|
Caros posted:Sir, this is an arby's drive through. Sorry. It's just funny to me that when a new JRod shows up, they've traded out Libertarianism for whatever the hell Jordypete is about. I suppose it would be easy to say it was all a Prester-Jane-style "outer narrative" and such, but it is at least interesting in how alike the two subjects are in how they are experienced, even if they're supposed to be entire fields apart. They both claim to be about something which is an intractable -- but obscure -- part of the social makeup; they both make grand scientific claims while taking steps to make sure that nothing they say can be falsified or actually put to the test; they both present themselves as made up of simple ideas which only remain true so long as you don't investigate them further because they fall apart at higher levels of analysis; they both only provide the guise of continued debate by strawmanning to imagined opponents, while actual contact to actual opponents (or even just curious inquiries) are structurally kept at bay; they both provide plausible cover for all manner of egotistic bigotries and seem to be only promoted such that otherwise selfish and unacceptable things could be crammed in under anyone's radar; they both do a lot of things in the exact same way. Even the way they set people up only to betray them later is similar enough. The whole thing has a sense of déjà vu about it. Anyway, uh, I'll have some curly fries, I guess? You still have those? Morroque fucked around with this message at 05:05 on May 31, 2018 |
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:14 |
|
|
Morroque posted:Sorry. It's just funny to me that when a new JRod shows up, they've traded out Libertarianism for whatever the hell Jordypete is about. I suppose it would be easy to say it was all a Prester-Jane-style "outer narrative" and such, but it is at least interesting in how alike the two subjects are in how they are experienced, even if they're supposed to be entire fields apart. They both claim to be about something which is an intractable -- but obscure -- part of the social makeup; they both make grand scientific claims while taking steps to make sure that nothing they say can be falsified or actually put to the test; they both present themselves as made up of simple ideas which only remain true so long as you don't investigate them further because they fall apart at higher levels of analysis; they both only provide the guise of continued debate by strawmanning to imagined opponents, while actual contact to actual opponents (or even just curious inquiries) are structurally kept at bay; they both provide plausible cover for all manner of egotistic bigotries and seem to be only promoted such that otherwise selfish and unacceptable things could be crammed in under anyone's radar; they both do a lot of things in the exact same way. Even the way they set people up only to betray them later is similar enough. The whole thing has a sense of déjà vu about it. Nah, jokes aside that was a pretty decent post. Just very... dense.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Sorry. It's just funny to me that when a new JRod shows up, they've traded out Libertarianism for whatever the hell Jordypete is about. I suppose it would be easy to say it was all a Prester-Jane-style "outer narrative" and such, but it is at least interesting in how alike the two subjects are in how they are experienced, even if they're supposed to be entire fields apart. They both claim to be about something which is an intractable -- but obscure -- part of the social makeup; they both make grand scientific claims while taking steps to make sure that nothing they say can be falsified or actually put to the test; they both present themselves as made up of simple ideas which only remain true so long as you don't investigate them further because they fall apart at higher levels of analysis; they both only provide the guise of continued debate by strawmanning to imagined opponents, while actual contact to actual opponents (or even just curious inquiries) are structurally kept at bay; they both provide plausible cover for all manner of egotistic bigotries and seem to be only promoted such that otherwise selfish and unacceptable things could be crammed in under anyone's radar; they both do a lot of things in the exact same way. Even the way they set people up only to betray them later is similar enough. The whole thing has a sense of déjà vu about it. I just wanted to say that I found this very well-said. In response to your question, Arby's does still have curly fries, and you should try their sliders. I quite like them.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
Libertarianism has always been an Outer Narrative for racist authoritarian beliefs. Jrod cited Hoppe in this thread, an unabashed monarchist who espoused the death penalty for crimethink. Molyneaux's DRO-ruled society is a horrifying dystopian police state that surveils every detail of your life and controls your every move down to whom you gently caress via extortion (by threatening to effectively legalize your murder if you disobey), and that's not a misrepresentation by his opponents, not only is that exactly how he describes it, he touts its totalitarian aspects as its greatest features (finally man can again rule his daughters and bring back honor killings against her/her lovers). Rothbard wrote that black people are genetically inferior, advocated maximum police brutality against the poor, and proposed child slave markets. Pretty much all of them were pro South African apartheid in the 70s. It really shouldn't be any surprise at all that they're following another prophet who preaches women's subservience to men and the glory of sharia law with the appropriate buzzwords of freedom and liberty (meaning the naturally genetically superior people white Christian men have no limits on their behavior and everyone else's place is to obey) and with an easy psychological defense mechanism of crying that all criticism is suppression of his ideas. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:43 on May 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
I got suckered into libertarianism when I was younger through confederate apologia. It's alarmingly easy in rural areas to get caught up in the Lost Cause mythology and its modern cultural iconography. There's tons of "we aren't racist, but we have grave concerns about federal overreach" in those narratives. The people I followed back then would always hide behind "Party of Lincoln" when appropriate, but would immediately revert to opposing literally everything Lincoln the Radical Republicans did when the discussion turned to the 14th Amendment and the Income Tax. I'm sure it's possible to get into libertarianism for reasons that aren't implicitly racist, but if those people existed within the movement when I was wasting my life there they weren't doing anything to call it out. Honestly it's hard to even describe what my politics even were back then beyond reactionary. If a liberal, or an enemy of a traditional hierarch, spoke up about something, they were to be opposed and that was about it. To be honest, seeing the likes of Peterson today and knowing in my blood that I'd be obsessed with him if I were eight years younger is terrifying.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
I'm not talking about his work-that'd be hard to prove, possibly subjective unless there was outright plagiarism or data fraud, which I agree is unlikely. I'm talking about the procedures under which he was hired and ultimately granted tenure. There were already, just based on the article from one of his former co-workers, irregularities. All you'd need is an undotted i or an uncrossed t.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
I'm skipping a few pages to chime in before I finish catching up On the topic of Jordan Peterson I am reminded of The Office (U.S.) when Robert California describes Black Eyed Peas as "rap for people who don't like rap, pop for people who don't like pop," etc. JP is mythology for people who don't like mythology, he's literature for people who don't like reading, he's science (via biotruths) for people who don't like science. He's sociology for people who don't like sociology. He also treats the law about calling people their name (their name, not somebody else's name for them) like some gulag poo poo, like this kid I knew in school who told me you go to jail if you let the flag touch the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Also, actually, young men is a group identity and JP shouldn't be talking about individuals that way
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:im permabanned poster statestomper58. i first started reading jordan peterson when i was about 12. by 14 i got really obsessed with the concept of "hierarchies" and tried to channel it constantly, until my thought process got really bizarre and i would repeat things like "clean your room" and "the lobster nervous system runs on serotonin" in my head for hours, and i would get really paranoid, start seeing things in the corners of my eyes etc, basically prodromal schizophrenia. im now on antipsychotics. i always wondered what the kind of "self-help" style of peterson's writing was all about; i think it's the unconscious leaking in to the conscious, what jungian theory considered to be the cause of schizophrenic and schizotypal syptoms. i would advise all people who "get" jordan peterson to be careful because that likely means you have a predisposition to a mental illness. peace.  ToxicSlurpee posted:There are people that want to control people the same way so they fund looking for the rules. That isn't always terrible. You start to see things like the fact that crowds behave like fluids so if you put escape valves on the crowd you don't get people getting crushed to death because the crowd has nowhere to go and the pressure built up too high. Ah, yes, I recall the police using that knowledge to seal all escape valves during the St. Louis protests. They call it "kettling." RealTalk posted:Stating that certain aspects of reality and consciousness are metaphorically referred to as "masculine" and others "feminine" does not infer "that men are superior to, and destined to dominate, women". I'd like to see you present a quote from Peterson that backs up your assertion. You mean "imply," and it does imply that when his whole thing is that the Eldritch Greek myths are inherent truths about humanity without a whiff of consideration that the recording of myths and histories was exclusively controlled by men. Can you find a quotation where he addresses this glaring caveat?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:On the topic of Jordan Peterson I am reminded of The Office (U.S.) when Robert California describes Black Eyed Peas as "rap for people who don't like rap, pop for people who don't like pop," etc. Right-wingers love to attack liberal intellectuals and celebrities but fall in love when they get anyone from those groups on their side. Same thing with philosophies and sciences too I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:lol I'm going to be charitable to jrod because he can't seem to articulate the finer points of his puzzlingly disproportionate worrywarting about protesters. He was saying that he simply disagrees with the protesters that Portland should cancel the speaking engagement on the grounds that they don't like it and that the speaker is wrong and promotes a harmful agenda. He disagrees with their desire to cancel the event on those grounds, not with their right. I assume. RT can correct me if I misinterpreted him. JustJeff88 posted:I have read this thread from the beginning, every sodding word of it, but I've been having a hard time giving a drat since you showed up because I despise identity politics and find both both sides insupportable to different degrees. I don't know if you are Jrodefeld and I flatly don't loving care. I decided when you started posting to give you the benefit of the doubt and take your arguments at face value in the interest of open discussion, the ability to question one's values and beliefs, and in the spirit of egalitarianism that you hate so much... but this takes the loving biscuit. The fact that you are personally offended by the ideas of utilitarianism, cooperation, egalitarianism and not building a world based around the few who have everything taking from the many who have nothing is beyond contempt. This tells me everything I need to know about you, because you clearly care only that people are able to do whatever they want because it's far more important that someone be able to do something, even a horrible something, than the pain, misery and deprivation caused by the act itself. I can accept people who have concerns about utilitarian social organisation due to previous attempts at so-called "isms" it that ended badly, a belief that human nature is not compatible with it or even due to myopia from a lifetime of capitalist propaganda, but the quote above is beyond reproach and is possibly even more appalling than Ayn Rand, may she have never been born, applauding a murderer for exercising his personal freedoms by LITERALLY loving KILLING PEOPLE for no better reason than for jollies. Not saying you're wrong, but this is a stellar closer for Meltdown May fishmech posted:Congratulations on being a open piece of poo poo? No, see, you have a word replacement filter where "identity politics" becomes "the concept of basic civil rights," but some people have one that turns it into "the great gamergate debate," or "threads about games journalism" but since justjeffHH thinks that there is a "both sides" involved, I partially agree with your assessment. aware of dog posted:Fwiw one of Peterson's former colleagues at UoT wrote an article recently that makes it pretty clear that he essentially bullied the other professors into hiring JP and giving him a promotion and a raise. Hahaha that rules, my colleague liked my demeanour and borderline arrogance and thereby vesseled me into my station in life by literally shouting, also white man privilege is a myth. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jun 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
creator of JP's career posted:I have a trans daughter, but that was hardly an issue compared to what I felt was a betrayal of my trust and confidence in him. It was an abuse of the trust that comes with his professorial position, which I had fought for, to have misrepresented gender science by dismissing the evidence that the relationship of gender to biology is not absolute and to have made the claim that he could be jailed when, at worst, he could be fined. Paying taxes at gunpoint and THAT is why he's in the libertarian thread. I won't use your stupid made-up trash cans, it is MY litter and I should not be sent to JAIL for it for not paying the fine!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
Men with guns forcing me to touch animal poop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Not saying you're wrong, but this is a stellar closer for Meltdown May Whatever gets people off; I am not a man given to venomous exposition, but I have a lot of guilt and anxiety built up and that son of a bitch comparing egalitarianism to white nationalism just made me lose it. If my diatribe moves people or makes the world a slightly better place (highly unlikely) or just gives people a laugh (almost certain), then by all means share it somewhere. Also, I made a nice post about "faith-based libertarianism" in response to something that Vital Signs said, and apparently it didn't post. drat it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I have read this thread from the beginning, every sodding word of it, but I've been having a hard time giving a drat since you showed up because I despise identity politics and find both both sides insupportable to different degrees. I don't know if you are Jrodefeld and I flatly don't loving care. I decided when you started posting to give you the benefit of the doubt and take your arguments at face value in the interest of open discussion, the ability to question one's values and beliefs, and in the spirit of egalitarianism that you hate so much... but this takes the loving biscuit. The fact that you are personally offended by the ideas of utilitarianism, cooperation, egalitarianism and not building a world based around the few who have everything taking from the many who have nothing is beyond contempt. This tells me everything I need to know about you, because you clearly care only that people are able to do whatever they want because it's far more important that someone be able to do something, even a horrible something, than the pain, misery and deprivation caused by the act itself. I can accept people who have concerns about utilitarian social organisation due to previous attempts at so-called "isms" it that ended badly, a belief that human nature is not compatible with it or even due to myopia from a lifetime of capitalist propaganda, but the quote above is beyond reproach and is possibly even more appalling than Ayn Rand, may she have never been born, applauding a murderer for exercising his personal freedoms by LITERALLY loving KILLING PEOPLE for no better reason than for jollies. I don't have the time to go through each and every comment and respond to them in kind, but this response is so dripping with vitriol and hostility it's frankly astonishing. What I said was that I consider both right wing ethno-nationalism and left-wing communist authoritarianism to be abhorrent and I'd find speech by proponents of either to be offensive. I agree with you, and probably everyone else in this thread, that the views of the white nationalist alt-right are abhorrent. I agree that Fascism and right-wing authoritarianism is a disaster. My problem is that many of you clump a lot of people into that category who don't belong there. You're not making reasonable distinctions between different views to the right of yourself. My point in comparing right-wing white nationalism to communism is that the latter has curiously been exempt from similar criticism when I'd argue it is worthy of as much vitriol as you can muster. There was a historian named Eugene Genovese who was a Marxist for most of his life who you might consider looking into: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Genovese After the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s Genovese reconsidered his rhetorical support for communism. He wrote a famous essay he called "The Question" where he offered a challenge to his fellow Leftists who had defended Communist regimes in the proceeding decades. The question, essentially, was "what did you know about the crimes of communism, and when did you know it?" The answer he concludes is that they knew everything essential, and knew it from the beginning. The article itself is well worth reading: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1353953160genovesethequestion.pdf I think there are very few who would openly argue that Communism was a successful system of government. You could fall back on the old canard that "true communism was never tried" but that is an evasion and it certainly doesn't excuse left-wing intellectuals who openly praised actual historical communist countries who ended up killing tens of millions of their own citizens. The noted author R.J. Rummel has spent his entire academic career detailing crimes that various governments have perpetrated against their own citizens. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM The Soviet Union government killed 62 million of it's own citizens Nazi Germany killed 21 million of it's own citizens The Peoples Republic of China killed 35 million of it's own citizens Nazi Germany was Fascist, or right-wing authoritarian, and we justifiably hear a lot about the atrocities that Hitler perpetrated on his own citizens. But we hear far less about the crimes of the Communist Soviet Union or Communist China. According to the best data we have available, left-wing authoritarian governments killed even more people than right-wing authoritarian governments. Both are reprehensible to be sure. But what grounds do you have to object when I merely compare the two when I've emphatically stated that I oppose both?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
lol yeah sure, no one in the 20th century thought to criticize communism much at all, good job just making up blatant falsehoods You have less intelligence and wit than an overly ripe melon
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
I'm not going to quote your response to my... outburst, FuckWit, because anything that you write/type shouldn't be seen even once, much less repeated. I saw that someone had quoted my diatribe, saw your name, and immediately snorted in contempt and then skipped over the lot of your verbal effluvia. I have no interest in anything you have to say about anything and the only thing that I want to see with your name on it is a suicide note and an apology to Everyone Who Has Ever Existed. Consider this my last interaction with you or, to put it a way that your atrophied brain stem can understand, I am exercising my right to free association.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Nazi Germany was Fascist, or right-wing authoritarian, and we justifiably hear a lot about the atrocities that Hitler perpetrated on his own citizens. But we hear far less about the crimes of the Communist Soviet Union or Communist China. It's amazing how much bullshit you managed to cram into that sentence. e: oh by the way thanks for admitting fascism is right-wing and not compatible with leftist ideologies!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
Morroque posted:While I am not necessarily against the idea of that, I doubt you'd find much. I don't say that because of some conceit that he was ever an actually good academic -- that ship has sailed ever since he threatened to hand over every liberal arts and humanities professor he worked with to his personal lynch mob -- but rather because of the kind of person he used to be. Okay, this was more of a discussion that I had hoped to provoke when I mentioned Jordan Peterson's name. I've read Peterson's book (his recent one, not Maps of Meaning) and watched many of his lectures but I certainly don't have an exhaustive knowledge of all of his viewpoints. I agree with a lot of what he says and I think he's especially good on a handful of issues that I think are vitally important. I don't see him as being particularly political. Yet there is something about Peterson that the mainstream Left find particularly threatening. You don't have to be a fan of his to see that there have been a large number of articles recently that are outright character assassination attempts. There is a level of dishonesty in the reporting on Peterson that nobody should be justifying. I would like you to elaborate on your criticisms of Peterson, though. Especially how you think he's evolved to be more right-wing since his recent surge in popularity. Your post is wordy, but lacks much substance. Could you elaborate on Peterson's supposed "fascist" turn? It particularly bothers me when Leftists throw around the word "fascist" irresponsibly. From what I've seen, Peterson makes a point to criticize the alt-right and right-wing authoritarianism. As I said he's not too overtly political, but he does call himself a classical liberal and his emphasis on the individual aligns with the liberal tradition. I'd really like to know how his beliefs are fascist. It would be best for you to start by defining the term "fascist", since it seems so few who hurl the term as an invective don't actually know what it means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
Shut the gently caress up jrod
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Your post is wordy, but lacks much substance. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
In a startling reminder that if you scratch a Libertarian you find a pedophile, we have this wonderful human being.quote:Nathan Larson, a 37-year-old accountant from Charlottesville, Virginia, is running for Congress as an independent candidate in his native state. He is also a pedophile, as he admitted to HuffPost on Thursday, who has bragged in website posts about raping his late ex-wife. quote:According to Larson’s campaign manifesto, his platform as a “quasi-neoreactionary libertarian” candidate includes protecting gun ownership rights, establishing free trade and protecting “benevolent white supremacy,” as well as legalizing incestuous marriage and child pornography. From that Manifesto: quote:Boylovers claim in "The Parable of the Automobile" that man-boy sex is only harmful because society prohibits it. This is a hypothesis that perhaps should be tested in one of our laboratories of democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:lol yeah sure, no one in the 20th century thought to criticize communism much at all, good job just making up blatant falsehoods This post (among other salient posts by other solemn posters) brings up a very important topic, one which I'd hoped we could have politely put to bed a long time ago, but the public needs to know. With a heavy heart and a reluctant hand, I must now ask, again: JrodTalk, 🍆🍉❓
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:In a startling reminder that if you scratch a Libertarian you find a pedophile, we have this wonderful human being. I clicked on that link and I regret that I did. Jesus Christ that guy's a psychopath. But let's not play this game where you find the most degenerate person imaginable and then insinuate that they are reflective of an entire political movement. Really, this guy is "a startling reminder that if you scratch a Libertarian you find a pedophile"? Try this one on for size: Anthony Weiner is a startling reminder that if you scratch a Democrat you find a pedophile. I'd never make this argument because I don't think Weiner's sex addiction problem, including sexting with a 15 year old girl, had anything whatsoever to do with the Democratic Party or it's platform. It's equally disingenuous to use this guy to implicate libertarianism as a philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Okay, this was more of a discussion that I had hoped to provoke when I mentioned Jordan Peterson's name. You heard it here, folks: he hoped to provoke. Morroque fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Jun 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I clicked on that link and I regret that I did. Jesus Christ that guy's a psychopath. I didn't even go looking, that was front page news this morning. I mean, if you want me to go looking, I can. I mean, it's not like the vice-chair of the LNC got called out over it this spring, or that this has been an ongoing theme in the party. I'm certainly not going to assume all Libertarians are kiddie-fiddlers, but there are provably a number among them who advocate for the removal of the age of consent as a platform piece with the goal of legalizing sexual relationships between adults and children. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Jun 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I didn't even go looking, that was front page news this morning. I mean, if you want me to go looking, I can. A truly freed market necessitates the trade of children, don'tcha know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I'm skipping a few pages to chime in before I finish catching up Whenever I see a JP supporter name drop him, he's always "Dr. Jordan Peterson."
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
Interesting that both libertarians and JP supporters are silent on the watermelon-loving issue. Also notice that both JP and watermelons are green on the outside... Really makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Okay, this was more of a discussion that I had hoped to provoke when I mentioned Jordan Peterson's name. It's not the left that hates him, it's anyone with a common sense of decency or a repulsion from metaphysical garbage. Coincidentally, the altright has largely attracted the opposite of the decent and the intelligent
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
If your age of majority is based on homesteading, it could have bad implications.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:The noted author R.J. Rummel has spent his entire academic career detailing crimes that various governments have perpetrated against their own citizens. Since you're not really going to engage and are just interested in doing drive bys against easy targets, I'm not going to go too deep into this again, but your numbers here are wrong. I explained, in detail how they were wrong further upthread, but you either didn't bother to read my reply, or you ignored it because of what you want to believe. But lets go over it one more time, in detail, now that you've provided a source. The short version is that your source is wrong. There is of course, plenty more than I can say about it, and I will, but the thing you need to take away from this is that you are quoting incorrect numbers in order to bulwark an argument. You can't get to your destination when your map is wrong. To be more specific, Rummel's estimates are wildly inflated in order to make his point that governments other than democracies kill people. This is most evident with Hitler, but is worse with the communist regimes. So, of that 21,000,000 number you quoted above, Rummel claims that 16,000,000 of that was the result of genocide. Right off that bat this should warn you, as we have pretty drat solid estimates for death counts in the holocaust that put the casualties at between 11-12 million. He undercounts jewish deaths, but others get weirdly overinflated. Homosexuals, for example. During the nazi period, there were around 100,000 homosexuals living or arrested in germany. Half of those, roughly 50,000 were arrested and sent to prison, and about 5-15,000 were sent to concentration camps. So assuming that 100% of those who ended up in the camps died, how close is he to the mark. He thinks the number was 220,000. My point is that we have very good numbers for the death tolls in tho holocaust, and he still gets them wrong but as much as a factor of ten. This is the man who is giving you your math. So what happens when we move to other countries? Well of the 62 million supposedly killed by the soviets, 40 million of them died in the gulags. This of course, ends up being a little awkward because all available historical evidence points to the fact that only twenty million people ever experienced the gulags, and nowhere near all of them died. Math is hard, amirite? You keep swinging around these stupid loving numbers, without bothering to spend five minutes checking your source to find that while yes, Rummel had a good academic career and had some decent input on how democracies conduct foreign policy, he had a wild blind spot on this issue and claimed statistics on this number that aren't remotely related in fact. And then, even if you ignore all of what I've said on the issue, like pointing out that a government can't literally make it rain to deal with famine related deaths, you are still using numbers that wildly deflate the death statistics of Nazi germany because they don't take into account the effects of the big fuckoff war that they are most famous for. You dumb gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Okay, this was more of a discussion that I had hoped to provoke when I mentioned Jordan Peterson's name. I'm sorry people aren't sucking your dick in this thread the way you'd hoped for. quote:I've read Peterson's book (his recent one, not Maps of Meaning) and watched many of his lectures but I certainly don't have an exhaustive knowledge of all of his viewpoints. I agree with a lot of what he says and I think he's especially good on a handful of issues that I think are vitally important. Have you watched the ones where he cries about the children's movie Frozen for not having a strong man save the whimpering princesses? Or the ones where he goes on a white nationalist's show and talks about how unfortunate it is that different races are just plain smarter than other ones? Because those are the sorts of ones that cause people to have problems with him. quote:I don't see him as being particularly political. Yet there is something about Peterson that the mainstream Left find particularly threatening. You don't have to be a fan of his to see that there have been a large number of articles recently that are outright character assassination attempts. There is a level of dishonesty in the reporting on Peterson that nobody should be justifying. Yes, the man famous for interjecting himself into a political debate on hate speech isn't remotely political. We find letting bigots continue to spew their bigotry in a public space as if it carries intellectual weight worthy of discussion to be threatening, yes. In a similar fashion I'd also shout down a white nationalist if he were becoming popular. Does it ever concern you how easy it is to assassinate his character? I mean, I'm fairly certain that if someone came after me they wouldn't be able to find numerous public statements of me pretending that campus rape doesn't exist, or calling women crazy, or crying about how disney films don't have prince charming anymore. quote:I would like you to elaborate on your criticisms of Peterson, though. Especially how you think he's evolved to be more right-wing since his recent surge in popularity. Your post is wordy, but lacks much substance. everexpandingironicat.gif quote:Could you elaborate on Peterson's supposed "fascist" turn? It particularly bothers me when Leftists throw around the word "fascist" irresponsibly. From what I've seen, Peterson makes a point to criticize the alt-right and right-wing authoritarianism. As I said he's not too overtly political, but he does call himself a classical liberal and his emphasis on the individual aligns with the liberal tradition. Presumably it was the point where he started publicly associating himself with human excrement like Stefan Molyneux and becoming a darling of the alt-right. It bothers me when pieces of poo poo like you throw around the word lefitst as a perjorative. Now we both don't like something about the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I clicked on that link and I regret that I did. Jesus Christ that guy's a psychopath. Sure. One example isn't really indicative of a trend, I agree! For example, democrats response to Anthony Wiener was to kick his rear end to the curb for sexting, and then to kick his rear end again when he kept doing it, before it was ultimately revealed that he was sexting witch children. One person is not indicative of a political party, particularly when they get curbed the moment it is revealed. So lets check in with Libertarians. In 2004, Mary Ruwart was a keynote speaker at the libertarian convention. In 2008 she ran for the libertarian party nomination, tying the eventual winner, Bob Barr in the third and foruth rounds, leading him in the fifth before ultimately coming in second. She nearly became the libertarian party nominee in 2008, despite having answered the following to the question of "How can a libertarian argue against Child Pornography?": "Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices, just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will." Keep in mind that this isn't something that was discovered after the fact. They knew, going into the vote, that their possible nominee for president had written the above statement endorsing the removal of child pornography laws. Mind you, this is the party that in 2004 accidentally wrote that their party supported the ability for children to prostitute themselves. Whoops on that. Then again, they've gotten better. Why just this year they've had their Vice Chair, Arvin Vohra say: "Oh, please spare me. The idea that 'it's totally natural for two men to have sex.' but 'it's an abomination for a 25-year-old man to have sex with a 15-year-old girl' is just too stupid to consider. The libertarian view: do what you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else. That's why we want government out of marriage, sex and love." And then he had to resign because... *holds a finger to his ear* sorry, I'm being told that they voted not to suspend him for saying that it is silly that we aren't allowed to gently caress kids. My bad. So tell me, is the Vice-Chairman of the LNC 'the most degenerate person possible?' If so, why the gently caress does he still have his job? To me, it almost seems like the libertarian party is pretty supportive of this idea. Lord knows you don't see a lot of people tossing rothbard overboard for his free market of children idea. Edit: Motherfuck, just ended up repeating LC. Learn me to read the thread more carefully. Caros fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Jun 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Anthony Weiner is a startling reminder that if you scratch a Democrat you find a pedophile. Basically no one (i'm sure there's been one or two, but not any relevant numbers) has every argued for pedophilia AS PART of their being a democrat. The same is very much not true for libertarianism, where it it happens so often that it's a relatively widespread meme than libertarians are associated with "but what if the child consents." It arguably might be disingenuous to use THIS guy to implicate libertarianism (it does kinda seem that his pedophilia and libertarian 'merely' stem from the same 'is a loving psychopath' place as opposed to a more direct connection between the two) but it is absolutely isn't EQUALLY disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
I want to talk about my views on race and bigotry in general. You'll recall that this wasn't a topic that I brought up. My intention was to speak about Jordan Peterson and whether right-wing and libertarian speakers ought to be allowed to speak on college campuses without disruptive protests shutting down the event. I was immediately regaled with accusations of harboring racist views, or being blind to the bigotry of libertarians and conservatives. I've seen many good, upstanding people be libeled as bigots when they are nothing of the sort. So precisely defining bigotry and putting it in it's proper context is essential to allowing reasonable discussions on difficult issues. I believe that people who use terms like "racist", "white supremacist", "misogynist", "neo-Nazi", "fascist", etc have an obligation to use those terms only when they properly apply. Improper and careless use dilutes the terms and lessens the impact when truly odious people deserve to be castigated using labels that are descriptive of their obvious behavior. People, by our essential nature, are tribal. We've evolved to have in-group preferences and distrust outsiders. This manifests itself in all kinds of ways in human behavior. Different groups of people harbor feelings of distrust and irrational prejudice against outside groups, whether it be by ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, country of origin, or sexually identity. Just because we have these evolved tendencies doesn't mean they are necessarily good, especially when they manifest in the most noxious ways such as doctrines of racial supremacy. I believe that the only way to truly transcend these age-old prejudices is through intellectual insight. The supreme achievement in this regard is the doctrine of individual rights, first espoused during the European Enlightenment. Individualism compels a person to disregard the natural group-identity obsessions that they might be otherwise compelled to focus on, and instead see each person as a unique individual to be judged on their own merits. This is a core doctrine of liberalism and libertarianism which I subscribe to. Ironically, the identity-politics obsessed Left that people like Peterson object to has far more in common with the bigotry they claim to oppose than does liberal individual rights theory. Many groups of people have unconscious or conscious preferences for certain groups over others. They have implicit biases that they may not even be aware of. If we expand the definition of bigotry wide enough, we could credibly accuse nearly every person on earth of being a bigot. And so we draw distinctions. The way I draw distinctions is whether or not someone is advocating violence against a person owing to their group affiliation. Comedians tell jokes, internet trolls clog up message boards, and pundits hurl invective at one another with reckless abandon. Often, this speech is offensive but it's still just speech. When Caros was accusing me of being indifferent to the supposed racism of libertarians, I responded by mentioning that nearly every person on this forum voted for Hillary Clinton. I didn't do this to deflect, but to put into contrast the moral enormities you're willing to tolerate in one area, while having a strict no-exceptions policy against offensive speech. Someone mentioned the Roseanne Barr situation earlier. I agree that her tweet was racist and she probably deserved to be fired. I initially thought this was a one-off thing, but apparently she'd been tweeting insane conspiracy theories and offensive stuff for some time now. What I always find curious is how we as a society react to offensive speech compared to how we react to people who have, for example, participated in war crimes. Apropos Hillary Clinton. Consider people like Bill Krystol, Max Boot and David Frum who were as responsible as anyone for lying us into the War in Iraq and defending torture and other atrocities. Consider someone like Obama, who used drones to kill untold numbers of innocent civilians in the middle east, including an American citizen and his sixteen year old son. These people are lionized by the so-called "Resistance" simply because they are opposed to Donald Trump. Their participation in mass murder is happily overlooked. Roseanne's career is probably over due to some offensive tweets. Obama's going to be producing some Netflix shows and he'll be receiving six figure speaking fees for the foreseeable future. The Neo-cons will continue to be treated as serious intellectuals worthy of respect on cable TV and even MSNBC, the supposedly "progressive" network. In the context of this grotesque disparity in treatment, someone like Jordan Peterson is being shouted down and accused of being a fascist and misogynist because he criticizes radical feminism and disputes the extent of the gender pay gap. Classical liberals and libertarians believe that laws should be based on individual rights, irrespective of which group each individual belongs to. So their philosophic musings on differences between genders hold no threat to anyone. My political project is focused on stopping the mass murder our government does first and foremost. I look at the historic crimes committed by the State, and in it's proper context, I don't feel the need to virtue-signal about the occasional politically-incorrect thing someone I otherwise admire says. After all, the people I do like don't make racist statements that normal people would consider racist. When you made the judgment call to vote for Hillary Clinton, you knowingly supported a mass murderer. You may agree that Hillary was terrible in an absolute sense, but you made a judgment call that she would have been much better than Donald Trump. No libertarian who has ever lived has actually done as much evil as Hillary Clinton has. Even so, I look at each individual person in their totality. I never agree with anyone completely, but I judge whether someone has their priorities straight and whether the good outweighs the bad. It is perfectly possible to pull out quotes from almost any prolific intellectual from the 20th century which look offensive by the standards of 2018. And you can certainly do this with prominent libertarian intellectuals. But you could also do the same thing with progressive and conservative intellectuals. You take the good, and discard the bad. What you shouldn't do is write someone off because they said one thing on one subject that offended you. People are fallible and we all try to improve over time. Anti-gay bigotry used to be more widespread than it currently is. We learn. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Basically no one (i'm sure there's been one or two, but not any relevant numbers) has every argued for pedophilia AS PART of their being a democrat. The same is very much not true for libertarianism, where it it happens so often that it's a relatively widespread meme than libertarians are associated with "but what if the child consents." It arguably might be disingenuous to use THIS guy to implicate libertarianism (it does kinda seem that his pedophilia and libertarian 'merely' stem from the same 'is a loving psychopath' place as opposed to a more direct connection between the two) but it is absolutely isn't EQUALLY disingenuous. Yeah, even republicans attempted to cloak what they were doing when they supported Roy Moore, by arguing that he didn't do the things that he obviously did, rather than arguing that the things that he did were okay. Libertarians supporting pedophillia is less bug and more feature, as pointed out by their vice chair. The end result of 'you can do anything so long as it doesn't hurt anyone' is that you'll get a lot of people who look at having sex with, say, a teenager, as falling into that gap. Because as we all know, libertarians absolutely suck balls at processing the harmful effects of their actions. That all said, hey RealTalk, why the gently caress are you here, exactly? If you want to whine about Jordan Peterson, there is a more active thread where you can do that very thing. That isn't to run you out on the rail, mind, I'm just curious. You're a Jill Stein supporter, but I assume from a lot of your other posting that you'd fall into the libertarian dumb trap. What sort of libertarian society would you be in favor of?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I want to talk about my views on race and bigotry in general.  You hate racists being called racists, despite loving free speech. loving deal with it, you racist. Caros posted:You're a Jill Stein supporter Come on, we all know this is a loving blatant lie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's not the left that hates him, it's anyone with a common sense of decency or a repulsion from metaphysical garbage. Coincidentally, the altright has largely attracted the opposite of the decent and the intelligent Metaphysical garbage is one thing; extremely physical garbage is another. Ol' Jordy only really turned persona-non-grata as far as the academy goes when he started threatening to doxx his coworkers with his newfound boytoys. A lot of people were perfectly willing to still consider him an intellectual equal until that point, in which he crossed a very serious line. Debate clubs only work as debate clubs if you've been assured that your opponent won't pull a gun on you halfway through your argument; he pulled that gun, freaked everyone out, and then had the gall to claim he won by default because everyone else fled the stage. (And then had his cheerleaders cry censorship when the rest of the debate club didn't want him to ever come back.) It's why Žižek, who is definitely more of a deranged right-winger than Jord will ever be, is still able to operate in this sphere; because Žižek doesn't need to threaten anyone's personhood in order to get his points across. I might be romanticizing it a little, as I'm nothing more than an untethered scholar who can only look at it through the shop window, but the purpose of a university -- especially a Canadian one, which he was from -- is to build up and maintain a common set of knowledge in both science and culture, in order for it to be of benefit to everyone in society at large. If it manages to remain true to that ideal or not is a struggle which it will never be exempt from, but it is what the institution was designed to do; including the way it awards titles and doctorates to those who have sufficiently proven their trustworthiness in that cause. (Even as it inspires mountains of Quit Lit in the process.) From engineers and doctors, to sociologists and literary critics, all of the professors who attain that rank then have their part to contribute, and each contribution is of value to that grand opus. Every new innovation rests on the shoulders of the giants who came before us, carved out from the hard work they did, lighting our path forward. Therefore, everything that happens must happen in relation to that grand opus. This was something he forgot. He could've threatened his coworker's theories as he liked, but when those threats stopped being directed at the theories and started being directed at individual people, he betrayed the purpose of his tenure. (As possibly ill-gotten as it was.) He betrayed the purpose of the university, and now all of his previous contributions have been marred by it. And that has effects on things. I used to have this idea for a particular paper about critical pedagogy -- about the concept of "pedagogical masking" in particular. Something Ol' Jordy once said in a random impromptu actually provided as missing piece of the puzzle necessary to complete the argument -- an argument I had to run far outside of my own comfort zones to even research in the first place. But it's too bad, because now, even if I know the answer, I still can't write it. Why? Because if I did, I would have to include one hell of a footnote to justify why a key component of the argument relies on the word of a known sophist like Jord. Y'know, perhaps I'm wrong about this, (it wouldn't actually surprise me if I'm wrong because libertarians always surprise) but at least the original libertarians, like Von Mises or whoever, actually worked in their own fields and didn't make any pretensions otherwise. The ulterior-motives and outer-narrative bullshit all came after when other parties sought to adapt it to their own purposes, like when libertarianism moved from Austria to the Southern US. That's something libertarians might even have over Ol' Jord's faux-traditionalism. Sure, they got sophistry in spades, but at least you could claim they didn't make it first-hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 09:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:14 |
|
|
RealTalk posted:I believe that the only way to truly transcend these age-old prejudices is through intellectual insight. The supreme achievement in this regard is the doctrine of individual rights, first espoused during the European Enlightenment. quote:No libertarian who has ever lived has actually done as much evil as Hillary Clinton has. The Chicago Boys comes pretty loving close.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 09:21
|
|
