% of them will appear to be completely meaningless to someone unfamiliar with the topic. I've only ever seen 30 seconds of peterson in video but he said the most outrageous lie; "attempts to reduce inequality have never worked in history", ok, so i assumed he was a charlatan after that because he knows nothing of history and speaks so confidently about it. It's really easy to spot some charlatans. If they make factual claims, then u ask yourself if that's true or not.

I'm not criticizing that it's esoteric, but that it's bullshit. The fact that a system can be complicated and layered and difficult to understand and full of specific verbiage is not evidence per se it's a useful endeavor

Math is awesome, black anality isn't


  On April 24 2019 02:17 RiKD wrote:
Now, it's time for a step up! It's time to watch the Joe Rogan Experience with Russell Brand!... (at least it will probably be funny?)


I've warmed up to Russell Brand who I used to like for simple wit and charisma but thought was facially retarded when it came to politics

but on JR he seemed a little mellowed out and in many points I could see where he was coming from, his earlier retarded ideas come from struggling with serious and ignored problems and contradictions in our society. Maybe something about being a father also, you can see he's getting like a more dad bod physique

It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus HansenLast edit: 24/04/2019 13:32

RiKD    United States. Apr 24 2019 16:46. Posts 5418


  On April 24 2019 12:32 Santafairy wrote:
Show nested quote +


I'm not criticizing that it's esoteric, but that it's bullshit. The fact that a system can be complicated and layered and difficult to understand and full of specific verbiage is not evidence per se it's a useful endeavor

Math is awesome, black anality isn't


  On April 24 2019 02:17 RiKD wrote:
Now, it's time for a step up! It's time to watch the Joe Rogan Experience with Russell Brand!... (at least it will probably be funny?)


I've warmed up to Russell Brand who I used to like for simple wit and charisma but thought was facially retarded when it came to politics

but on JR he seemed a little mellowed out and in many points I could see where he was coming from, his earlier retarded ideas come from struggling with serious and ignored problems and contradictions in our society. Maybe something about being a father also, you can see he's getting like a more dad bod physique



Yeah, I too liked Brand for his charisma and wit and then he became sort of a hero figure for me as someone who got clean and sober, had a bout with Hollywood and fame, and has kind of gotten to the other side of all of that. I really enjoyed his TREWS series and I think his book Revolution is a decent gateway to thinking about Revolution in a good way. He does seem a lot more mellow so far on JRE. I think in the past he was drinking large amounts of caffeine and was a lot more excitable.


Baalim   Mexico. Apr 25 2019 07:35. Posts 32676

that makes 3 of us, i liked him in the last podcast he has matured a lot

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

shootair   United States. May 24 2019 17:04. Posts 427

This thread is filled with leftists, socialists, losers. God help you all


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 24 2019 18:22. Posts 8712

Do you really wanna end an insult with "god help you all" ? Really? :D


Loco   Canada. May 24 2019 19:02. Posts 19733


  One brutal sentence captures what a disaster money in America has become

"The bottom half of Americans combined have a negative net worth," Ben Steverman wrote in a recent Bloomberg article.

https://www.timesunion.com/technology...captures-what-a-disaster-13882763.php




Goddamn socialists in the US government ruining America, amirite?

Also, seeing as how this was posted in the JP thread, it reminded me of something. One regular poster on /r/JordanPeterson admitted that he gave $1500 to Peterson through monthly Patreon payments in order to get the chance to have a Skype chat with him (that was the perk). But since there were so many people in line, there were no guarantees. You basically have to keep donating a few hundred every months in the hopes that you'll eventually be next.

Now the thing is, that person was unemployed and was giving the remaining of his money in order to get this chance. He convinced himself that it was his way out of his situation. Think about that. Giving your remaining $1500 to a millionaire who you might never hear from in the hopes of "making it", like a light bulb would suddenly turn on and he would become a "success" because he spoke to him directly. That's one of the dangers of cults of personality like these.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 24/05/2019 19:11

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 25 2019 00:30. Posts 8712

I mean, its JP's fault that the guy is a moron? Really?

Anyone donating money to another person in pure hopes that that other person will change their lives is just fucking retarded. I could make a good case how its even more retarded than hoping to become a millionaire through the lottery. I also dont recall hearing JP promising to change people's lives or turn them to an overnight success or anything even close to that. He isn't mimicking Tony Robbins

 Last edit: 25/05/2019 00:34

Baalim   Mexico. May 25 2019 09:34. Posts 32676

exactly, JPB didn't ask for this and if he knew he would probalby talk to the guy/give his money back, its such a ridiculous smear attempt, people go broke on many idiotic things, that is the danger.. people being idiots

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Santafairy   Korea (South). May 25 2019 16:18. Posts 1429


  On May 24 2019 18:02 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +




Goddamn socialists in the US government ruining America, amirite?

Also, seeing as how this was posted in the JP thread, it reminded me of something. One regular poster on /r/JordanPeterson admitted that he gave $1500 to Peterson through monthly Patreon payments in order to get the chance to have a Skype chat with him (that was the perk). But since there were so many people in line, there were no guarantees. You basically have to keep donating a few hundred every months in the hopes that you'll eventually be next.

Now the thing is, that person was unemployed and was giving the remaining of his money in order to get this chance. He convinced himself that it was his way out of his situation. Think about that. Giving your remaining $1500 to a millionaire who you might never hear from in the hopes of "making it", like a light bulb would suddenly turn on and he would become a "success" because he spoke to him directly. That's one of the dangers of cults of personality like these.

so I guess this is your first time learning about gambling

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

Loco   Canada. May 25 2019 19:49. Posts 19733


  On May 24 2019 23:30 Spitfiree wrote:
I mean, its JP's fault that the guy is a moron? Really?

Anyone donating money to another person in pure hopes that that other person will change their lives is just fucking retarded. I could make a good case how its even more retarded than hoping to become a millionaire through the lottery. I also dont recall hearing JP promising to change people's lives or turn them to an overnight success or anything even close to that. He isn't mimicking Tony Robbins



Where the fuck did I say that it was Jordan Peterson's fault? Have I not been clear on this forum a hundred times that I don't think in terms of single-agent responsibility? That's JP's shtick, ironically. The whole point of being a leftist is that you have learned to contextualize things and look at structural issues that are preconditions for behavior. There is no magical essence of responsibility that lie here or there in the internal soup of biological agents.

And no, it's not 'retarded'. What's 'retarded' is constantly using ableist language in your thirties and assuming you are more intelligent than others and that this is why you don't fall prey to things. What it actually is is desperation and the world is filled with it. And you are just one bad day away from it at any given time. You're not special. It's what systems of oppression and artificial scarcity breed by necessity. When it hits, it's normal to want to hold on to something, to the possibility of turning things around, and that was this one specific person's idea. Again, within the context of the cult of personality around him, it isn't surprising.

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

Loco   Canada. May 25 2019 20:01. Posts 19733


  On May 25 2019 08:34 Baalim wrote:
exactly, JPB didn't ask for this and if he knew he would probalby talk to the guy/give his money back, its such a ridiculous smear attempt, people go broke on many idiotic things, that is the danger.. people being idiots



Yes and I suppose this is also a smear attempt and not just typical capitalist opportunistic exploitation.

Tl;dr for the thread regarding a bullshit university program:

OP's application is accepted (he put in 20 hours of work), but there's a 72 hour decision window
OP has questions regarding:

-financial assistance, seeing as he's currently 75k in debt and the program costs 65k,
-he would have to uproot his life for the program,
-what Peterson's level of involvement is

OP: "I did not apply for this Fellowship because of Acton, but because of Dr Peterson's endorsement."

Acton president doesn't reply or call back. Communication from their side is minimal and slow.

Finally, Acton CEO responds: "I applaud your skepticism, however, it doesn't sound as if this is the right opportunity for you."

Regarding OP's questions: "We don't know many of the answers because emergent growth is unpredictable and we'll be co-creating the future as we go."


-----


Also this is what you get for $150 (on top of normal ticket price) when you get VIP for one of his talks:

"I wish I had known ahead of time ha. You won't really have a meet and greet with a VIP ticket. You will get in a line and get your photo taken with him. I was early in the line and it was made clear that we weren't to hold up the line so I didn't take advantage of it. But when you go up you'll have a second when you shake hands to say something, but they will push you right along."

You get 30 seconds at most with the guy for a picture. For $150. Delightful!

----

"So I went on the site, filled out the form entirely randomly, put my name down as something like “w33dsmoker”, put options in the boxes that weren’t even possible, repeated this three times. Every single application had the same thing “wow congratulations auto forwarded to next round”, top candidate.
But it’s not even just that.
This course starts in February, and seems to be pretty much full time. For a man who’s preaching responsibility and getting your life together this seems like a rather large contradiction in terms. “Please uproot your entire life in 3 months”.

https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpeters...ize_the_peterson_fellowshipacton_mba/

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)Last edit: 26/05/2019 04:49